Researchers find water doped graphite flakes exhibit superconductive properties at high temperature

Sep 19, 2012 by Bob Yirka report
Magnetization field hysteresis loops at 300K. Image from DOI: 10.1002/adma.201202219

(Phys.org)—Researchers from the University of Leipzig have found that doping very small flakes of graphite with water, then allowing it to dry, results in a material that behaves very much like a superconductor. The team, led by Pablo Esquinazi have written a paper describing their process and results and have had it published in the peer review journal Advanced Materials. If their findings prove sound, the discovery would almost certainly revolutionize the electronics industry.

A superconductor is a material that conducts electricity without resistance, which means no loss of energy; researchers have been searching for such a material that operates at (many materials are at very ) for a number of years without success. Much of the recent research in this area has focused on carbon atom based substances such as graphene, and graphite because of their unique lattice structures, but thus far, no one has been able to figure out a way to use any of them to produce a material that superconducts at room temperature.

In this new research, the team built on previous research that showed that graphite becomes superconductive at very low temperatures when doped with various substances. They wondered if a material could be produced that would be superconductive at higher temperatures if they could find the right . For simplicity's sake, they started with plain water.

They soaked a graphite powder (made up of tiny flakes) in water for just under a day, then filtered out the powder and let it dry in a 100 °C oven, then placed it in a magnetized field, then withdrew it. They found the material remained magnetized, which suggested it was a superconductor. To rule out the possibility that it was simply ferromagnetic, they ran several runs using different levels of magnetism and temperature and found that when plotting out the results, they resembled those for a superconductor. The next obvious step would be to put the powder together and run a charge through it to see if it conducted without resistance, but all of their efforts to do so caused a change in the material resulting in the loss of the superconductivity property, which means of course, that no one knows if the stuff is truly a superconductor that works at room temperature.

The team believes that what happens is electrons form in high concentrations where the flakes interface, and that adding water somehow causes them to bond. The resulting material, if truly superconductive would be so only on its surface, which would mean rethinking how electricity might be transmitted using such a material. In any case, the work will be thoroughly scrutinized through a peer review process and if other's find the same properties, new research will be done to see if a way might be found to string the flakes together to create a wire of some sort that might be tested to see if what the German team found, really is a room temperature superconductive material.

Explore further: The risks of blowing your own trumpet too soon on research

More information: Can Doping Graphite Trigger Room Temperature Superconductivity? Evidence for Granular High-Temperature Superconductivity in Water-Treated Graphite Powder, T. Scheike, W. Böhlmann, P. Esquinazi, J. Barzola-Quiquia, A. Ballestar, A. Setzer, Article first published online: 5 SEP 2012. DOI: 10.1002/adma.201202219 . ArXiv pre-print

Abstract
Granular superconductivity in powders of small graphite grains (several tens of micrometers) is demonstrated after treatment with pure water. The temperature, magnetic field and time dependence of the magnetic moment of the treated graphite powder provides evidence for the existence of superconducting vortices with some similarities to high-temperature granular superconducting oxides but even at temperatures above 300 K. Room temperature superconductivity in doped graphite or at its interfaces appears to be possible.

Related Stories

Superconductivity's third side unmasked

Jun 17, 2011

The debate over the mechanism that causes superconductivity in a class of materials called the pnictides has been settled by a research team from Japan and China. Superconductivity was discovered in the pnictides ...

New property in warm superconductors discovered

Nov 17, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Led by Simon Fraser University physicist Jeff Sonier, scientists at TRIUMF have discovered something that they think may severely hinder the creation of room-temperature (37 degrees Celsius) superconductors.

Superconductor 'flaws' could be key to its abilities

Aug 23, 2012

(Phys.org)—Many researchers studying superconductivity strive to create a clean, pure, perfect sample, but a team of physicists found that some flaws might hold the key to a material's unique abilities.

