231–240 of 316 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean run a few loops around the equator and wait for solar wind, or what?
You can have a global grid of solar power. Since you don't loose energy on transmission and half of the planet is illuminated by the sun at any given time, you can have uninterrupted solar energy 24/7. The fuel is practically unlimited, the only cost would be the initial cost of building it and then only maintenance cost.
This is why space exploration is important. If we could find some astroid having superconductor materials at room temperature, everything will be revolutioned here.
Preprint by Griffin from Livermore Labs gives a theoretical explanation of LK-99's superconductivity and also explains why labs are having a hard time synthesizing it. There are two Pb sites in the crystal structure that Cu can substitute at, the lower energy one does nothing but it's the higher energy site that creates superconductivity. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.16892.pdf "Finally, the calculations presented here…
What does this mean for synthesis? You just have to try a ton of times and get lucky? Is there some way to influence site substitution?
https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV14p4y1V7kS/ Latest update: the diamagnetism has been confirmed from a tiny LK-99 replica sample. The Author posted: > Under the guidance of Professor Haixin Chang, postdoctor Hao Wu and PhD student Li Yang from the School of Materials Science and Technology of Huazhong University of Science and Technology successfully for the first time verified the LK-99 crystal that can be magnetica…
Judging by the quality of the video, this LK-99 could just be the best nerd-trawling operation of the decade.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but computer chips are powered by DC.
At the frequencies computer chips operate, it acts more like AC. Sure, you place some nice bypass capacitors capacitors very close to the chip so you can feed it nice clean DC power, but when you start switching those transistors in the GHz range, the signals inside the chip rapidly start to look a lot like AC. You see the same thing with external signals, like a connection between CPU and memory. Operate the bus at…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you tell me why a scientist would decide to do a certain experiment without a theory about what to test and why? Why that experiment and not any of infinite others?
We do this much of the time in genetics, genomics, and neuroscience. New technology; Large set of samples; Quantify x … x mRNAs, proteins, lipids, metabolites; Estimate how units stick together (statistically or literally); Develop a “theory” of what units and groups of units interact to account for and predict higher order phenotypes (risk of neurodegeneration; lifespan). Data take precedence. Mini-theories of molec…
- Many brute-force combinations of these specific organic molecules will yield interesting results (this is the main hypothesis of the experiment)
- We don't need to include the molecules that we haven't included
- We have good criteria for determining what results are interesting
- Our instruments/methods of phenotype prediction are well-understood and working as expected
Once the experiment is run, the observations are meaningless unless interpreted in the context of whatever prevailing theories the scientists have in mind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Note that the resistance of superconductors is 0 only for DC currents. The AC resistance is not 0 and typically gets larger for higher frequencies!
Yes, but computer chips are powered by DC.
Preprint by Griffin from Livermore Labs gives a theoretical explanation of LK-99's superconductivity and also explains why labs are having a hard time synthesizing it. There are two Pb sites in the crystal structure that Cu can substitute at, the lower energy one does nothing but it's the higher energy site that creates superconductivity. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.16892.pdf "Finally, the calculations presented here…
What does this mean for synthesis? You just have to try a ton of times and get lucky? Is there some way to influence site substitution?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The “oh this sticks” part is only ever interesting precisely because it doesn’t conform to the pre existing theory. You cannot even make an observation without theories baked in: - Normally these things do X - My senses or instruments are detecting reality accurately - This thing I’m measuring will result in something interesting etc
This is only true from the perspective of developing new theories for why are things happen. Of course new theories arise from other theories. It's not true for Discovery in general. New phenomenon can be created and observed without any theory for why they occur, either before or after observation
- I need to observe here and not anywhere else
- I can reliably interpret my senses/the instrumentation is working correctly
- Objects of this type normally behave in X way, because of Y
- etc
Think of it a different way. You can come up with a theory without any observation whatsoever. Black holes, for example, were conjectured well before they were observed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!) but “That’s funny …” — Isaac Asimov
“That’s funny…” implies you had a pre existing theory about how it was supposed to work.