Water calorimetry: A correction to the heat defect calculations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a recent publication, we used a reaction model (model III) to calculate the heat defect for the irradiation of aqueous solutions with ionizing radiation at 21 °C. Subsequent work has revealed that the literature value used for one of the rate constants in the model was incorrect. A revised model (model IIIR) incorporates the correct rate constant for 21 °C. Versions of models III and IIIR were created for irradiations at 4 °C. For our current water calorimetry protocol, the values of the heat defect for H2/O2-water (water saturated with a flow of 43 % H2 and 57 % O2, by volume) at 21 °C predicted by model III and model IIIR are similar but the value for 4 °C predicted by III is 30 % smaller than the value predicted by IIIR. Model IIIR predicts that the values of the heat defect at 21 °C and 4 °C lie within the range -0.023±0.002, in agreement with the values obtained from our water calorimetry measurements done using pure water and H2-saturated water at 21 °C and 4 °C. The yields of hydrogen peroxide in H2/O2-water at 21 °C and 4 °C were measured and agree with the predictions of model IIIR. Our water calorimetry measurements made with pure water and H2-saturated water are now of sufficient quality that they can be used to determine the heat defect for H2/O2-water better than can be done by simulations. However, consistency between the three systems continues to be an excellent check on water purity which is crucial, especially for the pure water system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".