<?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>Tue, 05 May 2026 09:24:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/it/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/317" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Robert Ellefson says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4040</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Schematics, explanatory prose, three-dimension al renderings, formalized mission statements, quotes on new reactor vessels made from various materials and configurations, these things and much, much more are all in the works RIGHT NOW. This includes announcements about MASSIVE expansions to the number of people who will be working directly with us in coordinated fashion to achieve all of our objective in GLORIOUS DETAIL! All in the open! Live! But first, there is the matter of due diligence. Lots of it. I could tell you that we have recruited a huge scientific advisory board consisting of nearly every one of the foremost researchers in the field who we were able to directly approach at ICCF18, but I would rather do it once I can name those advisors. Doing this requires a rather careful and deliberate process that I do not wish to undertake hastily, given the sensitivity of their employment considerations. We are at the beginning steps of the process still, owing to other, even more exciting preconditions that must be legally structured before we can proceed further into those steps. Meanwhile, science has been progressing at HUG and in Europe. We have been meeting and communicating with people across every level of society who are seeking to help us accomplish our goals, but we need to complete our carefully-delib erated, formal preparatory work before we can proceed to structuring many of these future relationships. We are also preparing the finishing work on a huge backlog of posts that we have been working up to, which you all will get to read shortly. In fact, other people might beat us to some of these posts, so keep your eye on the international press for a while....]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Ellefson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2013 21:08:12 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4040</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>bob says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4035</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Apologize for being slightly off topic here, but your forum's spam filter didn't like my attempt to ask if anyone from MFMP had contacted Dennis Cravens about replicating his ongoing NI Week demo (ends tomorrow Aug 8)?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>bob</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2013 18:26:31 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4035</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>charlie tapp says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4034</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ robert greenyer on the subject of coated tubes why not use the one that got accidentaly coated in copper. also i have showed other people this websight and it is hard for them to understand can you guys post a simple schematic along with voltages, amperages,numbe r of thermocouples and what they represent might be helpfull for people to get on board. i have seen lots of other blogs were people do not realy understand what is going on with mfmp. but they want to really bad]]></description>
			<dc:creator>charlie tapp</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2013 18:02:49 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4034</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>bob says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4033</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ryan, Ecco I would discourage the use of dynamic heating protocols on any calorimeter except for the water bath one. Varying the heating brings thermal inertia and internal convection effects into play and could easily produce false positives unless carefully calibrated for. Steady state (or quasi steady state) heat balance equations are so much simpler to deal with. The water bath is a thermal collector/integ rator with large thermal inertia itself, so thermal inertia in the apparatus itself doesn't matter as much there. One must be careful to apply the same dynamic inputs to the control bath, however.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>bob</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2013 17:11:25 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4033</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4030</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I love the graphics, Ecco. I like the potential for sharp gradient in the last ones. We need to decide almost immediately if we want to try wrapping two separate heating coils onto the existing LENR stick because we are otherwise ready to start loading immediately and begin that experiment as it sits. The process of wrapping the heaters will involve a great deal of dis-assembly and require testing to make sure the calibration of the calorimeter holds after the modification. The risk is that we still won't achieve a gradient comparable to the original Celani cell. On our V1.3 cells, I know we have observed greater than 100C/cm gradient between the mica support and the middle of the span. Right now I am leaning towards going ahead the way it is and getting dynamic gradients by powering up and down in small steps. The advantage is we know what temperature the chamber is. Any thoughts?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2013 15:31:17 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4030</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4025</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco Enamelling and thermal expansion matching is a well understood science. Think cookware. RTD would be nice, but it comes down to resources.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2013 07:45:32 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4025</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4023</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Greenyer: yes, that sounds the simplest/best idea, but watch out for thermal expansion. By the way, speaking of improvements, would it be possible to use a RTD sensor on the steel converted Celani cells to measure the average outer temperature of the steel tube (or the average temperature of sections of it), like on the inner/outer tube on US CTC cells? This would allow to calculate the power emitted (even with the Stefan-Boltzman n law) much more accurately than with spot measurements using standard thermocouples.