Subpage of ICCF-21/videos
Transcript edited from youtube video, time stamps from closed caption transcript, abstract from pre-conference distribution, slides from this pdf.

A list of slides and slide text is appended.

The Loading and Deloading Behavior of Palladium Hydride

Edmund Storms
Kiva Labs, USA

The ability to initiate LENR is believed related to being able to create pdd with a large D/Pd ratio. Various treatments have been applied to the surface to achieve this goal, with focus on loss reactions involving surface reactions being the primary cause limiting the deuterium content. This paper explores the effect of another loss mechanism involving surface penetrating cracks and flaws. These features allow hydrogen gas to leak out as bubbles (Fig. 1) at a rate related to a diffusion process that is not affected by applied current. This diffusion rate can be quantified by measuring the loss and relating it to the square root of time, an example of which is shown in Fig. 2. This relationship applies when loss occurs in the electrolyte after electrolytic current is stopped, in acetone, or in air. Extrapolation to zero time allows the final D/Pd ratio to be determined after current is stopped and the slope allows the contribution of this loss process to be determined while current is applied. Samples that load to a D/Pd ratio less than about 0.75 appear to show a loss rate by this process that is nearly equal to the rate at which D is applied by the current. Therefore, samples able to achieve a larger D/Pd ratio appear to have a loss rate determined by two mechanisms, loss from cracks and loss by surface reactions, i.e. the Tafel effect. Therefore, both mechanisms must be controlled to achieve a large D/Pd ratio.


0:00 well good 0:05 morning.
I’m gonna talk about something 0:08 slightly different, but it will include 0:10 that which I’m supposed to talk about.
So 0:14 there’s a slight surprise if you’re 0:16 following the schedule.
People who study 0:22 cold fusion using electrolytic cells 0:25 frequently use a catalyst in their cell 0:28 to recombine the hydrogen and oxygen 0:31 back to water.
If you simply measure the 0:35 temperature of that recombiner, you 0:37 can obtain some very useful information.
0:41 you can obtain the . . . Let’s go to the next.


0:44 you can obtain the D to P D ratio of the 0:48 cathode very simply. You can calculate 0:51 the enthalpy of formation, if you use 0:54 that information, combined with the 0:56 information from the calorimeter.
And you 0:59 can also identify errors that result 1:01 because the recombiner that you’re 1:04 using doesn’t function properly, and one 1:06 of the things that i’ve discovered is 1:08 that many of the recombiners that 1:09 people rely on are not reliable,
And 1:14 therefore you can get behaviors that 1:17 challenge one’s ability to understand, 1:21 and hopefully you don’t attribute it to 1:24 LENR.
Well, I’m going to . . .

These 1:30 measurements are based on an electrolyte 1:32 using sulfuric acid in water.
The results 1:37 do not depend upon the nature of the 1:39 electrolyte, but sulfuric acid turns out 1:41 to be a very fine electrolyte for the 1:43 for the study of LENR, if you 1:46 care to use it.
I’m using a Seebeck 1:48 calorimeter, and we’ll be studying three 1:51 different kinds of palladium:
A 1:53 commercial palladium. That’s normal 1:56 commercial concentration of palladium.
1:59 an arc-melted super-pure palladium.
(both 2:03 of those are in the form of a sheet one 2:05 millimeter thick.)
And zone-refined single 2:09 crystal, which would be very, very pure. 2:12 and 2:13 somewhat unusual. Not too many people have access 2:16 to that.
But let’s talk about the 2:20 calorimeter. Slide4 the calorimeter 2:23 is shown in the open condition.
It 2:26 consists of a aluminum box that’s 2:30 water-cooled on all sides, and on the 2:33 inside [are] pasted 54 thermoelectric 2:39 converters.
It’s all hooked in series. Any 2:44 heat that’s generated in the box, it 2:46 doesn’t matter where it originates, will 2:48 be detected by the calorimeter.
So you 2:50 don’t have to worry about gradients with 2:53 this particular style.
The design is 2:57 large enough, so that you can put almost 3:00 anything in there. I have put in Geiger 3:05 counters, for example i’ve put in magnets.
3:08 I have a cell in which the magnets produce a 3:11 magnetic field at the cathode of 2000 3:14 gauss.
