Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know how to make ambient temperature superconductors.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I hope you see the point.
I don't, sorry.
Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
291–300 of 303 posts
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
They'd be selling to humans of course?
Humans who wouldn't be allowed to use the discovery of room temperature superconductors for anything other than whatever little gimmick the company found out they could sell.
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
[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.
I think keeping progress back in a vital field is bad. Sue me.
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, which is also a monumental problem.
Indeed, but I don't see how you're going to special case this if you aren't willing/able to at the same time get a frontal assault from the pharmaceutic giants.
Oh if it was up to me, pharmaceutical companies wouldn't be able to keep affordable life saving treatments out of the public's hand through state enforced monopolies either. It's not like I'm all in favour of patents except in the field of superconductors...
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
They could make a product and sell that product. That would keep the innovation in general out of the public's hands, only giving us access to some product built on it.
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
It should be a self reevaluating moment rather than a "china bad" moment. China went from agricultural an third world country to a main contributor in many domains and the manufacturer of all our tech gadgets, in the same time the west pretty much stagnated
> China went from agricultural an third world country to a main contributor in many domains and the manufacturer of all our tech gadgets, in the same time the west pretty much stagnated check my reply above and then go and tell your "main contributor" story to those hundreds of millions Chinese pensioners on $25 USD per month. below is the source of the mentioned $25 USD per month pension rate. It is from China's Nat…
> to those hundreds of millions Chinese pensioners on $25 USD per month
There are almost 40m americans living under poverty, which is just about the same as china in term of percentage. The 25 usd a month figure seems to be for a social benefit system you don't even have equivalent for in the US
> China is a backward & dirty poor developing 3rd world country with a huge economic, scientific & military capability gap with the west.
Literally no one puts China in the third world country category. Nobody said there isn't a gap
> I guess it can't be fake news, right?
This isn't 4chan you can put that back in your clown bag
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#297Why is there so little information coming from the LK-99 guys? Everyone talks about them as if they're dead.
Like, why aren't they consulting with the best lab to make some rocks that are great and prove their theory?
I haven't seen any interviews, or much of anything, from the original authors. Everyone is just trying to reverse engineer from scratch
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. It’s more of a matter of chemistry and bonding than the dimensionality of the structure.
I think the lower the dimensionality, the harder it is to align pieces. For 3D material you could probably just grind your impure sample down into a powder, isolate the grains that levitate, and press them back together. That wouldn't preserve structures in 2D though, let alone 1D.
> I think the lower the dimensionality, the harder it is to align pieces.
First, you’re not talking about synthesis anymore. And if you try to grow a single crystal, how easy it is to get polycrystals from powder is not really relevant. Ease to synthesise and ease to assemble are very different things and both are controlled by different phenomena.
Also, again, not really. Graphene is quasi 2-dimensional and very easy to bunch up and form graphite, for example. Boron nitride, not that much.
> For 3D material you could probably just grind your impure sample down into a powder, isolate the grains that levitate, and press them back together.
You can do something like that (hot or cold pressing), but it still requires the right material to be synthesised in the first place. It works more or less well depending on chemistry and physical properties, not dimensionality.
Separating “grains that work” and “grains that don’t” is not something we really do when we create materials. It sounds more like QA in semiconductors than something we’d do in a lab.
> That wouldn't preserve structures in 2D though, let alone 1D.
Why not? If you grind a 2-D structure joint you just get flat grains. How well they assemble depends on their properties.
The whole discussion is not very productive: however truthy it sounds, dimensionality does not control how easy it is to synthesise a material. Apatites are very easy to make. Things like chalcogenide glasses are easy to make despite having a 1-dimensional structure at the atomic scale. There are many other examples. And, also again: it does not matter because apatites are fully 3-d structures, with linear elements if you squint and ignore how these elements are placed in the overall structure.
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you have to choose to do it and there is an additional cost, if I am not mistaken. When our startup filed our patents in the US market, we chose not to do the same in Europe...
Sure, and most large corporations with worldwide influence do it automatically. The last action one of my previous employers took was to send me payments for a patent I'm named on when they filed it in the EU. I had already quit, but it was easier to just send me the check than to cancel it :-)
Good point about that! Obviously there are alot of big players like that. However I heard this was a small lab, so I guess we don't know yet what their patenting power is.
Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I think keeping progress back in a vital field is bad. Sue me.
That doesn't excuse breaking the HN guidelines and trying to turn this place into your personal activism platform.