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

[CarlBar]

24 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

With all due respect to the OP and management the fact that this has not "been found" but that replication has failed, so far, means that this title should be changed to reflect that. 

 

Currently there are conflicting reports and it's not clear yet which way it's going to go. We've seen a couple of videos posted of the supposed meissner effect, but also some claims of failure to replicate.

[Uttamattamakin]

Just now, CarlBar said:

 

Currently there are conflicting reports and it's not clear yet which way it's going to go. We've seen a couple of videos posted of the supposed meissner effect, but also some claims of failure to replicate.

By the standards of science the claims to believe are the ones written up formally, published, and at least submitted to peer review.   As the arxiv papers are. ... as the claim that sparked this whole issue was. 

[starsmine]

5 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

By the standards of science the claims to believe are the ones written up formally, published, and at least submitted to peer review.   As the arxiv papers are. ... as the claim that sparked this whole issue was. 

we.... know.

At what point has anyone anywhere been under the assumption this story is peer reviewed and confirmed?

We know its just a promising material that peers are all in a rush to review as its promising and big if true.

[Uttamattamakin]

7 hours ago, CarlBar said:

It's not a confirmation in the slightest and i am not sure who national labs are, (i've learned not to trust official sounding titles alas). But the fact that they're apparently working with the US DoE makes me think this simulation report is legitimate, (DoE would be all over denying this otherwise).

Simulations.  In simulations the super symmetric neutralino, the particle that would be both dark matter and the first hard evidence for String theory was going to be found at the Large Hadron Collider and the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search, independently.  In simulations single scalar field Slow roll inflation without modified gravity was going to solve the issue of inflation.   Simulations.  None of those things have stood up to the cruel mistress that is mother nature and her test.   Simulations and calculations are good but they are not nature. 

 

By the by LBNL is Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,  "National Laboratories" refers to the US Department of energy.  The labs I'd keep a close eye on for this would be NREL and Argonne. 

 

Reading the actual paper it does not make any fabulous claims.  In short they did a computer simulation to see if the claims made were even plausible.   Quoting the paper. 

Quote

Finally, the calculations presented here suggest that Cu substitution on the appropriate (Pb(1)) site displays many key characteristics for high-TC superconductivity, namely a particularly flat isolated d-manifold, and the potential presence of fluctuating magnetism, charge and phonons. However, substitution on the other Pb(2) does not appear to have such sought-after properties, despite being the lower-energy substitution site. This result hints to the synthesis challenge in obtaining Cu substituted on the appropriate site for obtaining a bulk superconducting sample. Nevertheless, I expect the identification of this new material class to spur on further investigations of doped apatite minerals given these tantalizing theoretical signatures and experimental reports of possible high-TC superconductivity.

 

 

7 hours ago, CarlBar said:

Now that doesn't mean that the simulations are acurratte to reality, our understanding of superconducting concepts is very loose atm, so reality might not match the simulations. But it IS an indicator that this is somthing that deserves a thorough investigation.

Exactly. 

 

7 hours ago, CarlBar said:

 

A this point i'm still not very convinced it's as good as claimed or that they actually synthesized any, (i'd say 10% or less on being that good, probably more like 25% they synthesized any). But i'm much more confident, (70-80%), that the material may be a very good SC worth investigating if we can figure out how to produce it.

It's also sounding as if it's even more dependent on precise manufacturing than we previously thought.

Not even.  I've been down this road too many times to take seriously anything other than a true replication.  

Anyone remember the Faster Than Light Neutrino signal that CERN and Gran Sasso reported way back?  Turned out to just be a loose wire. https://www.livescience.com/18603-error-faster-light-neutrinos.html  YET dozens and dozens of papers were published trying to analyze the "groundbreaking new physics" they'd found.    

The only thing to get excited about is if this is replicated and seen to work by an independent lab.  Until this it is not correct to say that it has been found, but it is at best a possibility.  There is a reason a news hound like me didn't bother writing about it. 

[Uttamattamakin]

11 minutes ago, starsmine said:

we.... know.

At what point has anyone anywhere been under the assumption this story is peer reviewed and confirmed?

We know its just a promising material that peers are all in a rush to review as its promising and big if true.

