<?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>Fri, 08 May 2026 20:43:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/it/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/295" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Malachi Heder says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3721</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Paul The calibrations were run under vacuum conditions and at positive pressures the heat transfer from the wire to the sensor is much different, making the Wa_Xs inaccurate.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Malachi Heder</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jul 2013 15:12:02 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3721</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Paul says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3710</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Let me ask Edwin's question from the opposite direction: what possible reasons argue against 6W Px (almost +15%) for more than 48 hours?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 07 Jul 2013 19:30:31 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3710</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3698</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The cell is pressurized in loading phase, right now, far different than the calibration conditions of 1 mBar vacuum.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 07 Jul 2013 03:03:10 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3698</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Edwin Pell says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3696</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Is cell A at 6 watts excess power?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Edwin Pell</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 07 Jul 2013 02:47:01 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3696</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3695</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ All - we are continuing to just watch the US Cell A as the Celani wire SLOWLY decreases in resistance. I am inclined to watch till it stops before trying another run. There was one 0.1 ohm bump up in resistance that I can't explain. Weird stuff going on in that wire, I think, considering how rapidly it decreased in resistance before we sent current through it directly.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 07 Jul 2013 02:36:06 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3695</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3694</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Jamie Sibley - In our initial calibration we noticed that the two wires achieved different temperature rises by up to 3 or 4 C. In that cell, however, it was only different by less than 1 degree, so you might have identified something interesting. @ David Jones - We have a turbo molecular pump on that apparatus that we could use to pull a really hard vacuum (10^-7 torr), but that would almost certainly de-load the hydrogen from the wire even faster. That is how we degassed the nickel powder during our early experiments.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 07 Jul 2013 02:32:18 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3694</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3687</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Malachi, That must have been it. It was early on. Thanks for the update and all that you and your team there are doing. Hopefully you're making good progress on the Steel and Glass cells (Macor and Mica). It will be exciting to see what they do with the new setup/protocol. That's an interesting data point (about the loading going slower with direct verses indirect heating). Someday this will all make sense (I promise!) lol]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jul 2013 18:32:12 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3687</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Malachi Heder says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3683</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Ron B What time did this happen? If it was at the beginning, before the script was started, that was because I incorrectly set the script and as a result I had to reset the boards. @ All It looks like putting current through the celani wire yesterday altered it's loading behavior quite a bit. It's much slower now.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Malachi Heder</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jul 2013 16:06:32 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3683</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3675</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The resistance for both the active and inactive wires dropped for a short period of time to very low values. They did return to "normal" values but then later the active wire dropped very low for resistance and is staying there. Any clue what has happened?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 04 Jul 2013 10:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3675</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Malachi Heder says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3577</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Ecco We must have had a hiccup in the data replication. The data is about 1 hour behind and still updating. It should catch up.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Malachi Heder</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 01 Jul 2013 15:24:33 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3577</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3575</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@MFMP: live data is not getting streamed to the public, at the moment.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 01 Jul 2013 14:57:45 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3575</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Malachi Heder says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3574</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ David Jones The vacuum gauge is outside of the temp control box that our reactors are in. If you look at the ambient temperature from the CTC test (out in the room), you'll notice that the vacuum gauge follows that really well too. This could mean that the ambient is, as much as we've tried to reduce the effects, still causing these trends and reaking havoc with our experiments :(]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Malachi Heder</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 01 Jul 2013 14:55:51 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3574</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>David Jones says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3573</link>
