Metallic Hydrogen

[rhyseyness]

5 hours ago, DrMikeNZ said:

If you only applied the pressure for a few femptoseconds, you would only have metallic hydrogen for a few femptoseconds. Not long enough to even consider it ever existed, and certainly not long enough to use it. We don't quite have fabrication of complex structures out of diamond nutted out, so we won't be making any storage tanks anytime soon, and with these pressures diamond can catastrophically fail pretty much by looking at it.

Diamonds do that, the hydrogen doesn't... Not yet at least.

Quote

The catch--as there always is one--is that the metal is not yet metastable in the experiments, meaning that when the pressure is removed from it and it warms up, the solid hydrogen reverts into a liquid and then a gas. Theoretically, metastable solid hydrogen is possible, and would be essentially due to the same reason that carbon forms diamonds that do not revert to their original state after experiencing immense pressure and extreme temperature. In practice... well, it'll likely take some time. 

 

[DrMikeNZ]

19 minutes ago, rhyseyness said:

Diamonds do that, the hydrogen doesn't... Not yet at least.

Currently, the only reason the claimed spec of metallic hydrogen 'exists' is because it is compressed at these extreme pressures between diamonds. There isn't any proof yet that it is possible to store metallic hydrogen without this. There isn't sufficient proof that what they saw was actually metallic hydrogen, they have a long way to go with repeating their work and taking more specific measurements. This publicity may help them get some more funding to continue that work at least.

[Bananasplit_00]

30 minutes ago, DrMikeNZ said:

Currently, the only reason the claimed spec of metallic hydrogen 'exists' is because it is compressed at these extreme pressures between diamonds. There isn't any proof yet that it is possible to store metallic hydrogen without this. There isn't sufficient proof that what they saw was actually metallic hydrogen, they have a long way to go with repeating their work and taking more specific measurements. This publicity may help them get some more funding to continue that work at least.

or we just get psudo science artiles claiming we have room temperature semiconductors that we can just churn out no problem...

[DrMikeNZ]

12 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

or we just get psudo science artiles claiming we have room temperature semiconductors that we can just churn out no problem...

I presume you meant superconductor. Just drop the ambient temperature of a room to 130K, demonstrate a working superconductor, write a paper on "Superconductivity at room temperature", then issue a press release.

Unfortunately, there are countless journals that are more concerned about their open access publication fee than scientific rigour, and this is getting extremely common.

[Bananasplit_00]

1 hour ago, DrMikeNZ said:

I presume you meant superconductor. Just drop the ambient temperature of a room to 130K, demonstrate a working superconductor, write a paper on "Superconductivity at room temperature", then issue a press release.

Unfortunately, there are countless journals that are more concerned about their open access publication fee than scientific rigour, and this is getting extremely common.

my bad yes i mean superconductors lol and yes that is sadly how some papers seem to go about their work

[Fetzie]

11 hours ago, SamStrecker said:

That's not practical in the short run but cool. How about globally we try to get better batteries? That would fix almost every problem known to man

Yeah, I'm thinking of the implementation as a fuel for cars. If you can get a couple of kilos of metallic hydrogen in a box then that could be really good.

[VerticalDiscussions]

Ah, my favourite type of articles ^^. Pretty awesome news for space travelling, but then again wont this material be a little like Californium 252 when its out in terms of pricing and conditioning of the material?

[PocketNerd]

Just going to bring this out there... This might not be entirely legit, apparently the guy got published based off of a single experiment that no one had reproduced yet.

http://www.nature.com/news/physicists-doubt-bold-report-of-metallic-hydrogen-1.21379 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/science/solid-metallic-hydrogen-harvard-physicists.html

[The Sloth]

2 minutes ago, PocketNerd said:

Just going to bring this out there... This might not be entirely legit, apparently the guy got published based off of a single experiment that no one had reproduced yet.

http://www.nature.com/news/physicists-doubt-bold-report-of-metallic-hydrogen-1.21379 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/science/solid-metallic-hydrogen-harvard-physicists.html

 

that's normal on physic, most people just want grant money. want a few years and see if other people refute the claim. 

[PocketNerd]

2 hours ago, nerdslayer1 said:

that's normal on physic, most people just want grant money. want a few years and see if other people refute the claim. 

That seems... imprecise though. Get published and THEN have a proper peer review/replication? It's things like this that create idiocy like the Anti-Vaxxer movement or "Alternative Facts"

[The Sloth]

13 minutes ago, PocketNerd said:

That seems... imprecise though. Get published and THEN have a proper peer review/replication? It's things like this that create idiocy like the Anti-Vaxxer movement or "Alternative Facts"

 

 

well it's sad to say but more controversial the fact more money you get, most people just want the money and really dot care about the research. 

[DrMikeNZ]

6 minutes ago, PocketNerd said:

That seems... imprecise though. Get published and THEN have a proper peer review/replication? It's things like this that create idiocy like the Anti-Vaxxer movement or "Alternative Facts"

The peer review cannot ensure the science is correct. Typically experiments take months and hundreds of thousands of dollars to get the required materials to perform. Once the paper is written, it is supposed to be sent to 3 independent researchers who should be experts in the field. In some fields there may not be that many experts who can actually review the research. The reviewers typically have a 1-3 weeks to comment on it, and submit a recommendation of accept,revision, or reject. There is no time or money to replicate the experiment in this process, and people can write and submit whatever the hell they like.

Many scientists refuse to accept requests to review papers as it is unpaid and a time consuming process. Even then, all the reviewers can really do is suggest additional citations, better clarity, improved controls and say if the paper is new research or plagiarism. In some cases the reviewers may recommend revision or rejection, and the editor may accept the paper anyway. If the paper is rejected, the author might submit it to another journal and try again until it is accepted.

This all leads to a lot of crap getting published. If you have a solution to this problem, the world needs it.

 

You cannot take the claims of papers at face value, you have to read them in full, understand what they measured, how interpreted their results, and the limitations of their methodology.

[DrMikeNZ]

 

[bcredeur97]

so when can I build a car out of it?

[Sauron]

Even if they find a way to make it stay solid you'll still need immense pressures to produce it, which will probably make it prohibitively expensive and not widely adopted. We seem to forget just how much fuel a rocket uses.

[shermantanker]

On 1/26/2017 at 6:27 PM, Wolther said:

Or cancer, or aging. But ya know, batteries are cool too  

Batteries > Cancer

[Stefan1024]

Metallic hydrogen? The only thing that comes into my minde is "the dark side of the moon"