<?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>Sat, 02 May 2026 00:17:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/it/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/185" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>MaisieJuicy says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-9248</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hi. I see that you don't update your website too often. I know that writing articles is time consuming and boring. But did you know that there is a tool that allows you to create new articles using existing content (from article directories or other websites from your niche)? And it does it very well. The new articles are unique and pass the copyscape test. Search in google and try: miftolo's tools]]></description>
			<dc:creator>MaisieJuicy</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 23 Aug 2018 08:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-9248</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>73Brittny says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-9181</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I can see that your content probably doesn't have much traffic. Your posts are awesome, you only need more new readers. I know a method that can cause a viral effect on your site. Search in google: dracko's tricks make your content go viral]]></description>
			<dc:creator>73Brittny</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2018 17:24:37 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-9181</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Chuck says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1543</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I'm not a physical chemist, so I don't have any training or knowledge in this aspect, but do we have a way of tracking the hydride content of the wire during operation? Is there a way to do this?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Chuck</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 28 Dec 2012 19:13:57 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1543</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>David Roberson says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1542</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I need to have a run with the pressure held as constant as possible and at the same level as the calibration to verify these results. Also, it is important for a calibration run with an inactive wire that is guaranteed to not generate excess power in order to prove that the vertical system follows the same non linear differential equation. We may be getting the results that we seek, but it is a bit premature to celebrate. It is too bad that we are only seeing 1 watt or so, but the actual level needs to be more accurately determined. I will be out of the office for the next few days.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Roberson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 28 Dec 2012 16:24:15 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1542</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>David Roberson says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1541</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Ok, I took the very latest calibration step test for the cell FC0101 and used that to obtain the latest coefficients. These were then used with the latest full rising waveform step in power and I can say that the results are definitely different than I have seen in the past with earlier time domain runs. I am unable to make the temperature versus time waveform match the non liinear differential equation solution as before and the difference is not trivial and apparent. I am concerned about the fact that the pressure seems to be differernt for these two intervals of time so that might be an issue, but if not, there is definite evidence of something unusual with the latest test. If the Celani wire is loaded, then I suspect that we will be able to verify that extra power is being generated after more careful calibration. I estimate that the excess power is in the vicinity of 1 watt from a quick look at the fit. Dave Roberson 12/28/2012]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Roberson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 28 Dec 2012 16:18:36 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1541</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1540</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I'm noticing that the 1.1 cell is slowly gaining pressure although it's currently turned off. Wouldn't this imply a risk of air contamination when operating the reactor below 1 bar of pressure?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 28 Dec 2012 14:26:27 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1540</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1538</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The valid calibrations for the vertical cells all started about 21:00 gmt on Dec 21. The first two were at 0.5 bar H2. The next 8 were at 1 bar starting pressure. Yesterday we turned off cell 1.0 and then turned it back on. Today we turned off cell 1.1 and turned it back on. Then, tonight, we started with another 0.5 bar calibration cycle. The details are all in the experiment log.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 28 Dec 2012 04:44:06 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1538</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>charlie tapp says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1535</link>
			<description><![CDATA[i have a question i realy want this thing to work but even when you are seeing exess power it is very small. could the extra heat be from the wire being wraped around and around turning it into a chock coil? because a choke coil will put off heat. also if i am wrong which i am alot could the wire acting as a choke coil be holding up the results we are looking for?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>charlie tapp</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:12:22 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1535</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>AlanG says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1533</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ryan Hunt - I'm convinced that much of the noise in the measurements is due to a timing problem. Many of the power increments appear to span two sample periods (at 1 minute intervals in the graphs). You can see the consequence of this in the discontinuous step in the Down1plot at ~80 watts, for example. Is there a ramp time parameter in the power control mechanism?