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

271–280 of 362 posts

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

#271

Post by tigershark »

tux3 wrote: post #117
RC_ITR wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting that the video of levitation isn't mentioned at all in this rebuttal. Assuming the scientists acted in good faith and this isn't a complete scam, maybe we found something else that doesn't conform to our current understanding of superconductors, but does levitate over a magnetic field at ambient temp/pressure.

One response to the levitation video is that it is hard to distinguish from a non-superconductive diamagnetic effect, which can occur even in not very exotic materials. There are videos of graphite levitating that are circulating, for example.

Not true. The graphite needs two magnets, not one like in the video.

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

#272

Post by astrange »

tetrisgm wrote: post #217
candiddevmike wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought there was something about waste heat being a problem in outer space, so if this fixes that it could open the door for space-based laser weapons and other terrible things. GDI Ion Cannon when?

I mean Russia claims they have battle dolphins. Might as well.

The US navy also has battle dolphins.

https://thebulletin.org/2022/03/how-dolphins-protect-the-us-...

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

#273

Post by fleischhauf »

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...

I'm also highly scheptical but if you'd asked a bunch of random people wether or not the relativity theory is true or nuclear weapons when they were first demonstrated they probably would have been equally sceptical

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

#274

Post by OkayPhysicist »

zackees wrote: post #221
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.

Also, the clock speed of CPUs are limited by resistance and heat. Both of those go to zero. We may see 100ghz CPUs and 3D stacked cpus with almost no need for cooling.

At those frequencies, induction would be a huge headache.

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

#275

Post by downWidOutaFite »

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…

In the New Scientist interview HT Kim seemed to imply that he wouldn't help other researchers until his paper gets published. If the synthesis ends up being tricky this could take a while.

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

#276

Post by Firmwarrior »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #255
geertj wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's just speculation because the third author on the first paper isn't an author on the second, better paper, and he's the one who published it.

Man, fucking scientists dude, they need to get their heads on straight

If you're one of the 7 people who invented room temperature superconductivity, it's not going to matter who has the Nobel Prize. You can take a part time 7 figure consulting gig and be as famous as you want to boot

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

#277

Post by faraggi »

smallnamespace wrote: post #265
jncfhnb wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feels like you’re strawmanning the idea here. It’s not “every lab” it’s “at least one lab”. Jeez I sure hope at least one lab can spare the time to bother reproducing a room temperature semiconductor claim.

One lab is definitely not adequate. Replication attempts don't give you an unambiguous signal, many things can go wrong. If one lab hasn't succeeded in replicating the paper, does that mean the paper is wrong, or just that a necessary step wasn't documented clearly or followed correctly? More labs trying to replicate give you more independent signals.

But if one lab *does* succeed, it means there probably is something of substance.

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

#278

Post by saberdancer »

lamontcg wrote: post #266
ncann wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the authors are disciples of a professor specialized in superconductor, their own Master and PhD were about superconductor, then they created a lab/company specifically for researching superconductor. This is contrary to my earlier belief that they were just normal chemists/physicists that happened to stumble upon an interesting material. Unless they're lying through their teeth, it's hard to believe they would no…

https://twitter.com/8teapi/status/1684571913908293633 Lee was stuck as an adjunct professor for 19 years. Kim thinks that physicists all have their head up their ass and he knows the shortcut to discovering superconductivity. And nature wouldn't publish their paper. Combined with their inability to accurately measure Tc and a lot of skepticism already out there that their graphs show what they say they do this looks…

And what of Kwon and HT Kim?

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

#279

Post by adrian_mrd »

downWidOutaFite wrote: post #275
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…

In the New Scientist interview HT Kim seemed to imply that he wouldn't help other researchers until his paper gets published. If the synthesis ends up being tricky this could take a while.

Link to the New Scientist article is: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2384782-room-temperatur...

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

#280

Post by scarmig »

faraggi wrote: post #277
smallnamespace wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One lab is definitely not adequate. Replication attempts don't give you an unambiguous signal, many things can go wrong. If one lab hasn't succeeded in replicating the paper, does that mean the paper is wrong, or just that a necessary step wasn't documented clearly or followed correctly? More labs trying to replicate give you more independent signals.

But if one lab *does* succeed, it means there probably is something of substance.

Cold fusion also replicated across multiple labs, before they all retracted shortly after.
Post reply on HN