Embarrassingly I had only read the first paragraph and did not realize that Thermacore used a much more simple and direct method to measure excess heat than I assumed. I had thought the heater was only used to heat the solution when in fact it was also used to create a heat calibration curve for the solutions.
First it is not the "calibration curve for the solutions" but of the entire unit as a system. As that is what is losing the heat and resulting in the equilibrium temperatures obtained for a given input power.
How did you think they heated the unit for that calibration data?
Also what they show is not a curve, as noted before, or even data of such a curve, but apparently just two data points from which they extrapolate, linearly. Again this depends on the unit as a whole which includes the insulating material. A look at the spec sheet for the stated insulation may show a greater dependence on the applied temperature. Unfortunately they only give a general product name and not a specific item name.
You mean specifically different thermal properties upon the addition of high pressure H2 gas to nickel tubes through which diffused very small amounts of hydrogen to the sodium carbonate solution. Yes possibly H2 gas dissolved in the control sodium carbonate solution raised its specific heat a small amount, so it could retain more heat, thereby releasing less heat, causing a small temperature rise.
Nope I mean "specifically different thermal properties" of the units as a whole. A separate duplicate unit was created for the sodium solution run.
Please, read more and assume less.
Agree with the equilibrium process. The differential heat loss of the potassium carbonate solution vs the sodium carbonate solution is already controlled for by the heater calibration. The magic happens when relatively small amounts of pressurized hydrogen gas is added inside the thin nickel tubing.
I'm glad you agree with well established thermodynamics.
Nope, differences in the temperature profiles of the two units are obvious right at the start and long before the hydrogen is pressurized. In fact during the time leading up to that pressurization the gas coil is noted to be open to the atmosphere.
Again, please, read more and assume less.
While the temperature profile drops significantly for the potassium unit when the pressure is released. It remains relatively stable at an elevated temperature for sometime after. Indicating a potential change in thermodynamic properties of the unit.
One difference is that there is no voltage, unless you hypothesize a voltage is formed between the inside of the nickel tube and the outside. And then you would have to ultimately deduce a conventional chemical process involving hydrogen, hydroxides, nickel and sodium or potassium, ultimately showing enough low energy product to account for the large energy release. It's been tried, but be my guest.
Actually nickel was regularly used as a hot cathode in vacuum tubes. Heat it up and it tends to shed electrons. Give it a source of additional electrons and it will just keep shedding. Polarization would tend to be between where the nickel gets heated most (sheds more electrons) and where it is cooled the most. So between areas in direct contact or closest vicinity to the heater but not in contact with the solution and areas in contact with the solution but not direct contact or closest vicinity to the heater.
The similarity actually struck me as I was putting some NiMH into a charger. The charging process stores hydrogen ions back into the matrix of the negative electrode. By just feeding hydrogen ions the battery would not need a recharge. Now part of what struck me as the similarities was my miss recalling the outer pressure vessel of the experimental unit as being stainless steel. However, it is in fact nickle, which not only means that it will also shed electrons when heated but will also become infused with hydrogen.
Upon entering the nickel of the coil tubing the hydrogen atoms shed their electrons becoming hydrogen ions. Normally those ions would gain electrons back from the metal on the other surface and recombine to diatomic hydrogen. However, if the tubing is polarized (has an electron deficiency) that may not be the case. Similar to the NiMH battery the ions could then combined with hydroxide ions to form water. Meanwhile water near the electrons freed from the nickle surface of the pressure vessel can combine with nickel oxyhydroxide to form Nickle hydroxide and a hydroxide ion. Electrons would migrate from the coil tubing where gained from the hydrogen infusion to the pressure vessel cathode area(s). The actually energy would come from the maintaining of pressure in the coil tubing.
As this process would depend upon the polarization obtained and any electrical connections between the tubing and the vessel how much energy is or could be transferred would vary from case to case, as those aspects are specifically not controlled or accounted for in the experimental description.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel–metal_hydride_battery
It's no one's responsibility but their's to explain the results and they barely even try. The explanation they do propose, that it is consistent with Mill's theory, is a poor assumption at best. Given that said theory requires all three ionization states of potassium for the numerology of being an integer multiple of 27.2 eV (if I recall correctly). Potassium in the solution would tend to be either the potassium cation or potassium hydroxide. A quick back of the envelope calculation (with all three potassium ionization energies) puts the number of reactions required at about 9.5 E 5 reaction per second. Seeing as the authors didn't even do that nor estimate potassium ion, atom and compound populations of the solution. It is interesting that you evidently seem to expect more from others than these authors.
!
.