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

731–740 of 754 posts

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#731

Post by benj111 »

kergonath wrote: post #710
benj111 wrote: post #683

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure of the correct scientific language here. As far as I'm aware this is a brittle /inflexible material so my point about the mechanical properties still stands. And when people refer to growing crystals, that generally refers to a particular kind of crystal. Ive never heard of anyone growing aluminium crystals, except if it's a compound, and then you get a crystal like we think of when we say crystals.

> As far as I'm aware this is a brittle /inflexible material so my point about the mechanical properties still stands. Yes. You want them to be ductile (malleable, or that can be deformed permanently in less-technical language). Although they could also be flexible (meaning that they can deform, but go back to their natural shape if we stop applying a force), as in the case of fibre optics cables, which are actually…

Ok so what is the terminology to refer to this class of materials?

A ceramic?

I'm happy to accept that internet explorer isn't an OS, but it would be nice to know what terminology you would find acceptable.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#732

Post by kergonath »

benj111 wrote: post #731
kergonath wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As far as I'm aware this is a brittle /inflexible material so my point about the mechanical properties still stands. Yes. You want them to be ductile (malleable, or that can be deformed permanently in less-technical language). Although they could also be flexible (meaning that they can deform, but go back to their natural shape if we stop applying a force), as in the case of fibre optics cables, which are actually…

Ok so what is the terminology to refer to this class of materials? A ceramic? I'm happy to accept that internet explorer isn't an OS, but it would be nice to know what terminology you would find acceptable.

I am not the one deciding on terminology. In this case, both copper and aluminium are crystalline metals. Any lump of these is actually formed of a lot of smaller crystals bunched up together in what we call polycrystals. This is why they don't have the nice geometrical shapes people tend to associate with crystals in pop culture. But depending on how the material was made, these geometrical features can be seen with a magnifier or a microscope.

I am not blaming you, I know the knowledge of the general population of this sort of things is not great and you cannot know it before some tells you. A whole bunch of new age scams would completely fall apart if most people actually knew what a crystal is and where we can find them.

They are not ceramics because this is used for compounds with elements such as oxygen or nitrogen, which is not applicable here. Aluminium oxide, Al2O3, which used in sapphire "glass" in watches, is a ceramic that contains aluminium.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#733

Post by exmadscientist »

ajani wrote: post #642
exmadscientist wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly? His mannerisms was all we really needed. He was not well liked in his year, and that takes some doing to achieve these days. The smug "how could I be wrong" when he was, well, 26 orders of magnitude wrong, is special even by entitled scientist standards.

Yes, how we behave usually trumps how true/false our ideas are.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but I strongly believe, based on my experiences with really successful people, that being open to being wrong absolutely does count for a lot more than the current truth value of your ideas.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#734

Post by AlexandrB »

rubylark wrote: post #700
kerkeslager wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> transmission lines are already pretty efficient and we already choose less efficient materials for cost You're correct, and this highlights a problem I often see in discussions: "efficiency" just is a measure of benefit/cost. Without knowing the units of benefit and cost, people aren't making meaningful statements when they say "efficient". The important efficiency of transmission lines is capacity per dollar, not…

In this context, they are speaking of electrical efficiency, i.e. the amount of power lost to system impedance during transmission, not some abstract concept like effectivity. The efficiency of a transmission line is expressed as a ratio of power received at one end of the line over the power sent at the other.[1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_efficiency

The cost still matters because if the losses cost less to replace than the superconducting material costs to install, no one will use it. So parents point still stands. It doesn't matter how high the electrical efficiency is, what matters is cost efficiency.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#735

Post by fnordpiglet »

svara wrote: post #709
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…

A lot of people, myself included, are disappointed about how "science happened" here and absolutely don't share the view that it should be like this. You're right that the system ultimately worked. But doing things "well" isn't just to win some aesthetics contest. It's essential precisely because, due to all our human flaws, it's too easy to delude yourself by doing sloppy work. In this case, doing sloppy work has wo…

Right - it would certainly make science easier if we weren’t human, but we are, so we devised a system that is eventually resilient to quackery and hysteria. It’s impractical to lament our fate as hairless apes driven by the need to preen in public and dream of bigger better shinies. The truth doesn’t have to come with fanfare. It just has to dominate in the end.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#736

Post by kerkeslager »

kergonath wrote: post #732
benj111 wrote: post #731

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok so what is the terminology to refer to this class of materials? A ceramic? I'm happy to accept that internet explorer isn't an OS, but it would be nice to know what terminology you would find acceptable.

I am not the one deciding on terminology. In this case, both copper and aluminium are crystalline metals. Any lump of these is actually formed of a lot of smaller crystals bunched up together in what we call polycrystals. This is why they don't have the nice geometrical shapes people tend to associate with crystals in pop culture. But depending on how the material was made, these geometrical features can be seen with…

> I am not the one deciding on terminology.

No, you're just the one pedantically enforcing a definition that's irrelevant to the conversation at large.

You aren't holding up your end of the conversation. Being a good listener means putting some effort into understanding what people are trying to say even if they get terminology a bit wrong. Jumping in to correct people on minor misuses of terminology doesn't show you're smart, it shows that you care more about correcting them than about their ideas.

I mean, cool, good to know copper and aluminum are crystalline metals, but the point here is that they're ductile and LK-99 isn't--you can't make wires out of LK-99. Arguing that copper and aluminum are crystals isn't adding to the conversation, it's just missing the point.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#737

Post by kerkeslager »

rubylark wrote: post #700
kerkeslager wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> transmission lines are already pretty efficient and we already choose less efficient materials for cost You're correct, and this highlights a problem I often see in discussions: "efficiency" just is a measure of benefit/cost. Without knowing the units of benefit and cost, people aren't making meaningful statements when they say "efficient". The important efficiency of transmission lines is capacity per dollar, not…

In this context, they are speaking of electrical efficiency, i.e. the amount of power lost to system impedance during transmission, not some abstract concept like effectivity. The efficiency of a transmission line is expressed as a ratio of power received at one end of the line over the power sent at the other.[1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_efficiency

Who's "they"? If anyone is talking about electrical efficiency they shouldn't be because cost efficiency is what matters for a transmission line. Transmission maintainers have no reason to care if a wire transmits with 100% electrical efficiency if it's cheaper to lose some electricity than pay for the perfectly electrically-efficient wire.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#738

Post by riow »

> in particular, copper sulfide — were responsible for sharp drops in its electrical resistivity and a display of partial levitation over a magnet, properties similar to those exhibited by superconductors.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#739

Post by CatWChainsaw »

duringmath wrote: post #246

It was interesting seeing real peer reviewed science from accredited labs like LLNL and Fermi get brushed aside and almost dismissed while people were cheering on this LK-99 thing. Not sure what to make of that but that's what I'll remember most about this debacle.

I didn't follow it too closely because I didn't see how it could be anything but a nothingburger. I think the internet got high off LLM success and expected nonstop breakthroughs like entitled children.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#740

Post by CatWChainsaw »

laputan_machine wrote: post #644
penjelly wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You couldn't be more wrong. Getting people excited about possible technological advnacements is exactly the kind of thing we should be doing, we used to do this, in the 50s up until the 90s the prospect of the future was exciting. What is the medias representation of the future now? A burning shithole, no future. It's depressing and not true. I enjoyed the few days of excitement, I want us to go back to having an opt…

You want an optimistic outlook, give reasons to be optimistic.
Post reply on HN