You know, and perhaps a lot of people who actually engage and write here know.  I also know that on any forum like this something like 2x or even 10x as many people just lurk, read, and just sort of skim things.   

Plus I see a LOT of writing here as if this is true.  I see a lot of wanting it to be true so bad  that it will be a real big downer for the youngins when they learn Santa isn't real afterall. 

[CarlBar]

31 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

By the standards of science the claims to believe are the ones written up formally, published, and at least submitted to peer review.   As the arxiv papers are. ... as the claim that sparked this whole issue was. 

 

Which is none of them. Arxiv is a preprint server for stuff, nothing posted there about this has been peer reviewed. Where not going to see peer reviewed data for probably several weeks at least.

 

Also cheers on clarifying who the national laboratories are. I'd printout however that simulations have worked out many times in the past. I wouldn;t dismiss a simulation, i just wouldn't automatically believe it either. But if it's from a major lab and they feel confident enough to put a pre-print out on it i'm going to treat them at least somewhat seriously since i expect they're better than me at figuring out weather the simulation results are worth reporting.

 

Also i seriously doubt LTT has any serious influence on the media storm aroudn this. personally i'm hoping for it to turn out true, but i'd say only modest chances of that happening, but I'd say there's high chances of interesting science happening either way and thats exciting regardless. Hell even if it doesn't pan out, if it advances our understanding of our flaws in our simulations more it may end up being just as significant long term. Too many major discoveries have been made whilst looking for somthing completely different for me to dismiss the effect entirely.

 

TLDR: Science = cool and i'm enjoying the buzz aroudn this more than anything.

[CarlBar]

"In the Pipeline" has a new article on the mess of stuff:

 

https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/room-temperature-superconductor-new-developments

 

i'll just quote his end paragraph as it sums my thoughts up so far much more eloquently than i can:

 

Quote

I am guardedly optimistic at this point. The Shenyang and Lawrence Berkeley calculations are very positive developments, and take this well out of the cold-fusion "we can offer no explanation" territory. Not that there's anything wrong with new physics (!), but it sets a much, much higher bar if you have to invoke something in that range. I await more replication data, and with more than just social media videos backing them up. This is by far the most believable shot at room-temperature-and-pressure superconductivity the world has seen so far, and the coming days and weeks are going to be extremely damned interesting.

 

[Uttamattamakin]

19 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

"In the Pipeline" has a new article on the mess of stuff:

 

https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/room-temperature-superconductor-new-developments

 

i'll just quote his end paragraph as it sums my thoughts up so far much more eloquently than i can:

 

 

A prof at the school where I got my BS way back in the day made a really good point I don't think anyone has made on facebook. 

 

THIS.. Why not just give a/the sample of what they created to another researcher to verify their findings?  Why if it is Sooooooo hard to replicate can they not just do that? 

The test for this is not destructive or difficult.  A superconductor will levitate over a magnet and show zero resistance to electric current.  Verifying superconductivity is not that hard.  I did it with a standard cryo cooled substance when I was a undergraduate student. (That's not special, pretty much all of us have learned about this since forever.  It's a cool experiment.  Literally.) 

[LAwLz]

21 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Someone posted some WeChat screenshots and the claim is that they are from someone at the Huazhong University. The screenshots claim that they have done two tests so far and are currently doing their third test. The first two tests showed some magnetizing properties but they were not able to get the Meissner effect (floating rock). They are doing their tests again because they suspect that their samples might not be pure enough. Here is a blog post about the screenshots and claims.

It seems like this group might have been able to create a very, very tiny speck of LK-99 (less than 1 mm) that exhibits diamagnetism. Whether this is because of superconductivity or not remains to be seen, but this might be very good news.

 

 

 

There are also two more universities in China claiming (with videos) to have been able to produce very small samples that are at the very least diamagnetic.

So we now have 4 different sources that claim to have been able to at the very least show that the material is diamagnetic at room temperature.

Maybe this is just me being racist, but I will remain skeptical until we get some results from countries other than Russia and China. Hell, the more diverse the group of success stories is the better.

[thechinchinsong]

13 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

It seems like this group might have been able to create a very, very tiny speck of LK-99 (less than 1 mm) that exhibits diamagnetism. Whether this is because of superconductivity or not remains to be seen, but this might be very good news.