You can go higher than that with a 3:17 smaller cell.
I also have a cell that 3:20 allows a sample to be exposed to gas, 3:23 either deuterium or hydrogen, and heated 3:27 up to 300 degrees [C.], all the while 3:31 measuring any excess energy, to plus or 3:34 minus 5 milliwatts.
So this is a very fine 3:39 calorimeter. It’s very, very stable, and I would 3:42 highly recommend, if you’re getting into 3:43 this field, that you make one like this , 3:45 and I will be happy to share the design 3:48 details if anybody cares to. . . .
Already 3 3:52 laboratories are in the process of 3:54 duplicating.
On the right you see . . . Whoops! 3:59 wrong button . . . 4:03 gotta be careful with this thing.
[Dr. Storms returned to the slide shown above]
4:10 on the right you . . . Let me do it this way
[he used a laser pointer]
4:13 this way I won’t mess it up again.
4:16 this is [an] oil reservoir and a balance.
4:20 any gas that is generated in the cell is 4:25 communicated to this oil, and that’s 4:28 weighed, which allows measurement of 4:33 the orphaned oxygen, generated by the 4:36 loading, and gives another method of 4:38 determining the D to Pd ratio, that’s 4:41 independent of the value obtained from 4:44 the recombiner. Slide5
The cell consists of a 4:51 pyrex cell, around which is wrapped 4:56 resistance wire that allows the 4:59 temperature of the cell to be changed 5:01 independent of applied electrolytic 5:03 power.
The cell contains 300 milliliters 5:09 of electrolyte and it doesn’t the 5:14 calorimeter doesn’t care what the cell 5:16 looks like, so you can have any shape 5:18 or size you care to have, and you 5:21 will get the correct answer.
Inside the 5:24 cell is an RTD to measure the 5:26 temperature of the electrolyte.
This is 5:29 the anode, which is platinum. Inside is 5:33 the cathode attached with a plastic 5:38 clamp, that allows the cathode to be 5:41 removed very quickly.
And this is a 5:44 reference electrode for measuring the 5:45 open circuit voltage.
The important part 5:48 right here for the talk today is 5:50 right here.
This is the recombiner, 5:53 which is a cloth of carbon, on which is 5:58 deposited finely divided platinum. It’s 6:01 very effective in recombining the gases 6:05 back to water.
Inside this tube is 6:08 another glass-covered RTD, to measure the 6:11 temperature.
Any gas that’s generated 6:14 within this cell has to pass by the 6:16 recombiner to go out and go to the oil 6:19 reservoir. Slide6
The calibration is done by 6:25 applying power to the heater, but you can 6:29 put power in in any form whatsoever. I’ve 6:32 used light bulbs, i’ve used the 6:35 electrolytic technique it doesn’t matter.
6:38 the source of energy in the Seebeck 6:41 makes no difference.
So in this 6:46 particular case the calibration is done 6:49 automatically by stepping up in value 6:53 until I reach the top, which is produces 6:57 a temperature of about 85 degrees, as the 6:59 highest I wish to go.
And then it goes 7:02 back down, and between the points that 7:04 were made going up. 90 minutes is 7:07 required for the calorimeter to reach 7:10 equilibrium, and so the first point and 7:14 the last point which [are] superimposed here 7:16 were made about 36 hours apart.
If we 7:21 look at the residual, this is the 7:23 difference between the point and the 7:25 least squares line, you can see that the 7:28 residual fluctuates in a very random way 7:30 within a band of about 5 milliwatts 7:33 over the entire range. Slide7
It’s also 7:40 necessary to know the characteristics of 7:42 the temperature of the recombiner. 7:45 this is measured by applying 7:49 electrolytic power to a platinum cathode 7:52 so that there is no loss of hydrogen, all 7:55 the hydrogen and oxygen now [have] to be 7:58 recombined and produce the suitable 8:00 temperature at the recombiner.
This 8:04 shows a rather broad range of values
8:07 this is closer to the value that I’m 8:10 actually using which is this right here, 8:12 0.1 amp, and you can see in both cases the 8:16 relationship is very linear between the 8:19 amount of gas that has to be recombined, 8:21 and the temperature that results. 8:26 Slide8two measurements are made that are 8:31 important. One of course is the excess 8:34 power based upon the calorimeter and its 8:36 calibration, and the other is the 8:38 recombiner temperature.
