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

471–480 of 501 posts

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

#471

Post by groestl »

xdennis wrote: post #468
nemo44x wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He sounds rather bitter and arrogant. He basically just called them idiots. As if none of the researchers would have noticed the measurement error. Perhaps he’s right - we’ll know in a few days I assume. I do hope they are right though not only because it would be a huge leap but also because I’d love to see this guys reaction.

> He sounds rather bitter and arrogant. That might be your interpretation of it. I think the Germans would call it being straightforward.

It's a cultural thing, we tend to spare the buns from the sandwich feedback ;)

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

#472

Post by wiredfool »

hinkley wrote: post #465
wiredfool wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This dialogue is reminiscent of rec.bycycles.tech arguments with Jobst, ca 1993. A bike wheel is a linear elastic system, that can be thought of as a superposition of a uniformly set of tensioned spokes as one state, and a set of spokes in compression in the loaded zone (bottom of the wheel) as the other state. So long as the superposition of the two states obeys the limiting conditions (i.e. spokes in tension) they…

Hey do you happen to recall, did Brandt prove this theory with a tensiometer or did I just hallucinate that?

Pretty sure he did, but I don't have r.b.t. archives. He was definitely a proponent of them, preferred a specific brand/style, and would have easily been able to do the experiment.

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

#473

Post by ryzvonusef »

https://twitter.com/alexkaplan0/status/1684622263339884544

    > I have bad news. I am growing increasingly convinced that LK-99 is simply diamagnetic, rather than superconducting. It lines up well with existing evidence (susceptibility, levitation, lack of heat capacity singularity, etc.)
https://twitter.com/alexkaplan0/status/1684622265403465728

    > Discovering a new diamagnet is cool, but .... obviously way less cool
____

reminded me of this asianometry video on a similar much hyped korean breakthrough in biology, and the sad aftereffects of it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0MMtKMTjoU

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

#474

Post by wiredfool »

denimnerd42 wrote: post #456
hinkley wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And thread. Thereby proving my point: Almost nobody knows how bicycle wheels actually work.

Well. I wish we could sit in front of a bicycle wheel and discuss it. Because I have a feeling we are shooting arrows at different targets. As a mountain biker I'm more interested in what happens when an extreme amount of load is applied to the wheel, not the model with assumptions applied. Definitely a difficult concept to discuss with only text. Anyways.. glad to have a good discussion with you about bicycle wheels…

I think you're both in violent agreement using different terms.

You're looking at the macro "It's all in tension" (superposition of two states) and hinkley is looking at the "bottom is a compressive change" (dynamic portion of the load).

What I'm not clear of is if you think that the upper spokes change tension between the unloaded case and the plain gravity load case (force on hub down, ground on rim up at the bottom), or if you expect the top half spokes to increase and the bottom half to decrease in tension. I think this is what hinkley thinks you think.

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

#475

Post by sslayer »

IshKebab wrote: post #467
hinkley wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And thread. Thereby proving my point: Almost nobody knows how bicycle wheels actually work.

Nah they both understand it. One of them is just arguing to show off.

The real winner will be who comes up with application for LK-99 to improve bicycles

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

#476

Post by meroes »

stu255 wrote: post #421
zarzavat wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you just made a groundbreaking discovery like this, wouldn't you care? Hell no! If I had made a discovery of similar magnitude I would have done exactly what they’ve done: push out a rough preprint ASAP to reserve my Nobel prize, then take a deep breath, relax and take my time dotting ‘i’s and crossing ‘t’s for the real paper in Nature. That doesn’t mean they’re correct, but there’s nothing inherently suspicious…

Exactly, they have made a very big claim and made it very easy to replicate / falsify. It takes a few days to produce this stuff. Their paper is weak on data / results. This is exactly what you would do if your team genuinely believed you had discovered something monumental. In poker terms they are "all in" and they want to get called. That's why it is so interesting. If they had posted lots of extreme results but it…

The motivations for fakery are too high.

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

#477

Post by hackerting »

justinclift wrote: post #455
drexlspivey wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This guy is live tweeting his attempt to reproduce https://twitter.com/andrewmccalip/status/1684433849781202944

Seems to be a single post?

You have to login to view the thread. The new Twitter made it super confusing, I guess the UX designers are all gone at this point at X

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

#478

Post by hinkley »

wiredfool wrote: post #474
denimnerd42 wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well. I wish we could sit in front of a bicycle wheel and discuss it. Because I have a feeling we are shooting arrows at different targets. As a mountain biker I'm more interested in what happens when an extreme amount of load is applied to the wheel, not the model with assumptions applied. Definitely a difficult concept to discuss with only text. Anyways.. glad to have a good discussion with you about bicycle wheels…

I think you're both in violent agreement using different terms. You're looking at the macro "It's all in tension" (superposition of two states) and hinkley is looking at the "bottom is a compressive change" (dynamic portion of the load). What I'm not clear of is if you think that the upper spokes change tension between the unloaded case and the plain gravity load case (force on hub down, ground on rim up at the botto…

That was indeed my interpretation of that half of the conversation. That they were claiming that the axle is suspended (tension increases with downforce) by the spokes above the midline of the circle, which is what Brandt vehemently contended was false.

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

#479

Post by hinkley »

sslayer wrote: post #475
IshKebab wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah they both understand it. One of them is just arguing to show off.

The real winner will be who comes up with application for LK-99 to improve bicycles

Electric bicycles baby.

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

#480

Post by Thrymr »

justinclift wrote: post #455
drexlspivey wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This guy is live tweeting his attempt to reproduce https://twitter.com/andrewmccalip/status/1684433849781202944

Seems to be a single post?

Because X (sigh) doesn't show replies in public (if not logged in) anymore.
Post reply on HN