From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Status
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:43:28 GMT

This is the status of our current P&F type experiment.  9 September 1992 

Cell 4A2
Cathode Electrode: 1 cm x 2 cm x 1 mm, Pd ground surface
Anode Electrode: Wound Takahashi style, #30 Pt, 50% coverage, 1 cm by 2 cm
                 both sides.  Anode to cathode spacing, 2.5 mm.
Electrolyte: 30 cc Saturated D2O + LiOD + 3 cc H2O
Charging Profile: 30 ma per sq cm 
Duration: Now charging for 100000+ seconds  
Initial D/Pd ratio: .94
Heater + Cell Power: 10.151
Cell Voltage: Presently aprox 2.8 volts  
Closed Cell:Engelhard Palladium Catalyst D
Temperature: 24 C  Calorimeter shell, Cell temperature aprox. 30 C.

First a correction to try to maintain my credibility.  Yesterday I said:

"In any case, after an hour or so things are pretty much at steady state, and
indicated a heat of absorption of order 66 killojoules per mole D/H
absorbed.  No worse than a 20% measurement now, likely to get to 5% when
I have applied all the corrections I know about."

Looks like I was not thinking too clearly, and the measurement error is worse
than I thought.  This was determined by looking up Roger Dutton's number.

What I measure is the difference between the heat of dis-association of D2O 
into D2 and O2 (endothermic) and the heat of absorption of D2 into the 
Palladium (exothermic - most of the time).  What I was thinking when I said 
20% error was that I measure the difference to no worse than 20%.  I still 
think that is true - actually I thought it was more like 10% and I thought I 
was being conservative.  But a 20% error in the difference translates into a 
much larger (of order 8x) error in the heat of absorption since it is much 
smaller than the heat of dis-association. 

But that is the whole purpose in sending these messages, to help me to think
straight.  Thinking about it, that is one of the purposes of publication, to 
find truth through public display.

In any case, there is a fairly clear indication that the reaction went from 
exothermic to endothermic at high loading.  A number of errors conspire to 
make it a difficult measurement.  Some day I will have to do a big chunk of 
Palladium to get it right.  

For any of you out there doing closed experiments (do you hear SRI?), I 
recommend the Engelhard Palladium Catalyst D.  It seems much more reliable 
than the various types of Platinum catalysts that I have used.  It rarely 
turns off, and works at lower temperature.  It also seem to continue to work 
wet.  If someone out there has a catalog and can look it up, I would 
appreciate a copy of a data sheet.  The stuff I have is on little soft ceramic 
cylinders about 2 mm dia by 2 mm long.  It was given to me by someone at 
Fermilab in a Dixie Cup.  The source - a bag full under someone's desk - has 
disappeared in the clean up precipitated by the Tiger Team.  I would like to 
buy some more as what I have has all been used several times.  I would also 
like to find something similar on a stronger substrate.  The catalyst can get 
very hot and sometimes this destroys the substrate.  It also melts through any 
plastic it is put in. 

Tom Droege

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion