11–20 of 389 posts
Isn't it a faux pas to put the degrees-symbol after the unit K?
Could someone explain why this is important? What is the consequence of the existence of Superconductors like that?
Isn't it a faux pas to put the degrees-symbol after the unit K?
> To further verify the superconducting properties, we conducted magnetic measurements on the sample, but unfortunately, no obvious Meissner signal was observed, indicating that the superconducting volume fraction of the sample may be very small. The preparation of high-purity samples are still a challenging task.
I'm very much conservative about this paper because while the graph in Fig. 3a says $T_c^{zero}$ being 110 K, the "zero" resistance is actually only 1e-5 Ω (!) and even if the sample is possibly superconducting its critical temperature would be much lower than 110 K anyway. I'm aware of the difficulty in obtaining larger samples, but the label in that graph is really misleading regardless.
I'm very much conservative about this paper because while the graph in Fig. 3a says $T_c^{zero}$ being 110 K, the "zero" resistance is actually only 1e-5 Ω (!) and even if the sample is possibly superconducting its critical temperature would be much lower than 110 K anyway. I'm aware of the difficulty in obtaining larger samples, but the label in that graph is really misleading regardless.
I'm no expert but based on my limited understanding, this result (if confirmed) while far from room temperature would still make LK99 a pretty interesting discovery in the SC world. And once a new SC like this is validated there are often methods discovered to improve the temperature or optimize other traits.
To me, the positive news here is that (if confirmed), at least LK99 isn't "nothing". Together with the recently released simulation studies indicating LK99 may have interesting SC-like properties, this causes me to increase my personal Bayesian SWAG estimate on LK99 (or a related descendant) eventually being a meaningful step toward room temp superconductors.
I'm very much conservative about this paper because while the graph in Fig. 3a says $T_c^{zero}$ being 110 K, the "zero" resistance is actually only 1e-5 Ω (!) and even if the sample is possibly superconducting its critical temperature would be much lower than 110 K anyway. I'm aware of the difficulty in obtaining larger samples, but the label in that graph is really misleading regardless.