1979
DOI: 10.1524/zpch.1979.115.2.247
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Study of Hydrogen Diffusion in Titanium Hydride using Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Techniques*

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
3
0

Year Published

1981
1981
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
3
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The absolute values, however, are 10%-15% lower than the results obtained in the modelindependent PFG measurements. This is consistent with previous reports [14,18] [19]. The increase in H a with decreasing x is in accordance with the present and with previous NMR studies but, as pointed out by the authors [19], the QNS result for x 2.50 can only be considered as a gross approximation as the corresponding linewidth broadening is almost 2 orders of magnitude smaller than the instrument resolution.…”
supporting
confidence: 94%
“…The absolute values, however, are 10%-15% lower than the results obtained in the modelindependent PFG measurements. This is consistent with previous reports [14,18] [19]. The increase in H a with decreasing x is in accordance with the present and with previous NMR studies but, as pointed out by the authors [19], the QNS result for x 2.50 can only be considered as a gross approximation as the corresponding linewidth broadening is almost 2 orders of magnitude smaller than the instrument resolution.…”
supporting
confidence: 94%
“…Further calculations may be summarized by estimating an averaged energy barrier of 0.5 and 0.75 eV at the surface and in bulk, respectively. This compares well with the experimental values of the bulk hydrogen diffusion in TiH 2 : Bustard et al report energy barriers of 0.53 eV in TiH ≃1.7 . This corroborates the relatively high mobility of hydrogen in Ti; the numbers may be compared to hydrogen diffusion in V (Δ E diff = 0.045 eV), Ni (Δ E diff = 0.40 eV), and in Mg (Δ E diff = 0.24 eV) and MgH 2 (Δ E diff ≃1 eV) .…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…This compares well with the experimental values of the bulk hydrogen diffusion in TiH 2 : Bustard et al report energy barriers of 0.53 eV in TiH ≃1.7 . 62 This corroborates the relatively high mobility of hydrogen in Ti; the numbers may be compared to hydrogen diffusion in V (ΔE diff = 0.045 eV), 63 Ni (ΔE diff = 0.40 eV), 63 and in Mg (ΔE diff = 0.24 eV) 64 and MgH 2 (ΔE diff ≃1 eV). 65 The case of Mg is particularly illustrative, as hydrogen diffusion in Mg is relatively fast, while long-range diffusion in MgH 2 can be considered as nonexistent.…”
Section: Methods To Determine Surface Hydrogen Content By Reflecting ...supporting
confidence: 69%
“…The values from Eq. (23)(24)(25) (also listed in Table I) are shown by the three square marks for tb, t~, and tL, respectively; whereas, the hydrogen concentration was estimated from the associated time value and the current, assuming 100% coulombic efficiency.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%