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

181–190 of 303 posts

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

#181

Post by logicchains »

messe wrote: post #147
mort96 wrote: post #135

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?

>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?

They might not gain, but the people working for them would certainly gain from moving to other employers who needed their "expertise".

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

#182

Post by bhouston »

RhodesianHunter wrote: post #65
bhouston wrote: post #58

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]

This is likely just one member of a family of related compounds that exhibit the similar properties. I am unsure how broad the patent is, but I suspect there will be a race to find other members of this family of related compounds. Some may be easier/cheaper to synthesize or have more stability/longevity. Some members of the family may even have larger rangers where they exhibit SC.

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

#183

Post by samwillis »

n2d4 wrote: post #179
samwillis wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

According to Wikipedia, Q Centre was founded in 2008. LK-99 is called LK-99 because it was discovered in 1999, but they stopped working on it for the bigger chunk of the 21st century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK-99#Compound_name

Ah, my mistake. A 1999 discovery while plausible seems like a long time ago. I wander if it really is exactly the compound as they found back then.

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

#184

Post by jacquesm »

magimas wrote: post #155
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?

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 d…

This is of a magnitude that finding the funding to get one of the original researchers to be custodian of a sample while they tour to some well respect other lab whose researchers then do the verification is well within the realm of the possible. That way you can have verification without losing control over where the samples end up, you could take it back when they're done with it.

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

#185

Post by lucubratory »

mort96 wrote: post #90
Arkhaine_kupo wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> and admit the ppublished synthesis is incomplete because it is waiting full journal approval for the paper to come out. Why would they have to wait for the paper to come out? Couldn't they just publish the steps in a blog post or something before the journal has approved the paper?

Because they don't want to be scooped, essentially. They want the first accepted, peer reviewed, published paper in a high profile journal about RTAPS to be their paper. I have a lot of issues with literal currency being involved in academia, industry domination and patenting and the like, but the real currency of academia is reputation. I'm not going to begrudge them that.

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

#186

Post by stormfather »

throwawaaarrgh wrote: post #166

HN is such a weird place. Every so often it adopts these communities of people obsessed with something, and lately it's whatever LK-99 is. I wish they'd just go make a subreddit.

The smartest people obsessing over LLMs and LK-99 is exactly what I want, personally. They're potentially truly revolutionary things.

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

#187

Post by jacquesm »

mort96 wrote: post #82
bhouston wrote: post #58

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]

That's pretty much how all privately funded novel drug research works.

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

#188

Post by mort96 »

jovial_cavalier wrote: post #138
mort96 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I don't see how it would hold back research. Private companies and universities would still be able to acquire the material to do R&D with it.

I have to admit I'm not very familiar with how patents work in this field in particular, but in general, patents seem to have a huge limiting effect on research. For example, in video coding, nobody wants to invest into making a new codec just to find that their codec falls under a patent owned by the MPEG, and it's really hard to make a new codec which doesn't fall under those patents.

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

#189

Post by xqcgrek2 »

At this point it's better to flag LK-99 posts like this on HN and move on.

To much noise and no signal. There's no point going down a rabbit hole on unconfirmed and low quality replication attempts. You'll hear about it elsewhere if it's actually replicated.

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

#190

Post by singularity2001 »

toshk wrote: post #141

Breakthroughs are exciting; hoping it's true! But I understand nothing of this field What's the general consensus here, real or not?

The consensus 'here' unfortunately does not seem to reflect the very critical consensus amongst r/Physics :

https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/15i3h9d/lk99_megat...

Post reply on HN