The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor has been found

[HenrySalayne]

2 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

 Well folks there we have it.  Per very credible research from Univ of Beijing, LK99 is NOT an RTSC.  Cross confirmation from an American lab will happen.  Sadly this is the case.  I wish it was not

You should read the article (or at least the title) again. That's NOT what the article says.

The researchers were very careful with their wording and you blatantly ignoring that is disingenuous.

[Uttamattamakin]

4 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

You should read the article (or at least the title) again. That's NOT what the article says.

The researchers were very careful with their wording and you blatantly ignoring that is disingenuous.

I did you can even read the quote in the abstract there where they say outright it's not a superconductor as far as they can tell.

Now like Hosenfelder said it becomes a matter of, well maybe this group didn't synthesize it correctly, and maybe it wasn't pure enough  et cetera et cetera. So far there have been 6 or 7 arXiv postings none of which found positive results. 

[Kamina]

I think it's just a matter of how we synthesize this properly based on reports. Could have just been an accidental synthesize. 

[HenrySalayne]

53 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

I did you can even read the quote in the abstract there where they say outright it's not a superconductor as far as they can tell.

Now like Hosenfelder said it becomes a matter of, well maybe this group didn't synthesize it correctly, and maybe it wasn't pure enough  et cetera et cetera. So far there have been 6 or 7 arXiv postings none of which found positive results. 

The paper clearly states that they found no superconductivity in a LK-99-like sample. The researchers emphasize that they didn't find it in their sample. 

You did not make this distinction and you stated:

8 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Well folks there we have it.  Per very credible research from Univ of Beijing, LK99 is NOT an RTSC. 

 

It's hypocritical to call yourself a sceptic and then just brush over details and jump to conclusion when something comes around supporting your own agenda. This paper does not show LK-99 is not a room-temperature superconductor. It points in the direction, but it's no proof.

 

This topic is only driven by misguided sensationalism for the last few pages. It's time to calm the horses and just wait.

 

LK-99 seems to be a very interesting substance with vastly different characteristics depending on how it was synthesized. It's been two weeks and the scientific community clearly needs more time to understand what exactly is going on. Even if it's not room-temperature superconductivity, I think there is a lot of interesting research ahead of us.

[Uttamattamakin]

3 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

LK-99 seems to be a very interesting substance with vastly different characteristics. It's been two weeks and the scientific community clearly needs more time to understand what exactly is going on. Even if it's not room-temperature superconductivity, I think there is a lot of interesting research ahead of us.

[2308.03544] Absence of superconductivity in LK-99 at ambient conditions (arxiv.org)

 

 

Please don't personalize this.  

So far the results are all negative for this being a superconductor at room temperature or anything like it. 

 

 It is incumbent upon those making the claim to prove it not only one else to disprove it until they prove it the correct scientific attitude to take is to not believe it.  The relevant subject matter trained experts are testing this and so far their findings are that it is not a superconductor at room temperature. 

[Uttamattamakin]

13 minutes ago, Kamina said:

I think it's just a matter of how we synthesize this properly based on reports. Could have just been an accidental synthesize. 

Sure that could be possible but it is up to some one to prove that is the case by synthesizing it and verifying superconductivity.

[LAwLz]

9 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

No scientific skepticism is not being neutral and open minded.   

You are trying to redefine a word. I have already given you several definitions and all of them disagree with you.

Being skeptical means being neutral and open-minded until a consensus based on evidence has been reached. That is what the word means. Now please stop using the word incorrectly and follow one of the several dictionary definitions I linked you.

 

 

9 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

It is about being driven by the evidence.  So far the evidence is neutral to negative on LK99 being anything other than an interesting diamagnetic material.  That is far from proof of being a superconductor at room temp.  Again, that is not my word, that is the word of those who have worked on it and other superconductors. 

Yes, and I completely agree with everything you said in this paragraph. But that is not what you said several times earlier.

I absolutely agree that a skeptic is driven by evidence. That is exactly why I am so against the things you say because you are not driven by evidence. You made up your mind before any evidence was presented. That is not what a skeptic does. 

Let me repeat what I just said so that it really sinks in. You made up your mind about what to believe before any evidence was presented. That is bad. Stop doing that. Please.