 

 

 

There are also two more universities in China claiming (with videos) to have been able to produce very small samples that are at the very least diamagnetic.

So we now have 4 different sources that claim to have been able to at the very least show that the material is diamagnetic at room temperature.

Maybe this is just me being racist, but I will remain skeptical until we get some results from countries other than Russia and China. Hell, the more diverse the group of success stories is the better.

I mean its not really the matter of which countries, its that the Chinese and Russian sources themselves are poor quality. You wouldn't look for good confirmation of such a accomplishment from the Twitter or Facebook page of a US university or research laboritory, you'd want official press or academic releases from those places. We  should wait for high quality confirmations from academia in any nation, including China or Russia.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

THIS.. Why not just give a/the sample of what they created to another researcher to verify their findings?  Why if it is Sooooooo hard to replicate can they not just do that? 

What makes you think they aren't?

The University of Maryland has stated that the authors are willing to share their sample.

 

There are a few problems however.

 

1) There is a lot of drama inside the group that discovered this. People being fired from the university, the document being published before it was ready, authors being added/removed in different versions of the research paper, and so on. It's quite disorganized right now.

 

2) It's only been a couple of days, and it's been a weekend as well. Not everyone drops everything they are doing and then booking a flight to Korea or whatever.

Flying from for example Boston to Seoul takes ~16 hours, and that's just the flying part. Add some time to prepare (packing, arranging a translator, etc) , get clearance to book the flight (I suspect that some professors at a university don't want to spend thousands of dollars of their own money on traveling just because of some unverified claim), actually booking the flight, the flying, adapting to the jetlag, and so on... 

 

3) It is entirely possible that a different university has access to the sample right now, but conducting experiments and writing reports takes time. There is a reason why the only replication processes we have answers from are not exactly up to the standard of reports. Even the reports from Chinese universities that claim to have replicated the material aren't fully fledged, official statements. They are videos shot on a phone, and shared on Internet forums.  It is very quick to film a video and post it on Twitter. It takes a lot longer to do proper experiments and write well-written reports.

 

4) Apparently, the sample is very fragile and they only have a few of them. Shipping might be complicated, deciding who gets the sample might be complicated, and even nailing down who "owns" the samples might be complicated. Working these things out might take more than a few days.

I don't think the lack of independent tests done on the original samples is evidence against them. If they still haven't shared their samples with anyone in a month or so, and nobody has been able to replicate it, then I will start being skeptical. 

 

 

It's easy to forget in our 24-hour news cycle world, but patience is important. Rigorous testing and validation are important. Making hastily thrown-together experiments just to be able to shout FIRST is not the proper scientific method.

This is not a sprint. If this discovery turns out to be real then it doesn't matter if we get the results tomorrow or in a week. It's more important to be accurate.

 

 

Edit: According to this tweet, there is at least one person from MIT in Korea working together with the authors right now.

The "he" in this tweet is "a colleague of mine from MIT":

 

 

 

Edit 2 because I missed this part:  

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

The test for this is not destructive or difficult.  A superconductor will levitate over a magnet and show zero resistance to electric current.  Verifying superconductivity is not that hard.  I did it with a standard cryo cooled substance when I was a undergraduate student. (That's not special, pretty much all of us have learned about this since forever.  It's a cool experiment.  Literally.)

Just because it levitates over a magnet does not mean it is a superconductor.

It's a good indicator, but it's not like we can just put it over a magnet, see if it floats and then go "okay it is confirmed that it's a superconductor".

[Agall]

On 7/27/2023 at 5:37 AM, CarlBar said:

 

Whilst thats true, for anything containing a toxic element the bigger question is how prone it is to breaking down, either in the wider world, or if the compound finds its way into the body. If the lead breaks off easily it's a problem. In short what needs to happen to the compound to render it toxic.

Lead isn't that scary if you're someone who goes pew pew regularly. Yes its a concern in extreme, example being the super operator types that are forced to go through +10k rounds in a single session will usually wear respirators to prevent excessive lead exposure. For the rest of us who will occasionally drop +1k in a single session, its not a big deal. Just make sure you wash your hands, arms, and face and change your clothes after though.

[CarlBar]

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

A prof at the school where I got my BS way back in the day made a really good point I don't think anyone has made on facebook. 

