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

71–80 of 303 posts

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

#71

Post by gpderetta »

hoseja wrote: post #55
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…

No, it mathematically cannot be done with any combination of permanent magnets.

aside from non-superconducting diamagnetic materials, I think it can be done with non-static magnets, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin-stabilized_magnetic_levit...

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

#72

Post by DougBTX »

dagi3d wrote: post #69
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

Rumour is that the first paper was from a disgruntled ex employee.

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

#73

Post by anymouse123456 »

XorNot wrote: post #57
kzrdude wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could just be hard to make this material. The only thing we need is solid evidence that it's superconducting. If anyone has a stone that's superconducting at room temperature, then we know it's out there, it's possible to make it. It doesn't matter so much how it was made. If it exists, that's a great step in itself, isn't it?

Yes, but keep in mind that showing superconductivity on very small samples is hard. You never actually measure 0 resistance - you measure a resistance at the limit of your equipment sensitivity. The smaller the sample, the smaller the resistance is even if it's not superconducting, and all sorts of other effects come into play - i.e. your wires and leads have a resistance you need to account for, parasitic inductance…

I'm sure I'm misunderstanding something, but couldn't one measure the extraordinarily large magnetic field that should appear when applying a voltage to (even a tiny sample of) such a material?

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

#74

Post by unaindz »

f6v wrote: post #35
mergejoin wrote: post #10

this video sent by one of the original authors to the NY Times is the most significant peace of evidence to me: https://vp.nyt.com/video/2023/08/03/110377_1_03superconducto...

Suppose they have a room temp superconductor(even if it’s not pure). What’s stopping them from revealing the process? It seems like the way they describe it is extremely hard to reproduce. So, are they trying to figure out how to make the most money off it? What else could it be?

They don't necessarily need to know what makes it work, they may do it ten times following the same recipe and it works only one of those times. The first method used to get a new material is usually not the best one, some iteration is needed.

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

#75

Post by SunghoYahng »

dagi3d wrote: post #69
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

The publication of the paper on LK99 was an accident.

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

#76

Post by Arkhaine_kupo »

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.

One interesting theory here is contamination. "Legitimate" labs have a higher standard of cleanness and material purity, more stable equipment etc.

If the results are to be believed the crystaline structure is hard to achieve as replacing the right parts with Cu seems borderline random.

less perfect synthesis materials (some of the unofficial institutions have even admitted to using subsitutes for some of the synthesis) so perhaps worse ovens that cannot sustain perfect temps, or substitute materials in some way help the right crystals to show up.

The original Korean lab said they only had a 10% success rate and admit the ppublished synthesis is incomplete because it is waiting full journal approval for the paper to come out.

So we should wait until we have better data, better replication and tbh a working theory of how it even works because it shows odd magnetic behaviour, whether its superconducting or not

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

#77

Post by vintermann »

deyiao wrote: post #34
stavros wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm, but diamagnetism in itself doesn't mean that it's a superconductor, no? There are a few diamagnetic materials that aren't superconductors, AFAIK.

However, we have never seen a material with such strong diamagnetism that is not a superconductor

And even if it turns out it isn't a superconductor, that's pretty cool in its own right, no? At least this layman would think so.

And it would go a way in explaining why so many take the claims seriously and try to replicate it, if we know there's something exciting going on either way.

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

#78

Post by hoseja »

gpderetta wrote: post #71
hoseja wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it mathematically cannot be done with any combination of permanent magnets.

aside from non-superconducting diamagnetic materials, I think it can be done with non-static magnets, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin-stabilized_magnetic_levit...

Oh of course. Brainfarted and fused "static permanent magnets" into just "permanent magnets".

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

#79

Post by teratron27 »

DougBTX wrote: post #72
dagi3d wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Rumour is that the first paper was from a disgruntled ex employee.

The rumours of a disgruntled ex employee where, in fact the rumours of a disgruntled ex employee /s

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

#80

Post by samwillis »

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…

> seems particularly challenging to synthesize

My reading of the situation was that they have been making this stuff for quite a while (years!), but haven't had the funding or manufacturing expertise to start scaling up and properly improving the process. They are a tiny research lab. The suggestion seems to be that one newer (now former) member of the lab just thought F-this we need to publish, get it out there and start moving forward.

If it is real, the level of investment in finding ways to make this stuff is going to explode. It may be hard to make, but that won't stop us from finding a way to make it on a large scale if it truly is revolutionary.

Further to that, from other groups studying it we will potentially find better and easer to make alternatives.

Post reply on HN