<?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 05:28:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/it/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/195" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>David Roberson says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1629</link>
			<description><![CDATA[After you run the test with power applied to the Celani wire, it would be wise to do the same for power applied to the inactive one at the same steps. Are you convinced that there will be a difference in the temperature reached in the absence of excess power depending upon which wire adds the internal heat? I hope that we can verify whether or not this is true before excess power complicates the measurement to a large extent.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Roberson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2013 18:46:47 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1629</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1628</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The Helium has been loaded into the cell. After consideration, it seems to make more sense to do a test with the Celani wire and only use the first four steps. The purpose of the helium test is to demonstrate that the wire is installed comparably to the way the bare isotan control wire was. Using the NiCr wire would raise the question about how comparable it is. We are modifying the columns in the data a slight bit, too. The server is still getting worked on, but should be available soon.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2013 16:01:51 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1628</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1626</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The data does, indeed, seem to be having a problem getting to the public server. We are working on that and think is has something to do with a recent software upgrade on the HUGnet software. The good news is you haven't missed anything exciting. The cells sat overnight at room temperature with a vacuum on it. We will get the data flowing again and then load Helium into the cells and do a calibration test using the NiCr element, as was suggested.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2013 14:38:20 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1626</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1625</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Live data from the US cells isn't being streamed to the public, currently.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2013 12:25:14 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1625</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Eric Walker says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1624</link>
			<description><![CDATA[My thoughts, speaking with the authority of an inexperienced hobbyist: if the averages between the two sets of calibrations are the same, then they can be combined, as long as the spread of the combined runs is used to calculate the error. Eyeballing the "Cell 1.0" chart, it looks like there is an error in the internal thermocouple temperatures of approx. +/- 10C; I personally would like to err on the side of caution. "That means, as long as the system isn't altered some other way, temperatures above the dotted line would strongly indicate that there was excess energy being created." This assumes there are no systematics, something that can be hard to judge if one hasn't been doing this for years.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Eric Walker</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2013 05:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1624</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>AlanG says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1622</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Here's another view of the six calibration cycles, for T_mica. Both cells are very stable. Lovely work Ryan! http://magicsound.us/MFMP/Cell1.0_T_Mica_vs_P_In.jpg http://magicsound.us/MFMP/Cell1.1_T_Mica_vs_P_In.jpg]]></description>
			<dc:creator>AlanG</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2013 22:18:24 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1622</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>David Roberson says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1621</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Be careful not to over heat the Celani wire. It would be wise to restrict the power as he did with his original experiment. I would also recommend that indirect heating is used for the first few test runs since the temperature profile with both time and static should not depend upon which wire is driven. If indirect heating is used by applying power to the inactive wire any black goop problem will collect upon that wire. Finally, you can apply the full 103 watts to the indirect heating wire without worrying about burning off the coating on the Celani wire. I have a time domain analysis program that will detect excess power in a very sensitive manner. The outer glass temperature is the ideal one to use according to my simulations. The glass acts as a delaying and filtering process. Good luck guys! You are doing a great job so let's get the results that we are all seeking.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Roberson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2013 21:51:46 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1621</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Pekka Janhunen says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1620</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In some phase I thought that too rapid pressure reduction might damage the coating if the hydrogen comes out too rapidly. I'm not sure at all if this is a valid concern, but to play it safe, if you have a possibility to avoid such rapid pressure reductions with Celani wire, it might be an idea to do so.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Pekka Janhunen</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2013 20:26:55 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1620</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
