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

Room temperature, ambient pressure superconductivity – this time for real?

scanalyst.fourmilab.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 362 posts

Re: Room temperature, ambient pressure superconductivity – this time for real?

#241

Post by nervousvarun »

mdswanson wrote: post #235
piyh wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

David Grusch is literally talking heresay with zero first hand accounts. Heresay is not allowed in courts for a reason. Snowden blew the lid off an international conspiracy, and he had gigabytes of receipts. Grusch has talked to people who work in information constrained spaces working on advanced materials with fancy codenames. If he was able to give literally any proof besides words coming out of his mouth and "tru…

Agree that it's second-hand...and even he states this. What about the 11 hours of testimony he's provided privately to congress that includes specific names, companies, and locations? What about the first-hand witnesses that congress has heard from that back-up Grusch's claims? I mean, there are some seemingly crazy accusations...but even if only some of them are accurate, they're worth looking in to. And if it's all…

There's also his request for access to a S.C.I.F. (lnk below) in which to discuss more fully what he's alleging.

Complaining he didn't give up everything he knows on live TV/streaming seems a bit unfair as the guy was active military and wants to keep his clearance.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/23/politics/what-is-a-scif/index...

Re: Room temperature, ambient pressure superconductivity – this time for real?

#242

Post by giarc »

foven wrote: post #215
badman2001 wrote: post #198

Recent W&M Condensed Matter Physics Grad. Worked closely with HT Kim, not on this project. He is a trustworthy guy, knows his stuff. I think he is right when he calls the paper very sloppy, I am confused why there is no phase diagram and the sample purity seems suspect. These are things I think would have been addressed in peer review and would give me more confidence overall. Probably not fraud, but doesn't mean it'…

Glad to see a realistic take on HN. Endlessly frustrating to see people be like "this will be replicated in days". Yeah, sure, let every other lab just drop what they're doing, order all the reagents on express, do a thorough characterization making sure they understand the impurities and crystal phase, then perform good airtight measurements in a couple days. Crystal growth always has complications many times outsid…

>Glad to see a realistic take on HN.

From an account created 1 hour ago, claiming to have worked with the author. Take with a huge grain of salt.

Re: Room temperature, ambient pressure superconductivity – this time for real?

#243

Post by giarc »

tcmb wrote: post #229
tersh wrote: post #216

The median prediction for whether this gets independently confirmed is sitting at 25%: https://www.metaculus.com/questions/18090/room-temp-supercon...

... whether it gets confirmed by _the first_ independent attempt.

Predicted by random people on the internet as well.

Re: Room temperature, ambient pressure superconductivity – this time for real?

#244

Post by geertj »

scarmig wrote: post #240
nemo44x wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me the biggest mystery is why they didn't make multiple samples and send them to a few places that could verify their claims immediately. I understand that the papers were published before they really wanted to but they've also apparently have had samples for awhile it sounds like? So assuming it's not BS (and I doubt that it is) it would lead me to believe that making the material is difficult to get right? The v…

Skepticism is warranted, but apparently there's infighting in the group (only 3 people can be recipients of a Nobel Prize) and one jumped the gun to get his name out there. And also apparently fear of research espionage from the PRC (not as far-fetched as it sounds).

Interesting.. would you have a source for those rumors?

Re: Room temperature, ambient pressure superconductivity – this time for real?

#245

Post by atq2119 »

8n4vidtmkvmk wrote: post #39
misnome wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conduct electricity with zero resistance. This has been possible at cryogenic temperatures (powers supermagnets, MRI etc) but running at room temperature _and pressure_ means in theory that you don’t need expensive support machinery. Has been the holy grail for the field. If true, this specific case is only low current, but demonstrates such a thing is possible - almost certainly winning an instant Nobel Prize.

Does this mean there would be no heat waste? And devices like phones and computers wouldn't get hot?

There's the rather non-trivial problem of actually manufacturing chips with the superconducting material.

But if that can be solved, then yes, it could make computing way more efficient.

Re: Room temperature, ambient pressure superconductivity – this time for real?

#246

Post by badman2001 »

nemo44x wrote: post #234
foven wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glad to see a realistic take on HN. Endlessly frustrating to see people be like "this will be replicated in days". Yeah, sure, let every other lab just drop what they're doing, order all the reagents on express, do a thorough characterization making sure they understand the impurities and crystal phase, then perform good airtight measurements in a couple days. Crystal growth always has complications many times outsid…

To me the biggest mystery is why they didn't make multiple samples and send them to a few places that could verify their claims immediately. I understand that the papers were published before they really wanted to but they've also apparently have had samples for awhile it sounds like? So assuming it's not BS (and I doubt that it is) it would lead me to believe that making the material is difficult to get right? The v…

i do not understand this either regarding the samples, usually(in my limited experience) synthesis groups have collaborators that specialize in transport or other types of measurements which I think would have added a bit of credibility, probably could have gotten a measurement of Tc, and just generally added a lot to the paper

Re: Room temperature, ambient pressure superconductivity – this time for real?

#247

Post by alexose »

ddp26 wrote: post #238
tersh wrote: post #216

The median prediction for whether this gets independently confirmed is sitting at 25%: https://www.metaculus.com/questions/18090/room-temp-supercon...

Now down to 19%. Starting to stabilize, at 143 forecasters.

The 'nays' getting lots of traction on twitter right now

https://twitter.com/alexkaplan0/status/1684642852616192000

Re: Room temperature, ambient pressure superconductivity – this time for real?

#248

Post by Natsu »

anonymouse008 wrote: post #3
mijoharas wrote: post #2

So, has anyone seen any of the replication studies start coming in yet? From what I've read we seem to be waiting on those. (and I think they're likely coming today or tomorrow?)

I'm following this fellow: https://twitter.com/andrewmccalip Seems to have the right energy [edit thanks folks] https://nitter.net/i/status/1684433849781202944 Here’s a more colorful play by play as well: https://nitter.net/8teapi/status/1684586672917565443

It's amazing to think that this might be replicated using equipment they put googly eyes on and named "Sucky McSuckface."

I look forward to this historical footnote leading to many clickbait articles in the future.

Re: Room temperature, ambient pressure superconductivity – this time for real?

#249

Post by Ajedi32 »

tersh wrote: post #216

The median prediction for whether this gets independently confirmed is sitting at 25%: https://www.metaculus.com/questions/18090/room-temp-supercon...

Someone also previously linked this betting market here which currently has it at only 16%. https://polymarket.com/event/is-the-room-temp-superconductor...

Re: Room temperature, ambient pressure superconductivity – this time for real?

#250

Post by badman2001 »

giarc wrote: post #242
foven wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glad to see a realistic take on HN. Endlessly frustrating to see people be like "this will be replicated in days". Yeah, sure, let every other lab just drop what they're doing, order all the reagents on express, do a thorough characterization making sure they understand the impurities and crystal phase, then perform good airtight measurements in a couple days. Crystal growth always has complications many times outsid…

>Glad to see a realistic take on HN. From an account created 1 hour ago, claiming to have worked with the author. Take with a huge grain of salt.

i agree re. skepticism but all I'm saying about HT Kim is that he's a real scientist with real bona fides, which I think you could find by asking anyone in my specific subfield of condensed matter physics
Post reply on HN