Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Observation of zero resistance above 100 K in Pb₁₀₋ₓCuₓ(PO₄)₆O

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 389 posts

Re: Observation of zero resistance above 100 K in Pb₁₀₋ₓCuₓ(PO₄)₆O

#241

Post by jjallen »

gabesullice wrote: post #204
mrandish wrote: post #19

For comparison, per this Wikipedia page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_superconducti... ) currently, the highest temperature, ambient pressure superconductor is around 138 K (−135 °C). 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 vali…

Agreed. Looking at the timeline on the Wikipedia page, a new 100K ambient pressure SC material is nothing to scoff at. It means LK99 is about as good as the other materials, at minimum. However , its chemical composition is different than any of the other materials on the chart (i.e. it is lead based). That probably means there's lots to learn and new phenomena to be understood and optimized. Furthermore, if this lab…

Exactly. These are literally the first attempts to replicate a poorly explained production process. Things are only going to get better over time as the materials increase in purity. These are other labs seeking publicity partly.

I for one think that this will turn out to be a major breakthrough based on the meta facts (decades of development for one) and not the actual science.

Re: Observation of zero resistance above 100 K in Pb₁₀₋ₓCuₓ(PO₄)₆O

#242

Post by drexlspivey »

wahern wrote: post #153
nwiswell wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are now several authentic videos of bits of rock (lead apatite) appearing to do things around magnets that they have no business doing. Maybe there's a lot of smoke and no fire, but there's videographic evidence of something weird going on.

Unfortunately, we live in the age of TikTok. Videos on their own bring no more credibility than written text; they no longer evince a substantively greater investment of resources. I'm more inclined toward the cheerleading section of the LK-99 audience, but watching the videos I realized now is a perfect opportunity to apply recalibrated B.S. detectors.

This doesnt pass the smell test. Why would multiple independent labs fake their videos? What’s the conspiracy here? There is no upside, we will know in a couple of weeks if it’s real or not.

Re: Observation of zero resistance above 100 K in Pb₁₀₋ₓCuₓ(PO₄)₆O

#243

Post by crote »

gandik wrote: post #110

This is so reminiscent of what happened after Fleischmann & Pons. Labs attempting to replicate saw this property, or that property, but never the whole, unequivocal picture. Here we have a room temperature superconductor that isn't a superconductor at room temperature. A sample that has no measured Meissner Effect at any temperature. And the authors admit that some (many?) of the samples tested out as semiconductors.…

To me the biggest difference is the three theoretical papers, including from very reputable sources, all showing that a) there is indeed something weird going on with this material and b) due to the unusual configuration it is going to be tricky to manufacture.

Fleischmann & Pons was never supported by theory and was essentially a "we measured something and have no idea what is going on". LK-99 is more of a "the theory says something interesting will probably happen, and we believe we measured it in some samples but can't reliably reproduce it".

Re: Observation of zero resistance above 100 K in Pb₁₀₋ₓCuₓ(PO₄)₆O

#244

Post by adrian_b »

declan_roberts wrote: post #139
progrus wrote: post #124

It’s real, it works, the Navy has a linked patent from 2017. The UFOs are a PSYOP.

The Navy does have a patent for a “lead zirconate titanate” super conductor which does sound awfully similar to what’s described in LK-99. https://phys.org/news/2019-02-navy-patent-room-temperature-s...

Except for the fact that both materials contain lead, there is no resemblance.

Lead is one of the best superconductors among pure metals, whose superconductivity has been already discovered 110 years ago, in 1913.

Nevertheless, there is absolutely no relationship between the superconductivity of pure lead and the alleged superconductivity of lead zirconate titanate and the alleged superconductivity of lead phosphate doped with copper.

They have very different crystal structures and behaviors of the free electrons (i.e. electronic band structures).

Only if in the PZT samples used by the Navy there would have been some impurities, without the knowledge of the researchers, causing contraction of the crystal when substituting the big lead atoms, then there would have been a similar mechanism to what is claimed now.

