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

211–220 of 303 posts

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

#211

Post by n2d4 »

viscanti wrote: post #203
samwillis wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

From the NYT source linked on the Wikipedia article:

> The name of the material comes from the initials of the surnames of two of the scientists — Sukbae Lee and Ji-Hoon Kim — and the year 1999, when they say they first synthesized LK-99.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/03/science/lk-99-superconduc...

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

#212

Post by wongarsu »

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.

Revealing secrets is kind of the entire point of the patent: you tell everyone how it's done, in return you get 20 years monopoly. US patents even have a "best mode" requirement where you have to describe the best way known to you right now, where many other countries allow you to describe an inferior version and still get full protection.

In reality you can get patents granted that are somewhat vague. It's not like the patent office actually tests if the patent text is sufficient to replicate your invention.

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

#213

Post by PartiallyTyped »

weebull wrote: post #92
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?

That would prove that they'd done it, but not that anyone knew how (including the original authors). If this is going to be useful, we need to know how to make it.

It’s like the 4 minute mile tbh. If we know it is possible, we can and will find a way.

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

#214

Post by [deleted] »

krab wrote: post #196
lucubratory wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is extremely rare that actionable, reproducible information comes out of the patent process. In general, they provide as little information as possible in order to satisfy the office, which is extremely overworked and (by design) rubber stamps everything that has basically the correct headings and formatting and isn't too similar to an existing patent.

In the case of drugs, it works. The day a patent expires, you have generics that instantly lower the market price. Replicating a drug from a patent is not free but you know that the compound works and can be synthesized. It's much cheaper than doing original research where a drug candidate can fail after you invested a lot into it.

[deleted]

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

#215

Post by ThePhysicist »

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #94
ThePhysicist wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a hexagonal lead-apatite crystal, how is that "quasi two-dimensional"?

Even lead apatite is anisotropic. It conducts electrons along a plane from lead atom to lead atom --- where the phosporous atoms are insulators. Superconductivity in LK-99 moves along a similarly anisotropic two-dimensional plane.

Do you have a reference for that claim?

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

#216

Post by alecst »

A few comments on diamagnetism:

The most strongly diamagnetic materials that aren't a superconductor are bismuth and pyrolytic carbon, a graphite-like material.

Bismuth has a density of about 10g/cm^3, and a diamagnetic strength (X) of -16.6 x 10^-5. It won't levitate above a magnet because it's just too heavy.

Pyrolytic carbon has a density of 2g/cm^3, and a diamagnetic strength of -40 x 10^-5. Thin sheets of this lightweight material will levitate over strong magnets, provided the magnetic field alternates in a chessboard pattern.

LK-99 must be similar in density to bismuth, and the videos (like below) show large chunks of it levitating. If it's not a superconductor, it's the most diamagnetic room temperature material ever seen, by orders of magnitude.

And on top of that, if pure diamagnetism were at work, the samples would have to slide off the magnet. They wouldn't stay there and float. It's similarly unclear why the material seems to always float at an angle. It seems to track the field lines in some way.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/03/science/lk-99-superconduc...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamagnetism#Materials Diamagnetic strength = susceptibility

My background: physics, but not superconductors.

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

#217

Post by kzrdude »

shrx wrote: post #85
deyiao wrote: post #41

The 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)?

Hyun-Tak Kim, one of the Korean authors, says it's a one dimensional superconductor.

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

#218

Post by golergka »

mort96 wrote: post #178
golergka wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Keeping the benefits of possibly the most significant breakthrough in fundamental research this century out of the hands of humanity for 20 years. You find it hard to see that as something negative?

Out of the hands? How so? Do you think they're going to lock it in a safe and not make it commercially available? Or are you under an impression that humanity does not benefit from inventions it pays inventors for?

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

#219

Post by yorwba »

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.

At least two entries from the "Private" table (HUST and SSMRL-SEU) have already moved to the "Official/Institutional" table after the connection between the private individual and their institutional affiliation was made.

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

#220

Post by titzer »

mergejoin wrote: post #10

this video sent by one of the original authors to the NY Times is the most significant peace of evidence to me: https://vp.nyt.com/video/2023/08/03/110377_1_03superconducto...

I get that the manufacturing process doesn't produce pure samples, and that it's highly likely that the sample has many "islands" of the right lattice structure within it, of various sizes and shapes.

What I don't get is why they don't just pulverize the sample, put it in a magnetic field, and then sift out the floaty particles.

Things floating at an angle and halfway make me very suspicious.

Also, why are all these videos like 5 seconds long? The stuff is supposedly superconducting at room temperature and would supposedly float indefinitely. Why not just put up a 24/7 livestream, do stuff like pass strings/paper/loops/etc around it.

I think this material is very interesting, but all the videos I see are so clownish that I am getting more skeptical as time goes on.

Post reply on HN