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

[Uttamattamakin]

14 minutes ago, bcredeur97 said:

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 

Not really looking like it.  A lab in China claims to have observed superconduction in it at, oh, about 100 kelvin.  Which is -173 C  -343F.  The temperature and pressure of operation are the crucial issue.  Lots of things can be made to superconduct at low temp or high pressure. 

Having something that is like the Unobtanium from the Avatar movies.  A superconductor that can just sit on your desk, or be embedded into a rail road like structure and used to move cargo and people, or made into some sort of electrical grid with little or no losses, that's the game changer. Finding that would be a change as big as going from Stone  tools to iron tools. 

[CarlBar]

6 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. 

 

I feel like your just not reading replies at this point. As has allready ben mentioned they're in the process of doing this. 

[LAwLz]

On 8/2/2023 at 4:26 AM, Uttamattamakin said:

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. 

Yeah... That is true for a diamagnetic material as well. A diamagnetic material will levitate above a single magnet as well. 

I highly question your claimed masters degree in physics. Feel free to DM me your proof if you want. Shouldn't break any forum rules. 

 

 

On 8/2/2023 at 4:26 AM, Uttamattamakin said:

Diamagnetism and the Meissner effect just look different because they involve different fundamental physics situations.  

I know. And I want you to explain the difference in your own words. You can't just say "trust me". 

 

On 8/2/2023 at 4:26 AM, Uttamattamakin said:

The test are straightforward. 

Meissner effect levitation and 0 resistance to electric current. 

That does not answer my question. 

HOW do you promos they test it, if it is so simple? 

You can't just say "testing it is simple. You just test it for zero resistance and Meissner effect". 

I want you to describe how you would do this. 

 

 

On 8/2/2023 at 4:26 AM, Uttamattamakin said:

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

Yes, but why precisely tomorrow (the 3rd August)? What caused you to pick that specific date as the deadline for if this is real or not? 

[HenrySalayne]

13 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

If this is displaying the claimed Meissner effect levitating the whole sample that indicates bulk superconductivity. 

But it didn't, it was barely sticking up on one end.

 

And why would it indicate bulk superconductivity? The Meissner effect would kick in for micron-sized particles. A ceramic puck can be a macroscopic insulator but still react to the Meissner effect.

[Uttamattamakin]

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Yeah... That is true for a diamagnetic material as well. A diamagnetic material will levitate above a single magnet as well. 

I highly question your claimed masters degree in physics. Feel free to DM me your proof if you want. Shouldn't break any forum rules. 

No to levitate a diamagnet in a way that could be confused for the Meissner effect needs a checkerboard of magnets of alternating polarities. 

The Meissner effect does not need multiple magnets.  A bulk superconductor will simply rest on top of ONE magnet in a way that is even and solid.  IF we are talking about a flat square or disc of material it would rest evenly. 

 

 

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

 

I know. And I want you to explain the difference in your own words. You can't just say "trust me". 

To do it in my own words.  I did.  Let me again try to express in a brief forum post what It took me over a decade to learn. 

Superconductors squeeze out all magnetic flux lines.  Diamagnets don't.  They interact in a way that also causes levitation but in a way that is polarized.  A superconductor would rest on top of a single magnet in a way that looks much more solid. 

 

In this visual aid the superconductor is on the bottom.  But if you have a small piece of superconductor above a magnet it would be the same situation.  It would just look different.  For a diamagnet having part of it be ... attracted to the magnet would make sense.  Hence having it lean down. 

4 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

But it didn't, it was barely sticking up on one end.

That's why people who know physics very well are skeptical.  Not just the professional skeptical.  More like this appears similar to the type of thing that Jan Hendrik Schon got away with for quite a while back in the day. 

I get that a lot of people really want this to be true.  If you see it doing things that are not like superconductor that may be because it is not a superconductor. 

 

4 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

And why would it indicate bulk superconductivity? The Meissner effect would kick in for micron-sized particles. A ceramic puck can be a macroscopic insulator but still react to the Meissner effect.

if only microscopic parts of the material were superconducting it would be like a toothpick holding up a whole building.    The force applied would not overcome gravity. 

 

 

[CarlBar]

6 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

if only microscopic parts of the material were superconducting it would be like a toothpick holding up a whole building.    The force applied would not overcome gravity. 

