Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they've done their "exciting breakthrough" piece and now it's not very news worthy.
I didn't even see that. Am I living under a rock?
Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
81–90 of 303 posts
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#82I 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
#83I 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…
But they did reveal their synthesis process, they just didn't explain it very well and there seems to be some random chance involved.
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#84Asianometry just released a video on the history of superconductors:
It's a nice primer on the topic as he touches on LK-99.
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#85The optimistic aspects are: 1. The diamagnetism of LK-99 is very strong; 2. In almost all experiments, LK-99 has only exhibited one-dimensional diamagnetism, which is hard to consider as fraudulent coincidence; 3. One-dimensional diamagnetism is very mysterious, and there is currently no suitable theoretical explanation.
Is it one-dimensional (linear) or two-dimensional (planar)?
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#86Why is it necessary for other labs to produce the material themselves to verify the claims? The original authors claim they produced some superconductive material, can't they simply offer their samples to other labs to verify?
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#87I 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…
Then why to publish a paper at all?
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
Magnetic levitation can't be done with normal magnets alone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnshaw%27s_theorem TL;DR: Normal magnets have two poles, and will try to flip themselves around to achieve a lower energy state. You cannot levitate a normal magnet on another magnet without mechanical stabilization. Superconducting materials actively repel all magnetic field lines and can achieve levitation without external…
> 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…
If we doubt the legitimacy of basic claims like a fair setup of magnets, then there are much easier ways to create a fake, like just tie something on top of it.. but why would we doubt the legitimacy of reliable institutions?
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#89It’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, rigoro…
I believe it is just self-selecting. An unofficial institution that fails to display anything interesting likely won’t be added to the list.
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#90It’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 synthes…
> and admit the ppublished synthesis is incomplete because it is waiting full journal approval for the paper to come out.
Why would they have to wait for the paper to come out? Couldn't they just publish the steps in a blog post or something before the journal has approved the paper?