Live data from Hacker News

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

scanalyst.fourmilab.ch

311–320 of 362 posts

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

#311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t understand how superconductors will make phones into supercomputers. Currently transistors and connections use a lot of power just to transfer some bits, superconducting wires and maybe transistors would help. > Also, how does this help fusion become possible? Stronger magnets which you don't need to cool with liquid helium will help achieve better plasma confinement.

Superconductors may reduce power consumption but they don't do anything to improve transistor density.

Before the node-size race we also had the clock-speed race. Eventually it was common for processors reach 2-4ghz, and after that the clock speed gains stopped being practical because as you increase clock speed you also increase energy requirements and heat.

I think the implication is that clock-speed could start increasing again. It would probably require a completely new manufacturing process, but if we assume this superconductor is legit, perhaps an older process could manufacture it.

If so, maybe we could have (just spitballing here, I have no idea) 28nm super conducting CPUs that run at a 1thz instead of 4ghz. That would be quite an improvement over today's CPUs, even with fewer transistors, I think.

There are other losses and limitation in increasing clock-speeds aside from just resistive losses, but I think they are a significant part of the current bottleneck. Other losses involve transistor switching losses, and inductive losses but I don't really know the details, and I think those details change with superconductors.

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

#312
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…

That graphic isn't saying there's a shortcut, it's basically saying that physicists need to work harder and try many many many many more materials than they do. Not quite trial and error since the classes of materials should be informed by some theory, but far more - multiple thousands per individual.

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

#313
post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on the finding. Getting a false negative from a lab is plausible. Getting a false positive seems very unlikely.

Cold fusion got several false positives very quickly. And if this is a diamagnetic that seems to do some of the right behavior, a false positive is quite possible here as well. Hopefully all corrected in time.

Although the experimental protocol had not been published, physicists in several countries attempted, and failed, to replicate the excess heat phenomenon. The first paper submitted to Nature reproducing excess heat, although it passed peer review, was rejected because most similar experiments were negative and there were no theories that could explain a positive result;[notes 2][42] this paper was later accepted for publication by the journal Fusion Technology. Nathan Lewis, professor of chemistry at the California Institute of Technology, led one of the most ambitious validation efforts, trying many variations on the experiment without success,[43] while CERN physicist Douglas R. O. Morrison said that "essentially all" attempts in Western Europe had failed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

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

#315
post #314

Why is replication of material production the focus when the material ostensibly exists and can just be tested for superconducting properties?

Because this ensures repeatability of the material, that it wasn't some accidental dopant, that the samples weren't doctored, etc.

Essentially, a clean room check on all claims.

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

#316

I’m a noob when it comes to SC. Sorry to ask this question here and hope someone could explain. I can’t get any answer from Google. What is the excitement around seeing floating magnets? My understanding is that we can have 2 regular magnets float if position them in opposite polarity, right?

No, you can't float a regular magnet above another magnet or any number of magnets, that is not stable (it can be proven mathematically). You can float a diamagnetic material but you need at least 2 magnets, it wouldn't be stable with only one either. Note however that in the video the material is not completely floating, one corner is touching, that would be enough to stabilise a diamagnetic material for example so it's not a sufficient proof of superconductivity by itself.

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

#317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then they would not out their identity by claiming to have worked with the author. That piece of information alone whittles their identity down to maybe 100 people. Out of 100 adjacent academics how many post on HN, with this style, and this specific level of knowledge in that specific subfield? They may as well have just made the account their irl name. Anonymity is not a realistic goal. Assuming a realistic poster…

You are frustrated and this makes you act in a deliberately obtuse manner. There is a world of difference between "anyone who has worked with the guy" and "has worked with the guy + has hundreds of comments on HN identifying career track over the last few years". The former grants each suspect plausible deniability, while the latter pinpoints the true author. > Anonymity is not a realistic goal. It obviously is for a…

I don't feel frustrated. I am just applying game theory to explain potential motivations from an untrustworthy source.

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

#318
It seems a third paper was just found an hour ago.

Original paper: http://journal.kci.go.kr/jkcgct/archive/articleView?artiId=A...

Translation: https://www.docdroid.net/UiUrs8c/kci-fi002955269-1-pdf

Translation source: https://twitter.com/andrewmccalip/status/1684700783852556288

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

#319

It seems a third paper was just found an hour ago. Original paper: http://journal.kci.go.kr/jkcgct/archive/articleView?artiId=A... Translation: https://www.docdroid.net/UiUrs8c/kci-fi002955269-1-pdf Translation source: https://twitter.com/andrewmccalip/status/1684700783852556288

The first sentence already raises a big red flag. "This paper examines the way of thinking and limitations of physicists regarding the phenomenon of superconductivity". Stop these ridiculous presumptuous claims about "limitations of physicists" before the work is actually verified and proven.

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

#320
post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In undergrad, I spent countless hours with a mortar and pestle, sintering, and annealing to research a particular superconductor, never getting much sleep because I had to wake up every couple hours to make sure nothing had gone awry... It tickles me that they were doing the same thing. Hoping that they get the big win here, for all of our sakes.

Yup. Also tickles me that I might have had better equipment than this team, though we still had to source sample carriers from McDonalds. The multi-million-dollar measurement apparatus required us to put samples in disposable tubes that cost about a dollar each. They turned out to have the exact same physical properties as a McDonalds straw, so once a week someone made a food run and grabbed a handful on the way out.

For the SQUID? Now that brings back even more memories. We got ours from the dining halls.
Post reply on HN