Saying something is false until proven true is foolish. It's a logical fallacy. It's not what a skeptic does. A skeptic is neutral and unbiased and then lets evidence decide which side to take. You are doing the opposite. You are letting a lack of facts and evidence decide what to believe in. You are not basing your beliefs and which "side" to take on facts. You are basing that on a lack of evidence and facts.

 

Do you really not understand what issue several others and I have with your posts? I have highlighted it over and over, and right now it feels like you are deliberately ignoring it and instead are getting distracted by something else and rambling on about that. Nobody has said that we shouldn't be driven by evidence. Nobody has said that we shouldn't wait for more evidence to come in. Nobody has said that we should just believe this is true.

What I am saying is that claiming this is false because we don't have any evidence is just as stupid as claiming it is true without any evidence. We need evidence before we can determine if it's true or false. Is that really so hard for you to understand? That we should wait for evidence before making our minds up? That's what I am advocating for.

 

 

Have you ever heard the quote "absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence"? I think that's something you really need to learn.

Right now you are using the absence of evidence as evidence of absence, which is wrong.

 

 

The things you are quoting do not say the things you claim they are saying. They use very careful wording that emphasizes the uncertainty and that more testing needs to be done, and you deliberately ignore all of that because of your confirmation bias, and then just proclaim that the deal is done and finished now, and that consensus has been reached.

 

Let me ask you this, if it is now confirmed that LK-99 isn't a room-temperature superconductor, why even run more experiments? We have already reached the truth, right? Hell, according to you, we shouldn't even have run experiments to begin with because it was obviously false from the get-go before we even tested it.

 

 

And just to clarify because you seem to need a lot of clarification, nobody here, neither me nor anyone else who has disagreed with you, has said that LK-99 is a room-temperature superconductor. What we have said is that we can't say one way or another before experiments have been done and evidence gathered. Even if it turns out that it isn't a room-temperature superconductor does not mean you were right in thinking the way you did. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day, and people can arrive at the right conclusion for the wrong reasons.

[tikker]

People are seeing first-hand how the frontiers of science operate: in chaos and uncertainty. It is not  as tidy or organised as we sometimes like to or are led to believe. Science is not usually a neutral business either, almost by construction, because we have priors, preconceived notions and (educated) opinions that all fold into how we approach things. Social media makes all of this worse of course by generating such a hype train around it. I actually wonder if throwing it out there with such a bold claim was partly a simple strategy to try and get a lot of research into this material in a very short period of time.

 

I mostly agree with "false until proven true" in this case, because we have good reason for that. Reading a Nature blog post published last week it is clear that we are still shrouded in uncertainty. We don't have to be neutral in this case in my opinion, just open to accept that it is if the key characteristic(s) of superconductivity are unambigiously observed.

 

I am in the negative camp. So far we have one observation claiming it is and a number of failed replication attempts. Some people will strongly hold opinions one way or the other, but what matters is whether they can change that opinion once solid evidence comes along. The fact that neither the single positive nor multiple negative attempts are accepted as "evidence" here already shows none of us are really neutral or unbiased.

[Uttamattamakin]

6 hours ago, LAwLz said:

....

I'm not ignoring what you're saying I'm trying to educate you.  

 

Science at this point of the discovery or not of a new material isn't really about a binary true or false.

 

A claim is unproven until and unless it is proven.

 

If I see a publication that has proof that says that the substance is superconducting I'll be the first to hail it.  

 

No one would like it to be true more than me I assure you. 

 

But I'm a fan of the Chicago Cubs I know not to think they're going to the World Series until they've already won it. I know not to assume the dress will fit until I've tried it on.

 

As for the issue people have with that... I'm sorry but what I've just said is how things actually work.  Not because I say so but because that's just how science works.

 

1 hour ago, tikker said:

People are seeing first-hand how the frontiers of science operate: in chaos and uncertainty. It is not  as tidy or organised as we sometimes like to or are led to believe. Science is not usually a neutral business either, almost by construction, because we have priors, preconceived notions and (educated) opinions that all fold into how we approach things. Social media makes all of this worse of course by generating such a hype train around it. I actually wonder if throwing it out there with such a bold claim was partly a simple strategy to try and get a lot of research into this material in a very short period of time.