			<description><![CDATA[If you plot Wa_Xs against Vacuum pressure over the last 12 hours you will see that they closely track each other. Consequently, it is not possible to know if the excess output is due to the presence of hydrogen initiating LENR or simply due to heat conduction through the gas. I would suggest that some method needs to be found to keep the vacuum pressure within tighter tolerances. A large ballast volume (as I suggested some time ago) connected close to the active cells may do the trick if it is simply hydrogen outgassing from the wire through a restricted pumping line. Another thing that might help is a diffusion pump or similar item to really pump the pressure down below a level where heat conduction through the gas is negligible. but not sure how well these pump hydrogen given that it is such a light energetic gas. I would think it should be easy to 'borrow' a diff. pump from a University - we used to be swimming in the things at St Andrews Uni.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Jones</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 01 Jul 2013 12:39:08 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3573</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3572</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Mica temperature however is almost exactly the same. Actually, it's slightly lower now in [C] than it was in [A]. If the wire was truly hotter, wouldn't mica temperature be hotter as well? T_In1, T_In2 and T_Ext3 are also lower now than they were in [A].]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 01 Jul 2013 09:01:13 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3572</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3571</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Jamie Sibley I think you have spotted something interesting there, and an experiment within an experiment.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 01 Jul 2013 08:34:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3571</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3566</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@All US cell A at parity now, Control (B) below]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 30 Jun 2013 17:36:02 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3566</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3565</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco Best loading to date and live run has begun]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 30 Jun 2013 17:32:00 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3565</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3564</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The active wire in US Cell A after finishing passive loading reached a remarkably low resistance value of 12.26 Ohm, which implies a R/R0 value of 0.704]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 30 Jun 2013 17:17:31 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3564</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3543</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Valet When I look at the at the EU cell over the last few days I notice that the inactive wire seems to be dropping in resistance value. There are two spots where the temp and the pressure are the same but the resistance value dropped about .2 of an ohm. Possibly taking on hydrogen? 06/24/2013 00:00:00 06/29/2013 13:48:00]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 29 Jun 2013 13:59:52 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3543</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3541</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I see that active loading (power on the constantan wire) is being attempted right now on the EU cell.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 29 Jun 2013 13:30:47 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3541</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3537</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Yes, forgot to check, that its in loading mode :P]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 29 Jun 2013 03:45:49 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3537</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3536</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Sanjeev Not that I totally understand everything that's going on, I saw that the excess was only there to that degree when the pressurized hydrogen was applied and I think the place to look for excess is when there is a vacuum.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 29 Jun 2013 03:36:33 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3536</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3535</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Is US cell really showing 6 W excess !?! :-?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 29 Jun 2013 02:51:49 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3535</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3518</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Remember how the steel and glass cells went negative Pxs for a while before they started to show excess power? It could be the same this time too! Development and testing has been going on for over 6 months now. I start to see why so many years progress on the LENR research front. This stuff does take time.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 28 Jun 2013 05:45:28 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3518</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Edwin Pell says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3517</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Rats, All, my take is things are going well. The experiment with the tubs of water showed excess heat. Hurray! Why that is not being followed up is not clear to me. This experiment has gone through only one run yet. If after 20 rounds over the next 10 months there is no excess heat. Then we can call this a data point for no excess heat. Making the apparatus has taken time. But his is just the beginning. Now it needs to be used. I would like to see the tube spray painted black but first let's get some use out of the system as is. Looking forward to the multiple wire test, the powder experiments. p.s. and according to Ecco's analysis the experiment showed excess heat. Yes?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Edwin Pell</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 28 Jun 2013 05:19:08 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3517</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3516</link>
			<description><![CDATA[For EU cell, the excess went below 0. Is this because of dropping pressure ( a tiny drop is there) or because the R/R0 > 1 now ?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 28 Jun 2013 01:27:32 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3516</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3506</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Rats We remove key points of doubt from previous experiments, then test again, then, if we see something that might be positive, we look for reasons why it might not be real (it might actually be real, but we have to be sure). Only when no one has a clue what else could be causing it do we say we have an incontrovertibl e experiment producing excess heat. This is the bit of science that needs patience. The S&G and the various calorimeters are approaches to move away from this type of experiment and deal with the criticisms. The bulk wire tests, both Celani and Constantan are approaches to increase the signal to noise. @David Jones I REALLY like your suggestion to "Pump through" from the active loaded cell, through the passive control. This is only really practical once, but it would deal with this criticism - really, thankyou for this inspiration. The time to do this would be before we did the first real load of the control cell. Great call.