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2013 00:49:28 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4023</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4022</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@all A simple lagged steel tube, potentially, enamelled on the inside, may be best.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2013 00:14:38 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4022</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>bob says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4019</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Greenyer Why not go for tri-layer? From inside to out: metal - insulator (eg. Ceramic, fibre glass) - metal. That way the outer metal jacket will be at a low enough temperature to retain its structural properties (eg. H2 pressure). The inner 2 layers can extend the full length but be "floating". Ie. not participating in pressure seals. The bonus with this tri-layer is that with 2 thermocouples you get a conduction calorimeter to explore.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>bob</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2013 23:03:12 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4019</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4018</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco #35 Ryan and I were discussing just this configuration last night.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2013 23:02:41 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4018</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4017</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco #22 Mathieu and I were discussing options last night and we came up with inner side gold coated quartz or even steel/copper. We recognise that getting above the curie temperature of nickel may be important.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2013 22:36:50 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4017</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4012</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@bob: even if it will turn out to not work as I originally thought, I still think it might be useful to have two heater wires on both ends of the LENR stick. Even without cycling input power between them, this configuration will allow MFMP to adjust the temperature gradient along the cell length while the experiment is running. Who knows how much of it is actually needed, or if tweaking it live will trigger LENR in unexpected ways. It's worth trying since it's trivial to add an additional external heating wire, compared to adding more heating wires inside the reactor chamber. That a temperature gradient along the cell length could be required is Celani's hypothesis, not mine. I merely adapted it to my design and proposed a possible mode of operation along what was suggested during ICCF18 (ie active H2 flux as a possible LENR trigger) and in the existing LENR literature (for example the Piantelli patent).]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2013 16:36:53 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4012</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>bob says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4011</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco It makes sense that if LENR is some kind of lattice phonon coupling that an elevated temperature would enhance the effect. In any case what we have been debating is the requirement for a thermal gradient layered onto the elevated temperature. What I was questioning in my last post was the suggestion that a gas phase thermal gradient is required to bring more H2 molecules to the "party". I believe that at the gas pressures we are talking about there are already lots of H2 molecules per sec colliding with the active wire. Any convective enhancement provided by a thermal gradient in the gas phase would be minimal.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>bob</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2013 15:28:31 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4011</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4010</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Experimental data in the LENR literature (even from successful Celani experiment replications, ie STMicro/Mastrom atteo) show that the higher the temperature, the more intense the excess heat effect gets. This is called a positive feedback behavior, which is what allows self-sustaining operation or thermal runaway in fortunate cases. So, I don't think that temperature is going to be a limiting factor, quite the opposite in fact.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2013 14:58:21 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4010</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>bob says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4009</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@all According to gas theory the collision frequency of gas molecules with a solid surface is proportional to pressure and inversely proportional to square root of temperature. ie. higher pressures = higher collisions per sec; higher temperatures = lower collisions per sec (but at higher energy). At the pressures we are talking about the rate at which molecules are hitting our active surface is very large. Does this argue against thermal gradients in gas phase as means to bring more H2 molecules to the active site? ie. the rate determining step in the chain is not the rate at which H2 can be brought to the surface but rather the rate at which absorbed H2 can be replenished at the LENR reaction site.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>bob</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2013 14:40:33 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4009</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4007</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@bob: a fixed thermal gradient along the length of the wire (or in other words, the length of the reaction chamber) is something that has been suggested by Celani and his colleagues. I suppose that by having one, it would increase the chances that the right conditions for LENR to occur would happen somewhere. While Celani's suggestion of having a fixed gradient along the entire cell length might be helpful, I think it would be further useful to have a dynamic thermal gradient along it by heating up cyclically both ends of the steel reaction chamber. This is not in order to heat the wire itself (although this will ultimately happen), but to move hydrogen back and forward by heating it (and thus increasing its pressure) locally in a controlled manner (although not very selectively as you'd like to). This continuous hydrogen movement would be the flux to/from the active sites in the active material (Celani wires in our case) that during this year's ICCF was suggested being important for triggering LENR. As for why this would happen exactly, I don't know. http://i.imgur.com/05omt3jl.png http://i.imgur.com/05omt3j.png (In the version with two external heaters, the hot and cold sections would reverse cyclically) http://i.imgur.com/UqyG1n4.png This would be the approximate heating effect of the internal tubes on every wire wrap.