 

 

That doesn't rule out large parts being superconducting while other parts aren't. Get the right ratio between the two and it's believable behaviour. With a hard to get pure material thats not an unreasonable scenario. Hell some of the replication attempts have reported paramagnetic materials. Pretty sure if you mix and SC and a paramagnetic material in one solid chunk you'd get this behaviour since one part would be attracted and the rest pushed away.

 

I'm honestly leaning towards measurement error on the resistance myself at this point. But their video of it levitating is strictly not definitives either way AFAIK.

 

That said whilst the recent replication fo SC at low temperatures makes me lean in the direction of measurement error, i still want to see the exact crystal structure and arrangement of atoms in the sample confirmed. From what i can understand they've confirmed the correct ratios in the majority of their sample, but not the specific arrangements or that they have a uniform crystal structure.

 

The problem as i understand it with a material this sensitive to crystal structure and atom placement, small flaws in either along the measuring path can significantly affect the properties.

 

At the minimum though it now appears we have a new field to do research in for finding new SC's.

[Uttamattamakin]

5 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

That doesn't rule out large parts being superconducting while other parts aren't. Get the right ratio between the two and it's believable behaviour. With a hard to

If it does not show the Meissner effect then it cannot be a superconductor.   Superconductors push out all magnetic field lines.  If a magnetic field is strong enough to penetrate into it then superconduction stops.  This is due to how magnetic fields act on charged particles, such as electrons.

 

5 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

At the minimum though it now appears we have a new field to do research in for finding new SC's.

Not really since there are a lot of superconductors that do so at about 100Kelvin. 

 

Yes I have read the replies.  I read the papers.  I am just some random on the internet.  I could be anything from a window washer, good honorable work that pays more than what I do.... to a professor of mathematics and theoretical physics who will be going to Copenhagen to discuss gravitational waves with other top scientists next week. ... or I could be an Uber driver in Chicago... or I could do some of all of those things. 

You see none of that makes me a materials expert.  However, matterials experts I know and trust are on this.  They are testing it.  We just need to sit back and wait for credible confirmation.  So far all the actual, real world testing of this shows at best superconduction at 100K which is not anything new... and also no Meissner effect. 

You can either Trust me bro... Or I can explain all of this using 1,000,000 dollar words and a bunch of math which on a forum like this is not really called for.   Better yet don't trust me.  Trust the scientific process and the whole community looking at this.  If so many of us are skeptical then there is a good reason to be. 

[CarlBar]

20 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

If it does not show the Meissner effect then it cannot be a superconductor.   Superconductors push out all magnetic field lines.  If a magnetic field is strong enough to penetrate into it then superconduction stops.  This is due to how magnetic fields act on charged particles, such as electrons.

 

 

And what if the sample is partially made up of material that is superconducting and partially made up of materials that isn;t superconducting?

 

It's not going to reject magnetic fields from the whole sample in that case and different parts will react to the magnet differently. Which is exactly what everyone trying to replicate this back to the original paper has been saying they are seeing with their samples.

 

Your talking as if the sample is a pure SC throughout when no one has claimed this.

 

22 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Not really since there are a lot of superconductors that do so at about 100Kelvin. 

 

If this pans out even at 110k it will be the joint 2nd highest temperature SC at room pressure according to a quick google search. Also it appears to be using a previously undiscovered method of getting the effect, research into that could produce even higher temperature SC's.

[Uttamattamakin]

35 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

And what if the sample is partially made up of material that is superconducting and partially made up of materials that isn;t superconducting?

 

It's not going to reject magnetic fields from the whole sample in that case and different parts will react to the magnet differently. Which is exactly what everyone trying to replicate this back to the original paper has been saying they are seeing with their samples.

Then it is not a superconductor.  

How small of a part are we going to look at?  One could call a single helium atom a superconductor since the electrons in the lowest energy level will stay there "zipping around"* the nucleus is "superconductivity".  They encounter no resistance.   That would be absurd.  So lets say some small chip of it is super conducting. 

 

Then it is incumbent upon those doing the research to demonstrate the Meissner effect and zero resistance for that small piece.  

IT is on the ones making an extraordinary claim to present evidence not on the rest of the world to prove it for them.  Showing proof of an extraordinary claim is what gets Nobel prizes... not just publishing every anomaly and instrumental error. 

