Live data from Hacker News

Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts

forums.spacebattles.com

221–230 of 303 posts

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

#221
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 on HN is that it’s le epic exciting discovery. The consensus among physicist is that’s it’s likely to be a dud

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

#222
post #216

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 l…

> It's similarly unclear why the material seems to always float at an angle. It seems to track the field lines in some way.

I've seen some people talking about the LK-99 samples only having these properties locally due to internal structure or something like that, could that not explain the angle if one part of the sample had more "pockets" of material with these properties than another part?

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

#223

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.

The smartest people are not obsessing over LK-99, actually

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

#224

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.

But this is so much fun! Reddit isn’t fun, and the energy here is just lovely

You might want to checkout the many subreddit dedicated to crypto. Same energy

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

#225
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The authors might damage it in transit, either accidentally or for nefarious purpose. No one knows enough to confidently say "this method of handling won't affect future measurements" because no one knows for certain what is going on here.

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

#226

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?

Rarely do researchers get an opportunity to get 15 minutes of fame like right now. Anyone successfully recreating LK99 can

* Potentially do it better/purer

* Get a few news articles, and a mention in a very high traffic Wikipedia page

* Again if they do it well, get 8 figures in funding pretty easily. While during any other day they might be fighting for $50,000 here and $100,000 there

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

#227
post #216

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 l…

Yeah, I think unless the authors are deliberatly misleading the public (which is of course a possibility, though not very likely I think) it is hard to imagine a scenario where all of this won't turn out to be highly interesting in one way or another (even if it might turn out to not be a superconductor)

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

#228

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.

Whatever it is? I mean it could change our relationship to energy in the next 10 to 20 years. If you don't get excited by this then I don't know.

Perhaps more interested in the next generation of adtech?

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

#229
post #82

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'm personally comfortable with making some lucky investors super rich, in this case. Like, this is sort of the canonical good application of a patent: you've invented something extremely useful, but can't keep it a trade secret and don't have the expertise to scale it up yourself. This is what patents are supposed to be for!

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

#230
post #216

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 l…

Yeah, I think unless the authors are deliberatly misleading the public (which is of course a possibility, though not very likely I think) it is hard to imagine a scenario where all of this won't turn out to be highly interesting in one way or another (even if it might turn out to not be a superconductor)

I really doubt there’s intentional fraud here, but they were forced to publish (or pre-print to be pedantic) early. [0] This certainly led to less rigor.

[0]: https://twitter.com/8teAPi/status/1684385895565365248 apologies for the Twitter link, I didn’t have time to find a better source.

Post reply on HN