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

661–670 of 754 posts

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#661

Post by cf141q5325 »

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.

I had a similar experience when reading up on the history of gyroscopes recently. Its absolutely amazing to watch the advances and miniaturization from mechanical to optical to now micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS). Watching the giant machines from the space race first shrink, then get replaced by light traveling fiber optics to now vibrating bits of silicone. With the prices imploding as a result.

Still havent fully grasped the implications of older lithography systems being now usable for electro, mechanical and optical applications. Especially as they seem to be quite affordable, especially with multi-project wafers. With open source project even getting chips for free via google.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#662

Post by cf141q5325 »

MobiusHorizons wrote: post #418
drdeca wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

We frequently use aluminum wires with a higher thickness to make up for the lower conductivity as compared to copper. It’s not as simple as cost vs performance though, as aluminum is substantially less dense than copper. Gold and silver are also better conductors than copper, but of course are very expensive, and still have resistance. Zero resistance may be with it on some cases. For instance in projects that curren…

>We frequently use aluminum wires with a higher thickness to make up for the lower conductivity as compared to copper.

Aluminum wires even made it into residential housing when copper was expensive/rare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum_building_wiring

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#663

Post by thereddaikon »

penjelly wrote: post #392
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> instead of "the excitement was good for everyone" they might realize these hoaxes harm scientific integrity. Totally disagree. If anything, this whole episode (debacle?) reinforced the fact that science works and the process played out exactly how the scientific process should work: 1. First, the paper was originally posted on arxiv, meaning it was a pre-print and didn't go through any peer review. So the vast majo…

good points. I can agree to that. However, I do think something did break down and I think your assessment below is more accurate than my initial take. > One may argue that this was really a failure in media communication vs. the actual underlying science the scientific process and scientists here are innocent, media not so much in my eyes.

>media not so much in my eyes.

The media is often wrong about many things. Sometimes due to ignorance. Others negligence. And occasionally its malicious. If anyone figures out how to fix that without destroying freedom of the press they should get a nobel.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#664

Post by Razengan »

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

Wait there is an actual Professor Moriarty?

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#666

Post by kergonath »

benj111 wrote: post #656
criley2 wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an absolutely disingenuous point that compares the cost of full-economy-of-scale tech to literal one off R&D prototypes. Maybe new technology made in a lab can one day scale up and compete against current low-cost high-scale solutions. Crazy idea, I know. However, trying to artificially limit all discussion about R&D and future tech by claiming "it's more expensive than fully scaled solutions" has got to be f…

Still isn't going to work. >material requiring lab crystallization How are you going to string a crystals between towers? The material properties are all wrong for this application.

Aluminium and copper in cables are crystals. The crystal bit is not the problem.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#667

Post by zamadatix »

floxy wrote: post #265

So it sounds like the purple crystal isn't repelled by magnets. So what part of the samples was causing the magnetic properties? Or are we saying that all of those videos and images were faked?

The varda shards found to be responsive to magnetic fields had trace amounts of iron impurity as well which was given as the expected reason in that case. Not sure about every other case of course.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#668

Post by wslack »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #427
penjelly wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

good points. I can agree to that. However, I do think something did break down and I think your assessment below is more accurate than my initial take. > One may argue that this was really a failure in media communication vs. the actual underlying science the scientific process and scientists here are innocent, media not so much in my eyes.

Yeah, I think Professor Moriarty in the video comes to a similar conclusion - he does say "in that sense is science working", and goes on to lament the problems with misinformation in the social media age. I can definitely sympathize with the frustration of scientists having to deal with so much social media bullshit, and people who so confidently believe "My ignorance is as equal as your hard work and experience." T…

Got it - so the scientific community's reaction (trying to replicate) was ok but the initial authors messed up with their pre-print? That's fair.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#669

Post by [deleted] »

benj111 wrote: post #656
criley2 wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an absolutely disingenuous point that compares the cost of full-economy-of-scale tech to literal one off R&D prototypes. Maybe new technology made in a lab can one day scale up and compete against current low-cost high-scale solutions. Crazy idea, I know. However, trying to artificially limit all discussion about R&D and future tech by claiming "it's more expensive than fully scaled solutions" has got to be f…

Still isn't going to work. >material requiring lab crystallization How are you going to string a crystals between towers? The material properties are all wrong for this application.

[deleted]

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#670

Post by beowulfey »

laserbeam wrote: post #552
fnordpiglet wrote: post #546

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…

None of this WAS published.
Post reply on HN