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

281–290 of 303 posts

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

#281

Post by gremlinsinc »

cubefox wrote: post #128
criley2 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/03/science/lk-99-superconduc... (gifted link, sorry for the mess) https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/2023/08/03/ro... https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/2023/08/02/lk... https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/2023/08/04/lk... Plenty more from less "historic MSM outlets". Looks like the MSM has been writing more than a few LK99 articles in the past 5 days…

> Alex Kaplan, who had majored in physics at Princeton University, found out about LK-99 on Hacker News, a news aggregation website.

I read hacker news more than I read my own email, seriously. How's this matter?

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

#282

Post by famouswaffles »

stavros wrote: post #43
deyiao wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However, we have never seen a material with such strong diamagnetism that is not a superconductor

Really? That's encouraging, thanks.

Yes LK-99 if not a superconductor would be the strongest diamagnetic material by orders of magnitude.

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

#283

Post by jiggawatts »

samwillis wrote: post #80
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…

> seems particularly challenging to synthesize My reading of the situation was that they have been making this stuff for quite a while (years!), but haven't had the funding or manufacturing expertise to start scaling up and properly improving the process. They are a tiny research lab. The suggestion seems to be that one newer (now former) member of the lab just thought F-this we need to publish, get it out there and…

> quite a while (years!)

Katalin Karikó was working on mRNA vaccine technology for decades on a relatively tiny budget, and was turned down by many larger groups based on the supposed impossibility of the concept.

You have to wonder how many future technologies are languishing right now in some basement lab where a couple of frustrated scientists are making do with a shoestring budget and are desperate to get their research published.

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

#284

Post by Freedom2 »

singularity2001 wrote: post #190
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...

The comments here are of a higher quality (due to top tier moderation) and generally the community is smarter and more in tune. I'd go with the HN consensus any day, over some random subreddit.

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

#285

Post by throw10920 »

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]

The pleading and emotional manipulation coming from your comments is incredible.

Researchers do not owe the world the results of their research, except possibly in the case where their research clearly mitigates existential threats to all of humanity, like climate change - which clearly doesn't apply here.

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

#286

Post by GuB-42 »

bhouston wrote: post #197
codethief wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIU, the patent is limited to South Korea.

That is insane and would be a major error if true.

As far as I know, there is no such thing as an international patent.

What is called an international patent is just a standardized application so that only one national patent office has to examine it. If it is accepted, other national offices will grant the patent much more easily since the hard work has already been done.

And here, there is an international application, so what I think is that there is already a patent in Korea, but it is still pending for other countries.

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

#287

Post by xvector »

bestcoder69 wrote: post #274
harles wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That Twitter user is making up details and writing a fan-fic: https://twitter.com/8teAPi/status/1686217806298423299?s=20 So you won’t find any other sources, other than other people who have also been misled by @8teAPi. Frustrating because it’s also chaotic, trying to keep the events straight.

This is hilarious. I love that @8teAPi did this, hopefully it knocks some sense into people.

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

#288

Post by GuB-42 »

Freedom2 wrote: post #284
singularity2001 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

The comments here are of a higher quality (due to top tier moderation) and generally the community is smarter and more in tune. I'd go with the HN consensus any day, over some random subreddit.

It is not some random subreddit, it is r/physics.

HN is a tech forum, plenty of smart people in there, but also plenty of people who think they know more than they really do. Lots of arrogance in here. I am guilty of it myself, and some of my posts got a lot of upvotes even though it was way out of my field of expertise. I try to get things right, fact checking and all that, but my opinion is certainly not worth that of an expert.

All that to say that on tech matters, I think HN is pretty good, because that's where the tech guys go. But for physics, I'd go for r/physics.

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

#289

Post by kijin »

ergocoder wrote: post #271
kijin wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, in the case of LK-99 the production method itself seems to be part of the puzzle, and the original authors aren't noticeably better at it than anyone else. Even their best sample doesn't fully levitate. We need higher quality samples in order to determine whether the thing actually superconducts, because it's really hard to measure the resistance of small grains of material buried inside a mostly useless rock.

Based on your statement, the original author would have claimed something untrue since they also cannot really produce LK-99 that fully levitates. It is certainly not a part of the puzzle here. The puzzle is to reproduce the experiment, but you claim the original experiment itself is bogus...

What do you think is easier, making a possible superconductor, or popping it on top of a magnet and seeing if it floats? The latter is an "experiment" only in the sense of an elementary school science class.

Why are we so obsessed with finding out whether the original authors did their homework? Science is not about crediting or discrediting people, it's about collaborating and standing on one another's shoulders to find out truths about the world. If LK-99 turns out to be a superconductor, it doesn't matter if the original paper was glaringly incomplete. If LK-99 doesn't pan out, it matters even less.

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

#290

Post by deadlike »

Although I was really excited at first as I kept diving deeper in the topic I grew a healthy dose of skepticism for the LK-99 superconductivity claim. The below article[1] has an interesting take on the matter.

* [1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10948-023-06593-6

Post reply on HN