71–80 of 209 posts
I really hope this unlocks a class of superconductors and isn't a bizarre oneoff compound, because the EPA of 2023 is not going to let us wire the country with thousands of miles of lead-based ceramic wire.
I wonder how one would draw out a wire made of such a material. From the sound of it, the copper atoms have to be in the exact right place in the lattice. Wouldn't naively working with the alloy ruin the superconducting properties? Maybe an actual MatSci person would know.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=high+temperature+superconductor+ta...
I really hope this unlocks a class of superconductors and isn't a bizarre oneoff compound, because the EPA of 2023 is not going to let us wire the country with thousands of miles of lead-based ceramic wire.
Isn’t lead ok as long as it’s not airborne/ ingested?
Once the cable is laid, it's a liability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm just saying that it's not really LK-99, then. It's something else that needs to be specified more precisely.
I'm not following you. The compound is specified, the process is what is poorly specified and the researchers more or less admit that they do not exactly know what the right method is. This makes it a lot harder to replicate and may well cause a lot of attempts to misfire before someone finds something that works or we give up on the search. What TFA here suggests is that there are some potential complications in man…
Edit: s/isomer/polymorph
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not following you. The compound is specified, the process is what is poorly specified and the researchers more or less admit that they do not exactly know what the right method is. This makes it a lot harder to replicate and may well cause a lot of attempts to misfire before someone finds something that works or we give up on the search. What TFA here suggests is that there are some potential complications in man…
Pons and Fleischmann, not Jan Hendrik Schön?
"However, substitution on the other Pb(2) does not appear to have such sought-after properties, despite being the lower-energy substitution site. This result hints to the synthesis challenge in obtaining Cu substituted on the appropriate site for obtaining a bulk superconducting sample" OK I'm starting to actually believe that LK-99 might be the real deal.
Can anyone explain what this means in relation to the ability to synthesize it in superconducting form? Is there a way to force the Cu to the correct site? Or is looking for a new material with similar properties the way forward
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not following you. The compound is specified, the process is what is poorly specified and the researchers more or less admit that they do not exactly know what the right method is. This makes it a lot harder to replicate and may well cause a lot of attempts to misfire before someone finds something that works or we give up on the search. What TFA here suggests is that there are some potential complications in man…
Then why do we have separate names for Graphite and Diamond? Same element, different molecular (crystalline) structures. If CuO25P6Pb9 can exhibit superconducting properties, and reproduction attempts are failing, then there must be a specific isomer that needs to be achieved, the creation of which is not described in the LK-99 paper. I'm just trying to understand how to wade through this stuff, I could be wrong, and…
It is the formation that is different not the molecules. C = C. They are technically allotropes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allotropy
And just like here that's a function of how the bulk carbon got to be formed, under extreme pressure and temperatures or less pressure and temperature. It's the recipe that makes the difference, not the ingredients.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can anyone explain what this means in relation to the ability to synthesize it in superconducting form? Is there a way to force the Cu to the correct site? Or is looking for a new material with similar properties the way forward
I’m currently in a Twitter space with some accounts who know more about this process and this question was answered a few minutes ago. To summarize: no one has yet found a way to “steer” which sites get Cu and which ones don’t. This paper simultaneously makes LK-99 look like the real deal but also points out there may be more, or much more work, to reliably direct the replacement. Someone in the space said “if you fi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pons and Fleischmann, not Jan Hendrik Schön?
Wow that's a bad one, I never even knew about it, thank you for pointing that out. And yes, he's probably worse, with Pons & Fleischmann I never managed to rule out that they themselves were 'true believers' that had deluded themselves rather than fraudsters. But with this guy there is little doubt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then why do we have separate names for Graphite and Diamond? Same element, different molecular (crystalline) structures. If CuO25P6Pb9 can exhibit superconducting properties, and reproduction attempts are failing, then there must be a specific isomer that needs to be achieved, the creation of which is not described in the LK-99 paper. I'm just trying to understand how to wade through this stuff, I could be wrong, and…
Same molecular structure entirely different crystal lattice. It is the formation that is different not the molecules. C = C. They are technically allotropes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allotropy And just like here that's a function of how the bulk carbon got to be formed, under extreme pressure and temperatures or less pressure and temperature. It's the recipe that makes the difference, not the ingredients.
isomer
/'aɪsəmər/
noun
a compound that exists in forms having different arrangements of atoms but the same molecular weight
That raises a question, what's the name for different crystalline structures of the same compound? Is that still an isomer or something different? I'm out of my element here.