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>AlanG</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2012 17:54:45 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1533</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1531</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Everyone Thanks for all your analysis people, this really helps us see things.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2012 13:28:09 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1531</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1530</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Greenyer: sorry for the delayed reply, but this is something I realized only now. With the 2-layer wire according to the STM experiment, there was about a 20% increase in output power to input at 350 °C (wire temperature or reactor temperature?). If two or them are going to be installed in the MFMP 1.1 reactor, this percentage should increase even if just one of them is going to be heated directly. Perhaps by 10% or so? A 30% increase with an input power of 50W would imply a DeltaT Out difference of about 20 °C. I'm wondering how much would be needed at the least to rule out any possible imaginable artifact. This is data from one of the latest calibration cycles for the MFMP cell v1.1 from which I estimated this: http://i.imgur.com/A96nA.png http://i.imgur.com/A96nA.png (sorry for the poor graph this time) EDIT: btw, "Delta T Out" is T_Rise, which is T_GlassOut - T_Ambient.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2012 09:28:25 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1530</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>David Roberson says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1527</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I want to congratulate you gentlemen on doing a remarkably consistent job of measuring the input power versus outside glass temperature. I get a R^2 value of .999957 for a curve fit to a quadratic equation. From experience I can expect my model to yield near perfect results in the time domain response. Thanks!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Roberson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 23:54:41 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1527</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>David Roberson says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1526</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco I probably should offer a good explanation for the time constants that I have been freely throwing around. If you look at a typical power input step and the associated outside glass temperature you see a smooth, exponential rising curve. An exact solution to the differnetial equation tying this curve to time contains an exponential function plus all of its harmonics. The time constant is expressed as 1/Wreal where Wreal is the natural frequency of the decay. Each harmonic is smaller than the fundamental one in level and I have a formula that calculates each component. My final closed form relationship automatically performs the addition of the harmonic components so it is not necessary to calculate them independently. A second shorter time constant decay is in effect during the very initial edge of the rising waveform due to a delay mechanism.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Roberson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 23:37:23 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1526</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1525</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Ecco - The data interruption was planned, but it went went wrong, anyway when the data collector itself actually froze up for a while unnoticed. It is logging again and not much data was lost.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 23:10:42 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1525</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>AlanG says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1524</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hmm, here's the link to the spreadsheet again: http://magicsound.us/MFMP/FC0103-3.xls]]></description>
			<dc:creator>AlanG</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 22:06:49 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1524</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>AlanG says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1523</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Here's delta T vs Power In for the first six cycles of cell 1.0 magicsound.us/M FMP/Cell1!0.jpg I suspect from looking at the data that the power steps are asynchronous with the sampling interval (1 minute for this graph), causing in some of the data dispersion shown. If a power step occurs near the end of the sample interval, two samples will be affected. I've tried to compensate for this by filtering the data based on delta power, offset by two samples, but I'm not yet happy with the results. The source spreadsheet for the graph is at magicsound.us/M FMP/FC0103-3.xl s]]></description>
			<dc:creator>AlanG</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 22:03:26 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1523</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1522</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@MFMP: it looks like the data feed for the US cell ceased working at about 17:56 CET. Was the cell stopped completely or did something unexpected happen? @David Roberson: I have to admit that I have a hard time understanding what exactly your time constant work is about. Can you point me to the right resources to get what it is in short?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 20:54:36 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1522</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>David Roberson says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1521</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco The time constant associated with the cell is in the vicinity of 360 minutes. If they allowed 3600 seconds (1 H) of time for each power step the fractional error would be 4.54 x 10^-5 which is more than required for our needs. The fractional error due to only using 45 minutes (2700 Seconds) is still only 5.53 x 10^-4 which I would assume is adequate. The noise level is much larger than the current mathematical limit they now face.