Andrew McCalip demonstrates synthesis of LK99 • Hacker News Board

Re: Andrew McCalip demonstrates synthesis of LK99

#291

Post by gamegoblin » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 4:37 PM UTC

swader999 wrote: post #244

dm_me_dogs wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My online life has been way less stressful since I both deleted my Twitter account, and set up my own Nitter instance. Same goes for Reddit.

HN is all I have left. Been this way for a few years. I guess I still use Twitter, but just for local emergency news.

I follow ~200 extremely high quality people on twitter, never use the algorithmic timeline -- just the "Following" tab, and it is easily 10x more signal to noise than HN for me, I'm almost upset I didn't start using it sooner.

Only works if you can resist the temptation to follow national news orgs, politics, etc. In my little niche, though, I essentially never see any of that, even less than one sees on HN. It's all just tech, AL/ML, space/rockets, startups, etc.

Re: Andrew McCalip demonstrates synthesis of LK99

#292

Post by ThisIsMyAltFace » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 4:43 PM UTC

stephenitis wrote: post #251

ThisIsMyAltFace wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't even a replication by their own admission! https://nitter.net/iris_IGB/status/1685774956330635264#m They won't publish a preprint on their version because they think it would be "unfair"! https://nitter.net/iris_IGB/status/1687020011548770304#m Every post this person makes throws up more red flags. I have no idea why people believe any of their claims besides "haha anime girl"

I believe she said it wasn't a replication because she had changed the formula. She seemed to have problems with the efficiency of the original formula, which is why I believe she doesn't believe it's replication what she produced may in the end not be LK-99. It seems like she's in the process of getting X-ray diffraction analysis (XRD) done. There has been several fake videos placed out there on the Internet. There…

>I believe she said it wasn't a replication because she had changed the formula. She seemed to have problems with the efficiency of the original formula, which is why I believe she doesn't believe it's replication what she produced may in the end not be LK-99.

Yes, it isn't replication, and the only proof that her modified substance does anything interesting is a photo of a single grain suspended inside a small tube. She hasn't written anything clarifying the process from her vague twitter thread, she hasn't posted a video showing the sample's behavior (which would be better than nothing), she hasn't shown any measurements, and when people ask for these things, she gives unconvincing excuses.

And yet every thread is full of people saying she was the first to replicate. The USSR tweets are a little eyerolling but not the main issue

Re: Andrew McCalip demonstrates synthesis of LK99

#293

Post by username332211 » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 4:44 PM UTC

zarzavat wrote: post #276

username332211 wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any time the material exhibits a properties inconsistent with superconductors, the to-go explanation is that it's supposedly extremely difficult to manufacture. Not to mention, the original instructions include stuff like "The sealed tube containing the mixed powder was heated in a furnace at 925°C for 5-20 hours." which sounds a tad bit imprecise. Don't you think in those conditions it's at least a little bit reason…

They’ve said they will provide samples after peer review. Which seems fair doesn’t it? How can they complete their paper and peer review without the samples? And if the samples get damaged they will be regret ever handing them over. If you were in the same situation you’d make the same decision. I and everybody else would love them to hand over the samples for external testing, but it’s their samples so they can do w…

I assume they have more than one sample, don't you? Hopefully, if they had only one, they'd say that explicitly on one of their papers.

Re: Andrew McCalip demonstrates synthesis of LK99

#294

Post by bandyaboot » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 4:48 PM UTC

SanderNL wrote: post #226

thepasswordis wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying Europeans dont have any national pride?

I think you would be hard pressed to find any Euro seriously and non-ironically proclaiming their country the best in the world. Then again, it's not unheard of. It just sounds stupid here, because even when all of us combine we only ever so slightly pass the "regional power" mark. And we know it.

That sort of cringey, oblivious patriotism has existed here for a long time, but I have a feeling it's become more common on Twitter since the average demo of active participants has undoubtedly shifted toward the political and cultural sensibilities of Elon Musk. This will probably read as pretty divisive, but I think it's the truth.

Re: Andrew McCalip demonstrates synthesis of LK99

#295

Post by brakedam » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 4:49 PM UTC

TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #61

sashank_1509 wrote: post #40

This makes me extremely bullish about Varda Space, they have engineers of high quality and expertise that they could do a decent replication very quickly (if they got access to raw materials earlier, they might have been first to do so, comparable with the Chinese Groups) while working on their off time (from what I’ve seen of their twitter) and not a single big academic lab has managed to complete any sort of replic…

It's really disappointing that no other US lab has engaged with the public in the same manner. Regardless of the outcome, I think seeing things get built and experimented with in mostly real-time is a massive source of inspiration.

