121–130 of 303 posts
Earlier 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]
Earlier 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]
Private entities invest in research and development. If they find something incredible, they release the full details to the world of what they found, and in return we give them monopoly on the invention for a period of time. That's a patent.
Take away the incentive and private entities won't invest in research.
The public appetite for investing in basic research with government funding is pretty low. So instead of waiting 20 years for the patent to expire, during which we're all paying a premium on the invention, we instead spend 20 or more years without the invention at all because no research was funded to find it. Maybe longer.
Earlier 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]
you could do the same, get together with a group of other people and invest in something using your disposable software eng income (maybe you already are). or you could just complain when someone else takes the risk and reaps the rewards because you apparently have no concept of things like jealousy, envy, or basic economics lol.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reproducibly is kinda a cornerstone of academia. This isn’t a product sneak peak.
This is about material that didn't exist before. The existence and effect of it should suffice. How it is produced is a later step.
We need higher quality samples in order to determine whether the thing actually superconducts, because it's really hard to measure the resistance of small grains of material buried inside a mostly useless rock.
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?
That would prove that they'd done it, but not that anyone knew how (including the original authors). If this is going to be useful, we need to know how to make it.
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?
They did send some of the material to other labs
I keep expecting to see coverage of this in what some would term the "mainstream" press but it's crickets. I refuse to believe that they're waiting for more results either, even the more reputable publications will carry junk science. At the very least there's an interesting story to tell in the publishing of the paper.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/03/science/lk-99-superconduc... (gifted link, sorry for the mess) https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/2023/08/03/ro... https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/2023/08/02/lk... https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/2023/08/04/lk... Plenty more from less "historic MSM outlets". Looks like the MSM has been writing more than a few LK99 articles in the past 5 days…
Earlier 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]
Even the US would ignore such patents if it was useful for military usage.
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.