I suspect this is the key. 42% better absorption into the metal matrix. If it's a surface effect, then why would higher absorption into the bulk create more reliable excess heat events & reactions?
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 8:37 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> wrote: > http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/101/12/10.1063/1.467850 > > Direct reaction of gas‐phase atomic hydrogen with chemisorbed hydrogen on > Ru(001) > > T. A. > Jachimowski<http://scitation.aip.org/content/contributor/AU0666706;jsessionid=35ucjlhs7rg8q.x-aip-live-03> > 1 and W. H. > Weinberg<http://scitation.aip.org/content/contributor/AU0332482;jsessionid=35ucjlhs7rg8q.x-aip-live-03> > 1 > [image: +] View Affiliations > J. Chem. Phys. 101, 10997 (1994); http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.467850 > > > The adsorption of gas‐phase atomic hydrogen on the Ru(001) surface results > in a saturation coverage of 1.42 hydrogen adatoms per primitive surface > unit cell, which may be compared with a saturation coverage of one hydrogen > adatom per primitive surface unit cell in the case of dissociative > chemisorption of molecular hydrogen. The observed saturation fractional > coverage of 1.42 results from a steady‐state balance of adsorption of > gas‐phase atomic hydrogen and reaction of gas‐phase hydrogen with > chemisorbed hydrogen adatoms, which produces molecular hydrogen that > desorbs from the surface at a temperature at least 150 K below the > temperature of recombinative desorption of two hydrogen adatoms. The cross > section of this direct reaction of hydrogen was found to be remarkably > large, approximately 40% of the cross section for chemisorption of the > gas‐phase atomic hydrogen. The reaction was found not to depend on surface > temperature nor was there an observable kinetic isotope effect. > © 1994 American Institute of Physics >
