Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 501 posts

Re: Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be

#291

Post by wenyuanyu »

floxy wrote: post #201

Since it is apparently expected that the material is almost trivial to synthesize, I'm wondering why the original group hasn't tried to get an outside independent source to verify one of their samples before dropping this on the arXiv? Is there some other internal reason/pressure to release this now? Like they've tried to be in stealth mode for the two years since applying for the patent, but risks of leaks are growi…

Exactly opposite, they needed to drop this on arXiv first to stake their claim before anyone else. It's open for everyone to test out now, so if it's legit, we'll know soon. Also, it's a smart move if they're worried about leaks, now they're in control of the news.

Re: Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be

#292

Post by salty_biscuits »

et2o wrote: post #234
scythe wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lead is absurdly cheap. One dollar a pound! Cheaper than much more common metals like aluminum or magnesium. So I diagnose a low demand. They used to talk about using barium cement but it just can't compete, price-wise.

I believe that most of the lead used today is a by-product or co-product of mining other more valuable metals like Zinc and silver. Lead is quite abundant in the Earth's crust and found in easy to access deposits. I think >80% of the current industrial use of lead is for batteries. It's probably still in the top ten most mined metals by dollar value and definitely by mass.

The mineral containing Zinc is called Sphalerite, which is based on a greek etymology for "deciever" because it commonly occurs with Galena (which has Lead and Silver) and looks similar.

Re: Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be

#293

Post by elfbargpt »

hinkley wrote: post #253
tux3 wrote: post #137

New scientist got a reply from the authors and a few other experts: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2384782-room-temperatur... >Kim has only co-authored one of the arXiv papers, while the other is authored by his colleagues at the Quantum Energy Research Centre in South Korea, some of whom also applied for a patent on LK-99 in August 2022. >Both papers present similar measurements, however Kim says that the seco…

Is that, "I never meant to publish this," or is that, "It was a rough draft that I hadn't edited for accuracy or tone and fuck Steve for uploading it."

I really think this could be in-fighting for the third Nobel prize spot (if it turns out to be legitimate). I pointed this out in another comment, but the first two authors are the the LK-99 material namesake and will likely always be the first two authors.

"YW Kwon" published the first paper with himself as the 3rd author, and "HT Kim" published the second paper a few hours later with himself as the 3rd author.

Pretty interesting drama if that's the case. May indicate neither paper was ready, but that they all think the result is legitimate.

Re: Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be

#294

Post by p1mrx »

soligern wrote: post #264
jonplackett wrote: post #11

If 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?

I’m just thinking aloud here but would this enable actual perpetual motion machines? For instance, wouldn’t the pushback from the quantum locked superconductor be an infinite source of energy?

> wouldn’t [x] be an infinite source of energy?

In general, the answer to this question is "no."

Re: Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be

#295

Post by flangola7 »

jonplackett wrote: post #11

If 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?

Explosive weapons chargeable to any yield. Take a loop of superconductor charged to the desired current, then warm it beyond its critical point, dumping the electrical energy into immediate heat. A 120mm tank shell is in the 10s of Kilowatt-hours. No more special chemicals, just this lead based super conductor and 20 minutes on an EV fast charger. Don't forget to take it off the charger!

Re: Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be

#296

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

elfbargpt wrote: post #288

One interesting thing I saw pointed out on twitter: both of the published papers have "Lee" and "JH Kim" as the first two authors (LK-99 material namesake). The first paper was published by YW Kwon with himself as the third author. The second paper was published a few hours later by Hyun-Tak Kim with himself as the third author. As others have pointed out there can only be 3 names on the ticket for a nobel prize. To…

If this is real, it's worth a nobel in both physics and chemistry, so there are plenty of accolades to go around!

Re: Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be

#297

Post by hatsunearu »

mthomasmw wrote: post #88
local_issues wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ding ding ding! We still don't know how bikes work, we have a pretty good but incomplete model for lift on airplanes, and no one has the faintest why Tylenol works. We should figure that out! But we can definitely keep using all the applications until then. (Except for Tylenol, we keep learning how bad that stuff is) EDIT: It won't let me post more, so here's the answers to responses. For sure! https://www.cbc.ca/new…

Do you have a link handy for "we don't know how bikes work" ?

Yeah, that's complete crap. Bike dynamics is well researched and the instability and stability mechanisms are numerous but well understood.

Re: Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be

#298

Post by aaron695 »

akjssdk wrote: post #54
mmastrac wrote: post #12

This is an extremely useful summarization of the original paper. > The authors believe that the modified/strained structure of their material creates a large number of “quantum wells” between particular lead atoms and the adjacent oxygens of the phosphate groups bound to them, in effect making a two-dimensional “electron gas”. They propose that electron tunneling between these quantum wells, which are between 3.7 and…

I don't think the actual proposed superconductivity mechanism is the relevant part of this paper. It is much easier to prove that this is superconducting than to prove why. And in a sense it is a bit less relevant. Although developing a working theory for room temperature is also probably worth a Nobel prize, so I am willing to bet some theorists are also running to their blackboards as we speak.

[dead]

Re: Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be

#299

Post by Evidlo »

honkycat wrote: post #193

I've been saying for years we are one "future technology" away from savings our asses from our world collapsing. Here is hoping this is that breakthrough.

Maybe post-scarcity countries will have more time to focus on fighting for land and less need for maintaining good relations with others.

Re: Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be

#300

Post by Freedom2 »

TillE wrote: post #180
tigershark wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I understand there is no real explanation for the measurements and the video demonstrating the Meissner effect apart from faking it. The Reddit thread that you posted alleges that they were faking the video by super-cooling a non-room temperature superconductor for example. Do you have proof that they actually are so crazy to fake a certain Nobel prize when their research can be verified in a short time? Fr…

All the amateur debunking just smells like the usual confidently incorrect contrarianism, which is always popular on sites like Reddit. There's just way too much going on for this to be a sloppy mistake. It's either real or a fraud, and in both cases the alleged errors aren't particularly important.

> sites like Reddit.

I'm glad this site doesn't partake in incorrect contrarianism.

Post reply on HN