(*Yes, I know the Borh model is not literally how it works but do we want to solve for spherical harmonics and discuss how all the quantum numbers relate.  It's not clever to do that on a message board.)

 

35 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

Your talking as if the sample is a pure SC throughout when no one has claimed this.

See above. 

 

35 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

If this pans out even at 110k it will be the joint 2nd highest temperature SC at room pressure according to a quick google search. Also it appears to be using a previously undiscovered method of getting the effect, research into that could produce even higher temperature SC's.

Ok sure maybe we'll get to use it for engineering on Pluto or Ceres or something.  LOL.  Maybe in a place that has mountains made of ice and large bodies of liquid nitrogen on the surface.   Then 100k is a balmy room temp. 

[HenrySalayne]

24 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

IT is on the ones making an extraordinary claim to present evidence not on the rest of the world to prove it for them.  Showing proof of an extraordinary claim is what gets Nobel prizes... not just publishing every anomaly and instrumental error. 

I'm a little confused. This was not a published paper, but a rough pre-print, riddled with mistakes ending up in the world because one of the researchers involved was very impatient. There was nobody doing a press conference to announce to the world what they found. It just blew up because of media attention.

 

So maybe give the scientific community a little bit more time to figure this out. It's not just Meissner and conductivity measurements.

[CarlBar]

16 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Then it is not a superconductor.  

 

Thats not how it works. If it it did those superconducting wires that were talked about a few pages back wouldn't be superconductors because only a small part of the wire is superconducting. The rest is there to give the superconductor mechanical strength and insulate it from other wiring and the like.

 

There's plenty of other examples in material science of materials that are composed of multiple distinct regions of materials with different properties, it's generally undesirable and a lot of effort is done to prevent it, but it is in no way not a recognised state of matter.

 

This feels like another theory vs reality thing. No material in reality is perfectly homogenous and of exactly the same structure and elemental composition throughout. The lower the levels of defects the lower the effect on end material properties, (seen all the time in the semiconductor industry for example where small defects tend to lower achievable clock speed whilst larger defects render individual transistors non-functional and potentially make entire parts of the end product non-functional).

 

A perfect ideal SC sample would be one complete mass of pure SC material. But not even the current production SC's are that, they're defects are just too small to easily measure or see the effects of, (they may well be outside our ability to measure even, i'm not surem, but they will exists and they will have effects because thats how real world materials actually work).

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Then it is not a superconductor

It feels like you are moving the goalpost or backpedaling now. 

The piece of LK99 shown in the video might not be a super conductor when examined as a whole, but the material it is made of is a super conductor. It might just be that the specific piece in the video, and that people have recreated, are not pure enough. 

 

Do you agree that magnesium diboride is a super conductor at 39K?

If yes, would you all of a sudden say magnesium diboride isn't a superconductor if I drilled a small screw into it, causing the block to not be 100% pure anymore? I think it's inane to say that magnesium diboride isn't a super conducting material anymore just because the block of it has a steel screw inside it. 

 

 

Nobody gives a shit about the particular piece shown in the video. What people are excited about is LK-99.

[Uttamattamakin]

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

It feels like you are moving the goalpost or backpedaling now. 

 

No I'm not.  Meissner effect levitation and 0 resistance at room temp or this is not what it was claimed to be.   Those are the properties of a super conductor. 

 

Here is a very VERY long video about the effect we are looking for.  Once you see it, you see that it is nothing at all like what we see in the video from the original paper. 

One more thing if only parts of it were super conducting and others not... Then we'd actually see LESS movement of the sample.  It would be what is called flux pinned as the magnetic field would pass through some non superconducting portion of it. (I'll be able to tell who really watched the video VS just saw the thumbnail by their replies.  The ones that didn't watch will think the issue is that the chip of supposed room temp super conductor is leaning due to this thumbnail showing the moment after the experimenter touched the superconductor before it regains equilibrium.  He also shows it levitating over one magnet.  The Meissner effect does not totally negate gravity or the force of a human pushing on it... but it is very very solid looking.  That's the simplest way to describe it.) 