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Roberson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 16:57:35 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1521</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1519</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@AlanG Thanks for graphing that! The slope difference is really interesting, isn't it? Cell 1.1 has 3.2mm Pyrex. Cell 1.0 has 2.5 mm Quartz. Cell 1.1 also has that nice aluminum plate on the T_glass out to broaden out the area of the glass it senses from. It'll be interesting to see how they compared from run to run.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 16:31:48 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1519</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Dieter Seeliger says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1518</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@all Why are we no trying to prepare the active wires by ourselves? I want to suggest another mini project: "Wire preparation" Reading Celani`s papers, this is another task, worth of replication in the crowd. The tools needed are not so complex and this work could also be done in an not so perfect featured lab. The main task is good documentation.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Dieter Seeliger</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:55:21 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1518</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1517</link>
			<description><![CDATA[After giving a further look at recent calibration data, I'm thinking that for certain power steps maybe 45 minutes are not enough to fully reach thermal equilibrium. Perhaps it is worth to increase this to 60 minutes or more and tweaking the automated procedure again so that each complete calibration cycle still lasts about 10 hours? Or perhaps an initial burst of higher power than what required by the current calibration step could be applied so that temperatures increase quicker before they reach their plateau or the 45 minutes time limit?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 09:11:33 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1517</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>David Roberson says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1516</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I have solved the 40 second time constant problem. The additional term must be supplied to my solution in order for the curve fit to respond to an internal cell delay of that amount. I suspect that a theoretical energy pulse input to the cell takes this amount of time to distribute within the gas and other portions of the structure and find its way to a reading at the outside glass monitor. Could someone direct me to a specific time in the EU live data feed where accurate calibration is known, a relatively large power drive transient exists under that calibration, and suspected excess power generation is present soon there after. I want to enter these conditions into my model to verify that excess power is present. My model now appears to be very reliable.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Roberson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 03:47:04 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1516</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1515</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco The TENTATIVE plan is to have 2 X 2 layer wires tested in these two cells and maybe the EU cell also. This is the same type of wire as was tested by STM.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 25 Dec 2012 21:27:37 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1515</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1514</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The current one is the last calibration to be performed on the Celani cell v1.1, isn't it? Will the cell then rest for a while or will other operations on it immediately follow?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 25 Dec 2012 19:11:43 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1514</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>David Roberson says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1510</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I have been improving my time domain model of the Celani Test Device for several days. I tend to be a perfectionist and like to understand why data does not match the theory to an accurate degree so I stay busy. I have now developed a Spice model that matches closely to the data from earlier runs, etc. This model suggested that I should pursue the solution to a non linear differential equation if I desire the best accuracy. I performed this task and now have an extremely useful and accurate simulation. I use this same model on Excel and the results correlate well. The exact solution to the differential equation consists of an exponential time domain decay frequency plus its harmonics. That explains why my earlier decay harmonic solution series works so well. There still remains a 40 second initial time constant decay that I am pursuing doggedly. Perhaps this is the IR signature.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Roberson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 24 Dec 2012 22:05:05 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1510</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1509</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ged It has been a lot fun working with you all, thank you for your kind words. We are really happy to see the qualified criticisms and are astounded that in 4 months we have not had to delete one post (other than double/info posts). We hope that you can all get properly involved in the many mini-projects we will be launching in the collaborate section. Literature/pape r/web review and distillation as well as design and manufacture will all be part of these projects and will mean that MFMP watchers can do more than just comment, they can become truly active participants in this Live Open Science approach and be a part of defining it. We have a vision, to publish a scientific paper with over 1000 authors. Join us, in the meantime, have a very happy Christmas.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 24 Dec 2012 18:55:31 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1509</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1508</link>
