I'm still going to wait for the final version of the paper that is being peer-reviewed for APL material publication
LK-99 isn’t a superconductor
591–600 of 754 posts
Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor
#592Earlier quoted context omitted.
Silver is even more conductive than copper!
And gold too. Very expensive to build anything sizable out of it
Gold (2.44x10-8 Ω•m) is worse than copper (1.68x10-8 Ω•m), but better than aluminium (2.82x10-8 Ω•m).
It does have excellent anti-corrosion properties.
I wonder what kinds of alloys we will see in the potential future with asteroid mining and thus comparatively cheap gold. Imagine replacing lead with gold in industrial applications. Or the stainless steels with a gold component in them.
Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor
#593Their entire career is over.
Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor
#594Earlier quoted context omitted.
In some desperate places, people would cut down aluminum power lines and sell them to scrapyards for some quick buck. But copper power lines? Those would be in a similar danger in many more places.
Not only in desperate places. I heard last year (or the year before) someone stole few km of train wire in Germany. Although to this day some people think it was a Russian sabotage rather than genuine theft. Previously (for example in Poland) I used to hear about things like this all the time until maybe a decade ago.
[flagged]
Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor
#595I found Thunderf00t's video on LK-99 to be funny because he pointed out something no one else did: In almost all applications of superconductors, they don't use high-temperature ones for one simple reason: Material properties. Most high-temp superconductors (including LK-99, he was assuming it was one, since he's not qualified to say one way or the other) are a ceramic. The ones that see use in the LHC, for instance,…
It misses the point.
Ceramic "high-temp" ones are not used because they still operate at very low temperatures so you are not completely free of cooling requirements, they are just slightly lower.
In that case it may make sense to use superconductor with better material properties in exchange for more cooling.
A room temperature ambient pressure superconductor would remove the need for special cooling so it would be vastly better than current "high" temperature ones.
Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor
#596I'm still going to wait for the final version of the paper that is being peer-reviewed for APL material publication
I'm inclined to think that LK et al might eventually decide to withdraw the submission themselves, or likely got rejected directly, given the various factors at play. Alternatively, they may continue to keep the arXiv pre-print updated with each round of revisions to transparently address issues raised by peer reviewers. However, based on the current situation and the rigorous standards of APL Materials, I find it challenging to envision this work being accepted for publication in that journal.
Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor
#597Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I told my wife about this, all she replied was how it's gonna be monopolized by big countries/big tech and our third world country like ours will never use it. It's a point, but well human need to push the limit, no matter what.
"Never" is a strong word - smartphones were once monopolized by rich countries, but are now a worldwide phenomenon. Even explicitly-banned/controlled technologies like nuclear weapons managed to eventually diffuse around the world.
Yes, it is never absolute. But I get her points, always mean majority. Like for her I am always late for dinner. The days that I was early does not count, even if it's like 20%.
Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor
#598It’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.
It's not over yet, at least not definitively. Nature Magazine like every other source so far is basing its comments on the attempted replications using the leaked paper. It's considered fairly certain at this point that the paper was incomplete/not enough to duplicate the material. The full paper with the original samples were reportedly sent to Korea University of Science and Technology for examination. That lab gro…
Of course there's some sour grapes in Nature's article, as arxiv.org has had the best exposure it's likely to get in years. The more that publish there, the fewer who publish behind firewalls, etc. For starters, Nature's reprints are hellishly expensive.
Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor
#599Earlier quoted context omitted.
disagree, the excitement led nowhere. We already have high temp superconductors so even if it was real these applications can/are already handled. Its not harmless either, people invested time, money, and effort. its great to be excited for real science discoveries but hoaxes are not good, and can potentially cripple, crush the industry thats actually developing these things.
> its great to be excited for real science discoveries but hoaxes are not good, There's absolutely no evidence of a hoax. The original authors were sloppy and overeager, not malicious.
"The original authors were sloppy and overeager, not malicious"
Reckon so, but if they believed they were on the brink of a great discovery and thought they could be beaten to it at any moment, then it's understandable.
Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor
#600All those "peer review must die and be replaced by a Twitter mob" comments sound even more stupid now, and yet it will be the same thing next round.
This is leaving a really unpleasant aftertaste for me, seeing how dismissive this community got about the opinion and work of people with actual expertise, based mostly on repeating memes picked up from social media.