STM-D-0399Paper2005Published and peer-reviewed

Comments on “Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrodes prepared by co-deposition”

Kirk L. Shanahan

Abstract and summary · read the original at the source

In one page

Kirk Shanahan, a chemist at the Savannah River National Laboratory, wrote this short paper in Thermochimica Acta as a comment on the co-deposition experiment of Szpak, Mosier-Boss, Miles and Fleischmann, which reported excess heat from a palladium and deuterium electrode. Szpak’s team had set recombination aside: the gas volumes they collected matched the Faradaic prediction to better than one per cent, and Fleischmann and Pons had calculated that a recombination hot spot would carry about six nanowatts, too little for an infrared camera to see. Shanahan’s reply is that this answers a different reaction. He is not proposing electrochemical oxygen reduction; he is proposing ordinary burning of entrained deuterium and oxygen in bubbles at the electrode, below the liquid surface, and he works out that a single millimetre bubble of a stoichiometric mix releases about three and a half millijoules — milliwatts, not nanowatts. He then shows how a calorimeter with two regions of different heat-capture efficiency shifts its calibration constant when heat moves between them, with no new heat source involved.

Why it matters hereChapter 12 follows lattice confinement fusion and the calorimetry every claim in it rests on, and chapter 1 is the evidence ladder. This exchange is the ladder working: it names the exact measurements — the calorimeter’s true noise level, and a replicated heat-after-death run — that would decide between a chemical and a nuclear reading of the same data.

What it claims

01The references Szpak and colleagues cite against recombination deal with electrochemical oxygen reduction mediated by dissolved oxygen, a reaction Shanahan agrees is not significant here; what he proposes instead is the simple burning of hydrogen and oxygen to form water at the electrodes, below the electrolyte surface, in entrained bubbles — a process needing only fuel, oxidiser and an ignition source, with no electrochemistry involved.Section 2.1, SMMF’s objection to recombination
Published and peer-reviewed
02A bubble one millimetre across at 350 K holds 1.82 × 10⁻⁸ moles of gas; at an optimum two-to-one hydrogen–oxygen mix and the 285.8 kilojoule per mole heat of formation of water, one bubble releases about 0.00347 joules — milliwatts per bubble rather than nanowatts — so 100 to 300 bubbles give 0.35 to 1.05 joules, and the count of short-lived hot spots per infrared video frame in the Szpak group’s own photographs runs from zero to a few thousand, which Shanahan reads as consistent with that arithmetic.Section 2.1, bubble calculation and hot-spot count
Published and peer-reviewed
03Modelling the calorimeter as two regions rather than one — heat capture efficiency 99.9 percent in the first and 90 percent in the second, with the input power split evenly between them at calibration — shows that moving the split to 75 and 25 percent changes the calibration constant while adding no heat source at all; the apparent excess power then follows directly from the ratio of the calibration and shifted constants, and Shanahan’s earlier reanalysis of closed-cell data from Storms found that a calibration-constant variation of plus or minus 2.5 percent accounted for apparent excess up to about 0.8 watts.Section 2.2, Model of a heterogeneous calorimeter/closed cell
Published and peer-reviewed
04In the reported open-cell run all three Joule-heater pulses register as peaks in the excess-enthalpy curve, and since a Joule heater cannot produce the Fleischmann–Pons–Hawkins effect Shanahan reads those peaks as a calibration response; he adds that the measured heavy-water consumption of 7.7 cubic centimetres against a computed 7.2 is a 6.5 percent deviation, and that the excess rather than deficit of collected water points to entrainment of electrolyte droplets in the gas stream.Section 2.3, The open cell case
Published and peer-reviewed
05Taking the applied current together with the thermoneutral voltage puts the thermal energy available from recombination at about 1.54 times the current in amperes; at the 0.3 amperes sustained for an appreciable time that is about 0.5 watts, against the reported average apparent excess of about 0.27 watts — so on Shanahan’s own accounting the recombination extent needed would be at most about 50 percent, and probably much less.Section 2.3, thermoneutral-voltage estimate
Published and peer-reviewed
06What Shanahan says the field should do next: determine the calorimeter’s true noise level rather than its baseline fluctuation, since uncontrolled steady-state shifts add a non-random noise component; replicate the positive-feedback and heat-after-death observations, which so far are single examples; and characterise the cathode surface state with modern surface science, for which platinum electrodes are the more promising route because platinum forms no hydride and so removes bulk loading from the question.Section 2.4 and Section 3, Conclusions
What to watch

Read it · abstract

Abstract

Szpak et al. have published a report [S. Szpak, P.A. Mosier-Boss, M.H. Miles, M. Fleischmann, Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrodes prepared by co-deposition, Thermochim. Acta 410 (2004) 101] that attempts to present more evidence for the nuclear nature of the Fleischmann–Pons (–Hawkins) effect, and in that process attempt to reject recombination as the alternative cause of their observations. Unfortunately, they have misunderstood the at-the-electrode, under-the-surface recombination issue. This paper presents the basics of this model, including what physical conditions could produce a calibration constant shift and what might cause those conditions to arise. The new evidences are discussed and it is shown that the possibility of at-the-electrode recombination cannot be eliminated; in fact prior photographic evidence is shown to be reasonable evidence of this phenomenon. Thus in the absence of definitive data, the conclusion that apparent excess heat arises from a nuclear cause is premature.

The way in

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tca.2004.11.007Thermochimica Acta 428 (2005) 207–212, received 14 September 2004, available online 15 December 2004. The paper carries the line ‘© 2004 WSKC. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.’, so no open licence applies and only the abstract is reproduced here. A Zenodo deposit of the article at record 1259383 is labelled CC0; that label is a deposit artefact rather than a statement by the author or the publisher, and this sheet does not rely on it. The paper this one comments on — Szpak, Mosier-Boss, Miles and Fleischmann, ‘Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrodes prepared by co-deposition’, Thermochimica Acta 410 (2004) 101, doi 10.1016/s0040-6031(03)00401-5 — is sheet stm-f6651a4d1a in this library, and the two are read together.

How to cite it

Kirk L. Shanahan (2005) Comments on “Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrodes prepared by co-deposition”. doi:10.1016/j.tca.2004.11.007

Where it sits in the curriculum

The evidence ladder Lattice confinement fusion