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

241–250 of 303 posts

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

#241

Post by Qwertious »

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…

>LK-99 is a quasi two-dimensional material,

Hey, what does this actually mean? Like, space is 3D and I don't think you're claiming all LK99 samples are all literally-one-atom-thick, so clearly it's a 3D object.

I'd guess it means that the material has very regular layers, but (much like graphene) I've never actually seen someone directly say what "two-dimensional material" means 3-dimensionally.

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

#242

Post by carabiner »

alecst wrote: 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…

Do highly diagmagnetic materials have any practical use?

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

#243

Post by NotSuspicious »

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…

Iris was talking about how she used construction grade phosphorous which apparently is often contaminated with Sulfur.

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

#244

Post by sdenton4 »

carabiner wrote: post #242
alecst wrote: 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…

Do highly diagmagnetic materials have any practical use?

Frogs provide a wide array of ecosystem services.

https://youtu.be/KlJsVqc0ywM

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

#245

Post by hungryforcodes »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #235
psychlops wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps I have a cynical take, but I would guess that the labs are primarily verifying the claims to themselves to identify ways to make profitable research or production lines. They want to fund their own labs. Publishing verified claims to help others would be secondary.

That’s a cynical tale, but once you realize that profit is a useful way to signal to technologists what the world finds useful in aggregate, it means there is more likelihood that the science gets out of the lab to the real world. tldr; for good or bad, humanity hasn’t found an incentive mechanism better than capitalism for deploying tech at scale.

Isn't this one of those game theory scenarios? Some labs could profit by not announcing replication, but others could by announcing it as quickly as possible? Thus not all labs will behave the same way, unless they are all colluding which seems unlikely.

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

#246

Post by vel0city »

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.

Many things which are "toxic" can be perfectly tolerable or even necessary at certain amounts.

Some things are just truly toxic at any amount and are not good to have any amount in your body.

Your body uses Chlorine atoms in its normal processes all the time. Its essential in the function of your digestive system, the nervous system uses it to transmit electrical impulses, muscles use it to contract and extend, and facilitates the movement of oxygen and carbon dioxide inside cells. Without chlorine, you just wouldn't function: your muscles wouldn't move, your heart wouldn't pump, your brain wouldn't think.

Lead is similar enough to calcium and zinc to displace it when your body makes proteins, but it doesn't "fold" the same. This causes the proteins to be less functional or non-functional, which causes a lot of further problems down the line. Also, because lead sometimes replaces calcium your body will stash it away in your bones which can make it tricky to actually get rid of.

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

#247

Post by vel0city »

mort96 wrote: post #175
jtbayly wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They literally couldn’t get rich if they kept it out of everybody else’s hands.

Sure they could? That's a common way people get rich off of patents; make a product which uses your new innovation, sell that product, use the patent to prevent everyone else from using the innovation to make competing products. I believe that's more or less the history of e-ink, among other things.

> sell that product

But if they're keeping it out of everyone's hands, who are they selling it to? Aliens?

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

#248

Post by s1artibartfast »

neom wrote: post #198
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.

The Korean press seems to indicate that's when their mentor professor passed away and asked them to continue research on a theory he had, they've been slogging away on it since.

I dont think it was a mere request. They also left money in their will to support further research from what I read.

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

#249

Post by hungryforcodes »

bhouston wrote: post #58
duchenne wrote: post #50

I see many comments wondering why the original authors do not reveal their synthesis process. The reason is simple. They work for a private company. Not a university. Not a public lab. They do not reveal the process for the same reason than openAI does not reveal its process. It is because they are sitting on a quadrillion dollars opportunity and they want to grab it. Similarly as OpenAI, many initiatives are trying…

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.

Wait, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't patents only valid in the country they are filed in? So to be able to enforce a patent, you'd need to have filed in the US, Europe and China(?). Also patents take a couple of years to get accepted...

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

#250

Post by topper-123 »

alecst wrote: 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…

> If it's not a superconductor, it's the most diamagnetic room temperature material ever seen, by orders of magnitude.

If it’s not a superconductor, can it still be used for e.g. maglev trains?

Post reply on HN