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

101–110 of 303 posts

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

#101

Post by KennyBlanken »

Arkhaine_kupo wrote: post #76
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 synthes…

Or the simpler explanation: "legit" labs are more cautious about confirming successful synthesis and any test results, to protect the reputation of the lab and parent institution.

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

#102

Post by tw1984 »

lm28469 wrote: post #25
tw1984 wrote: post #11

[flagged]

It should be a self reevaluating moment rather than a "china bad" moment. China went from agricultural an third world country to a main contributor in many domains and the manufacturer of all our tech gadgets, in the same time the west pretty much stagnated

> China went from agricultural an third world country to a main contributor in many domains and the manufacturer of all our tech gadgets, in the same time the west pretty much stagnated

check my reply above and then go and tell your "main contributor" story to those hundreds of millions Chinese pensioners on $25 USD per month.

below is the source of the mentioned $25 USD per month pension rate. It is from China's National People's Congress web site, I guess it can't be fake news, right?

http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/c30834/202301/dd0a52a4a5e340e08493...

No matter how you paint it, China is a backward & dirty poor developing 3rd world country with a huge economic, scientific & military capability gap with the west.

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

#103

Post by regularfry »

kaba0 wrote: post #89
victorantos wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Possibly also a base-rate effect going on. There are presumably far more unaccredited groups having a go than official institutions, so even with a worse chance of success they could be over-represented.

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

#104

Post by bazodedo »

anymouse123456 wrote: post #73
XorNot wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

A magnetic field is the result of moving an electric charge (in this case electrons). Applying the voltage will move the electrons. The only thing the material being a superconductor changes is that the electrons will lose less energy to resistance while traversing the sample.

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

#105

Post by consilient »

anymouse123456 wrote: post #73
XorNot wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No, superconducting states break down in the presence of sufficiently strong magnetic fields.

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

#106

Post by cubefox »

kergonath wrote: post #67
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?

1D would arguably make it even more challenging to synthesize than 2D.

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

#107

Post by DoingIsLearning »

kaba0 wrote: post #88
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…

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?

Grand parent was saying it's "impossible". I say it is _technically_ possible.

To which I added:

"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 to make that call"

It has been a little over 2 weeks since the first pre-print from Korea University.

The hashing out of a fabrication process with less impurities will be a long process. My point is not that everyone is pulling a con, my point is that we need to wait it out.

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

#108

Post by dkqmduems »

Retric wrote: post #95
mort96 wrote: post #82

Earlier 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.

By all means, close your eyes.

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

#109

Post by kergonath »

cubefox wrote: post #106
kergonath wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

1D would arguably make it even more challenging to synthesize than 2D.

Not really. It’s more of a matter of chemistry and bonding than the dimensionality of the structure.

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

#110

Post by KineticLensman »

misja111 wrote: post #86

Why 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?

Partly to ensure that the whole process is well understood, and that there aren't some (unstated) aspects specific to the original lab. By way of example, when multiple labs conduct genetics experiments on mice, even the food that the mice were fed has to be standardised to ensure that it isn't driving variation between the results.
Post reply on HN