February 18th, 2015

The class of materials corresponding to the definition “protonic conductor” is too divers, as it has indicated many authors of reviews, books etc. Generally speaking, now such diversity seems due to macroscopic properties while charge carrier allegedly has only the form of proton. We understand “macroscopic properties” such ones as those determined in direct experimental procedures. How such multiformity and variety of characterizing parameters correlates with the uniformity of protons as charge carriers? Or maybe such correlation only seems? Are there one or many “bridges” between macroscopic properties and chemical state of protons? I am not, of course, a pioneer exciting such discussions! However, I would like to insert my hydroxides into protonic conductor class! At list I do not want to leave them as orphans in this class. So let us compare!

The protonic conductors on the base of alkaline hydroxide must be accepted for Class of Protonic Conductors as the object for both fundamental and applied researches. It is necessary to underline that hydroxide protonic conductors has given the sample of effective use of isotopic methods. It seems now that hydroxide protonic conductors could be used as primary or secondary batteries of low-drain and small-sized ones at temperature around 200-400 K.
P.S. I tried to avoid the comparison of different families of protonic conductors from the viewpoint of temperature range. It would be awfully interesting to collect such data under the conception on Corresponding States.Fig. 4-1.

Conception of corresponding states for understanding the proton mobility

Fig. 4-1 Conception of corresponding states for understanding the proton mobility

On this figure self-diffusion coefficients of certain protonic conductors are presented vs reduced temperature (but reciprocal) following to conceptions of “corresponding states”. The normalized parameters has been used melting points for three compound in yellow place and the transition for copound in blue point. Let us consider more thoroughly. Unfortunately there is only two remark. First one is coincidence D(H) vs T/T* for NaOH and LiOH. Second one is parallel run jf curves for eutectic and low-temperature phase of KOH.

  1. Nikolai Uvarov
    January 31st, 2012 at 17:13 | #1

    Your use the corresponding states model. In frames of this model it would be useful to to compare the behavior ot proton conduictors of other classes (acids, HT_proton-conductibg oxides) as well as classical ionic crystals like NaCl. Can you do it?

  2. Yury Baykov
    January 31st, 2012 at 17:44 | #2

    Сorresponding states for protonic conductors is, in principle, my oid dream. Yes, of course, i will try do it using the book Иванов -Шиц и Мурин. But there is the problem of choose the normalized parameter. For instance BaCeO3:Y. If take the melting point ~2700 K then 1000K wiill stay near T*/T =3/ Then it maybe place on CsOH.H2O. If take into account acid salts/ It will be also interesting. It is also interesting compare diffusion and conductivity. In my paper there si datd that {fdty is far from unit As to diffusion coefficient in acid salts ……

Comments are closed.