These two 8:40 pieces of information are the only pieces 8:43 of information that are used for the 8:47 purposes that I’m describing today.
Now 8:50 right away you can see that — I should 8:54 point out too — when I turn on the 8:57 electrolytic power, initially, after the 9:00 calorimeter has reached equilibrium, I’m 9:02 also applying power to the heater that 9:05 is equal to the power that will be 9:07 applied by electrolysis.
And so when I 9:11 turn on the electrolytic power, I turn 9:13 off the power that I’m applying to the 9:15 heater, so that the calorimeter remains 9:19 in equilibrium.
So I can start taking 9:22 data almost immediately without the 9:24 calorimeter having to wait for the 9:25 ninety minutes.
But you can see 9:29 immediately that there are three basic 9:30 regions to the loading characteristics, 9:34 and and this basic shape is true of all 9:39 materials.
Only the 9:44 details change this is how palladium 9:47 loads, when you react it in any cell.
So 9:51 you notice that initially that the 9:55 electrolytic power is constant, and 9:57 notice that it’s negative, and the reason 9:59 it’s negative is it requires more power 10:01 to decompose the water then you get back 10:05 when the hydrogen reacts with the 10:07 palladium. And this is that difference. 10:09 and so it’s negative to start with but 10:13 notice that it’s constant.
The recombiner 10:16 temperature is also constant. That’s 10:18 saying that all of the hydrogen that’s 10:21 being made available is going into and 10:24 reacting with the palladium.
But at some 10:28 point that efficiency starts to fall off, 10:32 and you can see that the result is that 10:35 the measured power starts to rise 10:39 towards zero.
10:40 the recombined temperature starts to 10:41 rise, and at some point the recombiner 10:44 temperature reaches its maximum value, 10:46 and is constant in this region.
Every 10:50 single atom of hydrogen is rejected now 10:55 by the Palladium.
That’s not 10:57 quite true, some go in and come back out, 10:59 so there’s no net reaction taking place, 11:01 and since there’s no net reaction, all of 11:05 the gas that is being made by 11:07 electrolysis is being recombined and so 11:11 that produces a maximum temperature of 11:13 the recombiner and it produces zero 11:15 for the measured excess energy.
If you 11:20 make such a study this is a very good 11:23 indicator to any pathological skeptic, 11:28 that in fact your calorimeter can in 11:31 fact make accurate measurements.
I mean 11:34 this is really a demonstration of the 11:36 quality of the calorimeter. Slide9now I can use 11:43 a few mathematical equations. I won’t 11:47 go into that right now. If you are 11:48 interested in the math, you can see me 11:50 later on.
But to measure, to use the 11:53 temperature of the recombiner, I only 11:56 need to know the temperature of the 11:58 recombiner initially, when no hydrogen 12:00 was being recombined, and the 12:03 temperature after all the hydrogen is 12:05 being recombined.
Those those two limits, 12:07 that’s all I need to know, and with that 12:10 knowledge in this equation I can 12:12 calculate the fraction of hydrogen that 12:15 is entering the palladium. Slide10
12:23 and the result is shown here. This is the 12:26 average D to Pd ratio, and this well . . . In 12:30 this case I’m using light hydrogen, it’s 12:33 cheaper, but it produces the same effect, 12:36 as a function of time, 12:39 and this is the fraction reacted with 12:41 the palladium, as a function of time, 12:43 based upon that equation.
And you can see 12:46 that the composition follows the line that 12:51 would predict 100% reacted, based upon 12:55 the applied current.
It follows that very 12:58 closely, as we expected, and then it 13:00 starts to deviate and then finally it 13:02 becomes constant at the 13:04 maximum composition that this particular 13:06 sample can obtain.
And the fraction you 13:12 can see here, 90%, this is saying that 13:14 roughly 90% reacts, for quite a while 13:18 and then it starts dropping off and 13:20 finally zero reacts, after it’s fully 13:22 reacted. Slide11
I have three different 13:26 independent methods for measuring this 13:28 ratio.
The temperature of the recombiner, 13:33 which I just described.
