561–570 of 754 posts
I call it corruption - if you claim you have the sample that is a room temp supercondutor and you want the attention of the research community, how about just get some 3rd party to access your bloody sample? what we got was excuses after excuses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Company that has already lied in the past lies again, and everyone eats it up, again" - what are you referring to?
Some members of the LK-99 team published a claim of superconductivity and it included falsified data. Nature published it and had to retract it. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05294-9 https://www.science.org/content/article/something-seriously-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aluminum vs copper is a good example. Another is that we already do use superconducting transmission lines in a few places. We could do more of that, but presumably it's expensive to install and/or maintain otherwise we'd be using it everywhere. I'm not sure what the longest or highest capacity superconducting links currently in existence are.
That have to be kept cool with liquid nitrogen, so it would have to be pretty darn short.
I think it’s a fairly interesting story over all, and it feels like exactly how science should happen. We are humans and easily deluded. We fall easily for things we wish to be true. The fascinating story behind LK99 is incredibly human - including the rushing a preprint out to secure a noble prize by one of the researchers who was being excluded. The fascinating part to me was the fact engineers and scientists could…
I disagree. The paper should never have been published. Science should not happen in the news with people making wild claims about non peer reviewed papers. More so about papers that were getting lots of negative public peer review in real time. The only reason this story has a happy ending is the authors included manufacturing instructions. But everything else about the paper is not a good model of how to publish (w…
You can gauge the trustworthiness yourself here: https://x.com/dangaristo?s=21&t=lI9nNO9bkbL1YKFrdIw_Tg
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.
Soon after the other researchers realized and published a 6-author paper only hours after.
What a drama.
It's sad to see people accept the credibility of this article simply because it's from Nature. The author himself is a freelance science journalist (with no real expertise in the field), so this article is not worth any more of our attention than many twitter threads. You can gauge the trustworthiness yourself here: https://x.com/dangaristo?s=21&t=lI9nNO9bkbL1YKFrdIw_Tg
It's sad to see people accept the credibility of this article simply because it's from Nature. The author himself is a freelance science journalist (with no real expertise in the field), so this article is not worth any more of our attention than many twitter threads. You can gauge the trustworthiness yourself here: https://x.com/dangaristo?s=21&t=lI9nNO9bkbL1YKFrdIw_Tg
Is it right or is it wrong?
If one is up to date with sc news, this article should not affect their beliefs.
But maybe some people are happy that they can share an article from Nature to convince their friends.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it right or is it wrong?
I care about the process of determining truth. If one does expert deferral, then they should do so properly. Sadly Nature is expending their social capital as a scientific journal to pivot to a typical news organization. If one is up to date with sc news, this article should not affect their beliefs. But maybe some people are happy that they can share an article from Nature to convince their friends.