			<description><![CDATA[You know, sometimes it's good to take a step back and look at the big picture. It's amazing how far you guys have come, how far you've improved the measurements and your devices. It's amazing the highly tantalizing data you've already given us, and the strong support of Celani's data. But most of all, it's amazing the open platform for doing science you're created here, letting everyone watch and contribute suggests or analysis in real time. Wading through all those suggestions and inputs that you do is no trivial matter. So, thank you guys for all your effort, time, and impressive handiwork. And thank you guys for persevering, and for both putting up with as well as honoring us commentors, even when the going gets tough. Have a Merry Christmas tomorrow!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 24 Dec 2012 16:23:27 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1508</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1505</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Yes, it works. It can be tested by viewing it in your browser. If it shows recently added/updated entries, it works.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 23 Dec 2012 10:33:55 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1505</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1504</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco Thanks - I believe I have corrected the link on the header, can you check it please.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 23 Dec 2012 10:28:10 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1504</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1502</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@MFMP: If the aim is to make several identical calibrations for comparison purposes I think it would be an idea to reset the starting pressure each time. The current pyrex/macor cell has a small hydrogen leak.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 23 Dec 2012 10:11:50 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1502</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Paul Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1501</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Ron B Just ignore any resistance reading when voltage is near zero. The resistance is determined by dividing the voltage by the current. When either of those parameters are near zero, the result is invalid. As the voltage and current get near zero, small offsets caused by thermal emf become a large part of the result, causing the error you see.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Paul Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 23 Dec 2012 04:25:45 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1501</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>AlanG says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1500</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Here's a first pass at comparing the two cells. The data is the last sample from each power step during the first ramp up of the cells. Power In differed between the cells by a couple of watts at the last step graphed (101.38 vs 103.35). http://magicsound.us/2cells_21Dec12.jpg The slopes are rather different. Is this due to different thermal conductance of the two glasses? Or maybe the thermocouples aren't placed identically. The composite spread sheet is at http://magicsound.us/FC0101_vs_FC103.xls ]]></description>
			<dc:creator>AlanG</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 23 Dec 2012 04:06:56 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1500</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1499</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ryan Hunt Can you explain how the current/voltage s are being measured? That may explain the 500C reading but the very negative/positi ve values for resistance is showing up often (even during the latest CAL run... select the last 12 hours USA cell and only view resistance(red) and you'll see what I mean) This really needs to be fixed. I think it's because the value for resistance is calculated on measured values for current and voltage.Measure ment problems cause the calculation of resistance to go bananas. IMHO Some work needs to be done to calibrate all the sensors and then adjust the captured readings to fit that range. There's going to be some cap discharge from the supply when it's turned off that the computer won't be able to report. It might be worth looking at a switch that can just break the contact to the wire when you want the power to go to zero along with a bleeder resistor to drain the caps to ground after disconnect.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 23 Dec 2012 01:48:04 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1499</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1498</link>
			<description><![CDATA[We have completed two calibration cycles at 0.5 Bar H2 on the two vertical cells. There are many questions I want to explore from this data: 1 - How close together were the two runs to eachother (Graph up the settled points (5 min Avg) and subtract one run from the other to get a difference vs power graph) 2 - How does the 0.5 bar run compare to Calibration run 9 on the US cell that was in 0.5 Bar H2, also, but in horizontal mode. 3 - How clean is the correlation between power in and (T_GlassOut-T_a mbient) or (T_GlassIn-T_Gl ass_out) 4 - What other effects are we observing about the vertical orientation? How much stratification looking at flange temperatures, T_G1, TG2, TG3, etc. 5 - Did the cells leak at all? Did the pressures come back to the same each time? 6 - Were all parts of the cell at equilibrium by the end of each step? 7 - What is the best sensor to use for a reliable correlation to power. 8 - Going forward, from 7 runs at identical settings, can we get to a statistical model that will tell us with reliability when we observe a point that is highly likely to represent excess energy? OR a combination of cell temperatures? Anybody want to help crunch numbers?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 22 Dec 2012 21:29:35 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1498</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1497</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Chuck - The isothermal calorimetry was mentioned, but because we were expecting relatively large excess energy, it didn't seem like the best way to go. We can still operate the cell like that, though.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 22 Dec 2012 17:35:20 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1497</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1496</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Ron - The totally wild data came during a time when the cells were decomissioned for rebuilding and the sensors may have been experiencing strange things during connection and disconnection. The experiment log (linked at the top of the blog here) will have the latest condition of the apparatus.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 22 Dec 2012 17:32:26 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1496</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1495</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Will it be possible to get a wire which already worked at a known temperature and pressure ? If yes, it will save a lot of time and effort.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 22 Dec 2012 12:56:18 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1495</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Andy Olson says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1494</link>
