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

Observation of zero resistance above 100 K in Pb₁₀₋ₓCuₓ(PO₄)₆O

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 389 posts

Re: Observation of zero resistance above 100 K in Pb₁₀₋ₓCuₓ(PO₄)₆O

#191

Post by Affric »

tomohelix wrote: post #89
jcranmer wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Worst case scenario, we got another class of high temp (warmer than liquid nitrogen but cold enough that applications are limited) superconductor but nothing revolutionary since at this point, it is pretty conclusive that there is something interesting with LK-99. I don't think that's the worst case scenario. The worst case scenario is that there is actually nothing interesting with LK-99, and everything we've seen…

Personally, I think we are past the point of this being nothing. There have been multiple confirmations of at least something unexplained going on. Maybe all of them are wrong but honestly, that is more of an extraordinary claim than saying this is something interesting, just not a full on room temp superconductor.

Reading this paper they’re pretty restrained. They got zero resistance but didn’t get everything they were looking for.

This material is fascinating and I love the interest and good debate it’s generating.

Sometimes it feels like we missed so many golden ages but we might still get to experience something world changing before our eyes and understand what it means.

Real technological progress and societal improvement breed optimism. This could be the start of something big. Even if it isn’t it reminds us why we are still searching for theorised technologies.

Re: Observation of zero resistance above 100 K in Pb₁₀₋ₓCuₓ(PO₄)₆O

#192

Post by atoav »

kolinko wrote: post #190
atoav wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read through this thread and I can't help to feel reminded of the discussion about cryptocurrencies. So many people that want to believe , rational people that try to explain why it has to work when there is just not enough information right now. As if we believing it will change the outcome of the replication everybody that doesn't believe is shunned and called a heretic. Suddenly people that studied social scienc…

As for crypto, tgere is nothing to believe in - it’s doing well after 14 years.

You mean cryptography? Yeah, thanks to let's encrypt we are now reaching widespread adoption of TLS. You barely see any http websites anymore thanks to that.

Re: Observation of zero resistance above 100 K in Pb₁₀₋ₓCuₓ(PO₄)₆O

#193

Post by archon1410 »

rsfern wrote: post #109
8n4vidtmkvmk wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"degrees Kelvin" is wrong? Why's that?

The SI unit is just “kelvin” because it’s an absolute scale. Usually “degrees” is only used with Celsius and Fahrenheit scales because they are relative. Not sure about Rankine… https://www.nist.gov/si-redefinition/kelvin-introduction

> zero on the Rankine scale is absolute zero, but a temperature difference of one Rankine degree (°R or °Ra) is defined as equal to one Fahrenheit degree

But Rankine is an absolute scale. "By analogy with the SI unit, the kelvin, some authors term the unit Rankine, omitting the degree symbol."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankine_scale

Re: Observation of zero resistance above 100 K in Pb₁₀₋ₓCuₓ(PO₄)₆O

#194

Post by Tade0 »

jcranmer wrote: post #74
tomohelix wrote: post #30

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…

> Worst case scenario, we got another class of high temp (warmer than liquid nitrogen but cold enough that applications are limited) superconductor but nothing revolutionary since at this point, it is pretty conclusive that there is something interesting with LK-99. I don't think that's the worst case scenario. The worst case scenario is that there is actually nothing interesting with LK-99, and everything we've seen…

> I'm actually surprised by the sheer lack of people commenting in the more-or-less-perma-LK-99 threads who show skepticism of the results.

You're not seeing them because every thread with a significant percentage of sceptical voices trips the HN flamewar detector, which goes off when there are more comments than upvotes.

I've counted three threads where this happened. It's the reason why the front page wasn't plastered with LK-99 news.

Re: Observation of zero resistance above 100 K in Pb₁₀₋ₓCuₓ(PO₄)₆O

#195

Post by doingtheiroming »

jcranmer wrote: post #74
tomohelix wrote: post #30

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…

> Worst case scenario, we got another class of high temp (warmer than liquid nitrogen but cold enough that applications are limited) superconductor but nothing revolutionary since at this point, it is pretty conclusive that there is something interesting with LK-99. I don't think that's the worst case scenario. The worst case scenario is that there is actually nothing interesting with LK-99, and everything we've seen…

There’s plenty of skepticism. It’s the zero-cost position here. But there are good and bad skeptical positions. The good one involves people attempting to replicate and publishing results whether positive, negative or somewhere in between. The bad one consists of sitting in forums and threads being, “the voice of reason”.

If there’s a real problem, it’s that we have still not made publication of negative results sufficiently attractive. That’s still a problem throughout science and one we desperately need to address since it is what would let us think more clearly in situations like this.

Re: Observation of zero resistance above 100 K in Pb₁₀₋ₓCuₓ(PO₄)₆O

#196

Post by patrec »

robotresearcher wrote: post #81
jacquesm wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the resistance is the limiting factor in how strong a magnetic field can be made in a given volume using the conducting material. Copper across an area of 1 cm ^2 does about 300A, compare with https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8047038/ for what some superconductors can do.

Link says 90 MA per cm^2, or 30,000X more than copper. Gulp!

I think you are missing a zero.

Re: Observation of zero resistance above 100 K in Pb₁₀₋ₓCuₓ(PO₄)₆O

#198

Post by psychphysic »

silisili wrote: post #171
crakenzak wrote: post #3

So exciting! Just FYI, the wikipedia page for LK-99 has a very useful tracking grid of replication attempts with sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK-99

I'm curious why every tracker lists Argonne, though no status or progress listed. I'm sure there are a hundred other labs who've either done nothing, or are doing something without fanfare, so why Argonne?

Anyone can edit Wikipedia.

Re: Observation of zero resistance above 100 K in Pb₁₀₋ₓCuₓ(PO₄)₆O

#199

Post by mcqueenjordan »

elromulous wrote: post #181
mcqueenjordan wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100 degrees kelvin is about 338 degrees Fahrenheit below room temperature.

Duh. Thanks. I think my brain must have transposed that K to C.

I also did that the first time when reading the abstract. Very relatable. "It's on the front page of HN, so it must be a remarkable result," my subconscious seemed to assume on my behalf. ;)

Fool me once...

Re: Observation of zero resistance above 100 K in Pb₁₀₋ₓCuₓ(PO₄)₆O

#200

Post by reacharavindh »

tomohelix wrote: post #30

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…

With my conspiracy theory hat on, perhaps the authors were encouraged/coerced to not release proper documentation to reproduce the recipe entirely by [their bosses, state agencies etc.] If the claims are true, then the implications to defense, weaponry and such are very high, and the C|N|D* agencies like to not lose their cards in the game.. /conspiracy

Or

Real science is just darned difficult, and the scientists are working hard to reproduce the results themselves. Which is more likely.

Post reply on HN