I don’t know what’s going on here, but I can see some guys are trying to make a LK-99 bubble in here. politically, not scientifically. We should be aware that there is still no critical evidence of room-temp superconductors.

Re: Andrew McCalip demonstrates synthesis of LK99

#296

Post by grumple » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 4:51 PM UTC

danbruc wrote: post #13

Timon3 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what you're not seeing. Nobody is saying that the whole LK-99 sample is superconducting. Why would you expect the whole sample to float, instead of "partial floating" as we're seeing, if you have a material that's only partially superconducting?

I was wondering this, why do all the samples not completely float. If the sample is only partially superconducting, could you just smash it into smaller pieces and find a few floating ones? Or would the different domains be so small that you have to turn the sample into dust before you get a completely superconducting piece? Probably can not be answered in general as it heavily depends on the synthesis process?

I thought it was clear that the process for creating the material is low yield, and the reaction produces other materials, so most of the material we're seeing is not LK-99. See the wiki section on synthesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK-99 . Right now we don't have a good way to produce the material with better yield.

Re: Andrew McCalip demonstrates synthesis of LK99

#297

Post by kijin » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 4:52 PM UTC

username332211 wrote: post #260

kijin wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the same in Korea where the research originated. A bunch of professors belonging to a hastily formed academic committee are trying to monopolize the public debate, quibbling about errors in the arxiv paper and demanding that Lee & Kim turn over samples of LK-99 because the big-name professors are obviously too busy to make their own. It seems that their first priority is to avoid a repeat of the Hwang scandal th…

Any time the material exhibits a properties inconsistent with superconductors, the to-go explanation is that it's supposedly extremely difficult to manufacture. Not to mention, the original instructions include stuff like "The sealed tube containing the mixed powder was heated in a furnace at 925°C for 5-20 hours." which sounds a tad bit imprecise. Don't you think in those conditions it's at least a little bit reason…

One would think so, if the rest of the world weren't already cooking up similarly half-levitating samples in their kitchens and garages.

Re: Andrew McCalip demonstrates synthesis of LK99

#298

Post by bandyaboot » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 4:53 PM UTC

OJFord wrote: post #284

thepasswordis wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you met any Europeans? Italians are convinced that Italy is the center of the world, with the best food, home of Rome, etc. French are convinced that France is the center of the world, with the best food, home of Democracy, etc. The British are convinced that Britain is the center of the world...although maybe not so convinced of the food :-P. Germans, same thing. Portugese same thing, but it's the "secret" vers…

It's just done differently, I don't know, it's hard to explain, but: A: [orders some chemicals] B: God damn I love America A: Hell of a thing, America C: greatest country in the world just reads so weirdly to me. Maybe it's partly that I can't imagine finding (or any other British/western European person finding) this a source of national pride to begin with, but even when it's something we do.. I just can't see non-…

While most of it is probably sincere, it's also important to keep in mind that some people do the "overly patriot American" as a joke.

Re: Andrew McCalip demonstrates synthesis of LK99

#299

Post by giantrobot » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 4:53 PM UTC

lopkeny12ko wrote: post #259

ssijak wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

pardon my ignorance but why are people posting nitter links every time, what is wrong with original twitter urls?

Because people on HN love to hate on Elon. "Elon bad! Twitter bad!" It's uninspired and tiring.

Yes. It must be that and not at all the fact that Twitter is unavailable at worst or degraded at best if you don't have an account. There's something uninspired and tiring but I don't think it's people avoiding Twitter.

Re: Andrew McCalip demonstrates synthesis of LK99

#300

Post by refulgentis » Fri, Aug 04, 2023, 4:57 PM UTC

Loic wrote: post #176

alberth wrote: post #115

ELI5, can someone please. This stuff is over my head (what I'm looking at, ramifications, etc) I'm also confused because I see conflicting things (e.g. "room temperature" but video says "500C"). Also, is this real or fake? I've seen comments on both.

500°C/min cool. This is the cooling rate. It should be written 500K/min. He explains that he had no data about the cooling rate from the original paper and as such is going to test several rates.

K has same dimension as C, K = C + 273.15