Recommended for you

Scientists demonstrate Stokes drift principle

1 hour ago

In nature, waves – such as those in the ocean – begin as local oscillations in the water that spread out, ripple fashion, from their point of origin. But fans of Star Trek will recall a different sort of wave pattern: ...

Entanglement made tangible

20 hours ago

EPFL scientists have designed a first-ever experiment for demonstrating quantum entanglement in the macroscopic realm. Unlike other such proposals, the experiment is relatively easy to set up and run with existing semiconductor ...

User comments : 32

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

axemaster
5 / 5 (8) Sep 19, 2012
Ha! Things are so often discovered by accident. It will be hilarious if after so much work the superconductor field gets blown open like this!
VendicarD
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 19, 2012
Sadly, the Natello's of this world are growing in number as the science of reality fails to realize the non-science of science fiction.

As a fan of science fiction, who has been trained in science, I know the difference. Sadly others do not.

Perhaps if water saturated graphite is a superconductor, then hydrogen saturated nickle can be a fusion reactor, and mice can be pan-dimensional super-beings controlling the earth.

No doubt there is a conspiracy in there somewhere.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (9) Sep 19, 2012
Things are so often discovered by accident. It will be hilarious if after so much work the superconductor field gets blown open like this

Agreed. It would be beyond awesome.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves and wait on what a peer review turns up. It still may be an entirely different effect (which would still be interesting).
Until actual current is passed through some substance with zero resistance at room temperature I'm not opening any champagne bottles.

Sadly, the Natello's of this world are growing in number as the science of reality fails to realize the non-science of science fiction.

It's sad - but then again: from the POV of scientific (and human) pogress the natellos of this world don't matter. So: Meh.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (12) Sep 19, 2012
Some things are quite easy to predict...

OK, if it's easy why not do this: Just give us a definite date by when the first cold fusion device will be up for general sale, installed, and providing power in a manner for anyone to see (just add a few years to your best estimate to be on the safe side).

We'll make an official note of it (heck, I'll learn HTML and put up a webpage with a countdown if you want)

After that you'll STFU about cold fusion on this site until that date. If your predictions comes true I (and anyone who cares to join me in this) will apologize to you. If it doesn't you'll apologize to me (and anyone else who cares to join in). Deal?

Everyone wins.
taka
1 / 5 (10) Sep 19, 2012
Something that is not there cannot be a topant and all water is gone after such drying. But water obviously left behind something really fragile. That something is probably electrical charge, evaporating water is known to take some charge with it. Charged grains levitate and lost direct contact with each other as identical charges push. So, electrons cannot be conducted normally and material become isolator. But grains are really close to each other, so electrons can tunnel. Tunneling electrons are superconducting, there is nothing that can take energy from them. Also, electrons do not go throw grains as charge is pushed out of them as electron cloud. So, the material can superconduct until it do not lose its internal charge, and that will happen immediately if external current is connected. Electrons pairing is not needed. Replace charge with some less fragile isolator and use single atoms instead of grains and you get it, material that superconduct in room temperature.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (21) Sep 19, 2012
As a fan of science fiction, who has been trained in science, I know the difference. Sadly others do not.

Perhaps if water saturated graphite is a superconductor, then hydrogen saturated nickle can be a fusion reactor, and mice can be pan-dimensional super-beings controlling the earth.
Dude you are getting way too old way too fast. They said these same things about Clarkes comsats. They said similar things about bussards ramjets and dysons spheres (no they didn't.) they said the same sorts of things about whatever tesla was working on that was suppressed by Imperial Machinators concerned with the Greater Good.

Not everything Good is right you know. And vice versa.
taka
1 / 5 (14) Sep 19, 2012
I cannot understand why the cold fusion is so hard to believe. Physically it is absolutely possible. High temperature is not needed for fusion, only the speed or pressure is needed and there can be menu ways how single atom can be accelerated fast enough or pressed hard enough.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (21) Sep 19, 2012
Just give us a definite date by when the first cold fusion device will be up for general sale
-Why ask gigalo/juggalo/alizee? Try home depot - maybe they know.