I agree with him cosign what you wrote and I also don't blame anyone for being frustrated with all of this.

 

The last years since early 2020 have been one Calamity after another the world could use some globally significant good news. 

 

I get it but let's not hit char emotions to a likely falsehood.

 

THE LATEST FROM ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY!!!

 

So far it is not Flux pinning, no Meissner effect, and not acting like known superconductors.  I personally know many who work at Argonne. I learned physics with and from them.  They know their stuff.  

[CarlBar]

A few posts i'm going to quote from the space battles thread of stuff they dug up or mentioned that feel very relevant.

 

Quote

My material science professor said that it's going to take a while to confirm exactly what LK-99 is. Synthesis of novel materials can be very difficult. There are many variables, and a slight change to any of them can produce hugely different results. Equipment you have on hand (not all autoclaves, centrifuges, and magnetic stirrers behave the same), the location your reagents were harvested from or the lab they were synthesized at (for instance, a successful experiment with reagents purchased from Sigma Aldrich may continually fail with those same reagents purchased through Fisher Scientific), and handling can all contribute to changes in your material. It sometimes feels chaotic (in the mathematical sense). If the stars align, you get what you want; if they don't, you get junk. This is why optimization is so important in material science.

 

As someone who had to do a fairly basic physical property focused materials science course in college, (and enjoyed and excelled at it), i've maintained a good interest in the field over the years and this fits with historical trends i've observed. It just expresses it more eloquently than i ever could so i wanted to quote it for that reason. My optimism levels have definitely gone down though in the last few days between the Argone Labs paper and the next thing i'll quote.

 

Quote

In this study, we investigated the transport and magnetic properties of pure Cu_2S and LK-99 containing Cu2S. We observed a sharp superconducting-like transition and a thermal hysteresis behavior in the resistivity and magnetic susceptibility. However, we did not observe zero-resistivity below the transition temperature. We argue that the so-called superconducting behavior in LK-99 is most likely due to a reduction in resistivity caused by the first order structural phase transition of Cu_2S at around 385 K, from the β phase at high temperature to the γ phase at low temperature.

 

The above is a quote from a paper by Beijing National Laboratory for Condensed Matter Physics at IoP-CAS. I'm not sure weather what they synthesised fits with the smattering of claims of testing of ferromagnetism and paramagnetism and coming up negetive, (not clear if their samples where non-ferromagnetic/paramagnetic). But if it does it probably explains 95% of the result including the weird inconsistencies in the original results.

 

That said there's still the paper with the 110K SC i'd like to see run down and people are going to start getting samples from the original lab later this month and i still want to see the results of that. basically more repetition of the results of this bejing paper to confirm all the details.

 

@Uttamattamakin I see a lot of professionals in a lot of fields blindly follow SOP and other standard parts of their profession without thinking about why they are there or what they are supposed to do. Scepticism in experimental science exists for good reason, but it's entirely possible to end up in a scenario where it's affecting your results. Analysis a large number of reports, most with limited data is one of the cases where it will do this. 

 

In experimental terms trying to analyse the publicly available results atm means without a lot of papers reporting identical results with clear and consistent explanations for each facet your running an experiment that won't produce a strong positive signal. Which leads to inherent negetive results regardless of the reality because the bias is overwhelming the actual data.

 

As more papers are coming out where getting more results that add together to produce a strong signal, but it's bene slow going with how many different reports of slightly different things we've been getting.

[Kamina]

On 8/8/2023 at 3:30 AM, Uttamattamakin said:

Sure that could be possible but it is up to some one to prove that is the case by synthesizing it and verifying superconductivity.

Sadly, I think we may never see one for awhile. Creating a crystal lattice to have a desired effect is complicated process. In this case, it's having Cooper pairs go through the material without little to no resistance at room temperature. Impurities or engineering of the material can make the final result very different. But what do I know? I mostly stick to chemistry and bio.

[PocketNerd]

Can @Uttamattamakin  and @LAwLz please hurry up and get a room so we can stop being innocent bystanders in this “what is word?” circle jerk?