The 13:36 orphaned oxygen technique relies on the 13:39 fact that when hydrogen reacts with the 13:41 sample, oxygen is left behind, so called 13:47 “orphaned,” and that oxygen pressure builds 13:51 up, is communicated to the reservoir, the 13:54 oil is displaced. I weigh the oil.
From that, 13:58 I can calculate how much oxygen — how many 14:00 moles of oxygen — and I can convert 14:02 that to the number of moles of hydrogen, 14:04 and thereby get at in, real-time — every 14:09 minute in fact — values for that 14:13 ratio.
Finally, after the sample has 14:18 reached saturation, I can take it out, 14:21 and within one minute place it on a 14:23 five-digit balance, watch the loss of 14:26 hydrogen, extrapolate that back to zero 14:28 time, using the square root of time.
And 14:32 from that I can gain a value for the 14:35 weight, 14:36 based upon the way each of these are 14:38 independent of one another, and when 14:40 agreement occurs, that’s a pretty good 14:41 indication that we are in fact measuring 14:44 reality.
It’s interesting though, that 14:47 this does not always match. And there are 14:51 occasions when you get differences 14:54 between the different measurements. Those 14:58 reveal processes that are truly abnormal, 15:02 and I I don’t have time to get them into 15:05 them today.
It says 15:07 once again that, every time you look at 15:09 palladium, you see something weird.
15:12 I mean lenrs are just one of those 15:14 characteristics that we happen to be 15:17 fond of.
But there are other weird 15:19 behaviors. Slide12
Now the enthalpy of 15:24 formation can also be obtained from this, 15:27 because we know how much hydrogen is 15:29 reacting, and we know the energy that 15:31 that is resulted in producing [the hydride] using the 15:34 calorimeter. Slide13
But before I show you my 15:38 data, I’d like you to see what the 15:40 literature shows. There are three 15:42 measurements reported in the literature 15:44 for the enthalpy of formation, as a 15:48 function of composition, and this is done 15:53 by placing finely divided palladium in a 15:59 calorimeter.
They will load it and [it will] be 16:03 loaded ten times, in order to activate 16:06 the surface, so that it loads very 16:07 quickly, and then they will apply a known 16:10 pressure, and that will result in a 16:14 characteristic composition, and in that 16:17 process energy is given off and they 16:20 measure that energy, and report it as 16:22 enthalpy of formation.
And so you can see, 16:25 in the alpha phase the 16:28 enthalpy of formation is rather low, it’s 16:31 fairly constant in the two-phase region 16:33 and then it shows a slightly weird 16:35 behavior in the single phase, beta phase, 16:37 dropping down, in this manner.
This 16:42 other curve is the pressure and it shows 16:44 the characteristic increase in pressure.
16:46 and we can compare the three 16:49 measurements
16:50 this particular one is the 16:52 straight-line. The same researcher 16:56 produced another — did it again — with 16:59 finely divided palladium rather than 17:01 foil, got essentially the same result.
17:05 Flanagan also used foil, but he reported 17:08 his points, so i could fit them with with 17:11 another equation.
What we want is the 17:15 slope. You see this number here is the 17:19 total that that would result from adding 17:23 hydrogen to pure palladium resulting, 17:27 let’s say in this composition.
I would 17:30 like to know what energy would result. In 17:34 going from here to here. In other words 17:36 the slope of this curve.
And it’s very 17:39 interesting to note that that slope is 17:42 negative. In other words, if this is a 17:45 straight line, it means that once you 17:46 enter that region of composition the 17:50 reaction with hydrogen is endothermic. It 17:54 is not exothermic. In other words, energy 17:56 is required to put hydrogen into the 17:59 lattice.
In other words, there’s 18:02 antibonding, there’s a rejection of the 18:05 hydrogen taking place,and if it’s a 18:08 straight line, then it’s a fixed number.
18:09 in the case here, this can be fit by 18:13 a quadratic. The slope goes from about 18:16 0.6 kilojoules per mole (plus, 18:23 this is exothermic) to 103 (minus) at the other 18:28 composition.
Anyway so this is the 18:31 literatur, and these these samples 18:32 are in equilibrium and they all 18:35 agree very nicely, so the question is how 18:37 does that fit with what i see. Slide14this is 18:41 the same measurement of these three 18:44 different materials [by Storms], each one loaded, and 18:49 measurements made as a function of 18:52 atomic ratio, and these are the data 18:55 points [red and orange] shown in the previous slide.
