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

LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 754 posts

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#401

Post by cogman10 »

burnished wrote: post #380
hunson_abadeer wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is precisely what put me off in these discussions. Not the idea that we might have found a room-temperature superconductor - that part was exciting. It's the part where people confidently talked about its applications without realizing that they probably wouldn't revolutionize CPU performance (Josephson junctions don't seem to work well as non-cryogenic temperatures for reasons unrelated to superconductivity), p…

Interesting, from what I saw a lot of people got informed on why those overly confident predictions were drek - I don't know that I have seen a claim go unchallenged. Which seems ideal to me. Very educational.

It was like stomping out weeds and it wasn't always well received.

I hope that those that got dashed (and observed the dashing) take a step back the next time something from "FuturistSuperScienceNews.com" or whatever pops up touting a revolutionary XYZ. Those sites are like 99% trash that train their readers to distrust science when their clickbate articles don't pan out. If I were conspiracy minded, I'd swear they exist to build out a mistrust in institutions.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#403

Post by oblio »

thinkingkong wrote: post #2

It’s disappointing news but the excitement and amount of replication on this paper was pretty fun to witness and experience. To me the most interesting part was everyone talking about potential consequences, uses, the order of magnitude improvements we’d see in certain costs or areas. Pumps, MRIs, power grids, chips, etc. Great reminder what materials science can do to some underlying economics.

> Great reminder what materials science can do to some underlying economics.

Just economics? :-))

Materials science is practically >.

The Stone Age, the Bronze Age, the Iron Age.

The other axes are: energy production, transportation improvements. But even those frequently come from materials science. The steam engine needed mass production of high quality steel, etc.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#404

Post by devilsAdv0cate »

hunson_abadeer wrote: post #378
thinkingkong wrote: post #2

It’s disappointing news but the excitement and amount of replication on this paper was pretty fun to witness and experience. To me the most interesting part was everyone talking about potential consequences, uses, the order of magnitude improvements we’d see in certain costs or areas. Pumps, MRIs, power grids, chips, etc. Great reminder what materials science can do to some underlying economics.

This is precisely what put me off in these discussions. Not the idea that we might have found a room-temperature superconductor - that part was exciting. It's the part where people confidently talked about its applications without realizing that they probably wouldn't revolutionize CPU performance (Josephson junctions don't seem to work well as non-cryogenic temperatures for reasons unrelated to superconductivity), p…

[dead]

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#405

Post by cogman10 »

creato wrote: post #351
chongli wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

public trust in science is ever so slightly damaged This is just another example of the media’s negative effect on society. Similarly, the media endlessly poring over every detail of the Ukraine war has likely made their job much more difficult because it damages the element of surprise. The media originally began as something quite negative with what we called “yellow journalism.” Then for a century or so we saw a k…

I don’t think you can blame the media for this one. I heard very little to nothing about LK-99 from the news or the regular people in my life. But I heard a ton about it from my “tech” friends that spend a lot of time on Twitter, and HN.

The issue mostly comes from the current yellow journalism state of science news sites. It's a game of telephone where the further you get from the paper, the more details are missing and hyped. Often times losing the very essence of what was discovered.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#406

Post by poopbutt7 »

jokoon wrote: post #384

This type of story is fueled by techno-optimists who want to believe that humans can always "figure out" the universe and take advantage of the laws of physics to master their environment. I don't understand where this belief comes from, but to think that research + time = innovation is really ignorant of how technology works. It seems it's really rooted in prophetic or religious way to look at technology. Cornucopia…

Agreed. They're such sheep, it's embarrassing. One day they'll acknowledge our obvious superiority.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#408

Post by floxy »

hunson_abadeer wrote: post #378
thinkingkong wrote: post #2

It’s disappointing news but the excitement and amount of replication on this paper was pretty fun to witness and experience. To me the most interesting part was everyone talking about potential consequences, uses, the order of magnitude improvements we’d see in certain costs or areas. Pumps, MRIs, power grids, chips, etc. Great reminder what materials science can do to some underlying economics.

This is precisely what put me off in these discussions. Not the idea that we might have found a room-temperature superconductor - that part was exciting. It's the part where people confidently talked about its applications without realizing that they probably wouldn't revolutionize CPU performance (Josephson junctions don't seem to work well as non-cryogenic temperatures for reasons unrelated to superconductivity), p…

>Josephson junctions don't seem to work well as non-cryogenic temperatures for reasons unrelated to superconductivity

Can you point me in the direction to learn more about this?

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#409

Post by aaron695 »

penjelly wrote: post #263
sorenjan wrote: post #237

Sixty Symbols released a video about this yesterday, and in it professor Philip Moriarty is less than impressed with the whole ordeal. I haven't been paying attention, I'm too jaded and skeptical and assumed from the start that there was something wrong and much hype about nothing. Bad Science and Room Temperature Superconductors - Sixty Symbols: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl-AgmoZ5mo

everyone in this thread should watch this, instead of "the excitement was good for everyone" they might realize these hoaxes harm scientific integrity. The audacity of HN to state something is good, without listening to scientists give their take on it.

[dead]

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#410

Post by cogman10 »

drdeca wrote: post #400
hunson_abadeer wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is precisely what put me off in these discussions. Not the idea that we might have found a room-temperature superconductor - that part was exciting. It's the part where people confidently talked about its applications without realizing that they probably wouldn't revolutionize CPU performance (Josephson junctions don't seem to work well as non-cryogenic temperatures for reasons unrelated to superconductivity), p…

I had heard the parts about "probably wouldn't be a big deal for CPU performance" and "probably wouldn't be great for energy storage", but I hadn't heard the point about "we use less efficient materials for power grid transmission than we could, because of costs". I suppose I didn't expect that we necessarily had like, the "absolute most efficient that could be made" (if that is something substantially more complicat…

The crux of the problem for superconductors used as power delivery is the "critical field" problem. [1]

Super conductors are superconductive to a point. Once that point is crossed they turn into regular conductors. (I've seen ~1A cited. For context, EVs charge at around 500A).

To make them useful for power transmission, you'd have to up the voltage to insane levels to avoid collapsing the field.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_field

Post reply on HN