[CarlBar]

A video has turned up from CHina, apparently the individual in it is well known enough to have his own page on the Chinese version of Wikipedia so not a random nobody. Still we don't have a lot to go on so apply large volume of salt.

 

Interesting part begins around 5:20

 

https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1Zh4y1F7X5/

 

It certainly looks convincing enough when stationary, a bit blurry when moving the magnet around. And i certainly wouldn't rule out Cu2's weird properties playing a role in getting an RTSC type material.

[StDragon]

In an age where professors state alien contact and UFO metals acquired along with other forms of quackery, none of this surprises me in the present day of attention whoring narcissists.

 

RT superconductivity is bogus. It doesn't exist. I hope these ass-clowns get rug pulled and their credentials shredded.
 

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” -Carl Sagan

[HarryNyquist]

4 minutes ago, StDragon said:

RT superconductivity is bogus. It doesn't exist. I hope these ass-clowns get rug pulled and their credentials shredded.

Many people have said this throughout history about things we now know to be true. Elliptical orbits of the solar system's planets, the sun being the center of the solar system, relativity, and more facts of our universe have been derided as fraudulent prior to having evidence showing their truth, and their eventual general acceptance.

 

I mean really, even the flat earthers say the sun is the center of the solar system. And they think the Earth is flat. lol

[starsmine]

1 hour ago, StDragon said:

In an age where professors state alien contact and UFO metals acquired along with other forms of quackery, none of this surprises me in the present day of attention whoring narcissists.

 

RT superconductivity is bogus. It doesn't exist. I hope these ass-clowns get rug pulled and their credentials shredded.
 

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” -Carl Sagan

RT superconductivity has not been proven to not be possible. 

I dont even mean that statement in the "you cant prove a negative sense". What I mean is we have not proven that the mechanisms can not exist above a specified temp. This isn't like perpetual motion, which breaks known laws. There very likely ARE room temperature superconductors out there, we just dont know what they are or how to make them yet. Nor do we even a theoretical framework to guess conclusively (like we have with super heavy elements)

 

Yes extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But that's also why people are out here testing the claims because the leaked paper had promise. Uttamattamakin misunderstanding of skepticism aside. It was a dont assume it to be true scenario, but dont go assuming its false either. Its unproven, in both directions.  Even known superconducting ceramics are incredibly difficult to manufacture, when going into manufacturing a new novel material you cant assume that your first batches are proving the claim to be false as you can not eliminate a manufacturing error. 

Rug pull seems like a wild claim, the paper was not published or even meant to be published as is, it was leaked. 

 

  

48 minutes ago, HarryNyquist said:

Many people have said this throughout history about things we now know to be true. Elliptical orbits of the solar system's planets, the sun being the center of the solar system, relativity, and more facts of our universe have been derided as fraudulent prior to having evidence showing their truth, and their eventual general acceptance.

 

I mean really, even the flat earthers say the sun is the center of the solar system. And they think the Earth is flat. lol

That really is a bad argument. Those examples are not as stated, there was not significant pushback inside science to most of them. Elliptical orbits were known, we just didn't have the math to define it before kepler. Models being circles was just easier to work with for what people needed.
Same with heliocentricity pre-Copernicus. 

[Uttamattamakin]

5 hours ago, StDragon said:

In an age where professors state alien contact and UFO metals acquired along with other forms of quackery, none of this surprises me in the present day of attention whoring narcissists.

 

RT superconductivity is bogus. It doesn't exist. I hope these ass-clowns get rug pulled and their credentials shredded.
 

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” -Carl Sagan

That will never happen.  The truth is in academia and science if you are the right kid of person, in the right kind of place, you can be a bit of a crackpot and still get respect.  Avi Loeb has a record of great research in his area of specialization.  His comments on Omuamua would've ENDED anyone else who wasn't the head of Harvards Astronomy dept.  

At first as a peadogogical exercise asking what if a alien probe passed us what would it look like it made sense.  Now he seems to truly believe it was aliens.  That or, as you implied, he's realized a lot of non scientists will give him a lot of money if he does. 

 

A mans gotta eat.

 

5 hours ago, HarryNyquist said:

Many people have said this throughout history about things we now know to be true. Elliptical orbits of the solar system's planets, the sun being the center of the solar system, relativity, and more facts of our universe have been derided as fraudulent prior to having evidence showing their truth, and their eventual general acceptance.

