Breakthroughs are exciting; hoping it's true!
But I understand nothing of this field
What's the general consensus here, real or not?
Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
141–150 of 303 posts
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#142Why 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?
It's technically not necessary, but it's also not necessary that the authors give away their samples while they're still running tests (apparently they never even wanted to go public at this stage). The claims will be checked against very high standards, and we will know eventually. But we'll need a bit of patience, the authors haven't even submitted a paper to peer review yet. Science doesn't generally doesn't progress at the instant-gratification speed of social media.
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I don't believe that China would let that sit tight. They will find a way to replicate in no time and start the engine of research full throttle. It's simply too good to be true. It would alleviate all their problems, from food to climate and energy.
Lead compounds generally aren't good eatin'.
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#144Breakthroughs are exciting; hoping it's true! But I understand nothing of this field What's the general consensus here, real or not?
Burma-Shave
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#145Why 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?
>Why is it _necessary_ for other labs to produce the material themselves to _verify_ the claims? I highlighted "necessary" and "verify" because your wording of your question somewhat hides the motivations of the labs. Multiple labs around the world are not just doing a "homework assignment" to academically verify someone else's work. Instead, the tantalizing idea of a "room-temperature superconductor" would be a mira…
> or a workable synthesis of a new "drug molecule" to cure cancer.
You mean like this? https://twitter.com/gigaj0ule/status/1686814611658715136
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#146The 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)?
Wouldn’t two-dimensional (planar) superconductivity lead to one-dimensional (linear) diamagnetism? If the eddy currents are stuck in a plane then the induced magnetic field should be perpendicular to that plane, no?
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's how patents work though. That's the whole deal. 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…
I know that's how patents work. That's the problem. I don't believe private entities wouldn't invest in research if it wasn't for patents. But I also don't care. If the private sector won't invest, let the public sector invest. Just don't keep innovations out of the hands of humanity.
Patents aren't just an incentive to invest in research: it's (moreso, even) an incentive to also disclose that research.
So yes, in a world with patents, private entities would still engage in research, but what would they gain from disclosing the details of their process?
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
If they are restrictive and/or greedy with licensing, that is. A huge ton of cheap-ish licenses would rake in a fortune too, it doesn't have to go the e-ink way. But if it did, it might actually be worse: There's no reason why Chinese companies couldn't just ignore that patent like they do others. Pretty much unchecked innovation free for all inside the Chinese market (extending to Russia at least) vs. hardly anyone…
Yeah, I know it's not the only outcome. But the fact that it's potentially up to some random tiny group of people whether superconductors proliferate or go the e-ink route is atrocious IMO.
I hope you're right that the free markets of China and Russia will save us from the strict planning enforced on the west by the USA (... oh the sweet irony).
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#149Breakthroughs are exciting; hoping it's true! But I understand nothing of this field What's the general consensus here, real or not?
It is a discovery of an interesting semi conductor with strong diamagnetism.
It will likely spur a lot of new solid state physics research.