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

221–230 of 389 posts

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

#221

Post by sparrowInHand »

Tade0 wrote: post #194
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…

> 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 plaste…

So, the accurate term for scientific debate on HN is a cold-flamewar?

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

#223

Post by Levitating »

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?

All the labs on that list have stated that they are working on replicating the experiment. That's also what is referenced.

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

#224

Post by aziaziazi »

frognumber wrote: post #126
brucethemoose2 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Such things are possible, and not even very uncommon. The human body has tissues with conductivity different in different dimensions. If you'd like to create one yourself, take a bunch of parallel insulated wires. Conductivity will be low along the wires, and high perpendicular to them. Or alternated high-resistivity and low-resistivity sheets. Conduction will be low parallel to the sheets, and high going through the…

> human tissues > isolated wires > alternated sheets

The thinks you describes are systems made of multiple materials. Are you aware of a materials that behave that way by its own ?

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

#225

Post by HelloNurse »

jcranmer wrote: post #91
throwawaymaths wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right that this is the worst case scenario, but each interesting replication or semi-replication, even sloppy replication, or theoretical model erodes at that. Being perma-skeptic is as bad as being a perma-fanboy Anyways your memory is really short. Don't you remember how when it first came out (not even a week ago) everyone was hollering that it was fake? Inb4 "extraordinary claims...": there is no fundament…

> You're right that this is the worst case scenario, but each interesting replication or semi-replication, even sloppy replication, or theoretical model erodes at that. Not really. The ur-example of the worst-case scenario is cold fusion, and as we were reminded by somebody [1] early on, is that the first replications of the Fleischmann–Pons experiment were actually successful to some degree. Those initial replicatio…

Fortunately, observing a levitating fleck of diamagnetic material is far less error prone than measuring heat or neutrons in a messy cold fusion experiment.

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

#226

Post by dgoldstein0 »

coderenegade wrote: post #138
dgoldstein0 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest near future tech for superconductors: fusion power. One huge area of exploration for fusion power is tokamok reactor design, which requires a very strong magnetic field to confine plasma within a round shape - typically a torus, though I think I read of one spherical shell. I suppose these don't necessarily need room temperature super conductors, but cheaper and easier to manufacture superconducting mater…

I think energy storage, motors / accelerators and weapons would come first. A superconducting linear motor would probably also make for a great cannon.

Yeah, you're probably right - fusion has a lot of hard problems to solve. But for it, cheaper superconductors could be the game changer we need. For these other things... We already have energy storage, motors, weapons etc. It's certainly reasonable to think we could build better ones but I'm more excited for fusion, as it has the ability to solve climate change and provide cheap electricity to the billions who don't yet have it at the same time, probably resulting in double digit economic growth in many places.

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

#227

Post by febusravenga »

I see lead (Pb...something) as main ingredient, isn't it banned in most industries because how toxic it is and how hard it's to handle in industrial scale? isn't that a problem for potential mass applications?

(lots of comments about this discovery call this revolution that will change everything around us and that somehow implies mass production I guess)

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

#228

Post by yreg »

jacquesm wrote: post #71
Waterluvian wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do MRIs need zero resistance vs incredibly low resistance?

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.

That's not an answer to that question.

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

#229

Post by Filligree »

aziaziazi wrote: post #224
frognumber wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such things are possible, and not even very uncommon. The human body has tissues with conductivity different in different dimensions. If you'd like to create one yourself, take a bunch of parallel insulated wires. Conductivity will be low along the wires, and high perpendicular to them. Or alternated high-resistivity and low-resistivity sheets. Conduction will be low parallel to the sheets, and high going through the…

> human tissues > isolated wires > alternated sheets The thinks you describes are systems made of multiple materials. Are you aware of a materials that behave that way by its own ?

No, and LK-99 isn’t made of a single material either.

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

#230

Post by daxfohl »

Waterluvian wrote: post #45

I don’t understand the physics, but it feels like a truly zero resistance conductor would violate some law of thermodynamics or something. Is a superconductor truly zero impedence or just very very very low? Because I’m seeing a lot of these graphs with something like: “0.00001ohm” as the y-axis floor.

Similar to how a magnet works. A magnet can hold something forever, so seems like a violation of thermodynamics. But "holding" isn't work, it's just force. (Which is still kinda spooky, admittedly) Similarly, conducting itself isn't work, it's just conduction.
Post reply on HN