 

THIS.. Why not just give a/the sample of what they created to another researcher to verify their findings?  Why if it is Sooooooo hard to replicate can they not just do that? 

The test for this is not destructive or difficult.  A superconductor will levitate over a magnet and show zero resistance to electric current.  Verifying superconductivity is not that hard.  I did it with a standard cryo cooled substance when I was a undergraduate student. (That's not special, pretty much all of us have learned about this since forever.  It's a cool experiment.  Literally.) 

 

As @LAwLz mentioned they're apparently working towards this.

 

1 hour ago, thechinchinsong said:

I mean its not really the matter of which countries, its that the Chinese and Russian sources themselves are poor quality. You wouldn't look for good confirmation of such a accomplishment from the Twitter or Facebook page of a US university or research laboritory, you'd want official press or academic releases from those places. We  should wait for high quality confirmations from academia in any nation, including China or Russia.

 

Given their history of being hives of faked or bad papers it's not unreasonable to be sceptical. That said they're still useful as first pass indicators of where it might come out. In short pay attention but don;t take them as gospel. And ofc remember that it's going to take time to get properly written results so any early results like this are by their nature going to be a bit oddball in how their delivered, (i.e. mostly social media).

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Just because it levitates over a magnet does not mean it is a superconductor.

It's a good indicator, but it's not like we can just put it over a magnet, see if it floats and then go "okay it is confirmed that it's a superconductor".

 

Absolutely, it is however VERY interesting to see, since even if it's diamagnetism it would apparently take a much stronger diamagnetic effect than anything we know of otherwise, which would be interesting.

 

29 minutes ago, Agall said:

Lead isn't that scary if you're someone who goes pew pew regularly. Yes its a concern in extreme, example being the super operator types that are forced to go through +10k rounds in a single session will usually wear respirators to prevent excessive lead exposure. For the rest of us who will occasionally drop +1k in a single session, its not a big deal. Just make sure you wash your hands, arms, and face and change your clothes after though.

 

Shooting lead out a gun and heating ti to nearly 1000c in a furnace are two completely different things. This recipe also involves the use of Sulfur and Phosphorus, the later of which in elemental form is a seriously nasty incendiary device banned for use in a lot of circumstance even by the military. I wouldn't call the overall procedure super dangerous in the vein of say somthing using red fuming nitric acid. But it's not somthing you should mess around with unless you know what precautions to take.

[Uttamattamakin]

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Edit 2 because I missed this part:  

Just because it levitates over a magnet does not mean it is a superconductor.

It's a good indicator, but it's not like we can just put it over a magnet, see if it floats and then go "okay it is confirmed that it's a superconductor".

IF you have seen the effect I refer to then you know its not like "just levitating".  
As for what I know... the prof I quoted above works at Argonne national laboratory on materials physics.  Mostly thin films but he knows what's going on.  Don't believe me, believe him. 

 

21 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

Absolutely, it is however VERY interesting to see, since even if it's diamagnetism it would apparently take a much stronger diamagnetic effect than anything we know of otherwise, which would be interesting.

Exactly.  A superconductor rejects all magnetic field lines.  It doesn't really take a super strong magnet to get the effect we are looking for.    Just about any magnet one could buy that is of comparable size as the sample will do  it.   Diamagnetism for lack of a brief way to put it just looks very different. 

 

This is the Meissner effect. 

 

Diamagnetic levitation looks very different. Notice it takes much more of a magnet. 

21 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

Shooting lead out a gun and heating ti to nearly 1000c in a furnace are two completely different things. This recipe also involves the use of Sulfur and Phosphorus, the later of which in elemental form is a seriously nasty incendiary device banned for use in a lot of circumstance even by the military. I wouldn't call the overall procedure super dangerous in the vein of say somthing using red fuming nitric acid. But it's not somthing you should mess around with unless you know what precautions to take.

 

Then there is testing the conductivity of the sample at various temperatures which for any material physics lab would not be that hard. 

 

Tomorrow EITHER we will be 10 years from having cheap easy superconducting mag lev and ... supercolliders that cost 1/2 the price  OR we will be living in the real world. 

Don't get me wrong I HOPE for the first option.  It'll be GREAT if this works. 

 

[LAwLz]

18 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

IF you have seen the effect I refer to then you know its not like "just levitating".  