 

I mean really, even the flat earthers say the sun is the center of the solar system. And they think the Earth is flat. lol

There is a truth to this.  However, as I said these things required PROOF to become the standards they are now.  Once the proof was in there was no more debate.   

LK 99 being an RTSC was an unproven untested claim and all the test on it have been negative.  

 

4 hours ago, starsmine said:

RT superconductivity has not been proven to not be possible. 

I dont even mean that statement in the "you cant prove a negative sense". What I mean is we have not proven that the mechanisms can not exist above a specified temp. This isn't like perpetual motion, which breaks known laws. There very likely ARE room temperature superconductors out there, we just dont know what they are or how to make them yet. Nor do we even a theoretical framework to guess conclusively (like we have with super heavy elements)

 

Yes extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But that's also why people are out here testing the claims because the leaked paper had promise. Uttamattamakin misunderstanding of skepticism aside. It was a dont assume it to be true scenario, but dont go assuming its false either. Its unproven, in both directions.  Even known superconducting ceramics are incredibly difficult to manufacture, when going into manufacturing a new novel material you cant assume that your first batches are proving the claim to be false as you can not eliminate a manufacturing error. 

 

This is also correct.  There is no proof that RT SC is impossible given any known law of physics.  Thermodynamic forces make it unlikely, VERY unlikely, but not impossible. 

 

As for my misunderstanding of skepticism.  Whatever man.  I am sure you are all more knowledgeable about the philosophy of science than I am.   You are all much smarter, much more intelligent and much more educated.   

 

Spoiler

Meanwhile I am just here in Copenhagen discussing advanced gravitational wave theory with other theoretical physicists. 

 

 

4 hours ago, starsmine said:

Rug pull seems like a wild claim, the paper was not published or even meant to be published as is, it was leaked. 

I don't see why not.  Putting a paper on the arXiv is not an automatic privilege.  One has to EARN the right to put a paper up there by being endorsed by a known researcher at first.  Then keep that by regularly publishing research there.    

If one post enough garbage the right to post there can go away. 

 

4 hours ago, starsmine said:

 

That really is a bad argument. Those examples are not as stated, there was not significant pushback inside science to most of them. Elliptical orbits were known, we just didn't have the math to define it before kepler. Models being circles was just easier to work with for what people needed.
Same with heliocentricity pre-Copernicus. 

Not really.  The model starting with Earth at the center made sense to the anchients since from an Earth bound frame of reference it is natural to see everything as moving with respect to you.  

Kind of like being on a jet, in smooth air, and constant velocity.  IT can feel just like sitting on the ground, with everything else moving around you. 

Then the  heliocentric circular model came about due, as you said to mathematical simplicity but also the idea that circles were mathematically "perfect".  Even to Copernicus and astrophysicists of his time the idea of the heavens being somehow perfect was present.   

 

Not unlike how Newton tried Alchemy and metallurgy in trying to turn lead into gold. 
 

 

That's what we have seen with LK 99.  Turning base chemicals into something worth far more than gold.   This is the reason humanity might just go after the Navi on Pandora (Lest they realize what they have, base technology on it, and come for us in oh about 10,000 years. 

[Brooksie359]

On 8/8/2023 at 12:57 PM, Uttamattamakin said:

I'm not ignoring what you're saying I'm trying to educate you.  

 

Science at this point of the discovery or not of a new material isn't really about a binary true or false.

 

A claim is unproven until and unless it is proven.

 

If I see a publication that has proof that says that the substance is superconducting I'll be the first to hail it.  

 

No one would like it to be true more than me I assure you. 

 

But I'm a fan of the Chicago Cubs I know not to think they're going to the World Series until they've already won it. I know not to assume the dress will fit until I've tried it on.

 

As for the issue people have with that... I'm sorry but what I've just said is how things actually work.  Not because I say so but because that's just how science works.

 

I agree with him cosign what you wrote and I also don't blame anyone for being frustrated with all of this.

 

The last years since early 2020 have been one Calamity after another the world could use some globally significant good news. 