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2013 21:28:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3506</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rats says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3505</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hi guys, i Know you're trying very hard but don't you think it is time you got Celani directly involved and got him to do his experiment? In this way we can conclusively prove this effect. I for one am getting tired of "we have excess heat!" followed by a revelation it was measurement errors. :-(]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rats</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2013 21:21:09 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3505</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3504</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@AlanG: as far as I understand when vacuum is applied you have to look at data from the Vac (mbar) channel as the Pa (bar) one won't give any meaningful reading under it.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2013 21:15:59 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3504</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>David Jones says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3499</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I think it is possible to have the second cell as a control for the Cellini wire and the background pressure. All that is required is an interconnecting tube and a vacuum isolation valve. If both cells are connected together after the active wire has been processed and the two cells have essentially equalised in pressure (after pump down of the active wire cell) then the two cells will then maintain the same pressure – giving the necessary baseline. It could be arranged that the active cell pumps through the control cell thus any hydrogen given off from the active cell equalises both cells with regards to pressure with hydrogen.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Jones</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2013 19:30:55 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3499</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>MB says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3497</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Following up on my previous comment, the point is that controls are very powerful, as someone else said. You can eliminate all of the concerns about what's the right pressure level, gas composition, etc., simply by having a second control cell with exactly the same gas treatment--what ever that treatment is--as the active cell.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>MB</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2013 18:58:19 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3497</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>MB says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3496</link>
			<description><![CDATA[To my mind, the conduction/conv ection discussion points to the need for a 2nd control cell. There are really two separate hypotheses here: #1 is that the excess heat requires H; #2 is that the excess heat requires the Celani wire. The conduction/conv ection issue arises because the different H treatment does not on its own prove the Celani wire is doing anything. It seems that what you need are two simultaneously running control cells, one to prove each hypothesis: (1) a cell with the Celani wire treatment but without the H treatment (i.e. what you have now); (2) a cell with the H treatment but without the Celani wire (use an otherwise identical inert wire). If what you have is just a conduction/conv ection effect, then control (2) cannot show excess heat. This is a controversial experiment. There is probably no one control that will be persuasive. The more controls you run, the more persuasive it will be.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>MB</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2013 18:35:12 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3496</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jamie Sibley says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3495</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I am concerned about pumping down to 10 microbar. Two things could happen, a) the excess power drops to zero due to the wire fully unloading and becoming inactive, or b) the excess power drops to zero because it was reading falsely high due to the hydrogen's thermal conductivity. This would give use one outcome with two significantly different causes.. and therefore might not prove anything. My suggestions: 1) Try the helium trick in the control cell. 2) Coat the borosilicate glass with a reflective paint on the outside, except for a few small view holes. This will allow the IR radiation to be thermalised and read by the external sensor. 3) Keep this discussion in mind when working on the new vacuum insulated ss and glass cells. They could suffer from the same error if the glass tube allows IR to pass directly from the wire to the outer SS vessel.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jamie Sibley</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2013 18:18:42 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3495</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3494</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The glass is borosilicate which is generally opaque to IR, but it still allows some small portion through. The best solution is real calorimetry, which is what the other tests that we are planning. @ Jamie - I like the idea of adding a small amount of helium into Cell B. Another potential easy tests that has been suggested include adjusting the vacuum pressure. What else would you like to see? We can pull down to 10-5 bar. Maybe we should go down that far and see how the cells behave.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2013 17:50:38 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3494</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jamie Sibley says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3493</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Ecco I think you reasoning may be revered. Due to the mica's close proximity to the heated wire ( active or passive wire, doesn't matter), an increase in the gasses thermal conductivity, and therefore its convective transfer rate, should carry more heat from the wire to the mica. In a pure vacuum, the mica would only be heated by IR and a tiny bit of direct thermal conduction though the mica, but in a non-pure vacuum, it will also be heated by convective currents. I may have an easy solution ! The thermal conductivity of Hydrogen gas and Helium are nearly identical. Would you be willing to supply a tiny helium source into the control cell while still applying a dynamic vacuum. You would need to provide enough helium to overcome any air diffusion or air leaks into the control cell. This would give both cells near equal internal gas thermal conductivity. If applying helium caused the control cell exterior temperature to increase, that's our culprit.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jamie Sibley</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2013 17:45:36 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3493</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3492</link>