10 hours ago, CarlBar said:

 

Thats not how it works. If it it did those superconducting wires that were talked about a few pages back wouldn't be superconductors because only a small part of the wire is superconducting. The rest is there to give the superconductor mechanical strength and insulate it from other wiring and the like.

 

The wire is still a "bulk" super conductor.  It is thin but LONG.  It would have to superconduct along it's whole lenght or else it would not any longer be a super conductor.  

Trust I've read all you've said.  I just read it as you really really want this to be what it claims to be.  SO do I actually.  I've just been trained to be skeptical of this kind of thing way too well. 

 

On that note another forum notices what I have .  This is a link to a forum which has aggregated and keeps updated a thread on all of the attempts at replication.  Check it out. 

https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/claims-of-room-temperature-and-ambient-pressure-superconductor.1106083/post-94373788

 

[Uttamattamakin]

10 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

I'm a little confused. This was not a published paper, but a rough pre-print, riddled with mistakes ending up in the world because one of the researchers involved was very impatient. There was nobody doing a press conference to announce to the world what they found. It just blew up because of media attention.

 

So maybe give the scientific community a little bit more time to figure this out. It's not just Meissner and conductivity measurements.

I have a dirty secret for you.  

The Physics arXiv, the oldest such archive on the net, is where most physicists actually get papers.  No one pays the fee to read the official peer reviewed versions. We don't cite papers that haven't been fully reviewed yet (with some exceptions).    

They made the claim and yes my community will try to verify it.  However, until it is verified is nothing.  So far it's looking not great for this thing being a room temp superconductor.  

Very few will be happier than I am about this.  I know a lot of the people who would be.  It would mean we get to build a more powerful proton accelerator over at Fermilab or maybe a Muon accelerator.  That has been discussed for a long time there. So much of the cost goes into cooling down superconducting magnets.  Trust I'd LOVE LOVE LOVE for this to be true. 

[Uttamattamakin]

How about something lighter for a change of how exercised this thread has become.
 

 Until I hear from Argonne, LBNL,  maybe NREL or their very serious Chinese, European, or other national lab level counterparts... and more than one cross confirming I am not going to celebrate.    This is as Reuters puts it. 

https://www.reuters.com/technology/superconductor-claims-spark-investor-frenzy-scientists-are-skeptical-2023-08-03/

 

Quote

'YOU CAN BE FOOLED'

The possible bad news for LK-99 is that the superconducting field is full of materials that hold promise at first but fall apart under scrutiny. Researchers even have a handy name for them - unidentified superconducting objects.

"We call them USOs," said Mike Norman, a condensed matter physicist at Argonne National Laboratory. "There's a long history of USOs going a long way back, including some very famous people who thought they had a superconductor and they didn't. It's like anything in science - you can be fooled. Even good people can be fooled."

 

Norman said the original papers had problems. Some may have been honest typographical mistakes from rushing to post the research, but more troubling was a lack of data over a broad temperature range to show how the material behaves when it is in a superconducting state and when it is not.

 

"People often use that method to show how much of the sample is actually a superconductor and how much of it is not," Norman said.

 

Other researchers have also found reasons for caution. Sinéad Griffin (Uttamattmakin here: this is the computer simulation some on social media called "confirmation"), a solid-state physicist and staff scientist Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, used a U.S. Department of Energy supercomputer to simulate the proposed material.

Griffin found that inserting copper atoms into lead apatite caused the material's atoms to rearrange in an unexpected way that resembles existing superconductors. But that effect depends on the copper atoms going to a spot that they don't naturally want to go, which could make it harder to produce the material in bulk quantities.

 

Griffin cautioned that her simulation has limits - it cannot conclusively prove that the material is a superconductor, and the work assumed that researchers can place copper atoms into the lead apatite with perfect precision. In the real world, that's unlikely and could have a big effect on the material.

 

And even if LK-99 does turn out to be a room temperature superconductor, it will still take time to determine how useful it might be, said Michael Fuhrer, a professor of physics at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. For example, Fuhrer said no data was provided on how much electrical current the material might be able to carry and still be a superconductor, a key question for improving power grids.

 

 

8:19.  The team that released a video you've seen before has released a pre-print.  