The blue, green and black linesstorms’ data.
So you 18:57 see that my data really is rather close 19:00 to what’s in the literature. However, 19:03 the behavior of the alpha phase is quite 19:05 different. I’m seeing a very large 19:08 enthalpy of formation whereas they saw a 19:11 very small one.
Well, what could be the 19:14 cause of that, other than just simply 19:16 sloppy measurement and error?
Let’s do 19:22 the same thing they did. Let’s load and 19:25 deload repeatedly.

Now, we know that 19:30 when that happens, weird things happen to 19:33 palladium.
Volume expands, shapes 19:38 change, the basic characteristics change, 19:40 and that’s one of the problems that we 19:42 have in this field, that if you load and 19:45 look at it and then deload and reload 19:48 again, you’re not looking at the same 19:49 sample.
You’re not looking at the same 19:51 characteristics, you’re not looking at 19:53 the same properties, and so it’s very 19:55 difficult to reproduce a measurement, 19:57 because the sample nature keeps changing
20:00 and you can see the way it’s changed 20:04 keeps changing. The enthalpy of formation 20:07 of the alpha phase steadily drops as 20:11 that process is imposed. Slide17
The beta phase, 20:16 not so much.
So let’s let’s look at the 20:26 slope. Let’s look at the .. . Essentially the 20:30 bond energy . . . That this represents. The 20:34 original one was fairly high for the 20:37 alpha phase, and the beta phase is not 20:39 affected very much.
But when you do 20:45 many of these loadings and D loadings 20:46 — this is after six of them — the enthalpy 20:50 of formation of the alpha phase is 20:53 reduced to that value which was measured 20:56 by the other studies.
So in other words I 21:00 can reproduce [what’s that? Four minutes.] 21:04 I can reproduce what they saw, simply by 21:08 loading and deloading. I can do that same 21:12 thing 21:13 by rolling. In other words if I load, and 21:15 then make this measurement, deload and 21:20 then roll the sample so that it is half 21:24 the sickness, nothing else has changed, I 21:27 get this characteristic.
So the 21:31 distortion of the bonds, that results, 21:35 from deloading — from rolling, 21:38 rather — and from deloading is similar.

21:41 and you can see here the difference 21:44 between the original sample and the rolled 21:47 sample, all manifests itself in the alpha 21:51 phase. The beta phase is hardly affected 21:52 at all.
21:53 the important thing about the beta phase 21:55 however is that it is exothermic 21:59 initially, and then drops, like the other 22:02 data in the literature shows — but this 22:04 shows more detail — the scatter here is 22:07 because I make that measurement every 22:10 minute. Every time I take a measurement I 22:13 get another independent value so there’s 22:16 random scatter, but you can see the 22:18 trend.
And the trend shows that at some 22:22 critical composition, the bonding becomes 22:26 exothermic — or becomes endothermic, rather — 22:29 it requires energy. Slide19
Well, it’s rather 22:33 interesting, that you can see a another 22:37 characteristic that has a relationship, 22:40 this is the resistivity, and as you can 22:45 see the resistivity increases as you add 22:47 hydrogen to the beta phase, until a 22:52 critical composition is reached, and then 22:54 it starts dropping very rapidly. That 22:56 composition corresponds very closely to 22:59 where the bonding becomes endothermic.
23:04 the explanation that I can offer is that 23:08 bonding in this region, was which 23:13 is exothermic results, from the electron 23:16 that goes with the hydrogen, going 23:19 into the 5s level of the palladium 23:22 producing an attractive bond, 23:26 but at this [the transition] point, those states 23:29 become saturated and now the electron 23:33 goes into the conduction band where it 23:37 is non bonding.