			<description><![CDATA[http://i.imgur.com/ZletvBx.png These data show that after loading, T_mica increased more on the active cell than the control cell. However, if we take the average of calibrations made under comparable vacuum conditions (~1.15 mbar), then we can see than the mica in Cell B hasn't increased in temperature at all for the same heating conditions (30W passive), while it did in Cell A. If the residual hydrogen gas in Cell A were to convect significantly more heat than the residual air did during calibrations, then mica temperatures should have been lower. But they increased instead. Is this reasoning correct?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2013 17:27:04 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3492</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>AlanG says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3491</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco The volume of the cell is about 94 cc. or .004 mole of H at stp. So at 1 mbar residual pressure there would be roughly 4 micrograms of gas - not much heat capacity in that small mass.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>AlanG</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2013 17:25:47 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3491</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jamie Sibley says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3490</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In order to have the varying convective, conductive and radiative losses be properly accounted for, I think that making the glass/quartz tube become IR opaque would allow the external temperature sensors to read all the energy that is leaving the cell. The current method of allowing the IR radiation to escape, unmeasured, is very inaccurate. Even with proper and thorough calibrations, the external temperature sensor is still measuring only 2 of 3 significant energy transfer routes. Is there a technical reason for use an IR transparent vessel, other than just wanting to look inside? Could the experiment be retrofitted with a similar sizes section of stainless tube?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jamie Sibley</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2013 17:24:52 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3490</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3489</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@AlanG: the point is that under light vacuum convection might still be significant. That is a valid concern. However after seeing calibration data more in detail it probably isn't the case here.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2013 17:01:28 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3489</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3487</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ryan Hunt: at a quick glance it looks like Mica temperature, during calibration with passive power under vacuum, was consistently higher in Cell B than Cell A by a few °C. So, probably the fact that it is now higher doesn't necessarily mean that the residual hydrogen is playing a role in that after all. This is assuming that that the residual gases during calibration were the same. It looks like the difference in Mica temperature at 30W of passive heating was higher during calibration than it is currently, btw. (>8 °C on average vs ~5.5 °C right now). The mica in Cell A was slightly cooler than it is now. It is consistent with the real excess heat hypothesis (or that a different artifact is having a role in showing that right now).]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:47:43 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3487</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3486</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Mitch - Yes, the B cell has as active wire in it, so exposing it to Hydrogen would have invalidated it as a control. @ Ecco - Here is the full calibration spreadsheet (I added the link tot he calibration summary, too) https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByUU8sU37DYsQWhjcG1sRjc3V0U/edit?usp=sharing Can you check and see how that compares?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:38:57 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3486</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Mitch Trachtenberg says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3485</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Is there a reason that the protocol does not subject the "inactive" cells to the identical loading process as the "active" cells? It just seems like one more potential source of difference.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mitch Trachtenberg</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:23:10 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3485</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3484</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ryan Hunt: I just found out that US Cell B has a slightly hotter mica temperature. This could be consistent with Jamie Sibley's explaination that at this vacuum level convection is still a significant component of heat transfer to the glass tube, and that the difference in thermal conductivity between the residual gases (air vs hydrogen) in both cells might account for the difference in glass temperature / output power. Less convection to the glass tube in the control cell would imply hotter core temperatures. (EDIT: corrected) US Cell A http://i.imgur.com/jIRzq9c.png http://i.imgur.com/jIRzq9c.png US Cell B http://i.imgur.com/LlaFBbn.png http://i.imgur.com/LlaFBbn.png A ~5.5°C difference.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:10:32 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3484</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3482</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Longer term data (~22 hours) of output power and vacuum in US cells: US Cell A (active) http://i.imgur.com/zRlTbXs.png http://i.imgur.com/zRlTbXs.png US Cell B (control) http://i.imgur.com/0C38LJq.png http://i.imgur.com/0C38LJq.png]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:47:40 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3482</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>David Jones says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3481</link>
			<description><![CDATA[got it wrong - no correlation between excess power and resistance of active wire.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Jones</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2013 12:18:22 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3481</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>David Jones says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3480</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Re excess power following the vacuum pressure. I would suggest the best way to deal with this is to have both cells connected together each with an isolation valve to the pump line (I had assumed they were). Then you can load either cell and under vacuum they will both follow the same vacuum pressure to give you your subtraction baseline.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Jones</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2013 11:35:26 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3480</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3477</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Both US and EU active cells are reading an excess dT of 4-5C over the calibrated readings. Am I right ? What I don't understand is, the R/R0 is now 1, meaning both wires got deloaded, and its still showing excess. This is something unexpected.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2013 02:35:34 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3477</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3476</link>