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2308.01516.pdf

 

 

Diamagnetism was observed.  What has been noted in all of the videos so far is that it seems to orient itself with the magnetic field lines in a way.   What I'd love to see in any of these videos is for the potential super conductor to be levitated with one side up.  Then picked up flipped over and levitated with the other side up.   (Also if there is part of it that is thicker and heavier please chip that part off).  ... but in such  a way we can still which side is up).   This would show if the object is levitating due to the usual effect of squeezing out all of the magnetic flux lines OR if it is undergoing some other reaction.  The Meissner effect would not care so much about the precise orientation.    Maybe demonstrate that it is somehow flux pinned etc.  Real hallmarks of superconductivity are what I and others are looking for...  not me personally ... people who specialize in this.

One more new pre-print.  This one sums up nicely the research released at the time they were able to write this. 

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2308/2308.01723.pdf

 

Here is also some new video of LK99 levitating.  The sample looks different.  Note it shows the same ... leaning with one part touching the magnet.  The same vertical orientation to the field lines.  Either only some part of it is levitated by Meissner effect, or there is a polarity to the magnetic effect that it is experiencing.  i.e. diamagnetism as the papers above have shown. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/03/science/lk-99-superconductor-ambient.html

 

 

 

NOTE this is 480 P.  HTH don't people in Korea, the home of Samgung, have at least one flagship phone to take the video on? 480p really?  I hope posting this video is ok.  If it was a US product, as the product of a government funded entity it would not be copyrightable. It isn't so I am not certain. 

[CarlBar]

@Uttamattamakin I definitely want it to be true, yes. But my stance on anything like this is "evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence. Until then i'm going to treat it as unknown and could go either way. In short i'm not treating it as confirmed or as false, i'm treating it as we just don't know.

 

It may turn out bad, but right now i can think of an explanation or two for the weirdness and i'm not an expert in the field, i'd expect an expert to be able to posit other possibilities and the key is to break down all of that into experiments that can determine if they pan out and what the limitations are and go from there. Once we've ruled out or confirmed any of them as possibble explanations for weird behaviour we go from there.

 

Also yes ideally they'd get rid of the non-SC parts, but there are reports one the the replication teams found trimming their sample hard. Korean team could have similar issues.

 

p.s. seen the link you gave, pretty sure i linked it further back in the thread.

[CarlBar]

Interesting article, includes a section from the paper published by the lab that got the SC at 110k result.

 

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2023/08/observation-of-zero-resistance-above-100∘-k-in-lk-99-replication-lk99.html

 

Can't easily quote the excerpt but they note purity, fragility and various effects from those as significant issues.

 

Not willing to take their word as gospel yet but the fact anyone is reporting anything positive is honestly a good thing IMO. It means interest and thus research won't just fall over and die, which if this really is as tricky to get right as a number of sources have been indicating would make confirming or denying this really hard.

[Uttamattamakin]

3 hours ago, CarlBar said:

@Uttamattamakin I definitely want it to be true, yes. But my stance on anything like this is "evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence. Until then i'm going to treat it as unknown and could go either way. In short i'm not treating it as confirmed or as false, i'm treating it as we just don't know.

 

It may turn out bad, but right now i can think of an explanation or two for the weirdness and i'm not an expert in the field, i'd expect an expert to be able to posit other possibilities and the key is to break down all of that into experiments that can determine if they pan out and what the limitations are and go from there. Once we've ruled out or confirmed any of them as possibble explanations for weird behaviour we go from there.

I am not an expert but I have posited the other possibilities.  Namely it is just an diamagnetic substance and not a superconductor at all.  That is the most likely situation.  

What happens when we get electrons forming cooper pairs is ... complex.  When they do in simple terms the electron "fluid" goes from being a normal fluid to more like a superfluid.  Something that can flow without resistance.  The pairs of electrons can go into a state that ... if it happened to fermions at high temperature very easily would .. not be conducive to matter remaining solid.    Things just don't become super fluid or superconductive easily. 

 

3 hours ago, CarlBar said:

Also yes ideally they'd get rid of the non-SC parts, but there are reports one the the replication teams found trimming their sample hard. Korean team could have similar issues.

 

p.s. seen the link you gave, pretty sure i linked it further back in the thread.

The one who was trying to replicate this on twitch has replicated the same result as everyone else so far.  