"Andrea Rossi
January 4th, 2012 at 2:53 AM
Dear Wolf:
We are in contact with Home Depot for the distribution of the E-Cat, but until the certification procedures are not completed the deal can't be struck. This is a work in progress, not a work done.
Yes, the refill will be very, very simple and we will give preference to the assistance made directly by the already trusted installer or contractor of the Customer, so that he also will become a point of force for us.
Warm Regards,
A.R."
ScooterG
1.2 / 5 (17) Sep 19, 2012
Ha! The science community is an interesting bunch. Scientists are driven to know what, when, where, and why. They are driven to know the exact cost/benefit. They just gotta' know everything, 100% FOR SURE before any theory is believed or a product produced.

Except, of course, when it comes to AWG. With the (mistaken) belief that AWG remedies will be funded with someone else's money, many in the "scientific" world are ready to simply throw money at it (AWG).
ScooterG
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 19, 2012
Except, of course, when it comes to AWG
Do you mean the Antropogenic Global Warming? It's the same story and we aren't even required to blame the "fossil fuel lobby" for it. The "fossil fuel lobby" has no reason to prohibit the biofuels or solar cells less than the cold fusion. But it's the physicists seeking for job places, who are boycotting the cold fusion on behalf of biofuel, solar plant and lithium cells research. The fossil fuel lobby actually doesn't prohibit it at all.


Yes, I meant AGW - thank you.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Sep 19, 2012
They just gotta' know everything, 100% FOR SURE before any theory is believed or a product produced.

Making stuff up about scientists doesn't make it so.
There are standards for scientific work in different fields (expressed in alpha values denoting statistical significance)
If those are met (reproducibly) then something is considered a good theory. If not then not.

This applies to theoretical physics as much as to psychology and meteorology.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Sep 19, 2012
If they're not attempted to replicate in peer-review press

I'm not sure you understand the difference between doing scientific work and peer review.

Let me rephrase that: From your statement I KNOW you do not understand the concepts behind science and what peer review even is.

Please look it up. Google is your friend.

axemaster
5 / 5 (7) Sep 19, 2012
I can't quite understand why people continue to believe that cold fusion will happen. I know some physicists who were working in prominent labs when the whole thing started. They tried hard to replicate the effect because they understood perfectly well what it would mean if it were possible. They failed.

The scientific community is "closed minded" about cold fusion precisely because it just plain doesn't work. And they certainly aren't going to revisit it when they're constantly being bombarded with obnoxious emails and phone calls about it. Give it a rest already.

EDIT: I would also point out that it's fairly common for undergraduate students going into their first lab research to try and do cold fusion. Believe it or not, most physics professors are actually very tolerant of this sort of thing and even provide the students with resources. And still, cold fusion has not been credibly discovered (because it doesn't exist).
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (14) Sep 19, 2012
The scientific community is "closed minded" about cold fusion precisely because it just plain doesn't work

LOL... Who ever attempted to replicate this observation or this one? They're forty and twenty years old already! Or for example this experiment - a quite apparent evidence of fusion reaction, visible at the thermocamera (video). No one?!? Sorry, the physicists should be punished for it with lost of social credit as a whole group. They're incompetent up to level, they even cannot recognize their icompetence - it's just incompetence squared.
pauljpease
4.3 / 5 (8) Sep 19, 2012
Ha! The science community is an interesting bunch. Scientists are driven to know what, when, where, and why. They are driven to know the exact cost/benefit. They just gotta' know everything, 100% FOR SURE before any theory is believed or a product produced.

Except, of course, when it comes to AWG. With the (mistaken) belief that AWG remedies will be funded with someone else's money, many in the "scientific" world are ready to simply throw money at it (AWG).


