<?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 01:13:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/it/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/191" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Eric Walker says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1585</link>
			<description><![CDATA[You wrote: "The lines are on this along with the confidence limits. If we get points beyond those confidence limits, we can be 99% certain that we are seeing excess energy." The confidence intervals pertain to scatter in the temperature readings, but there is still the possibility of systematic error of various kinds (e.g., an unsuitable baseline for the calibration curves).]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Eric Walker</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2013 07:14:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1585</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1548</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The Isotan wire started out actually decreasing resistance as the temperature rose Isn't that, by definition, showing us the Kondo effect?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 29 Dec 2012 13:52:49 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1548</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Dieter Seeliger says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1547</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ryan Could this strange resistance behaviour has something to do with the Curie Temperature of Nickel (354°C) ? I have no idea of the temperature difference between wire and T_Mica, but I think this could be checked using your FLIR. If it turns out, that the wire temp is in the region of the Curie Temp, this could be a nice place to start the LENR reaction when the temp is cycled around this point. Just my 2 cents.......]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Dieter Seeliger</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 29 Dec 2012 13:44:01 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1547</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1545</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Scratch that plan. Time to refurbish a couple cells. See the next blog entry.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 29 Dec 2012 05:11:36 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1545</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1544</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I really like the 99% confidence intervals. Those will give a lot of statistical power to the data we get during the experimental runs. It's disappointing cell 1.1 is having so much trouble. At least cell 1.0 is making a come back in this new orientation. Greatly looking forward to what the data tells us once you all start the runs with the 2 layer active wires.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 29 Dec 2012 03:45:03 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1544</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
