31–40 of 389 posts
A 110k superconductor would not be revolutionary since we already have some in that vicinity.
Could someone explain why this is important? What is the consequence of the existence of Superconductors like that?
Summary of events so far: The claim: Room temp (~300K) superconductor exists and we got it! The replication attempts: The production method is so poorly documented only a fraction of the samples being made shows any interesting properties. And among those interesting ones, results varies. Very few, if any, attempt actually completely shows the entire spectrum of properties and behaviors of a true superconductor at ro…
...But maybe thats even more interesting for, say, microelectronics? Especially if the resistance orthogonal to the superconductivity is high, if such a thing is even possible?
> In conclusion, we successfully synthesized the compound Pb10-xCux(PO4)6O, and observed the zero resistance above 100 K. However, the Meissner effect has not been observed yet in our samples, which suggests that the superconducting volume is relatively low. In conclusion, ... nothing?
Summary of events so far: The claim: Room temp (~300K) superconductor exists and we got it! The replication attempts: The production method is so poorly documented only a fraction of the samples being made shows any interesting properties. And among those interesting ones, results varies. Very few, if any, attempt actually completely shows the entire spectrum of properties and behaviors of a true superconductor at ro…
Some literature suggests its a "one dimensiononal" superconductor only kinda works in tiny monocrystaline grains. ...But maybe thats even more interesting for, say, microelectronics? Especially if the resistance orthogonal to the superconductivity is high, if such a thing is even possible?
I'm very much conservative about this paper because while the graph in Fig. 3a says $T_c^{zero}$ being 110 K, the "zero" resistance is actually only 1e-5 Ω (!) and even if the sample is possibly superconducting its critical temperature would be much lower than 110 K anyway. I'm aware of the difficulty in obtaining larger samples, but the label in that graph is really misleading regardless.
I'm not sure whether higher currents are all that reasonable. Cooling the precision amp is an option to reduce the noise figure, but at that point you'll want optical isolation and battery supply too.
https://www.analog.com/media/en/training-seminars/tutorials/...
A 110k superconductor would not be revolutionary since we already have some in that vicinity.
The LK-99 that is room temp superconductive seems quite difficult to produce at this early stage. But these researchers were able to produce their not-as-good version of LK-99 and at least verify very close to superconductivity at 110K. This makes the LK-99 room temp superconductivity claims that much more plausible.
A 110k superconductor would not be revolutionary since we already have some in that vicinity.
That's what I'm not understanding about this frenzy. Seems like this already kind of exists?
A 110k superconductor would not be revolutionary since we already have some in that vicinity.
Second, the new mechanism of superconductivity may lead scientists to explore other materials with similar properties that may work better.
Third, the synthesis may not be completely spot on yet. It has been just 4 days of attempting replication, and this result is pretty good in that context.