<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>QuantumHeat.org</title>
		<description>Discuss QuantumHeat.org</description>
		<link>http://www.quantumheat.org</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2026 11:55:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/it/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/166" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Alberto F. De Souza says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1106</link>
			<description><![CDATA[To avoid problems with pressure and gas composition, the cells could also be connected in series with tubes and receive the gases in series at the same time. Before power in, valves between cells (open during gas load) could be used to isolate then to avoid heat transfer via gas. I believe this approach would easier and cheaper than flow calorimetry...]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Alberto F. De Souza</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2012 03:07:14 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1106</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Alberto F. De Souza says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1105</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In this case, all cells would receive the same amount of power and should show about the same internal and external temperatures. Unless of course, as many would expect (including me!), the active cells show excess heat. In this case, considering the amount of excess heat Celani saw (~12W of excess heat from 48W of input heat), it would be easy to spot the temperature differences and, therefore, prove that the excess heat came from some mysterious reaction (LERN?) in the cells with an active wire in it. By using two active and two inactive cells, one could rule out other factors if the inactive cells show the same internal and external temperatures and the active cells, at the same time, show significantly higher temperatures in accordance with Celani's colorimetric formulation.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Alberto F. De Souza</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2012 03:06:27 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1105</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Mathieu Valat says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1003</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Al, the problem we have is coming from the triggering temperature of the effect (>250°C). With a water flow calorimeter we have to put insolation in the between and that fade the ability to see short events. Seebeck is the most relevant option.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mathieu Valat</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2012 14:14:46 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1003</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Dieter Seeliger says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-957</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I agree with Al also !]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Dieter Seeliger</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:12:12 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-957</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rats says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-956</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I agree with Al as well.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rats</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2012 03:07:18 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-956</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-955</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Constantan having a property of keeping its resistance constant with rise of temperature, may not have an ideal constant resistance and the resistance will probably go up and down from an average value with temperature. So I guess the result is normal. Now the question comes , whether the R/Ro of 0.8 for Celani wire has anything to do with H2 adsorption and how to show it conclusively.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2012 00:48:11 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-955</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-954</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@AlexRa That was my idea and while it might help sort out anomalies it's not without possible side effects itself. Since putting gas under pressure into the cell is going to have a delta effect on the temperature. I still think it's worth a try though. I didn't get much feedback about the question of the location of the thermocouple on the glass (is it on the top of the glass? How's it attached to the glass? Is it possible to move it to the bottom of the glass or to turn the entire cell upside down just to get some more information?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 02 Dec 2012 20:24:22 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-954</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>123star says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-953</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I concur with Al of course, however it would still be interesting to fully characterize the possible artifacts (for now).]]></description>
			<dc:creator>123star</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 02 Dec 2012 19:01:47 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-953</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Pekka Janhunen says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-952</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The impedance anomaly has started again, and at the same T_mica=210 as before. Whatever causes it, it seems to be temperature controlled rather than pressure controlled. Interesting to see if it stops again at T_mica=230..240 .]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Pekka Janhunen</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 02 Dec 2012 18:59:13 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-952</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Pekka Janhunen says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-948</link>
			<description><![CDATA[A completely different avenue would be to leave out electric heating and instead put the whole reactor inside a furnace. Then any substantial and prolonged increase of temperature near the wire would be indicative of LENR and there would be no need to model heat transfer.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Pekka Janhunen</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 02 Dec 2012 17:30:01 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-948</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-946</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Alexra The idea of having a much larger same pressure reservoir was noted and may be tried at some point. @Pekka This has been identified as being annoying internally and a fix is proposed that would mean that there would be a toggle to switch between UT and local time.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 02 Dec 2012 09:50:26 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-946</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Pekka Janhunen says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-945</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I notice that there is an unexpected impedance anomaly in the EU cell calibration run which started at 1.4 bars (4 hours ago). (By the way: it would be more convenient if hugnetview would operate on UT time instead of local time.)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Pekka Janhunen</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 02 Dec 2012 08:24:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-945</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>AlexRa says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-943</link>
			<description><![CDATA[As recent updates suggest, the pressure instability during long-duration experiments does affect the temperature measurements significantly, possibly invalidating any excess-energy indications. A while ago some other reader suggested in the comments a simple way to stabilize the pressure. I haven't seen any follow-up on that idea, so assumed it was overlooked by the MFMP team. Might be a good idea to have a second look at it now. The idea was to stabilize the gaz pressure in the cell by keeping the cell permanently connected to a large-volume "buffer" gas tank (both kept at the same pressure, obviously). That would drastically increase the total pressurized volume, so any leak you might have in the cell would affect the pressure much less.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>AlexRa</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 02 Dec 2012 07:32:12 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-943</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Arnaud says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-940</link>
			<description><![CDATA[If I was you, I would not try the 50% - 50% H2 / Air ... except if you want to trty what happens in case of chemical explosion. 50% - 50% mix is an explosive composition. The temperature ignition of H2 and Air mixed is around 500°C. (See wikipedia) The heating wire might come easily above 500°C. If iginition occurs then a lot of chemical energy released in a short time (explosion).]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Arnaud</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 01 Dec 2012 23:44:05 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-940</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