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2013 13:35:11 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4007</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>bob says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4006</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco I'm trying to understand why a thermal gradient along the length of the active wire would be a requirement for sustainable LENR. I can almost convince myself that a radial gradient in the wire could make sense but can't come up with a reason for a longitudinal one. Having said that since presumably most of the LENR reaction takes place in the thin active layers deposited on the outer surface of the wire, one way to achieve a radial gradient is in fact to generate a longitudinal gradient. ie. bulk wire has relatively high thermal conductivity so core under a hotter section will infact be cooler than surface. At some future junction it might be nice to try depositing the active layer directly onto those small tubes and running "coolant" inside rather than heater wire. ie. thermal gradient from hot gas to cooler tube. In your proposed design the central quad tube heaters are designed to heat the wire by conduction. What if the purpose of those heaters was switched to becoming efficient H2 gas heaters? would one want to increase the surface area in contact with the gas even more?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>bob</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2013 12:51:57 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4006</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3996</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ryan Hunt: is there enough room for something like this? This doesn't make advantage of the water cooled jacket, though. http://i.imgur.com/8e0tcTY.png http://i.imgur.com/8e0tcTY.png EDIT: thinking about it, it would if it only used the "lower heater wire" on one end of the stick (the one on the left in this diagram) . The other end would be cooled by the water jacket (although the inner heating wire would still bring some heat from the inside along the entire cell length).]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2013 16:01:18 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3996</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3995</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The Lenr-stick test cells in the water flow calorimeter has a water jacket at the input side. This means there might be a significant thermal gradient in at least part of the cell. Perhaps optimizing for thermal gradient with water cooling on one part could be part of a new design. Anyone wanna hazard a sketch or two? If it fits in a 1/2 inch (12 mm) tube, then we can use the same CTCs.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2013 15:17:35 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3995</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3994</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@bob: I guess one could turn the hydrogen to plasma, but it's not a particularly efficient process at the relatively high pressures used in these cells compared to a purpose-made hydrogen gas discharge lamp. Applying microwave electromagnetic radiation to the gas to achieve the same goal would be even less efficient. Either way, metal surfaces in contact with the partially ionized plasma would heat up quickly.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2013 11:54:12 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3994</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>bob says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3993</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@all is there any way to selectively heat H2 gas? Eg. By picking a particular wavelength to directly excite the molecule. Or by electrically/ma gnetically exciting the molecule/plasma . Right now I expect that the gas is being heated by coming in contact with hot surfaces in the current apparatus. If this is the only way then introducing a higher surface area heating element would help. Ni foam?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>bob</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2013 11:33:49 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3993</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3986</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Alain Celani has said this, but if a wire processing is made good enough to operate effectively by passive heating, then it is far superior as you have a much smaller denominator on the Pin when using multiple wires. @Ecco What you suggest is good as another option for the CTC. For the standard Celani cell, both the US and EU teams will be loading up the "active" cell more and running in differential mode. In the case of the EU cell... we may even do differential runs with foil wrapping and something a little special - more on that in an up and coming blog post!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 04 Aug 2013 14:07:46 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3986</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Alain Coetmeur says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3985</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Celani said that himself in one of the first paper/slide that I've read. He said that current produced more reaction than indirect heating. You should ask him, or read early public slides... I don't remomebre exactly when. provbably round iccf17/niweek20 12]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Alain Coetmeur</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 04 Aug 2013 10:30:15 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3985</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3984</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@MFMP: if it is assumed that the V1.3 cells work as intended, while the CTC ones probably do not, then it should probably be of interest to verify this by loading one of those cells (Cell B?) with as many active wires as possible (the ones that were supposed to be used in CTC #2?), even if not electrically connected to the power supply.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 04 Aug 2013 10:05:56 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3984</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3982</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@All One of the potential issues with the CTC is that it does not have any particular thermal gradients. In spending a day with Celani in Columbia, MO - I went through why the cells are the way they are and one of the points that came out was that the thin mica supports were there also to act as a contact based thermal sink which set up a continuous phonon flux between the non contacting parts and the contacting parts, this is not present in the CTC. One way to address this could be to have two heaters at either end and split the power so one end is hotter than the other and then cycle.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 04 Aug 2013 09:14:47 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3982</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3980</link>
