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

341–350 of 659 posts

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

#341

Post by jjk166 »

epivosism wrote: post #290
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.

Yes, the fact that everyone is trying to replicate the process rather than validate the existing material is very weird. Replication is hard, validation is much easier. If they've had this material for years, just send some off to a few labs... People claiming unusual abilities/etc usually focus on a very difficult ceremony/situation/feeling/process rather than the outcome. Ghosts, spiritual experiences, etc. really…

Validation proves that the material exists, it doesn't prove that the specified process creates the material. A few samples are worthless if no one actually knows how to make more.

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

#342

Post by ThisIsMyAltFace »

asimpletune wrote: post #177

So, Russian anime cat girl seems to have cooked a sample and demonstrated some of the claimed properties, although she's explicit that it shouldn't be considered a "replication". https://twitter.com/iris_IGB/status/1685731177523449856

By their own admission, they've messed with the prep and synthesis stages mentioned in the paper:

https://nitter.net/iris_IGB/status/1685774956330635264#m

Also, forgive me for taking this person's word with a massive grain of salt when they post stuff like this:

https://nitter.net/iris_IGB/status/1686017042665582593#m

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

#343

Post by [deleted] »

justinclift wrote: post #63
incrudible wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just making a bet does not really spend the money, it will just change hands, presumably from the less informed to the more informed, who should be able to eventually spend it more wisely. As far as forcing the outcome, if it turns out to be possible, but the market got it all wrong, there is your incentive to give it a shot regardless.

> making a bet does not really spend the money, it will just change hands Pretty sure most people would call the money changing hands "spending" that money.

[deleted]

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

#344

Post by lolinder »

dcow wrote: post #336
lolinder wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The data isn't good. They don’t have such a thing. They think they have such a thing. What they think they have is certainly interesting and potentially world changing, but if this (or some other reason like infighting over credit) lead them to rush publication, you have to be ready for the conclusion that whatever they have isn’t a superconductor as we know it.

This subthread is discussing whether it makes sense to have another lab validate the existing sample before we even try to follow their steps. Neither I nor the person you're responding to are assuming that the sample is what they claim it is, we're simply arguing that it doesn't matter how it was obtained—it's either a room temperature superconductor or it isn't, and if the researchers failed to document the process well but still have a room temperature superconductor then we can move on from there. If it turns out that it isn't, then we saved ourselves a bunch of time trying to follow their instructions.

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

#345

Post by KennyBlanken »

n2d4 wrote: post #304
dmitrybrant wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "demonstration" is a photo of a single crumb of material inside a transparent pipette. It's claimed that the crumb is "levitating" inside the pipette, but what's stopping a random internet anon from gluing a crumb onto a pipette and taking a picture of it? I don't know about you, but if I had just succeeded in replicating a literally history-making experiment, I would perhaps take a video of it, and demonstrate h…

>but what's stopping a random internet anon from gluing a crumb onto a pipette and taking a picture of it? Nothing, just like nothing would stop a random internet anon from faking a video of the same thing. Even if that existed, it still wouldn't be sufficient evidence (especially given this is a different synthesis than the one in the paper), it would just be much more overblown. Wait for lab reconstructions, or at…

"I don't do videos of things I intend to be writing a text from. Ever. It's bad tone. I hate when it happens to me, and I don't want anyone to share this fate"

Ah, yes. The good old incoherent "here's why I can't do something totally normal" excuse.

Looking through their tweet history, they're an insufferable and toxic troll.

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

#346

Post by [deleted] »

twoodfin wrote: post #259
amelius wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I invest in technology (hoping it will work) but use the prediction market to hedge in case the technology won't work, how does that tell anyone watching the prediction market that people have net positive feelings about the technology?

If you were 100% confident you wouldn’t hedge at all. If you’re 80% confident you’d hedge less than if you were only 60% confident. This all translates into an price signal if the market is functioning and liquid.

[deleted]

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

#347

Post by Lewton »

jjk166 wrote: post #341
epivosism wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the fact that everyone is trying to replicate the process rather than validate the existing material is very weird. Replication is hard, validation is much easier. If they've had this material for years, just send some off to a few labs... People claiming unusual abilities/etc usually focus on a very difficult ceremony/situation/feeling/process rather than the outcome. Ghosts, spiritual experiences, etc. really…

Validation proves that the material exists, it doesn't prove that the specified process creates the material. A few samples are worthless if no one actually knows how to make more.

> A few samples are worthless if no one actually knows how to make more.

If the samples are actual RTSC, knowing that such a thing can actually exist is pretty far from worthless

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

#348

Post by n2d4 »

epivosism wrote: post #290
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.

Yes, the fact that everyone is trying to replicate the process rather than validate the existing material is very weird. Replication is hard, validation is much easier. If they've had this material for years, just send some off to a few labs... People claiming unusual abilities/etc usually focus on a very difficult ceremony/situation/feeling/process rather than the outcome. Ghosts, spiritual experiences, etc. really…

Why do you silently assume that samples aren't being shared around as we speak? CMTC of the University of Maryland stated that the authors are cooperating in regards to this https://twitter.com/condensed_the/status/1684960318718406656

There's value in both validating existing samples and producing new ones.

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

#349

Post by jjk166 »

lolinder wrote: post #323
jjk166 wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and someone can make it If the specified procedure is incorrect, then we can't make it. It doesn't need to be an elaborate con, it could just be a reasearcher misread a measurement, or recorded the wrong number, or their feedstock was contaminated. Replication ensures that the recipe includes the secret sauce that makes it actually work.

I don't think they're arguing that no one should try to replicate the process of making it, just that it makes sense to have another lab test the sample that has already been created. If it is in fact what they claim it is, then the worst case scenario is that we have a repeat of FOGBANK[0] and have to reverse engineer it. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogbank

I'm not arguing that another lab shouldn't test the sample already created, just stating why replication is important. A FOGBANK situation is a very bad scenario.

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

#350

Post by oneshtein »

jacquesm wrote: post #340
oneshtein wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

35kK in this reactor is much closer to room temperature than 150MK in ITER, isn't?

I'm not saying it is 35K, I'm saying it is at least 35K and probably much higher. Whether it is closer to room temperature or not is not relevant, when someone says 'room temperature' they are talking about 21 degrees Celsius plus or minus a couple, not above the temperature where any kind of solid matter exists. Even tungsten, which melts at 3422 degrees C and boils at the magic number of 5555 C is just vapor at tha…

As you can see, the apparatus didn't evaporate while working, so, probably, temperature is much lower.
Post reply on HN