			<description><![CDATA[La Fin du Monde is actually a Canadian beer. Quebecois to be exact. My little contribution. :P]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Andy Olson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 22 Dec 2012 11:58:25 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1494</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1493</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Mathieu Valat Thanks tons for the pictures, it's the next best thing to actually being there. Also, thanks for getting the thermocouple accuracy tests done. That's very important and hopefully the data viewer will only report numbers that are within the range of accuracy of the devices doing the measurement. On another thread I reported seeing some possible "glitches" in the measurements (resistance values that went to > -3000 as well as mica temps of over 500C. and a 10-150MW power reading on the supposed turned off power input.) Is it possible to comment on these anomalies? We really need to have error free measurements in order to have credibility.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 22 Dec 2012 10:34:19 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1493</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1491</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Chuck, That is called Isothermal calorimetry. It's very powerful, and can be used to measure the heat release from something as small as a protein binding a metal or another protein; allowing determination of binding constants, Gibbs free energy, enthalpy, and even entropy of a reaction with some math juggling. I doubt the idea was rejected, just not thought of. It's a brilliant idea. The electronic control to handle that high a power and temperature though may be a bit of a challenge, but it's definitely a method that is worth pursuing eventually.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 22 Dec 2012 07:22:47 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1491</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Chuck says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1490</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Just tossing another idea out here. Suppose the cell were thoroughly sealed in an insulated box with as many sensors as you desire monitoring the temperature inside the box. Instead of observing the temperature rise or fall, reduce the input power to maintain the same temperature. Wouldn't that give a direct indication of any excess heat being produced? I'm sure someone has already thought of this, but I'd like to know why the idea was rejected.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Chuck</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 22 Dec 2012 00:24:46 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1490</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1489</link>
			<description><![CDATA[That is quite a lot of cool stuff! I like the idea of the Quartz and Borosilicate cells being run in tandem. Be fun comparing their behaviors, though the Borosilicate is far more predictable already. Just have to make sure they aren't too close together as to influence eachother, of course. Thanks for all the pics. It's an impressive set up you've got there.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 22 Dec 2012 00:11:37 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1489</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1488</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Lots of stuff going on, thanks for the update. For some reason this blog post didn't appear in my RSS feed, so I learned about it only when 123star wrote a couple comments and made notifications appear in the comments feed.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 22 Dec 2012 00:03:02 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1488</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>123star says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1487</link>
			<description><![CDATA[[continued] In the previous graph, replace "cell temperature" with "wire temperature" to understand what I am talking about. @Ged The shape of the Nickel reflectance that I posted previously may contribute a bit but the dominant effect is due to the Borosilicate "transparency window".]]></description>
			<dc:creator>123star</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2012 23:48:49 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1487</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>123star says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1486</link>
			<description><![CDATA[After thinking a bit, I realized that the T_glassout dependance on the wire temperature (while keeping the power constant) is present even if the thermocouple assembly has constant (but not zero) absorptance in the IR range. Just check the graph from the article "Quartz vs Pyrex Glass Calculations" and think about the radiation coming straight from the wire (the wire temperature is presumably around 600 °C). The graph stops at 450 °C but the trend is obvious. It is clear that the percentage of the radiation coming straight from the wire that goes through the glass strongly depends on the wire temperature. I am assuming that the T_glassout probe assembly is partly heated by IR radiation coming from the wire (i.e. it is not completely reflective), of course. http://www.quantumheat.org/images/blog/BorosilicatePowerPowerLossPercent.png http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/follow-2/104-energy-density-calculations]]></description>
			<dc:creator>123star</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2012 23:47:56 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1486</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
