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, rigoro…
Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
91–100 of 303 posts
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#92Why 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
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
#94LK-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…
It's a hexagonal lead-apatite crystal, how is that "quasi two-dimensional"?
Superconductivity in LK-99 moves along a similarly anisotropic two-dimensional plane.
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
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]
In this case this tiny company doesn’t have the resources to optimize production and has failed for years. They might eventually receive outside funding and figure it out, but they could also fail without releasing their secrets as has happened a few times.
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#96Why 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
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
20 years isn’t that long. The point of patents is to quickly get secrets out into the public while still incentivizing people to make them known. In this case this tiny company doesn’t have the resources to optimize production and has failed for years. They might eventually receive outside funding and figure it out, but they could also fail without releasing their secrets as has happened a few times.
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#98[flagged]
I understand that denigrating a competitor is a defense mechanism to remove your unease, but really I would not bet against the Chinese. They improved so much in the last three decades, taking advantage of western smugness, that the only question remaining is whether they will overtake USA or not.
> bet against the Chinese
criticize the lack of innovation is not betting against anyone. it is obvious that China is not leading in anything that can potentially lead to the next industrial revolution.
as explained, no one is betting against China, but would you bet on China to be the next No.1 tech superpower? personally, I won't, my day to day life here tells me that it lacks literally all key ingredients required for such success.
not saying it is not doing okish, but doing ok including becoming the world's largest economy and tech investor is not that fancy when it is purely backed by a huge population size. On a per capita basis, R&D spending is extremely low, I couldn't name any single high tech company here that has a deep & healthy engineering culture.
> taking advantage of western smugness
the west has all the reasons to be "smugness", just look at the recent developments, reusable rockets, private trips to the space, the satellite internet constellation, ChatGPT, mRNA vaccine, the 100% remission rate for a certain type of colon cancer...the list goes really really long and I am just talking about progresses made in the last 3 years.
tell me what Chinese counterparts are? some cheap EV cars made with highly toxic materials? or maybe some mobile apps that popup ten ads for making each online order? or maybe you are talking about the so called online payment system that literally locked an entire generation of senior citizens out of real social life?
> They improved so much in the last three decades
I live & work in Shanghai, a typical match box sized apartment inside the outer ring road now costs 1 million USD when the average wage is $10k USD per annual. Simple maths tells me that one need to be keep working since the end of WWI non stop to buy such an apartment - assuming you don't need to pay tax and you don't eat, drink, buy cloth.
If you work harder to get yourself a fancy Chinese EV there, you can drive your "symbol of personal success" to a countryside, in just 2 hours, you can get to a fancy province called Anhui where you will be welcomed by millions of locals making $1k USD per annual. Don't get too shocked when you realize that those on $1k USD per annual is actually the lucky one, the pension rate is about $25 USD per month.
You need to be totally blind to call all these "improved so much".
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#99Why 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?