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

LK-99: The live online race for a room-temperature superconductor

forums.spacebattles.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 659 posts

Re: LK-99: The live online race for a room-temperature superconductor

#291

Post by shepardrtc »

bhouston wrote: post #111
ssijak wrote: post #66

For such an important discovery (if it is real), that seems it could be replicated in a few days, if I were the team that did the discovery, I would create a video recording of the whole process and all the measurements and share it with the textual article. It sounds like that would provide for an easier way to replicate plus more proofs of the discovery.

The team that did the discovery seems disorganized and amateurish though, and with the multiple papers all submitted at the same time by competing factions, riff with infighting - but they stuck with a hunch for longer than anyone else and followed it doggedly. If it turns out to be true, it will be a great movie with an underdog making one of the biggest discoveries of the century.

> but they stuck with a hunch for longer than anyone else and followed it doggedly

That's an understatement.

Re: LK-99: The live online race for a room-temperature superconductor

#292

Post by echelon »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #274

Whether or not this turns out to be real the whole incident has been extremely entertaining, way more than I would have expected. Replication attempts being documented in real time on Twitter and livestreamed on Twitch, news about infighting and drama among the researchers who published the paper, constant fluxations in the betting markets as new news comes out. It's been a wild ride.

It's a lot like the EmDrive incident, except replication attempts are easier.

Both are strange discoveries that are poised to change the world as we know it.

Hopefully this one turns out, unlike the EmDrive.

Re: LK-99: The live online race for a room-temperature superconductor

#293

Post by adastra22 »

gorlilla wrote: post #285
idopmstuff wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would that matter? It's not like they could just be taking an over-the-counter room temperature superconductor and passing it off as something they made. If the thing exists and someone can make it, the specific process doesn't matter (but also why would they make it, publish a fake process and then go through all this rigamarole?).

Grifting doesn't always make sense to those not in on the grift.

Huh?

Re: LK-99: The live online race for a room-temperature superconductor

#294

Post by caturopath »

buildsjets wrote: post #276
nmwnmw wrote: post #267

Isn't it sufficient to have another lab confirm that the existing sample is a super conductor? Then we can all sprint to replication.

How do you know for sure that the existing sample was actually produced by the LK-99 process? Even if it was produced by the LK-99 process, how do you know if all of the required steps and conditions to achieve replication are adequately documented in the process? Reference the FOGBANK debacle.

> How do you know for sure that the existing sample was actually produced by the LK-99 process?

If you hand me a room temperature superconductor but your published recipe doesn't work for me, I'm about 95% as excited as I'd be if I had the right recipe.

Re: LK-99: The live online race for a room-temperature superconductor

#295

Post by kakwa_ »

mschuster91 wrote: post #268
kakwa_ wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vast topic. Markets definitely have their issues. Here are a few: * The most obvious one is the fact it's an overhead, it doesn't produce goods or services by itself. That's not a major issue, but for example in the US ~5% (~7M of ~150M) of the workforce is dedicated to this overhead. * It's prone to internal instabilities. Too often, the markets disconnect from the underlying economic reality, sometimes with only mi…

> Markets definitely have their issues. But so far, the other systems we experimented with (planned economy) were even less able to cope with the incredibly difficult task of balancing an economy. The worst issue that the Soviets and other attempts at central planning failed to account for was flexibility and buffer. Say a natural disaster hits and you need an extra amount of concrete for reconstruction, but all the…

To extend, interesting read on the subject of the soviet economy:

https://chris-said.io/2016/05/11/optimizing-things-in-the-us...

HN discussions:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14515225

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25084479

Re: LK-99: The live online race for a room-temperature superconductor

#296

Post by bananapub »

buildsjets wrote: post #276
nmwnmw wrote: post #267

Isn't it sufficient to have another lab confirm that the existing sample is a super conductor? Then we can all sprint to replication.

How do you know for sure that the existing sample was actually produced by the LK-99 process? Even if it was produced by the LK-99 process, how do you know if all of the required steps and conditions to achieve replication are adequately documented in the process? Reference the FOGBANK debacle.

no one gives a shit at all about any of that if anyone shows up this week with a room temperature/pressure superconductor.

whoever eventually does it gets a nobel prize and the front cover of whatever journal they pick, and then a chapter in the history of the 21st century.

Re: LK-99: The live online race for a room-temperature superconductor

#297

Post by bhouston »

junofan wrote: post #275
bhouston wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, having another lab confirm the behavior and makeup of that sample would go a long way. I wonder why that isn’t happening? Does anyone have an explanation on why no one is examining/validating the sample they already have?

I mean they already characterized it six ways to Sunday and posted a video of it levitating.

Independent validation. Physical peer review.

That basically helps rule out scammers or gross incompetence and ensures that even if initial attempts to replicate fail because of the complexity or lack of clarity, people keep trying.

Re: LK-99: The live online race for a room-temperature superconductor

#298

Post by lolinder »

dcow wrote: post #289
idopmstuff wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would that matter? It's not like they could just be taking an over-the-counter room temperature superconductor and passing it off as something they made. If the thing exists and someone can make it, the specific process doesn't matter (but also why would they make it, publish a fake process and then go through all this rigamarole?).

Desperation? Momentary fame? To get funding to continue research? Any number of reasons humans do silly half-honest things… There are some plausible allegations that the authors were a struggling pair of researchers and essentially stole this research and published a sloppy half baked paper they knew would make waves.

I think you're missing the point: there is no such thing yet as a room temperature superconductor. If they have such a thing, they made it. If they failed to document the process well, that's a separate issue from whether the sample they have actually is a superconductor at the temperatures described.

Re: LK-99: The live online race for a room-temperature superconductor

#300

Post by bananapub »

bhouston wrote: post #269
nmwnmw wrote: post #267

Isn't it sufficient to have another lab confirm that the existing sample is a super conductor? Then we can all sprint to replication.

Yeah, having another lab confirm the behavior and makeup of that sample would go a long way. I wonder why that isn’t happening? Does anyone have an explanation on why no one is examining/validating the sample they already have?

what are you talking about?

the authors haven't given anyone a sample to inspect, so every other solid state physics lab in the world is instead trying to follow the notional recipe and test their own sample.

Post reply on HN