 

We get a TINY piece of material.  That's fine. Notice that it orientates itself with the magnetic field, and has one side that is lower , touching the surface.  The Meissner effect simply does not look like that. I am not asking @LAwLz or others to "trust me bro" I am hoping that you'll trust the fact that outside of the original team, no expert who has done the experiment has called this the Meissner effect.  Everyone, e v e r y o n e  who does this for a living that you can verify (and one you can't verify is actually a physicist  :) ) have noticed the same issue.   

 

We'd all LOVE to be wrong, or have this be a new type of superconductor, one that maybe does not show the classic Meissner effect.  Some of the coolest things that a super conductor could do, like provide for levitating objects over specially made tracks (i.e. practical long distance maglev / hover trains), it would not do if that is the case. 

No matter how big or how small the piece is they demonstrate this ... lean.  

What's more

 

This means it's not that one part is super conducting on just one side, and the other isn't.  This is a feature of this substance.   This is Exactly what it should be doing if it is diamagnetic. 

Edited August 4, 2023 by Uttamattamakin
I need to be 100% clear. I'd love to be wrong. I'd love to live in the CYBERPUNK world this would create. Rather than the crappy cyberpunk world we live in.

[Uttamattamakin]

CAUTION IN BIG RED LETTERS 

This is proably a fake of some kind.  HOWEVER if LK99 was really levitating this is more the expected appearance.  I would like to see more angles, all around video.  See it picked up, and placed on its other side.  I'd love to see this  made in such a way, perhaps a small mark so we can see this it has been flipped over.  A superconductor will do the same thing regardless of how it is orientated while other magnetism related phenomena will depend on orientation. 

Then of course with a big puck of the stuff ... take some resistivity measurements live on video.  

 

 This is fun to look at, and at least resembles what I'd expect... If I could see the steps I state above taken I'd feel a lot better about it.  

This "Institut für Sonderanwendungen" claims the made it,  Sorted the bits of LK99 for their magnetic reaction to get rid of the impurities, then formed it into a puck using a press and anvil.   That is plausible.  I'd want to see and know a lot more since there are plenty of ways to fake this or mimic this.  (See above where I explain some easy things a video could show that would... bunk it... give it more credibility). 

 

They posted video from another angle... this helps a bit. 

 

 

 Very skeptical since this is from a pseudonym of some kind.   

If there are any replies remember, I am just trained to be more skeptical the more I want something to be true.  I might not ever fully 110% be convinced until I see some LK99 for myself and can run experiments. 

As you can see my caution, and wanting to see more than just a video from one angle, wanting to see the material picked up, flipped to show that this is not directional etc etc was warranted.   Lots of things can look like the effect we want for a moment and be a total fabrication. 

https://twitter.com/instsondaw/status/1687739168892321792?s=20

[bcredeur97]

8 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

CAUTION IN BIG RED LETTERS 

This is proably a fake of some kind.  HOWEVER if LK99 was really levitating this is more the expected appearance.  I would like to see more angles, all around video.  See it picked up, and placed on its other side.  I'd love to see this  made in such a way, perhaps a small mark so we can see this it has been flipped over.  A superconductor will do the same thing regardless of how it is orientated while other magnetism related phenomena will depend on orientation. 

Then of course with a big puck of the stuff ... take some resistivity measurements live on video.  

 

 This is fun to look at, and at least resembles what I'd expect... If I could see the steps I state above taken I'd feel a lot better about it.  

This "Institut für Sonderanwendungen" claims the made it,  Sorted the bits of LK99 for their magnetic reaction to get rid of the impurities, then formed it into a puck using a press and anvil.   That is plausible.  I'd want to see and know a lot more since there are plenty of ways to fake this or mimic this.  (See above where I explain some easy things a video could show that would... bunk it... give it more credibility). 

 

They posted video from another angle... this helps a bit. 

 

 

 Very skeptical since this is from a pseudonym of some kind.   

If there are any replies remember, I am just trained to be more skeptical the more I want something to be true.  I might not ever fully 110% be convinced until I see some LK99 for myself and can run experiments. 

The only thing that bothers me is they aren’t rushing to make a bunch of these and ship these out to other labs to look at 

 

unless they are, I guess I don’t know.

[StDragon]

58 minutes ago, bcredeur97 said:

The only thing that bothers me is they aren’t rushing to make a bunch of these and ship these out to other labs to look at 

 

unless they are, I guess I don’t know.

