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

Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts

forums.spacebattles.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 303 posts

Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts

#61

Post by bluGill »

lonelyasacloud wrote: post #49
wongarsu wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My takeaway is that nobody, not even the original authors, knows a good, easily replicable way to make LK-99. A clear no would be multiple sources synthesizing a material that is clearly the same as LK-99 (e.g. by showing most or all of the behavior shown in the videos or described in one of the papers), and then showing experimentally that it isn't actually a superconductor but that some other effect is at play.

Which is why one simple way to clear up a lot of the ambiguity would be to make the "working" sample available for a few other trusted 3rd parties to run some quick tests on.

That isn't simple. The sample needs to be shipped. You have to ensure it doesn't get damaged in shipment. If some lab has a an unknown evil intent they can destory the sample and claim it was shipping damage.

They say they are willing to let other labs examine their sample. If nothing has happened in two months i'll get worried, but for now I don't expect any lab to have seen it

Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts

#62

Post by inglor_cz »

vhiremath4 wrote: post #28

It’s interesting to notice all unofficial institutions (bottom table) have a higher outcome of partial success. Unless the more legitimate labs are less capable, you have to wonder whether anything outside of an accredited institution can be trusted at all at this point. My guess is the allure of hype (more followers / engagement) is too strong for personal gain.

Unofficial institutions may have a lower institutional barrier for just dumping an "It works!" message on social networks.

Big institutions have a reputation to protect, which in this case means being extra careful before making any revolutionary claims.

I don't really think that either is bad, but I would expect confirmations from the stratosphere to come in quite a bit later. Also, it is vacation time in the Northern Hemisphere, so many bigger institutions will be staffed by minimal crews only - mostly by younger people, who don't have kids yet, but don't have much decision authority either.

In the Dept. of Algebra where I studied, it was uncommon to meet a professor in summer, much less several of them at the same time. The postdocs were present, but not the big wigs.

Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts

#63

Post by kergonath »

jstanley wrote: post #51
ThePhysicist wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a hexagonal lead-apatite crystal, how is that "quasi two-dimensional"?

I don't know anything about lead-apatite crystals, but I know that hexagons are 2-dimensional.

Hexagonal refers to the type of crystal lattice. Most hexagonal crystals, including apatites, have a 3-dimensional structure.

Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts

#64

Post by victorantos »

vhiremath4 wrote: post #28

It’s interesting to notice all unofficial institutions (bottom table) have a higher outcome of partial success. Unless the more legitimate labs are less capable, you have to wonder whether anything outside of an accredited institution can be trusted at all at this point. My guess is the allure of hype (more followers / engagement) is too strong for personal gain.

Indeed, it's quite intriguing to observe the apparent trend of unofficial institutions showing a higher rate of partial success. It raises questions about the factors influencing these outcomes. While it's important not to jump to conclusions about the legitimacy or capability of accredited labs versus unofficial ones, your skepticism is understandable.

Accredited institutions often have established protocols, rigorous peer review processes, and accountability mechanisms that contribute to their credibility. However, it's worth considering that unofficial institutions might have some advantages too, such as more freedom to explore unconventional approaches and potentially quicker adaptation to emerging trends.

Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts

#65

Post by RhodesianHunter »

bhouston wrote: post #58
duchenne wrote: post #50

I see many comments wondering why the original authors do not reveal their synthesis process. The reason is simple. They work for a private company. Not a university. Not a public lab. They do not reveal the process for the same reason than openAI does not reveal its process. It is because they are sitting on a quadrillion dollars opportunity and they want to grab it. Similarly as OpenAI, many initiatives are trying…

The lab has a patent though which a lows for disclosure while also profiting from it. Thus I am not totally convinced of your claims.

[flagged]

Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts

#66

Post by gpderetta »

lordnacho wrote: post #8
tupac_speedrap wrote: post #3

But can they replicate the experiment on a cold rainy night in Stoke?

For non football fans: https://www.goal.com/en/news/what-does-can-they-do-it-on-a-c...

TIL, thanks.

But warnings about extremely obnoxious and only temporarily stoppable video ads (no ad-blocker at work unfortunately).

Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts

#67

Post by kergonath »

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #31

LK-99 is a quasi two-dimensional material, and one which seems particularly challenging to synthesize in a bulk polycrystalline three-dimensional mass. Even the original researchers stated that they'd "get it right" only a fraction of the time, and that their famous floating cracked-disc is still impure. I think that there's no reason to assume that negative results right now are conclusive, whereas positive results…

> LK-99 is a quasi two-dimensional material

There is nothing 2-dimensional about the Apatite structure, and the preprints I have seen do not show any kind of “quasi two-dimensional” structure. If anything, it’s more like an array of tubes and chains, more 1D than 2D. Do you have a source making this claim?

Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts

#68

Post by inglor_cz »

duchenne wrote: post #50

I see many comments wondering why the original authors do not reveal their synthesis process. The reason is simple. They work for a private company. Not a university. Not a public lab. They do not reveal the process for the same reason than openAI does not reveal its process. It is because they are sitting on a quadrillion dollars opportunity and they want to grab it. Similarly as OpenAI, many initiatives are trying…

They revealed quite a lot, but the process seems to be unreliable and frankly unready for publishing.

If I understand correctly, one of their colleagues forced their hand by dumping the first preprint on Arxiv without consent of the rest of the team.

Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts

#69

Post by dagi3d »

duchenne wrote: post #50

I see many comments wondering why the original authors do not reveal their synthesis process. The reason is simple. They work for a private company. Not a university. Not a public lab. They do not reveal the process for the same reason than openAI does not reveal its process. It is because they are sitting on a quadrillion dollars opportunity and they want to grab it. Similarly as OpenAI, many initiatives are trying…

If that'd be the case, why publish the paper at all? Just fill as many patents as possible (assuming this would be helpful) and send the technology

Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts

#70

Post by yebyen »

drsopp wrote: post #53
DoingIsLearning wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Magnetic levitation can't be done with normal magnets alone Technically it can be done with an array of magnets with opposing polarities. Without more details from on this video's source and legitimacy, one could argue that an array of magnets is hiding under the 'single magnet' cover plate. I am not saying this is a hoax, but as exciting as this seems we just have to wait it out for more replication publications t…

> Technically it can be done with an array of magnets with opposing polarities How?

https://www.kjmagnetics.com/blog.asp?p=electromagnetic-levit...
Post reply on HN