And that nonbonding 23:39 characteristic shows up as a negative 23:42 energy, that is, it requires energy to put it 23:44 into that state. Now all of this is very 23:47 very important to theory and understanding 23:50 of LENR, but unfortunately I don’t 23:53 have time to go into that. It would take 23:56 another hour or two, and no doubt bore most of 23:59 you to death, but recognize that this 24:03:00 does have a direct bearing on theory, and 24:06:00 theoreticians need to take this into 24:08:00 account. Slide20
So let’s summarize very quickly 24:11:00 the addition of hydrogen to beta 24:14:00 palladium hydride above about 0.75 24:16:00 produces increased non-bonding between 24:20:00 the Palladium and the hydrogen is added 24:22:00 electrons enter the conduction band 24:23:00 rather than bonding orbits.
The 24:27:00 measurement of the recombiner 24:28:00 temperature allows the ratio and the 24:31:00 bond energy to be determined and it’s a 24:32:00 trivial measurement. I didn’t hit 24:35:00 upon this until fairly recently. Slide21
I keep 24:37:00 kicking myself, because this is 24:39:00 so easy now.
The loading behavior shows 24:45:00 important information about the loading 24:47:00 mechanism, and so it’s really worth 24:49:00 following this loading in detail.
And the 24:52:00 bond energy gives information about the 24:55:00 mechanism and how it might function. Slide22
25:01:00 stability of the alpha phase is very 25:03:00 sensitive to purity and treatment, but 25:05:00 the beta phase not so much.
Now the role 25:08:00 of the alpha phase in LENR is still 25:11:00 somewhat ambiguous
Thank you very much.
25:17:00 Session chair: I can take one or two questions.
25:29:00 Peter Hagelstein: I enjoyed your talk a lot and 25:33:00 I’m a fan. In the 1930s and 1940s, people 25:39:00 measured resistance of alloys, and if you 25:43:00 go from a pure, to a mix, to a pure the 25:45:00 other one, as a general trend the 25:48:00 resistance goes up and comes down. And in 25:51:00 those days the resistance curve for 25:53:00 alloys was interpreted in terms of order. 25:57:00 you’re not interpreting the alloy for 26:00:00 hydrogen palladium in terms of any order 26:03:00 effects.
That’s true I’m not. I’m 26:06:00 relying on what I might call 26:09:00 conventional chemistry, in terms of the 26:13:00 way in which the electrons are 26:14:00 interacting.
Now order will certainly 26:16:00 play a role in resistivity, I’m not 26:19:00 denying that, but in this particular case 26:22:00 I think we can explain it, without having 26:24:00 to impose that particular aspect.
Ruby Carat: Dr. 26:30:00 Storms I thought you were going to talk 26:31:00 about loading and deloading, and I made 26:34:00 this visual aid for you.
Wow! 26:40:00 all right, looky here.
See if you give a 26:44:00 talk about loading, this is what you get 26:46:00 as a reward and this will be a 26:51:00 lot more comfortable to wear than what 26:52:00 I’m wearing now. Thank You, Ruby.
26:57:00 do you have an estimate for the rate of 27:00:00 desorption
Yes. I can measure that and it 27:04:00 it is characteristic of the material. It 27:07:00 has a rate over a range.
Some samples 27:10:00 don’t deload at all. It’s rather 27:12:00 amazing.
For example the single crystal 27:15:00 material. You load it up to 0.8, take it out 27:19:00 and it just simply sits there. It does 27:21:00 not deload at all.
Other samples will deload 27:24:00 fairly rapidly, and if you leave them 27:26:00 out very long they’ll almost go back . . . 27:28:00 well, they’ll go back to about 0.6 27:30:00 and 27:31:00 stay there.
But the deloading 27:34:00 characteristic is really very very 27:36:00 important because that deloading is 27:38:00 occurring during electrolysis as well. 27:42:00 and that aspect of deloading you 27:45:00 can’t do anything about by altering the 27:47:00 surface characteristics, so you want to 27:50:00 try to avoid whatever mechanism is 27:52:00 causing deloading normally out in the 27:56:00 air.
And that deloading is unaffected, by 27:58:00 the way, whether it’s in acetone, or 28:00:00 whether it’s in an electrolytic cell, it has 28:02:00 the same characteristics and the same 28:04:00 rates, so long 28:07:00 as the electrolysis is not taking 28:10:00 place.
Well it’s very . . . Let’s see . . . The slope 28:20:00 is such that it will deload. . . . Let’s say 28:24:00 if it’s at 0.8 to start with, in 28:27:00 seven minutes, which is the time 28:31:00 I use, it’ll go down to maybe about 0.75. 28:36:00
It doesn’t change a lot, but if you use a 28:40:00 five-place balance you can measure it to 28:42:00 three significant figures, and get a very 28:44:00 good number.