From what I understand, there's a minimum purity required that's hard to achieve with the only known "shake and bake" method. So basically it's a consistency problem.

Give it at least a month or two. Either this will explode as the "Next Big Thing" in material science, or be swept under the rug as one giant embarrassment never to be spoken of again. 

[Uttamattamakin]

There is a video of a small piece of LK99 apparently flux pinned and fully levitated over a magnet.   If this is legit then it is confirmation that there is some superconductivity going on.   HOWEVER. the original account that posted this video has the same issue of being a totally new account as the video above.  

So While the author of this tweet sounds very confident I still think this warrants 

CAUTION IN BIG RED LETTERS 

For the same reason since we don't know the provenance of the video of a supposed puck of LK99, sorted by effect size and pressed together. 
 

12 hours ago, StDragon said:

From what I understand, there's a minimum purity required that's hard to achieve with the only known "shake and bake" method. So basically it's a consistency problem.

 

12 hours ago, StDragon said:

Give it at least a month or two. Either this will explode as the "Next Big Thing" in material science, or be swept under the rug as one giant embarrassment never to be spoken of again. 

I also agree with this.  Unless and until we get a real definitive word, at least a pre-print or better still a peer reviewed publication, a release from the US Department of Energy or a similar source that says this without any weasel words... we can't be 100% sure.  

I sure hope this is what it looks like though.

For example 

 

The previous video was a hoax. 

For a video to be sufficient I really needs to show all of what this is, being done by LK99

Here is a video of a livestream from Taiwan. 

 

[Uttamattamakin]

Here is a video that shows diamagnetic levitation over a monolithic but multipole magnet. 

Notice how these act compare to many of the Lk99 samples seen so far. 

This is why it is so important to see them moving the samples every which way, to really see if this is truly the Meissner effect  with flux pinning (All SC's do Meissner, only type 2 do flux pin).   

 

Like this. 

 

[LAwLz]

On 8/3/2023 at 2:29 PM, Uttamattamakin said:

No to levitate a diamagnet in a way that could be confused for the Meissner effect needs a checkerboard of magnets of alternating polarities. 

The Meissner effect does not need multiple magnets.  A bulk superconductor will simply rest on top of ONE magnet in a way that is even and solid.  IF we are talking about a flat square or disc of material it would rest evenly. 

Please define "in a way that could be confused for the Meissner effect".

Also, please remember that the samples shown are not pure LK-99. So while the material itself might be a superconductor, the samples they are showing in pictures, videos and the ones recreated, are a mixture of superconducting and non-superconducting materials. 

 

 

And no, a diamagnetic material does not need multiple magnets. In fact, a superconductor is a diamagnet, but not all diamagnets are superconductors.

 

Also, if the idea you are pushing is that a strong diamagnet will slide off without a set of magnets, and a superconductor will enter "flux pinning", then I'd like to point out that that's only true for a type 2 superconductor. Type 1 superconductors won't experience flux pinning even though they are superconductors.

 

 

A type 1 superconductor can slide off a single magnet if you for example blow on it. The difference between a superconductor and something that's merely a diamagnet is not flux pinning.

 

 

 

On 8/4/2023 at 12:49 PM, Uttamattamakin said:

We get a TINY piece of material.  That's fine. Notice that it orientates itself with the magnetic field, and has one side that is lower , touching the surface.  The Meissner effect simply does not look like that. I am not asking @LAwLz or others to "trust me bro" I am hoping that you'll trust the fact that outside of the original team, no expert who has done the experiment has called this the Meissner effect.  Everyone, e v e r y o n e  who does this for a living that you can verify (and one you can't verify is actually a physicist  :) ) have noticed the same issue.   

I am still waiting for you to post proof that you have a master's degree in physics. You seemed so eager to prove it but wouldn't because of these forum rules. I couldn't find anything in the forum rules to prevent you from proving that you are what you claim to be, but just in case feel free to prove it to me in the DMs. 

If you won't prove it then I'd prefer if you would stop repeating it over and over again, because it's annoying.

