Does Recent Graphene Passes Proton Discovery Validate LENR? (James Octavo)

The following was submitted by James Octavo

Recent articles in ACS and Phys.org discuss the ability of Graphene to allow protons to pass through an unseemingly barrier of super-dense matter. Doesn’t this violate the Coulomb barrier, the most contentious argument against LENR?

If so, this maybe one of the proofs for LENR, since LENR elements of Nickel and Palladium are supernova elements interacting with hydrogen in their nuclei, fusing to higher mass elements and creating beta decay.

http://cen.acs.org/articles/92/web/2014/12/Protons-Pass-Through-Notoriously-Impermeable.html

  • Gerrit

    No, it doesn’t refer to the coulomb barrier. They are not talking about protons fusing with other protons, they are talking about a proton passing through a single layer of graphene.

  • James O.

    The source article does say the following:

    “Over the past decade, scientists have found that forcing ions or atoms
    through even a single layer of graphene is virtually impossible without
    the help of a particle accelerator. Theorists had predicted that, at
    room temperature, hydrogen could take billions of years to cross a
    graphene monolayer.”
    Those are stunning statements. I think something is going on beyond the explanations given. Although it won’t affect LENR technology, it might expand LENR physics theory. I think neutron virtualization might be happening through electron smearing. Perhaps the hydrino theory or Brilliouin’s controlled electron capture. It might help explain why adding electricity to an LENR device increases output.

  • J Storrs Hall

    No. A proton going through the center of one of the hexagons that make up graphene would actually be further from the carbon nuclei than the bonded hydrogens in a methane or benzene molecule. see http://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.4086.pdf

    • Axil Axil

      Hydrogen forms a two atom molecule. It takes energy to split those to atoms up
      and ionize each of those atoms to form protons. Where does the
      energy come from to split and ionize the hydrogen atoms into protons?

      If we connect the two sides of the graphite sheet together with a wire to form a
      circuit, a current will flow to rebuild the hydrogen molecule using
      electrons striped from the hydrogen atoms on the other side of the sheet. Where does this energy that is driving the current flow through the wire come from?

      • J Storrs Hall

        A catalyst, typically platinum, is used to break up the hydrogen, not just into separate atoms, but into separate protons and electrons. The membrane, be it the polymer ones used in current fuel cells or graphene, acts only as a proton strainer. The other side is supplied with oxygen, which combines with the protons to form water. In the process the new molecules have to grab a couple of electrons from the electrode on that side. It’s the oxidation that provides the energy to make the whole process go.

        BTW it’s the platinum catalyst that makes fuel cells expensive, not the PEM.

        http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fc_pics/fuel_cell_still.gif

  • Julian Becker

    http://www.nzz.ch/wissenschaft/physik/wird-die-kalte-fusion-wieder-salonfaehig-1.18436786

    A fairly neutral and quite informative (for the general public) article on the latest developments regarding LENR. Neue Züricher Zeitung is, as far as I know, the most read newspaper in the German speaking part of Switzerland.

  • Billy Jackson

    From a pure science point of view you are absolutely correct. Unfortuantely Rossi faces more than just pure science. Political Motivations and Greed has been proven to have helped suppress cold fusion once already. This is an issue of trust, Frankly i dont blame Rossi for not trusting the established community, or attempting to work with him. They have repeatedly attacked his work without the slightly research into what he’s doing.. just plain politics.. Do you blame him for not wanting to give these leeches the keys to his new Lamborghini?

    That being said something has to give.. and i think it has to be the patent office. a patent on the e-cat hurts no one, we can even make it provisional in that a working device must be presented within x amount of time. but this no patent no protection and no cold fusion from the patent office will keep this wedge firmly in place between rossi and the community.

    hes just flat out not going to give you the secret sauce so they can go do this without him.

  • Billy Jackson

    I am unsure how its backwards in respect to the way Rossi has been treated by the science community. You only have to go back far enough to see the scorn and doubt, out right accusations of fraud and scam or crook have been thrown at Rossi. At every turn they have twisted or demanded proof while dismissing any evidence that proves the slightest possibility that something may be going on here with the e-cat.

    lets set aside the character assassinations that have been attempted on Rossi. you know the ones that constantly say he’s a criminal and has been prosecuted for dumping toxic waste? Or that he ripped off the government by selling devices that don’t work?

    Lets talk about the science.

    With now 2 different reports to draw from both showing substantial energy gains you still have people screaming fraud, and scam. at every turn despite pictures, charts, readings, attestations from accredited scientists from multiple universities they still refuse to accept that something is going on at the nuclear level. yet no chemical substance exists to our knowledge that will provide a steady output of energy for the given volume and run time without decreasing in strength over time till its exhausts its source.

    If we were going to argue anything.. this last part is the only thing that makes sense to discuss. none of the rest matter but as a way to distract from that last sentence.. its not chemical! its put out more than it took in. The theory behind it. the precise make up of the fuel, Rossi’s past mistakes, failures, or disagreeable characteristics matter not one bit when the story is the energy output.

    Take the story of Edison’s light-bulb and how he created 1000 before he found one that worked.. should we hold it against him that he FAILED 999 times before? How many times did the guy that made McDonald’s fail? Your past failures do not impact your future successes as anything more than lessons to be learned.

    Rossi and those that come before him on Cold Fusion or LENR owe the scientific community nothing due to the condemnation of even having the audacity to try. If anything the scientific community should be going out of its way to assure Rossi that its wants to help.. yet read the comments from some of the skeptics and you see by far they are still ready to hang him for his work.