Time is over I 28:48:00 just take one short question.
thank 28:51:00 you for that presentation. Do you think 28:55:00 the change of slope in the enthalpy of 28:58:00 formation of the palladium hydride is 29:01:00 related to occupancy of the tetrahedral 29:04:00 sites within the metal lattice?
No. I mean 29:10:00 tetrahedral sites can be occupied, and 29:12:00 they certainly are occupied temporarily 29:13:00 during diffusion, whether they’re there 29:17:00 as a steady occupation that would change 29:21:00 the composition effectively, because 29:25:00 there would be places where it could go 29:27:00 other than where you expect it to go.
And 29:30:00 and if you have that kind of occupancy, 29:32:00 you would expect it to increase as you 29:34:00 get closer and closer to the saturation 29:36:00 limit.
In which case the H to Pd ratio 29:40:00 should exceed one.
29:42:00 I have never seen it exceed one.
Also people 29:47:00 use neutron diffraction, and using 29:50:00 deuterium, can see it and there’s some 29:53:00 evidence that there might be some minor 29:54:00 occupancy, but I don’t think it’s a major 29:56:00 characteristic of the material.
30:00:00 thank you very much.
30:02:00 thank you.

Slides and slide text

Slide1 The enthalpy of formation of pdh as a function of H/Pd atom ratio and treatment with other useful information.
Edmund Storms USA Email:
Slide2 A new method using the recombiner temperature reveals:
1. The D/Pd ratio of the Pd cathode.
2. The enthalpy of formation of pdd.
3. The errors caused by periodic recombiner failure.
Slide3 Measurements Used:
A. Electrolyte of 0.5 ml H2SO4+30 ml H2O
B. Seebeck type calorimeter
C. Three different sources of Pd
1. Commercial sheet, 99.5 %
2. Arc-melted pure Pd, 99.95 %
3. Zone-refined single-crystal rod
Slide4 Open Calorimeter
Slide5 Reaction Cell
Slide6 Calibration of Calorimeter
Applied Power & Residual Power vs Seebeck voltage
Slide7 Calibration of Recombiner
Slide8 Example of Measurements
Excess Power and Recombiner Temperature vs Time
Slide9 Data Treatment
Calculation of Fraction of Hydrogen Reacted
Calculation of H/Pd Atom Ratio
Slide10 Example of Relationship Between Fraction Reacted and H/Pd Ratio
Fraction Reacted with Pd & Average Pd Atom Ratio vs Time
Slide11 Comparison Between Other Measurements of Average Pd Atom Ratio
Recombiner Temperature, Orphaned Oxygen & Weight Gain vs Time
Slide12 Measurement of Enthalpy of Formation
Slide13 Enthalpy of Formation
Slide14 Comparison Between Data Sets and Published Values
Enthalpy of Formation vs H/Pd
Slide15 Effect of repeated loading and deloading using 99.9% Pd
Enthalpy of Formation vs H/Pd
Slide16 Effect of treatment on bond energy
Partial Enthalpy of Formation vs H/Pd
Slide17 Example of the Effect of Treatment
Enthalpy of Formation vs H/Pd
Slide18 Bond Energy vs Average H/Pd Ratio
Partial Enthalpy of Formation vs H/Pd
Slide19 Resistance Ratio for pdhx
Resistance Ration vs Atomic Ratio
Slide20 Addition of hydrogen to β-pdh above about pdh0.75 produces increased nonbonding between Pd and H as the added electrons enter the conduction band rather than bonding orbits.
• Measurement of recombiner temperature allows H/Pd ratio and bond energy to be determined.
• Behavior of H/Pd vs time provides important information about the loading mechanisms.
• Behavior of bond energy gives information about how the LENR mechanism might function.
• The stability of alpha-pdh is very sensitive to purity and treatment.
• The stability of beta-pdh becomes increasingly negative at H/Pd ratios above about 0.75.
• The composition of the alpha and beta phases at their phase boundaries is sensitive to purity and treatment.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

WordPress Anti Spam by WP-SpamShield