I assumed that your idea of the easy and non-destructive test would be to make it levitate over a magnet. If that's not what you meant then I am interested in what testing methodology you had in mind.

 

21 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

As for what I know... the prof I quoted above works at Argonne national laboratory on materials physics.  Mostly thin films but he knows what's going on.  Don't believe me, believe him. 

What are you asking me to believe exactly?

He is assuming that they aren't letting others test with the original samples, yet we have others claiming they are doing just that. Also, there are several reasons as I said for why we haven't heard reports yet. I am not sure what you are trying to say or asking me to believe in.

Are you implying that because he asked "Why haven't they let others test it", that they aren't letting others test it? Just because someone on Facebook says "they should let others test it" doesn't mean they aren't doing just that.

 

 

32 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Exactly.  A superconductor rejects all magnetic field lines.  It doesn't really take a super strong magnet to get the effect we are looking for.    Just about any magnet one could buy that is of comparable size as the sample will do  it.   Diamagnetism for lack of a brief way to put it just looks very different. 

 

This is the Meissner effect.

-video-

 

Diamagnetic levitation looks very different. Notice it takes much more of a magnet. 

-video-

Can you please explain what you believe the big differences are between those two videos?

Is it just the size of the magnets? Is it the way they move (locked in place vs slide around)? 

I don't want to put words in your mouth and end up making strawman arguments. That's why I am asking you to clarify in more precise terms what you mean.

 

 

37 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Then there is testing the conductivity of the sample at various temperatures which for any material physics lab would not be that hard. 

What makes you think it wouldn't be hard to measure that on the samples they got?

 

 

36 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Tomorrow EITHER we will be 10 years from having cheap easy superconducting mag lev and ... supercolliders that cost 1/2 the price  OR we will be living in the real world. 

Why did you specify tomorrow as some kind of deadline?

[Uttamattamakin]

6 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I assumed that your idea of the easy and non-destructive test would be to make it levitate over a magnet. If that's not what you meant then I am interested in what testing methodology you had in mind.

Levitating in the manner that us physicsts know as the Meissner effect.  If you have seen it then you know how it looks VS being diamagnetic levitation which looks very similar.  I and other scientist would know the difference.  

In particular this hoax that was on Twitter. 

 

 

6 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Can you please explain what you believe the big differences are between those two videos?

The Meissner effect only needs One magnet that does not need to be very big at all, to levitate one piece of a superconducting material.   Diamagnetism and the Meissner effect just look different because they involve different fundamental physics situations.  

One is one kind of magnetic material repelling the other.  That's diamagnetic levitation.  Polarity matters.  this is why diamagnetic levitators have an array of magnets  

 

The Meissner effect is ALL magnetic field lines being forced out of the superconductor.  No part of it would be attracted to the magnet.  

 

Here don't take my word for it. 

 

 

6 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Is it just the size of the magnets? Is it the way they move (locked in place vs slide around)? 

I don't want to put words in your mouth and end up making strawman arguments. That's why I am asking you to clarify in more precise terms what you mean.

 

 

What makes you think it wouldn't be hard to measure that on the samples they got?

Experience. I have a Masters Degree in physics.  Something which if were not for certain forum rules would be very verifiable.  Suffice it to say I know at lot of physcis, and I know people who will have a hand in working with this kind of material.  Based on what I know and what I know of them their assessment that given a sample of this material it would not be hard to verify it. The test are straightforward. 

Meissner effect levitation and 0 resistance to electric current. 

 

6 hours ago, LAwLz said:

 

Why did you specify tomorrow as some kind of deadline?

Because there is a sprint to be the first to verify that this is real.  Everyone would LOVE to get their hands on this.  

[CarlBar]

@Uttamattamakin Some comments. Even the original authors have noted that their demonstration sample is very impure, the theoretical side shows getting a pure sample will be hard, and several replication attempts that have reported positive or negetive have noted the samples to be very impure. What we've seen in videos can AFAIK be explained thoroughly by that.

 

Also expecting quick replication with a substance thats known to not have a good procedure, (As i've noted before i increasingly think if one member hadn't gone rouge we might not have heard about this for a while more as they refine the process), strikes me as a bit overdone.

