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

741–750 of 754 posts

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#741

Post by ABCLAW »

AlexandrB wrote: post #734
rubylark wrote: post #700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is only true to a point. Evaluating incremental cost benefits on the basis of the delta of energy loss along specific lines ignores the state change that occurs when main trunk elements of the grid become lossless and energy generation and storage solutions can be deployed in a near-location agnostic manner.

As with all toy models being applied to the real world, there are important factors to model in that aren't immediately obvious.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#742

Post by blablabla123 »

sigmoid10 wrote: post #704
pininja wrote: post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As Philip points out, Sabine Hossenfelder’s quick summary on LK-99 2 weeks ago punched large holes into this whole thing in less than 5 minutes. I wish media outlets presented skeptic viewpoints instead of just hype.. but that doesn’t sell. LK99 - A new room temperature superconductor? https://youtu.be/RjzL9cS3VW8

Hossenfelder is just a cynic that critizises more or less everything that isn't her own work. She even tried to discredit LIGO a few years ago - not even using her own insight but merely by paraphrasing what a Danish group thought they had seen as error. This issue has been resolved since then and the Danes just misunderstood parts of the original paper.

According to Wikipedia the people behind LIGO even admitted tuning numbers.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#743

Post by jimmySixDOF »

dvt wrote: post #280
not-my-account wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 4chan user solved a 25yo combinatorics problem. If it can be done there why not twitter https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18292061

This is a bad counter-argument. What do you think is the overwhelming product of ranting and raving of anime-picture "scientists" on Twitter: scientific muddying of waters that confuse laypeople and promulgate disinformation, or actual theorem-solving?

Anonymization is the only completely sane response to the completely crazy reach-impact spiral of data mining data broker platform TOS. Online persona(s) are private brands of built up real public social value over time and just because there is no officiated imprimatur's stamp of approval, doesn't mean you can exclude them without other cause from the real conversation walled off in ivory corporate towers of group think apprentice effected idea cloning orthodoxy.

I know of a 3D graphics format interop workgroup at an official Standard Setting Organization where some of the main contributors are MAdjDuckSauce type handles and its caused no lack of backflipping through hoops to get their input codified because of ISO 9000 prescribed forms that still want your employer organization's fax number listed.

In fact, how this whole story played out on arXiv is a great example of the power of all hands on deck crowdsourced global fact checking in the broad noisy open realtime light of day. More claims should be subject to this kind of wide net scrutiny not less.

(*Correction to post above it should read "ethnically Soviet" as pointed out below)

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#744

Post by gus_massa »

amelius wrote: post #189
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 invention almost saved our generation. I mean, our parents invented radar, semiconductors, nuclear energy, etc. For us it's back to building social media, adtech, and similar "technology", I guess.

White LEDs?

When I was young, I wanted tu buy a blue LED but it was too expensive. Now I have white LEDs everywhere.

Laser pointers are nice too.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#745

Post by ithkuil »

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…

No only silver is a better conductor than copper. Gold is worse.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#746

Post by dgoldstein0 »

RF_Savage wrote: post #592
dgoldstein0 wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The trouble with asteroid mining is that getting anything there and back is expensive, let alone any heavy equipment needed for large scale mining.

My guess is the main application will be for space missions that find it cheaper to carry mining/manufacturing equipment rather than all the materials they need. Even that seems potentially a ways off. I suppose we could mine asteroids for science sooner, but that's quite a bit different than any mission plan which includes mining as a part of the required logistics. Maybe if there's some materials needed for extending life support capabilities? But still I'd have to wonder why not just take the extra supplies with you.

Maybe a moon or Mars base could change some calculus. As I suspect the break even point of such a plan may require lots of use of any such equipment.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#747

Post by sigmoid10 »

blablabla123 wrote: post #742
sigmoid10 wrote: post #704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hossenfelder is just a cynic that critizises more or less everything that isn't her own work. She even tried to discredit LIGO a few years ago - not even using her own insight but merely by paraphrasing what a Danish group thought they had seen as error. This issue has been resolved since then and the Danes just misunderstood parts of the original paper.

According to Wikipedia the people behind LIGO even admitted tuning numbers.

Lol. These conspiracy scientist outgrowths are getting truly insane. "Lets ignore all these published, peer reviewed independent studies that confirm the discovery and listen to one random guy who's most likely not even a physicist and writes his ideas on wikipedia."

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#748

Post by ajani »

exmadscientist wrote: post #733
ajani wrote: post #642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes exactly. Behavior drives success. Not merit. Behavior is social. No sarcasm here, just acceptance of what is obvious.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#749

Post by CatWChainsaw »

otterley wrote: post #82
ugh123 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if we could get all the materials science experts tucked away in a lab for a year working together with a large budget...

They'd be a juicy target for some kind of malfeasance. Never put all the experts in the same location!

We literally just had a movie about this.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#750

Post by CatWChainsaw »

jabedude wrote: post #393
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…

> I don't understand where this belief comes from For me it comes from a survey of the previous 2 millennia of human history and witnessing constant technological advancements that produce higher and higher standards of living

2 millennia of human history.

Out of the 10 that have had anything resembling civilization.

Out of the 100 since "humans" began to walk the earth.

So which condition, exactly, is the anomaly? :)

Post reply on HN