			<description><![CDATA[http://i.imgur.com/5IozJC9.png http://i.imgur.com/5IozJC9.png This is what I found some time back on an italian discussion board (I think it was 22passi blog). You probably should ask Celani for the full slides. These results look very promising. If I remember correctly, maximum input power was less than 30W, so 6W excess @ 400°C (and possibly more at higher temperatures) is more than 20% gain in this case. I don't remember the exact wire specifications, but I think it was a single wire, standard length. If this was indeed the case, then there is huge potential for self-sustain operation, which would settle any criticism. By extrapolation the wire used in this experiment should be able to produce more than 10W excess heat at 500°C. On the CTC cell currently used for the 50m bare constantan wire it takes about 36W to reach that temperature with external (indirect) heating, which would imply a ~27.8% gain, meaning that self sustain operation could be achieved with 3 wires and a half, although it might even be less in practice. It would help hugely to have exact reactor specifications and experimental protocol from the guy as they might be critical in replicating these results. No, I wasn't at the conference.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 03 Aug 2013 23:17:34 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3980</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Edwin Pell says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3979</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Ecco, where is this reported? Thanks. p.s. Were you at the conference? Am curious to know who you are. Feel free to email me edpell at optonline dot net]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Edwin Pell</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 03 Aug 2013 23:06:56 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3979</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3978</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Edwin Pell: as far as I understand Ubaldo Mastromateo from STMicro manages to obtain pretty good gains with indirect heating and a relatively well insulated reactor, so perhaps it's not a critical factor. I would certainly agree though that heating wires directly is going to increase temperatures locally much more than indirect heating. This however also means that given a target wire temperature, the hydrogen contained in the cell heats less than with indirect heating. High temperature indirect heating (>450-500°C) of Celani wires however has never been attempted yet in MFMP experiments. The latest CTC cells and the LENR stick in the mass flow calorimeter should allow that. The first CTC cell with a Celani wire used direct heating and didn't seem to produce any visible excess heat. It was speculated that somehow the wire got damaged by overcurrent at some point.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 03 Aug 2013 22:37:48 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3978</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Edwin Pell says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3977</link>
			<description><![CDATA[There may be significant differences between direct and indirect heat of Celani wires. In direct heating the temperature may be higher than people realize, the current may create a magnet field that may be important, the current may create hot electrons that may be an important trigger. If I say the temperature of a Celani wire with 2 amps is 800 degrees C does anybody have any data, or calculations, to disprove the statement? A negative with indirect heating is not a negative for direct heating.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Edwin Pell</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 03 Aug 2013 22:01:16 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3977</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3975</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@bob: I think that unless the right triggering conditions are met, any heat-induced excess heating effect from small amounts of active material is not going to be strong enough to self-sustain heat production in a positive feedback loop, although there is a possibility it might be at very high temperatures (never attempted before, meaning something like 7-800 °C) which however would quickly lead to material and possibly reactor damage, inhibiting the reaction. The upcoming multi-wire LENR Stick in a mass flow calorimeter should be able to clear doubts on the performance of these wires, as more than a single Celani wire and larger temperatures as usual (with indirect heating, so with less chance to damage the wires as with direct heating) will be used. It's a pity that Celani wires are hard to come by, this limits the amount of tests that can be performed, including potentially destructive ones.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 03 Aug 2013 11:33:30 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3975</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>bob says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3974</link>
