351–360 of 362 posts
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
“Just found” It was linked in the original hacker news thread
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
He states it took 1000 attempts with two steps in the process requiring a "stroke of luck". This doesn't sound like it's going to be easy to replicate or verify.
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.
This is a fairly straight forward claim. It’s not like “most science” with dubiously small effect sizes that may not replicate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
He states it took 1000 attempts with two steps in the process requiring a "stroke of luck". This doesn't sound like it's going to be easy to replicate or verify.
LinkedIn post from one the authors: https://twitter.com/8teapi/status/1684571913908293633
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jo (pronounced a bit like your without the r sound) is affirmative in lots of European languages, including Finnish and Czech (it's spelled joo in Finnish iirc)
Interesting. In colloquial (American?) English, "yo" is used to get someone's attention, or to you've heard someone asking if you're present. E.g., "Yo! Doofenschmirtz! You're new inator has been delivered." Or: "Is Phineas here?" "Yo!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Why do we need evidence of repeatability? At this point just evidence that a rtp superconductor exists, even if we can't create anymore of it, would be a nobel.
LinkedIn post from one the authors: https://twitter.com/8teapi/status/1684571913908293633
So it took them 1000 times to get a good result from this experiment over 19 years, and two steps in the process require a stroke of luck? That doesn't inspire confidence.
It's learning a craft, constant refinement, iteration, failure, and eventual success. And then luck, that which is out of your control, gets you over the line.
I am more likely to believe that the group to get room temperature superconductivity first (if anyone ever does) will have been learning the hard way about how to maximise that within their control so all that is left to succeed is that outside their control.
I am not saying that I am 100% sold on this being it. It's not 20 years of failure. It's 20 years of refinement.