			<description><![CDATA[If it's the residual gas that is causing the xs difference, the safest thing to do would be to fully reload the active cells with H2, then cool them and flush several times with plain air. Finally, apply vacuum and power again. If they were genuinely producing excess heat, they should still show some since it's been speculated that it's the residual hydrogen trapped inside the lattice that is causing it. Or the opposite could be done with the inert cells, flushing them with minimal amounts of hydrogen, unpowered (or maybe even cooled below ambient temperature) to avoid absorption by the active wire as much as possible. The difference in thermal conductivity of the residual gases seems a very possible serious flaw. It would be best to quantify it elsewhere first but I doubt there's time to build a dedicated cell, since ICCF18 is close.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2013 02:13:08 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3476</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jamie Sibley says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3474</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Referencing this document: ( Page 9 ) http://cas.web.cern.ch/CAS/Holland/PDF-lectures/Grobner/Groebner-1.pdf We can see that the thermal conductivity of gasses does not begin to be affected by pressure until we get lower than 1 tor ( apx 1 mbar ) . Your dynamic vacuum would have to be down near 1 millitor to have the thermal conductivity differences become irrelevant. This experiment should be modified to have both the active and control cells have a fill gas with equal thermal conductivity. ( both air, or both hydrogen) I believe the different fill gasses is a critical error between the calibration and live runs. I propose several calibration runs with a cell that has only a passive nichrome wire installed and different fill gasses held at dynamic vacuum. I am sure you will find that even at 2-5 mbar, the different fill gasses will produce noticeable variations in the calibration data.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jamie Sibley</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2013 01:05:37 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3474</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Edwin Pell says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3472</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It could be the hydrogen is lost from the surface but remains in the bulk. The resistance measurement may be due only to surface current. Well maybe not. It seems DC current runs in the bulk, it is only AC that runs on the surface.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Edwin Pell</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2013 00:22:08 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3472</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3471</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Jamie In the V2 protocol we find this and I take it to mean that any escaped hydrogen is being pulled out. Dynamic vacuum The cell is put under a continuous vacuum by leaving the vacuum pump on. The expected level of vacuum in the range of 2 to 5 mbar.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2013 23:39:07 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3471</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jamie Sibley says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3470</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I have read that the thermal conductivity of gasses remains fairly constant until the pressure reaches very very low levels and that hydrogen is more conductive than air. My questions are: 1) Could the residual hydrogen being release from the wires be affecting the thermal conductivity in the active cells and 2) could the control cells be filled with hydrogen and then evacuated, leaving them unloaded but still with a low pressure hydrogen atmosphere?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jamie Sibley</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2013 22:26:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3470</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3469</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@#21 Ecco 2013-06-26 14:31 I could believe that it's not got a direct effect (if trapped hydrogen is what we're after) but the fact that the ratio might indicate that hydrogen is entering and leaving the cell could mean that some might have been trapped. In the hangout today it was mentioned that sometimes it's not the first "load/unload cycle" that caused the effect but that it was subsequent ones. This bit of information correlates with the annealing process (repeated heating and cooling to get a desired crystal growth formation). If I were to make a SWIG at this point (it's ok, since I don't mind being wrong) I would guess that it's really related to getting hydrogen into the metal while the crystals are forming and thereby trapping them where they later (ummm cough.. mumble mumble)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2013 22:24:50 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3469</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3467</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Now that R/R0 on EU Cell A has reverted to the starting value, it appears that power out is starting to decrease. It could be that R/R0 doesn't exactly represent loading (there are reasons to think it's exactly the case) and/or excess power doesn't have a definite correlation with loading (assuming it's a real effect and not an artifact). http://i.imgur.com/J4x2xyP.png http://i.imgur.com/J4x2xyP.png EDIT: it looks like the currently decreasing T_Amb might be a factor for this.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2013 21:31:06 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3467</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>David Jones says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3466</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ryan Your heater wire is imposing a weak 'B' field on the active wire - but a stronger one would be generated by a magnet - there are very powerful magnets in old hard drives.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Jones</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2013 21:29:04 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3466</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Mitch Trachtenberg says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3465</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The V2.0 protocol document linked above is very helpful, thanks. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AkyO8n6-0MjNdGwtMXlpakpoNFlRQkxkT0V3TmZuc2c&output=html]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mitch Trachtenberg</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2013 21:21:02 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3465</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Ellefson says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3464</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Great explanation, Ryan! I'll use that as the first example diagram...]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Ellefson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2013 21:20:21 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3464</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3463</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Cravens - I have just posted a good explanation of the test cell. Can you (or anyone else) propose a way to generate a B field?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2013 21:09:57 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3463</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Dennis Cravens says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3462</link>