			<description><![CDATA[More thoughts on the temperature gradient issue. I've always had a nagging concern with these Ni H systems. If the LENR reaction is exothermic why do they need an external source of heat (eg. resistive heaters)? The answer might lie in understanding this thermal gradient issue. Presumably the LENR reaction will release its energy to the lattice at the reaction site. If this heat isn't carried away from that location it could quickly setup a reverse thermal gradient and drive the LENR fuel (H) out of the lattice. ie. become self limiting. Hence you need to continually actively heat the gas and cool the lattice. This may also explain the rather complex loading/unloadi ng protocol involved with the Celani self heated wire. Maybe a simpler protocol lies in the direction of an actively heated gas and an actively cooled wire. Is there a laser wavelength that could be used to selectively heat H2 but not Ni?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>bob</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 03 Aug 2013 11:14:15 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3974</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3971</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@MFMP: after some research into the subject, which I was very unfamiliar with, I found out that an ignition coil to feed one spark plug won't use as much energy as I feared. A standard automotive ignition coil operating at an input voltage of 13.4V DC and input current of 7A, generally needs about 4 milliseconds on average to charge up and produce a spark when power is switched off it. This means an energy consumption of about 0.1 mWh per spark, (if my calculations are correct), while requiring an instant power of 93.8W from the power supply (I think it would be wise to connect the ignition coil to a 12V battery which would act as a buffer, rather than directly to the power supply). At 5 sparks per second in an hour the ignition coil would use 1.88 watt-hours of energy, according to the above specifications. However as far as I understand plasma sparks are a very inefficient way to transfer energy, so I'm not sure anymore if they would produce significant pressure waves inside the cell. I guess this will have to be verified in practice.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 03 Aug 2013 10:13:49 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3971</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3968</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@charlie tapp: an air conditioner-lik e setup to achieve a constant hydrogen flow in a closed-loop manner set up would be an interesting idea, however it would likely be limited by costs, complexity and amount of gaps where hydrogen could leak. Also, as I previously mentioned, the higher the power requirements for the testing setup, the less likely the entire system would have a COP greater than 1, even if excess heat is locally being generated inside the reactor chamber. In case that worked, skeptics could easily say that it's an interesting but unuseful effect as it requires more energy than it generates - like controlled hot fusion as of now.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 03 Aug 2013 07:07:38 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3968</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3963</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ryan Hunt: yep, I guess I should have figured that igniting a spark on one end of the LENR stick would also cause a brief but sharp rise in pressure in addition of producing monoatomic hydrogen. This makes me realize that having a spark plug on both ends of the stick as DGT do with their R5 reactor would also allow to create a nice symmetric resonant pressure wave system by carefully tweaking the spark ignition timing. However, hydrogen flux control by joule heating alone would overall be much more efficient and therefore maybe preferred since MFMP cells are expected to be low gain LENR systems and it's unlikely that any excess energy produced inside the reactor using spark plugs as trigger would exceed the overall energy budget used to make them work. The main disadvantage is that joule heating can't by itself produce monoatomic hydrogen, though.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2013 16:37:35 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3963</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3959</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@bob: I'm not sure if that would work or even be safe (the larger the gap between two electrodes, the higher the breakdown voltage gets for sparks to form. Also we need sparks to be inside the LENR stick, not between the stick and the inner concentric tube. They are needed to generate monoatomic hydrogen. As for the temperature gradient issue, as far as I understand it's something needed in order to have non-equilibrium conditions inside the reactor to keep hydrogen continuously moving to/from the active sites on the LENR-active material. In the LENR literature it's often been suggested that a trigger for excess heat can be a pulsating hydrogen source. Piantelli in his patent writes about using either that or a constant flow of hydrogen on the nickel plates he uses. We can't easily have a pulsating pressure or a continuous source of hydrogen in the LENR sticks, but by exploiting their existing internal/extern al heating geometry, we can have something that is pretty close to that at no cost or added input power requirements. It would also be very tweakable/contr ollable. This would incidentally end up being similar to what Defkalion GT are using in their R5 reactors, by the way.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2013 14:11:30 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3959</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>bob says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3958</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco Could a spark plug be created by putting a high enough voltage between the two concentric tubes? ie. sparks go radially inward directly towards the active wire. Which way does the temperature gradient need to be? longitudinally? or radially in the active wire outer layer itself? I suspect it is closer to the latter. Then the question becomes which way does the gradient need to be? I suspect it should be hotter outside and cooler inside. ie. driving H2 deeper into active layer. Unfortunately, with our electrically heated wires we have potential for the opposite gradient to setup. What we would need is a composite wire (no idea how to create this) where the outer layer is highly porous to H2 but can act as the electrical heater and the actual inner core is where the LENR takes place and somehow this is cooled. Maybe we have to explore an IR heated layer on top of a thermoelectric cooler.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>bob</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2013 13:26:38 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3958</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3953</link>
			<description><![CDATA[By the way, have you thought about plugging an end of one of the LENR sticks with a spark plug? Would it be doable without compromising gas tightness too much?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2013 01:34:46 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3953</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
