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

201–210 of 303 posts

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

#201

Post by marcosdumay »

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #31

LK-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…

I'd say that positive results are only strongly indicative if they contain some property that absolutely can not be explained any other way (like the full levitation of that badly sourced video that we can't be sure abut the veracity) or if they are numerous enough to rule out rare effects.

Outside of that, positive results only weakly imply LK-99 is real.

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

#202

Post by Retric »

codedokode wrote: post #130
Retric wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As I understand, you don't have to disclose secrets when filing a patent. You can describe the process in general terms and omit important formulas, quantities of different materials etc.

The more you omit the less protection you receive. There’s many approaches to getting around patents and they generally work really well if you’re vague.

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

#203

Post by viscanti »

samwillis wrote: post #183
n2d4 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It wasn't discovered in 99. That's when two of the researchers were in university and had a professor who had a theory that something like it could work. They took a good amount of time off from it while they worked at other jobs, before starting at their research center.

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

#204

Post by dcveloper »

mort96 wrote: post #135
mabbo wrote: post #122

Earlier 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.

Do you have an example or two of a country with no patent protections that still invests in research? If no incentives, there are no outcomes.

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

#205

Post by dmbche »

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]

I mean no not at all - patents are legal tools that can be skirted around just like anything else.

If people don't respect the patent and produce things with it, your recourses are lawsuits - patents aren't stopping chinese manufacturers from exploiting patents from the US.

And for something this important, I can even imagine governement making some kind of "public good" patent for things that are too influential - where the compensation is pre arranged and reasonable.

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

#206

Post by amluto »

LadyCailin wrote: post #171
thfuran wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lead compounds generally aren't good eatin'.

Is that how this works? Bleach isn’t good eatin either, but table salt is just fine. Edit: this is not sarcastic, I am not good at chemistry.

Bleach is excellent eatin’ in appropriate moderation. (Hypochlorous acid at a few ppm is used to keep drinking water safe. Your immune system apparently makes hypochlorous acid! It breaks down in your body very quickly.)

Lead and most or all of its compounds are toxic. It’s not good for you in moderation. It’s apparently not even harmless in small amounts.

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

#207

Post by psychlops »

mort96 wrote: post #135
mabbo wrote: post #122

Earlier 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.

Public sector investment is too tied up in finding new ways to kill and monitor people.

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

#208

Post by fguerraz »

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #31

LK-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…

I have my I WANT TO BELIEVE poster ready

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

#210

Post by kraussvonespy »

Arkhaine_kupo wrote: post #76
vhiremath4 wrote: post #28

It’s interesting to notice all unofficial institutions (bottom table) have a higher outcome of partial success. Unless the more legitimate labs are less capable, you have to wonder whether anything outside of an accredited institution can be trusted at all at this point. My guess is the allure of hype (more followers / engagement) is too strong for personal gain.

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…

I'm not a chemist so this may be a dumb question, but is it possible that polymorphs are coming into play here, and the less official labs are better at contaminating the sample with the correct polymorph?
Post reply on HN