			<description><![CDATA[good to hear you are getting excess heat from the wires. Congratulations . While you have one up and running, try to impose a B field to the wire if possible. Current empirical fits seem to indicate that the excess is a function of the B field. Dennis Cravens]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Dennis Cravens</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2013 21:01:37 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3462</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3461</link>
			<description><![CDATA[R/R0 on the active wire in EU Cell A just went past 1.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2013 20:56:40 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3461</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3460</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Mitch Not quite The cells have are essentially the same and have been calibrated. Only the active cells celani wore in both US an EU has been Loaded with H2. Power passive in loading and active run.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2013 19:54:32 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3460</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Mitch Trachtenberg says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3459</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Awesome. If you could at some point provide a short summary of what you've got that would be wonderful! Is this correct? Side by side cells monitored for heat output have been set up with alternative materials, one containing materials believed to show a LENR effect, and the other containing alternative materials not set up for such an effect. Corrected: Each of the cells was run under vacuum, and heat output for each was plotted against electrical power input. Corrected: The cells are now run under vacuum; the cells including Celani wire were subjected to "loading" with hydrogen prior to the restoration of vacuum, while the cells not containing Celani wire were not "loaded." See step 6 of the V2.0 protocol table. The levels of excess heat observed are believed to be statistically significant in both cases. Is that it, more or less?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mitch Trachtenberg</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2013 19:41:43 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3459</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3458</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Try this URL: https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/17fc5ab97ba8424fb3660ed9b116720ffd92fb51?authuser=0&hl=en]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2013 19:29:12 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3458</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>glhf says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3457</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ How do you get to the hangout? Is there a URL?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>glhf</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2013 19:27:02 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3457</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3456</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ David Jones - You are quite right on your assumption and we have not gotten around to defining those fields, so far. I will do that ASAP.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2013 19:11:12 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3456</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>David Jones says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3455</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Apologies for asking possibly a silly question but is there a page to find the definitions of for example “Wa_Xs(W)”? I assume this means, on-going excess power generated in cell A measured in watts. But I would like to be totally sure of the definitions when viewing the data on HUGNET. I also noticed there was no “Wb_Xs(W)” on the US A&B comparison – this would be nice too. Oh by the way - congratulations so far...]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Jones</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:41:46 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3455</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3454</link>
			<description><![CDATA[We have a public google hangout open called "MFMP Current Positive Results"]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2013 17:05:58 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3454</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3453</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@HugTeam, thanks so much for the mini-blogs about the status. For you that are there it's more easy to know exactly what's going on and what the next steps are but without your mini-blogs some of us stumble around in the dark.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2013 17:00:15 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3453</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3451</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It sure looks like Mathieu and I are BOTH seeing over a watt of indicated excess!! Very interesting!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2013 16:52:04 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3451</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Giorgio says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3450</link>
			<description><![CDATA[A non equilibrium condition (es.: temperature gradients or variations, electric impulses) may play an important role for reaction triggering. The wire should "breathe" hydrogen. see: http://www.google.com/patents/EP2474501A1?cl=en]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Giorgio</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2013 16:49:40 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3450</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3449</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It appears that EU cell live data is lagging a bit again.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2013 16:02:37 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3449</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3447</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Passive. That is what we are trying to replicate first.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2013 15:20:59 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3447</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3445</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Will you start with passive heating or active heating? BTW the exceptional loading performance of the active wire in US Cell A deserves some comments.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2013 15:19:36 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3445</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