 

I get it but let's not hit char emotions to a likely falsehood.

 

THE LATEST FROM ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY!!!

 

So far it is not Flux pinning, no Meissner effect, and not acting like known superconductors.  I personally know many who work at Argonne. I learned physics with and from them.  They know their stuff.  

I mean yes but at the same time even scientific theories are not considered facts so I wouldn't say that you would prove anything anytime soon because even plate tectonics is still considered a theory. 

[Uttamattamakin]

3 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I mean yes but at the same time even scientific theories are not considered facts

This is correct only the observations done by experiments are facts.    Even the laws of physics are just theories, theories which happen to be very simple.  Like Newtons F= ma  or F = dp/dt where p =mv. 

Theories provide the framework that explains many facts.  

3 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

 

so I wouldn't say that you would prove anything anytime soon because even plate tectonics is still considered a theory. 

Plate tectonics as a theory explains many many facts and most instances of earthquakes, volcanoes etc.  However it does not predict ALL of them (i.e. intraplate Earthquakes  such as those that sometimes hit Chicago)  so for those situations there are theories which modify it from its original form a bit.   

All new science starts with unproven hypotheses. 

In the case of purely theoretical science, like theoretical physics we have disparte observations, often in seemingly disconnected areas of physics such as astrophysics and particle physics.  Then we propose a model which can explain things in both areas of physics.  

In the case of observational or experimental science we have a hypothesis that if we mix chemicals X Y and Z in these proportions it will be a super conductor.  So we do that.  Then we observe the properties of the resulting compound/ substance.  It either superconducts or it does not.   LK-99 so far has not. 

IT is up to those who claim that LK 99 IS a superconductor to prove that. 

 

 

As you can see those who know materials science better than me or you have studied it.  It is NOT a RTSC at all.  One team found that it was an SC at 110k or less but no one else has found that either. 

 

 

[GarlicDeliverySystem]

9 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

I mean yes but at the same time even scientific theories are not considered facts so I wouldn't say that you would prove anything anytime soon because even plate tectonics is still considered a theory. 

Do you mean this as in the colloquial "theory" or "scientific theory"? I don't want to open another barrel or semantics, but 'theory' has a very different meaning in science than in everyday language.

 

The notion of something being an "idea" or a "guess" of how something works being a "theory" would be the everyday version.

 

A scientific theory similarly aims to explain certain phenomena, but it is required to explain all related, previously made observations as well as make some new, falsifiable predictions. That predictive nature of a theory is important, since this means just a single observation can, at least partially, invalidate a theory.

Of course, some stuff lingers around because it is useful (classical mechanics vs relativistic mechanics).

 

And I would not consider theories as facts, since they try to explain all observed facts as well as predict the finding on new ones. Kinda like points on a plot vs the fit going through all of them.

[Brooksie359]

40 minutes ago, GarlicDeliverySystem said:

Do you mean this as in the colloquial "theory" or "scientific theory"? I don't want to open another barrel or semantics, but 'theory' has a very different meaning in science than in everyday language.

 

The notion of something being an "idea" or a "guess" of how something works being a "theory" would be the everyday version.

 

A scientific theory similarly aims to explain certain phenomena, but it is required to explain all related, previously made observations as well as make some new, falsifiable predictions. That predictive nature of a theory is important, since this means just a single observation can, at least partially, invalidate a theory.

Of course, some stuff lingers around because it is useful (classical mechanics vs relativistic mechanics).

 

And I would not consider theories as facts, since they try to explain all observed facts as well as predict the finding on new ones. Kinda like points on a plot vs the fit going through all of them.

Obviously I am referring to scientific theories because we are talking about scientific findings currently. Also I have already stated that scientific theories are not proven so obvious they wouldn't be facts. I do get what you are saying because we often use the word theory when we are simply talking about what would be considered a hypothesis in science. 

[LAwLz]

So right now, it looks pretty likely that it is not a room-temperature superconductor.

It's a good thing people were skeptical (as in, the actual definition of the word) and wanted to verify the claims without assuming it was true or false. Because as we know, in science you shouldn't assume something without any evidence. You gather evidence first, and then you make up your mind.

 

It's a shame about the outcome though.  