If this mechanism is proven to really work, then it could also work in other crystals with big ions, like lead or baryum, perhaps even in PZT.

Re: Observation of zero resistance above 100 K in Pb₁₀₋ₓCuₓ(PO₄)₆O

#245

Post by crote »

hamilyon2 wrote: post #238

Why is western mass media silent? They always pick up emerging stories like that, but not in this case for some reason

Western media isn't silent. It has been showing up in the science section of mainstream media for a few days now, with a healthy dose of skepticism around it.

It's in the New York Post, on CNET, on CNBC, the Washington Post, Wired, New Scientist, Popular Mechanics, and plenty more. Just because CNN isn't covering it 24/7 doesn't mean the western mass media is "silent".

Re: Observation of zero resistance above 100 K in Pb₁₀₋ₓCuₓ(PO₄)₆O

#246

Post by Levitating »

soligern wrote: post #15

In the observations, this sample they tested did not exhibit the Meissner effect at room temperature. Which means it’s not the same thing the original team discovered?

They stated no "obvious" Meissner effect was detected.

Possibly because the sample includes too many impurities.

Re: Observation of zero resistance above 100 K in Pb₁₀₋ₓCuₓ(PO₄)₆O

#247

Post by vingt_regards »

aziaziazi wrote: post #224
frognumber wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such things are possible, and not even very uncommon. The human body has tissues with conductivity different in different dimensions. If you'd like to create one yourself, take a bunch of parallel insulated wires. Conductivity will be low along the wires, and high perpendicular to them. Or alternated high-resistivity and low-resistivity sheets. Conduction will be low parallel to the sheets, and high going through the…

> human tissues > isolated wires > alternated sheets The thinks you describes are systems made of multiple materials. Are you aware of a materials that behave that way by its own ?

Graphite

Re: Observation of zero resistance above 100 K in Pb₁₀₋ₓCuₓ(PO₄)₆O

#248

Post by ekianjo »

drexlspivey wrote: post #242
wahern wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, we live in the age of TikTok. Videos on their own bring no more credibility than written text; they no longer evince a substantively greater investment of resources. I'm more inclined toward the cheerleading section of the LK-99 audience, but watching the videos I realized now is a perfect opportunity to apply recalibrated B.S. detectors.

This doesnt pass the smell test. Why would multiple independent labs fake their videos? What’s the conspiracy here? There is no upside, we will know in a couple of weeks if it’s real or not.

> Why would multiple independent labs fake their videos

Why would different newspapers spread hoaxes? Yet it happens...

Re: Observation of zero resistance above 100 K in Pb₁₀₋ₓCuₓ(PO₄)₆O

#249

Post by crote »

Waterluvian wrote: post #59
ramraj07 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MRI machines work using superconducting magnets as does the LHC. So you better believe it buddy.

Why do MRIs need zero resistance vs incredibly low resistance?

They don't!

MRI scanners work just fine with regular electromagnets, or even plain old normal magnets. However, work better with stronger magnetic fields. In practice normal magnets end up being extremely large and heavy, and electromagnets end up using massive amounts of power. Both options are also limited in their field strength because getting enough stuff close together is tricky.

A superconducting magnet is an electromagnet which is way smaller and uses orders of magnitude less power. For extremely high field strength MRIs they are the only viable option, and for regular MRIs they are often the best option.

Re: Observation of zero resistance above 100 K in Pb₁₀₋ₓCuₓ(PO₄)₆O

#250

Post by drexlspivey »

ekianjo wrote: post #248
drexlspivey wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesnt pass the smell test. Why would multiple independent labs fake their videos? What’s the conspiracy here? There is no upside, we will know in a couple of weeks if it’s real or not.

> Why would multiple independent labs fake their videos Why would different newspapers spread hoaxes? Yet it happens...

newspapers get paid by the click
Post reply on HN