 

Also, the issues you are raising are not the same issues as "everyone who does this for a living" has raised. That's why I keep responding to you, because the arguments you put forth for why this is a hoax are not at all what others are saying. You bring up crap like "the original team isn't sharing the sample", even though we have others claiming they are doing just that. You keep posting vague stuff about how you can tell the difference between things but won't elaborate at all on how which results in a "trust me bro" situation.

You keep saying things are easy to test, yet do not provide any answers when asked "how would you test it". 

You make some weird claim that if it isn't proven to be true by the 3rd of August then we still "live in the real world", yet don't elaborate on why that specific date.

 

 

On 8/3/2023 at 2:48 PM, Uttamattamakin said:

You can either Trust me bro... Or I can explain all of this using 1,000,000 dollar words and a bunch of math which on a forum like this is not really called for.   Better yet don't trust me.  Trust the scientific process and the whole community looking at this.  If so many of us are skeptical then there is a good reason to be. 

We are trusting the scientific process. That's why I am questioning you so much because you are not following that at all.

You claim this is a hoax before it has been tested properly.

You put in arbitrary deadlines for no reason.

You post claims that seem to be false, acting like they are true.

 

 

On 8/4/2023 at 5:30 PM, Uttamattamakin said:

If there are any replies remember, I am just trained to be more skeptical the more I want something to be true.  I might not ever fully 110% be convinced until I see some LK99 for myself and can run experiments. 

Being skeptical isn't just calling things wrong over and over without any rime or reason.

I am also skeptical. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out to not be a room-temperature superconductor. I hope it is, but I wouldn't bet money on it. But as I said earlier, there is more to being skeptical than just saying things are wrong over and over again. Being skeptical means looking at the evidence for and again, and keeping an open mind until one side is firmly established as the truth. Right now we don't know. That's why experiments need to be made. That's why I dislike your posts like this one, because it is not "being skeptical". It's the opposite of being skeptical:  

On 8/1/2023 at 9:46 PM, 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. 

 

[Uttamattamakin]

I am not pushing the idea it is a diamagnet.  I am telling you what the arXiv publications on it have so far said.  People who have actually made the stuff and measured it's properties say that.  The Meissener effect and flux pinning are not plain old diamagnetism.    With a strong enough field anything can levitate due to diamagnetism.   

 

Meissner effect is the perfect expulsion of all electric flux.  Flux pinning is when imperfections in the superconductor allow some flux to pass through.  This looks very different to diamagnetic levitation.  So far they have not really fully demonstrated that in these videos.  See the Tweets above. 

 

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I am still waiting for you to post proof that you have a master's degree in physics.

 

I have been told by moderation that information that would Identify me is somehow against the rules.  Since any thing I could post would be questionable unless I identified myself.  (It could be construed as self promotion I think that's their rationale.  Since I do have a well read blog which is sometimes carried as news by google.)   That said if you look at the post above one of them may give away my identity due to who Twitter works.
 

Besides you don't have to rely on me.  I give references for what I say.  Either formal papers, credible videos for comparison and so forth. 

 

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Being skeptical isn't just calling things wrong over and over without any rime or reason.

 

Being skeptical in science isn't' Looking at the evidence for and against a thing.  That is being neutral.  A scientist needs to be professionally convinced of a thing.  Everything is assumed to be false until it is PROVEN true.  Once the proof is solid, peer reviewed, replicated, and reliable then we believe it.   Then the onus is on any who deny it to PROVE that all the other data is wrong. 
 

By the by, I hope no one considers what I write to be angry.  I am used to this because I just don't get on the hype trains in science.  So far I've been correct to not get on board with WIMPS, SUSY String theory,  or the spurious FTL Neutrino observation by CERN a ways back.  (Let me tell you telling VERY highly placed scientist that they likely just have a loose wire wasn't easy.  Until they found that they essentially had a loose wire. )  Every one of those times my not joining in got me some heat.  Meanwhile I just kept plugging away on theoretical  modified gravity, quantum gravity etc which until LIGO found something were NOT a sexy topic at all. 

 Don't mess with Meissner. NOTE in the video above from the original experiment the piece of supposed super conductor does not float at all unless it is over the very center of the magnet.  IF this was somehow a clear Meissner effect no one would be so coy about saying so. 

 

Don't trust me, trust the consensus that will emerge in the publications over the coming days and weeks.  I'd love LOOVE to be wrong.  We could really use a new proton accelerator.