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

361–370 of 501 posts

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

#361

Post by SiempreViernes »

zbobet2012 wrote: post #247
ortusdux wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That video reminds me of the way pyrolytic graphite floats on strong magnets. https://scitoys.com/scitoys/scitoys/magnets/pyrolytic_graphi... https://youtu.be/Wk3seHNmNs8

As far as I am aware you need multiple magnets to make this happen, just one will cause it to "fall" off. In the video it's just one magnet, and it doesn't try to "slide" away when it's moved past the edge of the magnet. That's a strong indicator of quantum locking. I am not an expert in this field though. https://www.imagesco.com/magnetism/graphite-levitation-kit.h... https://scitoys.com/scitoys/scitoys/magnets/pyro…

They don't show the actual field of the big metallic cylinder, so you can't rule out a situation as shown at the start of this video: https://youtu.be/D-tW8_SRW3g where two identically looking objects are revealed to have very different magnetic fields.

Whether it makes sense to say the multipole magnet is "multiple magnets" is a philosophical debate in itself.

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

#364

Post by Filligree »

yreg wrote: post #190
XorNot wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scope of the claim. This is world changing. Shoot the first video, then get the dremel/pliers and cut that large bit off. It would be worth it, because if this works at all, then it's vital to prove it. We'd be having a very different discussion if that small piece was umabiguously floating and remaining locked in place.

> it's vital to prove it [asap] Is it? What do they care if it takes other labs a week to reproduce?

But you don’t understand, people are being skeptics on the internet.

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

#365

Post by pzber »

bluGill wrote: post #101
scarmig wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. BCS was proposed a half century after the first conventional superconductor was discovered, and even today we don't have a convincing mechanism for "regular" high-Tc superconductors. But if it superconducts, it superconducts, and research into the how is useful but not a blocker to using it.

That depends. If it super conducts, but it isn't useful in the real world, then we will be waiting for theory to - hopefully - give us some insight into how to improve things to useful. This only can carry a small amount of current. I'm not sure how to figure out what small means (numbers are given in the article if you know how to use them!), but if the losses using regular wire are less than the energy needed to ma…

250 milliamps still sounds great for use in antennas.

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

#366

Post by pnut »

hatchling wrote: post #354
throwaw1yyy wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Agreed on reddit being terrible. What is "strong alpha" though?

Possibly they mean people with reliably high signal to noise ratio, analogous to the investment term https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/alpha.asp ?

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

#367

Post by DonHopkins »

IshKebab wrote: post #339
babypuncher wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think their point still stands, even if "we don't know how bikes work" is a flowery exaggeration.

But then we don't know how anything works...

Yet we still have Insane Clown Posse refrigerator magnets.

https://www.insaneclownpossemerch.com/collections/insane-clo...

Scientists Try To Teach ICP Fans How Fucking Magnets Work

https://metalinjection.net/av/scientists-teach-icp-fans-fuck...

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

#368

Post by fbarred »

If this is real, what about this discovery that made it happen now?

Is it a case that some technology is now available that unlocked this? Or is this trying something and seeing if it works?

Could this discovery have been made 10-20 years ago?

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

#369

Post by ddalex »

blagie wrote: post #281
mlyle wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’ve never understood how this battle could possibly persist, considering that planes can fly upside-down. That's orthogonal. Planes flying upside down still have air flowing faster over the new "top" of the wing than the bottom. Though, a common misunderstanding is that air must be taking the same "time" to go over the top and the bottom. This is not true. You can build a pretty good mental model of flight with ei…

> You can build a pretty good mental model of flight with either simplified mechanism, but you end up underestimating performance by a fair bit. I've never hear of a good mental model built on Bernoulli's Principle. They are either: - Wrong - Give no intuition The key question is /why/ air moves faster on one side, and once you get away from the misconception of same time, I've never heard an intuitive argument. Redi…

Why are you benchmarking models to human intuition? If you apply the same reasoning to quantum mechanics you'll have a bad time.

I'm sure models can accurately compute how much of the wing lift comes from the suction effect on the top of the wing versus the push on the bottom of the wing.

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

#370

Post by pzber »

soligern wrote: post #48
floxy wrote: post #4

Lots 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…

I’m sure this is on Applied Science’s (a YouTube channel) radar. He recently went on a deep dive on making YBCO superconductors so it’s right up his alley.

Would love to see Ben Krasnow from Applied Science try to replicate this!
Post reply on HN