AWG can never be proven, just like evolution can never be proven. Yet, humans (and all the fossils leading up to humans) are here, and the climate is warming. Go figure. And you're totally wrong about the scientific process. No scientist believes anything is 100% proven. But we know why a certain theory is the best theory proposed so far, and why other theories are wrong.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (13) Sep 19, 2012
It's symptomatic, even the findings, which were peer-reviewed and publicized widely in popular journals were never replicated and extrapolated in any other lab and published in peer-reviewed press. They simply remained a taboo for all other physical labs. Whereas the finding of for example graphene was repeated in hundreds of labs across the whole world immediately. Why is it so? It's evident, we got into problem with the community of physicists as a whole. These trolls are in quiet opposition (if not hidden war) with the whole rest of human society - despite they realize it openly or not. They will not touch the cold fusion research at any price.
Urgelt
5 / 5 (10) Sep 19, 2012
Y'know, it would be a nice step forward if all of the commenters bothered to learn what the scientific method is and how to use it before they mouth off about their fringe convictions.

Their reasoning goes from "I like this idea" to "It must be true and scientists must be horribly wrong." Then they cherry-pick evidence that supports their opinion, or, worse, they make wholly imaginary shit up. That is not the scientific method at work. Their opinions carry no more weight than a toddler who believes in the Easter Bunny, and like that toddler, they can't understand why scientists don't lend weight to what they think. Must be a conspiracy, eh?

The fringe is inhabited almost entirely by immature, disordered, dysfunctional minds incapable of reasoning from evidence.

That so many of them are out there says bad things about the efficacy of our educational and mental health systems.
Parsec
not rated yet Sep 19, 2012
As a fan of science fiction, who has been trained in science, I know the difference. Sadly others do not.

Perhaps if water saturated graphite is a superconductor, then hydrogen saturated nickle can be a fusion reactor, and mice can be pan-dimensional super-beings controlling the earth.
Dude you are getting way too old way too fast. They said these same things about Clarkes comsats. They said similar things about bussards ramjets and dysons spheres (no they didn't.) they said the same sorts of things about whatever tesla was working on that was suppressed by Imperial Machinators concerned with the Greater Good.

Not everything Good is right you know. And vice versa.

It is true that science fiction often becomes science reality. However the examples you suggest are technological advances. No one has demonstrated room-tempature superconductivity is scientifically impossible, so its demonstration would also be a technological advance.
bluehigh
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 19, 2012
Experimental results without any math or theory required. Wow. Good to know experimentalists are still providing the foundations for science.

and mice can be pan-dimensional super-beings controlling the earth.
- Vendi

Perhaps you could ask a few mice how to make a room temp supercondutor? Although you might need a Babel fish or two.

Read my brainwaves ... what other dopants have been tried?
VendicarD
5 / 5 (3) Sep 20, 2012
I find it scornful that all of the worlds scientists aren't out in the forest looking for bigfoot, and the origin of crop circles.

A few of them might even get rectally probed which would probably be the highlight of their career.

"So, we have room superconductivity finding at surface of diamond (1) - never attempted to replicate. We have negative or zero resistance of carbon fibers (2) - never attempted to replicate. We have the room superconductivity finding for copper oxides (3) - never attempted to replicate." - Natella

VendicarD
5 / 5 (3) Sep 20, 2012
How dare you write the truth. How dare you.

"The fringe is inhabited almost entirely by immature, disordered, dysfunctional minds incapable of reasoning from evidence." - Urgelt

Filthy Pagan.

They reject your realism and substitute our ideologically based fantasy because it is what feels good to them, and if feelings aren't reality then who want's reality?

VendicarD
5 / 5 (2) Sep 20, 2012
This video is even better. Skip to the end.

http://www.youtub...ure=fvsr

Why aren't scientists flocking to this person and proving his device is real?

"a quite apparent evidence of fusion reaction, visible at the thermocamera (video)." - ValeriaT
VendicarD
5 / 5 (2) Sep 20, 2012
Here is a nice old coot with his version of Cold Fusion.

http://www.youtub...=related

I'm sure it works. It looks convincing to me.