[CarlBar]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

So right now, it looks pretty likely that it is not a room-temperature superconductor.

It's a good thing people were skeptical (as in, the actual definition of the word) and wanted to verify the claims without assuming it was true or false. Because as we know, in science you shouldn't assume something without any evidence. You gather evidence first, and then you make up your mind.

 

It's a shame about the outcome though.  

 

Broadly yes, but there's definitely some weird results and details i'd like to see run down. There's at least one report of a HTSC, and reports of every other type of magnetism under the sun as well as a few lower confidence reports of full levitation.

 

I think the biggest shock for me is how apparently not understood Cu2 electrical properties is before this. It doesn't sound like it was hard to make or test so it's really basic science that should have been done a long time ago.

[Uttamattamakin]

Everyone favorite Thunderf00t gives a good easy to understand breakdown of the issue. 

 

 

[Beskamir]

On 7/29/2023 at 2:40 AM, CarlBar said:

 

Give me 13 minutes of my life back please. He just repeats "scientists make big claim, other scientists sceptical and awaiting replication" 20 different ways for most of it. Not a single useful comment made by him in the entire video. His attempted bustign at the end may or may not be good. I honestly can't tell because the angle is so bad. But that doesn't invalidate the research like the thinks. Even if his experiment shows what he says it shows. A single phenomenon can have multiple possibble explanations depending on the details. So his experiment and theirs can both be valid.

 

Like i said i think it's probably wrong. But at this point unless you've gone out and replicated their work and found it doesn't work you shouldn't be making any definitive statements, and even then wait to see if the same holds true for everyone else that tries to replicate. No procedure can be 100% replicated by 100% of groups that try to. And as others attempting to replicate it have noted, there's some unknowns to their procedure that haven't been specified in sufficient detail to be sure their replication attempt is doing exactly what they did. Which is sadly common in research papers these days.

 

 

That claim comes from Thunderf00t, i've seen him make a whole bunch of confidently wrong assumptions in the past, (notably about the physics side of the Hyperloop concept). He's clearly relatively knowledgeable in some areas, but you have to understand how something applies in the real world in a variety of applications to even begin to make such broad claims, and even then you have to remember you might be wrong. it's why i allways try to phrase things that i'm not just repeating from elsewhere as a IMO thing. I can make some broad judgment calls on stuff, but thats not the same as being 100% right 100% of the time.

 

 

Based on some events that have transpired around the papers it appears one member of the group published without the permission of the rest of the team. The rest of the team then released their not entirely complete paper in response to this and have apparently booted the other person off the group in response.

 

The hot take i've been seeing in science articles and websites is everyone on the team buys the results, and the publishing mess, (and consequently not quite complete research before publishing), is down to an internal fight over the potentiol Noble Prize.

 

No idea how that fits in with your experiance of Korean Universities, but sounds very different from one individual over hyping a result.

 

On 7/29/2023 at 1:34 AM, GarlicDeliverySystem said:

They have:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_wire

https://www.fujikura.co.uk/products/fel2ghts_high-temperature-superconductors

https://www.bruker.com/zh/products-and-solutions/superconductors/superconductors/ybco-2g-hts-superconductor.html

https://www.bruker.com/en/products-and-solutions/superconductors/superconductors.html

https://spectrum.ieee.org/fusion-2662267312

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359028607000344

 

The point stands though, having the material is one thing. Making a "wire" out of it and scaling up production are the difficult ones. As you can see from some of the links HTS wires/tapes are now becoming available on a commercial scale, but don't think it is a commodity. It just means someone is willing to make it for you, but the quantities are low and costs per meter are still incredible.

I remember reading somewhere that commonwealth fusion systems got into the supercon production business, simply because their estimated needs exceeded commercial world production capacity. Bruker is now offering supercon magnets with hybrid LTS/HTS coils, and I think other manufacturers of magnets/MRI machines might follow soon.

Thunderfoot finally made a video about this explaining in great detail why ceramic wires aren't are pretty much useless. If ceramic superconductors were functional then humanity wouldn't be using liquid helium temps but the cheaper liquid nitrogen temps for applications where a superconductor is necessary. I'm not too knowledgeable on this subject so I'll defer to someone who's got a chem degree.