Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ferromagnetic half levitation of LK-99-like synthetic samples

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 331 posts

Re: Ferromagnetic half levitation of LK-99-like synthetic samples

#61

Post by Jweb_Guru »

phyzome wrote: post #45
VHRanger wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you *deny* the SC status? Replications keep failing until everyone is pretty sure it's not it. Proving the absence of something is rare to see.

What you'd have to do is 1) create bulk LK-99, 2) prove that that's what you'd created, 3) possibly also show that it's monocrystalline or something, and then 4) show that there's electrical resistance. The problem is that the stuff is really quite difficult to synthesize reliably. Until that can happen, good luck finding out in either direction!

It's definitely difficult to synthesize reliably when people dismiss any replication attempt that doesn't show superconductivity as a priori not being the right compound.

Re: Ferromagnetic half levitation of LK-99-like synthetic samples

#62

Post by Jweb_Guru »

canadiantim wrote: post #59
Jweb_Guru wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were refusing to share them with anyone reputable until today. Today, they said they would share them, so hopefully this will all be over soon (but IMO it's already resolved).

Resolved in which way?

It's not a room temperature ambient pressure superconductor. I should probably bet on it while there's still some value left here, I guess.

Re: Ferromagnetic half levitation of LK-99-like synthetic samples

#64

Post by jszymborski »

jacquesm wrote: post #31
jgtrosh wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Wikipedia: > On 3 August 2023, the Korean LK-99 Verification Committee requested a high-quality sample from the original research team. However, the team responded that they would only provide the sample once the review process of their paper, potentially submitted to APL Materials, is completed. This process is expected to take several weeks or months.

These sort of answers do not inspire confidence. That looks like a play for time, why would they connect those two, it's clear they have priority locked in if the sample works out, the peer review of their paper is secondary to the questions of whether or not it is the real deal or not.

> These sort of answers do not inspire confidence.

I'm not anything close to a Materials Engineer, but at least in the (very different) fields in which I've published, it's very standard to not share material (e.g.: plasmids, bacteria, code, or datasets) until you've published.

Pre-prints rarely have code or data available if the authors intend to publish elsewhere (again, in my field).

Re: Ferromagnetic half levitation of LK-99-like synthetic samples

#65

Post by Accujack »

fbdab103 wrote: post #32
jgtrosh wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Wikipedia: > On 3 August 2023, the Korean LK-99 Verification Committee requested a high-quality sample from the original research team. However, the team responded that they would only provide the sample once the review process of their paper, potentially submitted to APL Materials, is completed. This process is expected to take several weeks or months.

I am not in material science, but how does sharing a sample of the material not part of the paper review? Anyone can write a paper about things they did to make a material X, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If I am a top tier material science journal, I would not want to publish a phony SC because I waited to verify their sample.

That's exactly what they say they're doing. They submitted the final paper and the sample(s) to APL for review.

I don't think they have other samples to hand out.

They haven't actually published yet officially... the only papers everyone has their hands on (and which all the replications are based on) were leaked.

So, they're following the process... they've submitted the paper and sample for examination and they're waiting for those results before publishing.

Re: Ferromagnetic half levitation of LK-99-like synthetic samples

#66

Post by drtz »

ldjkfkdsjnv wrote: post #38

I knew it was fake, there would have been a huge rise in the stock market. Financial markets would have sniffed this out. The market never lies. If anything, this was an obvious opportunity to short it on prediction markets.

> The market never lies.

I suppose you weren't paying much attention in 2008.

Re: Ferromagnetic half levitation of LK-99-like synthetic samples

#67

Post by Accujack »

delabay wrote: post #34
arpowers wrote: post #7

My main concern: Where are the original authors and why are they not helping people synthesize the replications?

Let's hope the growing mountain of evidence against original author claims causes them to move quicker with providing samples to bonafide labs and disclosing the full details of their manufacturing process.

What evidence?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. They haven't even officially released their final version of the paper, and a whole bunch of people who don't have full access to their data being unable to replicate their material well enough to convince the world doesn't reflect at all on the validity of their work.

If the people to whom they have submitted their paper, data, and samples can't replicate it, that will mean something else.

Re: Ferromagnetic half levitation of LK-99-like synthetic samples

#68

Post by carabiner »

Jweb_Guru wrote: post #52
JohnBooty wrote: post #33

What happened to the original LK-99 samples that (allegedly) displayed SC properties? Were they just thrown in the dustbin, or what? I haven't seen that question answered or even asked anywhere, but I'm just a layman so maybe I'm not looking in the right places.

They were refusing to share them with anyone reputable until today. Today, they said they would share them, so hopefully this will all be over soon (but IMO it's already resolved).

Link to where they said that today?

Re: Ferromagnetic half levitation of LK-99-like synthetic samples

#69

Post by lifthrasiir »

Jweb_Guru wrote: post #52
JohnBooty wrote: post #33

What happened to the original LK-99 samples that (allegedly) displayed SC properties? Were they just thrown in the dustbin, or what? I haven't seen that question answered or even asked anywhere, but I'm just a layman so maybe I'm not looking in the right places.

They were refusing to share them with anyone reputable until today. Today, they said they would share them, so hopefully this will all be over soon (but IMO it's already resolved).

> They were refusing to share them with anyone reputable until today.

This is incorrect (under some definition of "reputable"), because KENTECH [1] has reportedly received samples from Q-Center for the analysis, which started on July (following the MOU on May) and is estimated to finish within 6 months. Whether KENTECH is reputable or not, and whether it should be considered affiliated with Q-Center is of course debatable.

[1] https://www.kentech.ac.kr/

Re: Ferromagnetic half levitation of LK-99-like synthetic samples

#70

Post by 46Bit »

scythe wrote: post #43

A ferromagnetic oxide featuring copper as the sole transition metal would be very weird. I'm not aware of any examples of the copper block demonstrating ferromagnetism without a more "conventional" ferromagnetic transition metal (from Cr to Ni and cousins). But ferromagnetism has been demonstrated in black phosphorus: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003810981... So the most likely explanation for t…

(Not a scientist, just a hobbyist.)

Red phosphorous is an ingredient in the original paper’s process.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US6110438A/en claims that black phosphorous can be made from red phosphorus using a vacuum and hundreds-of-C temperatures. Both of which people have done.

Seems very possible.

Post reply on HN