This cold fusion engine only seems to work for Alzheimers patients.

http://www.youtub...=related

VendicarD
5 / 5 (1) Sep 20, 2012
This model of the PerpetualMobile in 3D graphics and corresponds to the Zodiac sign Capricorn .

http://www.youtub...=related
VendicarD
5 / 5 (3) Sep 20, 2012
After seeing this cold fusion proof, I am investing heavily in soup ladle futures.

http://www.youtub...=related
h20dr
2 / 5 (4) Sep 20, 2012
They need to form it and then freeze dry it. Then it will work. I have been using it in my hover car for awhile now. Send me $199.00. And I will send you the plans. I 'borrowed' them from Warehouse 13.
yoatmon
1 / 5 (1) Sep 20, 2012
They will not touch the cold fusion research at any price.

I wouldn't either. There are simpler and easier ways to make a fool of oneself than to try to replicate "cold fusion". Personally, I hate to waste my precious time on B. S.

axemaster
5 / 5 (1) Sep 20, 2012
The remark about negative resistance of carbon fibers was downoted here with people like...

I would point out that negative resistances are not uncommon in nature. An excellent example is an electrical arc - the current grows in a self reinforcing loop once established because the cross sectional area and ionization of the conductive channel continually grow. In fact, it will grow to infinity unless limited by an external resistance. However, this doesn't create free energy or anything like that.

I find it especially galling that people are still trying to build free energy generators using magnets and gravity ramps. First of all, magnetic fields do no work! Second, gravity is a conservative force, meaning that ANY path starting and ending in the same place will do no work (because there is no displacement). It doesn't matter how you set up your apparatus - these are absolute facts in any reference frame smaller than the radius of the universe!
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Sep 20, 2012
I find it especially galling that people are still trying to build free energy generators using magnets and gravity ramps.

it is sort of sad to see - because the understanding of physics to realize that the effort is futile is rather basic. High-school physics should suffice, easily.

What I find galling is people who fall for this claptrap and buy these 'free energy generators'.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (9) Sep 20, 2012
However, this doesn't create free energy or anything like that.
Only at the case of negative DIFFERENTIAL resistance, but the finding of Wang doesn't appear to be such a case. And the connection of material with negative resistance with material with positive resistance generates a material with zero resistance, i.e. the superconductor. The possibility of violation of thermodynamics was proven both theoretically, both experimentally. Your anonymous opinion holds water, until it's not published in standard way.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (9) Sep 24, 2012
Ha! Things are so often discovered by accident. It will be hilarious if after so much work the superconductor field gets blown open like this!


I have been trying to patent this for the last eight years but the moronic patent examiners kept on rejecting by claiming that "this is not how superconduction occurs". Neither do they allow me to explain how SC actually works, since this is "patenting a theory".

I have already demonstrated SC at room temperature, vertically to the surface of diamond 10 years ago. I can now also modify carbonaceous materials to superconduct at room temperature parallel to the surface.

We could already have had superconducting electron devices more than 5 years ago if theoretical physics has not been under the control of Orwellian swine!

the BCS model is just plain wrong. Cooper's initial should be removed to really know what this model is all about.

I hope that in future I can sue the moronic patent examiners for billions of dollars.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (9) Sep 24, 2012
"this is not how superconduction occurs".
You shouldn't patent your opinion, how the superconductivity works, but the "superconducting device based on diamond layer", working at "elevated temperatures" - and everything would be OK.

That is what I have been trying to do: One of the devices is a transistor that generates no heat within the gate-region. Although they admit that this is a novel concept, they reject it since it is "impossible" that my device can work since superconduction does not work this way. If I then tell them why superconduction works this way, they reject it on the grounds that I am trying to patent a theory. The damage that the BCS-model has done to physics is incredibly immense. Also in this case it is stupidly believed that two electrons are bonded by the "exchange" of a boson: What utter BS.

It just shows you how naive you are to think that "then everything will be OK". This is NOT how a world controlled by Orwellian swine functions.