Horace Heffner wrote:
>
> At 2:59 PM 11/27/4, Frederick Sparber wrote:
>
> >I would certainly hope that CF/OU reactions across/at an interface
(Double
> >Layer) violates the 2nd law.
>
> Also, a sacrificial anode may avoid the use of
> batteries to drive portable electrolysis, but may also mess up the cathode
> surface with deposits. This is why platinum is normally used for an anode
-
> because it is a metal not tending to disslove when used as an anode.
>
Why would Magnesium mess up the cathode any more than Lithium or Potassium,
both of which can form intermetallic compounds with the Palladium surface?
You might study up on this with "Hansen's Constitution of Binary Alloys".
>
> Another perspective on this might be the use of a sacrificial anode to
> perpetually seal D2 into a cathode once it is loaded. It would have the
> dual roles of depositing a sealing metal plus maintaining a bias, and thus
> would need to have only a nominal drain on the anode. The anode of choice
> would then produce slightly less than but almost exactly the potential
> required to evolve hydrogen.
Yes. That is why I posted this Electromotive Series Table. Titanium should
be around
minus 1.45 volts if I recall correctly. Is that part of why Nickel and
Titanium are interesting
cathode materials?
Frederick
Electromotive Series of Metals
Metal on Formed Potential
Lithium Li +2.96
Rubidium Rb +2.93
Potassium K +2.92
Strontium Sr +2.92
Barium Ba +2.90
Calcium Ca +2.87
Sodium Na +2.71
Magnesium Mg +2.40
Alumunium Al +1.70
Berylium Be +1.69
Manganese Mn +1.10
Zinc Zn +0.76
Chromium Cr +0.56
Iron (ferrous) FE +0.44
Cadmium Cd +0.40
Indium In +0.34
Thallium Tl +0.33
Cobalt Co +0.28
Nickel Ni +0.23
Tin Sn +0.14
Lead Pb +0.12
Iron (ferric) Fe +0.04
Hydrogen H 0.00
Antimony Sb -0.10
Bismuth Bi -0.30
Arsenic As -0.30
Copper (cupric) Cu -0.34
Copper (cuprous) Te -0.56
Tellurium Te -0.56
Silver Ag -0.80
Mercury Hg -0.80
Palladium Pd -0.82
Platinum Pt -0.86
Gold (auric) Au -1.36
Gold (aurous) Au -1.50
>
> Regards,
>
> Horace Heffner
>