 

Like i said i have a mixed opinion on this panning out, but if it's bad i want it done right with all possibble doubt removed, (i'll be the same direction on if it works, further good results will raise my hopes a god bit but i won't declare definitively on the specific material and structure until strong evidence comes in).

[CarlBar]

Useful twitter post on implications if it does pan out:

 

 

[HenrySalayne]

5 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Based on what I know and what I know of them their assessment that given a sample of this material it would not be hard to verify it. The test are straightforward. 

Meissner effect levitation and 0 resistance to electric current. 

Neither is this a homogeneous material, nor says the paper anything about the expected amount of LK-99 in their sample or conversion rates. Simply sticking two probes into it, probably won't cut it.

 

[Uttamattamakin]

Before I begin replies,  There is this. 

 

https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20230802105600017

The Korean society of Superconducting and Low Temperature research has launched a verification committee.  According to their findings so far. 

Quote

Based on the discussions so far in the verification committee, it was concluded that LK-99 cannot be considered a room-temperature superconductor based on the data published in the two papers and the published video.

Accordingly, if the Quantum Energy Laboratory provides a specimen (material sample), the verification committee will take measurements for the verification of room-temperature superconductors.

 

Seoul National University, Sungkyunkwan University, and Pohang University participate in this verification.

In addition to the verification committee, the society announced that research for the reproduction of LK-99 is being conducted at Sungkyunkwan University's Quantum Materials Superconductivity Research Group, Korea University's Superconducting Materials and Application Laboratory, and Seoul National University's Complex Material State Research Group.

 

 

9 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

Neither is this a homogeneous material, nor says the paper anything about the expected amount of LK-99 in their sample or conversion rates. Simply sticking two probes into it, probably won't cut it.

 

 

If this is displaying the claimed Meissner effect levitating the whole sample that indicates bulk superconductivity.  That the whole thing or most of it is, as such attaching probes and measuring 0 (or even just little allowing for impurities etc) resistance should be about all it takes.  Given the exact chemical formula and procedure it should not be that hard. 

Plus this year has already been a year of DUBIOUS claims of room temp superconductivity. 

This is about three other claims earlier this year.  The current claim is by a different group but has the same red flags. 

 

 

[BachChain]

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

it was concluded that LK-99 cannot [definitively] be considered a room-temperature superconductor based [solely] on the data published in the two papers and the published video.

Before someone misinterprets that

[Forbidden Wafer]

Apparently a chinese team managed to reproduce the material, which really seems to be a superconductor, but only had zero resistance around 100 Kelvin (-173 Celsius). Based on paper posted previously in this topic (https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.16892), it seems like it could be due to the copper ions being placed in incorrect sites causing the decrease in superconductivity characteristics. a.k.a. manufacturing the right thing is a crap.

 

 

[Uttamattamakin]

5 minutes ago, Forbidden Wafer said:

Apparently a chinese team managed to reproduce the material, which really seems to be a superconductor, but only had zero resistance around 100 Kelvin (-173 Celsius). Based on paper posted previously in this topic (https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.16892), it seems like it could be due to the copper ions being placed in incorrect sites causing the decrease in superconductivity characteristics. a.k.a. manufacturing the right thing is a crap.

I can buy this scenario.  That this substace is a superconductor at low temp (at that low of a temp this is NOT a breakthrough) but a diamagnetic normal conductor at high temp. 

That said I am hoping to see what Argonne National Lab and LBNL find.  Also my friend/ colleague/ former prof who works at Argonne really made a point that sets off my BS O Meter.  WHY not just send samples to well regarded labs under NDA?  It would not be hard. Not if this is what they claim it is. 

[Forbidden Wafer]

2 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

That said I am hoping to see what Argonne National Lab and LBNL find.  Also my friend/ colleague/ former prof who works at Argonne really made a point that sets off my BS O Meter.  WHY not just send samples to well regarded labs under NDA?  It would not be hard. Not if this is what they claim it is. 

The mentioned paper is from LBNL, using simulations to analyze the physical properties of the material. 

 

But yes, the real material measurements could have been done by others to confirm, but as far as I know, the LK99 paper is a preprint one (not formally published).

[bcredeur97]

I mean is there any way even if this thing isn’t a superconductor, that it could at least be a better conductor than materials we already have/know? Even silver? 
 

that’s at least a step in the right direction even if it’s not the holy grail lol