Breakthroughs are exciting; hoping it's true! But I understand nothing of this field What's the general consensus here, real or not?
Burma-Shave
I had to Google what Burma-Shave is :)
Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
151–160 of 303 posts
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#152LK-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…
> seems particularly challenging to synthesize My reading of the situation was that they have been making this stuff for quite a while (years!), but haven't had the funding or manufacturing expertise to start scaling up and properly improving the process. They are a tiny research lab. The suggestion seems to be that one newer (now former) member of the lab just thought F-this we need to publish, get it out there and…
Where did you get that "(years!)" from? Is it just a conclusion you came to or are those actual facts. If so, I would love to see a source or a direction to where to look for it.
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#153Why 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?
Reproducibly is kinda a cornerstone of academia. This isn’t a product sneak peak.
An outside lab reproducing the alleged superconducting properties of a given sample of LK-99 would be a good reproduction.
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#154Why 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?
[deleted]
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#155Why 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?
To my knowledge the original authors promised they would send out samples in the future but want to wait till they have a finalized paper approved for publication. Whether that's reasonable or not is very hard to tell.
IF they are correct and they have an RT superconductor, then it's a highly political decision on who gets sent some samples. Like, all their former colleagues and collaborators will be pissed if they don't get any. But you also would want to send some samples to someone who you know has 1) all the necessary equipment to confirm your claim, 2) has the necessary publication history to make him/her a trustworthy expert on high temperature superconductivity that others would believe, 3) would not want to slow down your progress just so he/she can gain an advantage.
And with something with such huge potential for applications as RT superconductivity, you then also get vested national interests where your national physics society or research ministry might be pissed off if you don't involve enough researchers from the country which funded your research.
Honestly, if I was in their shoes I'd be delaying me sending out my samples into the world as well.
Of course this all hinges on whether they actually have a room-temperature superconductor or not. If they don't actually have one then the delay tactic could also just be in hopes for this all to blow over without them having to prove their findings.
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is why one simple way to clear up a lot of the ambiguity would be to make the "working" sample available for a few other trusted 3rd parties to run some quick tests on.
That isn't simple. The sample needs to be shipped. You have to ensure it doesn't get damaged in shipment. If some lab has a an unknown evil intent they can destory the sample and claim it was shipping damage. They say they are willing to let other labs examine their sample. If nothing has happened in two months i'll get worried, but for now I don't expect any lab to have seen it
Obviously they wouldn't just slap it in a box and send it through FedEx. The authors would personally deliver it.
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#157Why 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 not necessary and they could simply offer it to other labs. The reason they have not done so (except to one small lab in South Korea that doesn't appear to specialize in superconductivity and claims they need six months to verify) is pretty obvious by now: they don't actually have a superconductor.
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#158Why 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?
Perhaps I have a cynical take, but I would guess that the labs are primarily verifying the claims to themselves to identify ways to make profitable research or production lines. They want to fund their own labs.
Publishing verified claims to help others would be secondary.
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
> seems particularly challenging to synthesize My reading of the situation was that they have been making this stuff for quite a while (years!), but haven't had the funding or manufacturing expertise to start scaling up and properly improving the process. They are a tiny research lab. The suggestion seems to be that one newer (now former) member of the lab just thought F-this we need to publish, get it out there and…
Where did you get that "(years!)" from? Is it just a conclusion you came to or are those actual facts. If so, I would love to see a source or a direction to where to look for it.
The 99 in lk99 means 1999
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
comments like this really make me smh. what's wrong with some lucky people getting rich off of this? you do realize they financed that research for the past 20 years, and if it's actually an investment group instead of a few passionate individuals I can guarantee you they also financed a shitload of other endeavours that went nowhere and ate the losses, lol. you could do the same, get together with a group of other p…
[flagged]
They literally couldn’t get rich if they kept it out of everybody else’s hands.