> (as well as an obvious instant Nobel prize). South Korea has been waiting for a (real, STEM) Nobel prize for decades. These guys will be worshipped as gods if they deliver
> (real, STEM) Nobel prize
Ouch.
Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be
21–30 of 501 posts
Re: Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be
#22Lots of people are saying there should be a quick turnaround time here for trying the replication. I wonder how much it would cost to try and replicate this, in materials, labor costs, and vacuum furnace time/costs. My naive thought is that that labs in general aren't just going to drop everything to try an replicate every instance of someone declaring they've discovered room temperature superconductivity. Seems more…
From what I recall of the original paper, 1-2 hours of actual labor with equipment and reagents many labs already have on hand--although it required 24-48hours in the furnace at each step which is the only reason for the delay and why the article author mentions we should see results tomorrow. So, trivial enough most people in similar labs already spent more time discussing the implications than actual labor/investment to replicate.
Re: Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be
#23This is going to mess up RoHS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restriction_of_Hazardous_Subst...
Re: Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be
#24Lots of people are saying there should be a quick turnaround time here for trying the replication. I wonder how much it would cost to try and replicate this, in materials, labor costs, and vacuum furnace time/costs. My naive thought is that that labs in general aren't just going to drop everything to try an replicate every instance of someone declaring they've discovered room temperature superconductivity. Seems more…
Fleischmann and Pons' famous cold fusion result was announced on March 23 1989 and a spate of replication attempts followed in the ensuing weeks; by April 30 1989, the NYT ran an article calling cold fusion dead due to the large number of reported negative reproduction attempts.
Scientists can move far quicker than you expect, and a positive or negative replication of this superconductor claim should be a very easy publication to grab. It would definitely be worth alloting a few weeks of grad student time to replicating this ASAP to get that publication.
Re: Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be
#25Lots of people are saying there should be a quick turnaround time here for trying the replication. I wonder how much it would cost to try and replicate this, in materials, labor costs, and vacuum furnace time/costs. My naive thought is that that labs in general aren't just going to drop everything to try an replicate every instance of someone declaring they've discovered room temperature superconductivity. Seems more…
It doesn't require the kind of equipment that you have to justify to accountants and run at full capacity. And while the reactants are things that I believe most labs won't have at hand, they are the kind of thing anybody can buy on the web to arrive this week. Whether people will stop what they are doing to verify it is literally a matter of people stopping what they are doing. University labs are usually quick on t…
One of the elements used here is phosphorus (P) which is regulated by the DEA in the United States, and can't just be purchased online
Re: Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be
#26So what kinds of cool stuff could be built with a room temperature superconductor? Better levitating trains?
From the article,
"Who knows what could come out of that? Robust high-current-density room-temperature superconductors are right out of science fiction (SF readers will recall that one such material was a big plot point in Larry Niven’s Ringworld). Electrical generation and transmission, antennas, power storage, magnet applications (including things like fusion power plants), electric motors and basically everything that runs on electricity would be affected. We could stop throwing away so much generated power on heating up the wires that deliver it, for starters."
Re: Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be
#27So what kinds of cool stuff could be built with a room temperature superconductor? Better levitating trains?
Nuclear fusion much easier, quantum computing, lossless electricity transmission, insane batteries. Dirt cheap MRIs, Basically welcome to the Jetsons. Much easier to mitigate climate change to the point where we can just deal with it.
Re: Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be
#28If this material does just what they say it does, what would it revolutionise? Or as the article talks about, is this just a pointer at other possibilities that would be the real game changers?
In the immediate short term, the power level supported is too low for the real shiny applications that everyone talks about.
But the main one that is screaming at me for this technology sitting in front of us is SQUID sensors and RF antennas that will operate in the lower power range of the potential applications spectrum.
Re: Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be
#29If this material does just what they say it does, what would it revolutionise? Or as the article talks about, is this just a pointer at other possibilities that would be the real game changers?
> what would it revolutionise?
"Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!” --Venkman
Re: Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be
#30If this material does just what they say it does, what would it revolutionise? Or as the article talks about, is this just a pointer at other possibilities that would be the real game changers?
[deleted]