171–180 of 303 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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'.
Edit: this is not sarcastic, I am not good at chemistry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
They first submitted a (rejected) paper to Nature about LK-99 in 2020, 3 years ago - that we know. The 99 in the name comes from the date the lab was formed, 1999. Some sources suggest that they have been studying this exact material since 1999, although I don't think that is confirmed. I think it's safe to assume that they would have been making it for at least 1-2 years before the rejected Nature paper, although po…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
They literally couldn’t get rich if they kept it out of everybody else’s hands.
I believe that's more or less the history of e-ink, among other things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This man claims to have reproduced the same kind of effects with a simple ferromagnetic sample: https://nitter.net/VanGennepD/status/1688052003216261120
except he didnt reverse the poles of the magnet like multiple replication videos so he didnt really reproduce the same effect
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?
It is pretty big pot to get part of if you discover way to refine the process, or find adjacent material with similar or better characteristics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The same investors and executives who bankrolled development since the original synthesis of the material back in 99 without any guarantee of a result? Which would create future incentives for a lot of people to invest their money into a lot of high risk, high reward science that takes years to do? Really hard to see that as something negative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
They first submitted a (rejected) paper to Nature about LK-99 in 2020, 3 years ago - that we know. The 99 in the name comes from the date the lab was formed, 1999. Some sources suggest that they have been studying this exact material since 1999, although I don't think that is confirmed. I think it's safe to assume that they would have been making it for at least 1-2 years before the rejected Nature paper, although po…