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

Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts

forums.spacebattles.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 303 posts

Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts

#271

Post by ergocoder »

kijin wrote: post #125
ergocoder wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is about material that didn't exist before. The existence and effect of it should suffice. How it is produced is a later step.

Well, in the case of LK-99 the production method itself seems to be part of the puzzle, and the original authors aren't noticeably better at it than anyone else. Even their best sample doesn't fully levitate. We need higher quality samples in order to determine whether the thing actually superconducts, because it's really hard to measure the resistance of small grains of material buried inside a mostly useless rock.

Based on your statement, the original author would have claimed something untrue since they also cannot really produce LK-99 that fully levitates.

It is certainly not a part of the puzzle here.

The puzzle is to reproduce the experiment, but you claim the original experiment itself is bogus...

Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts

#272

Post by EvgeniyZh »

kzrdude wrote: post #217
shrx wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it one-dimensional (linear) or two-dimensional (planar)?

Hyun-Tak Kim, one of the Korean authors, says it's a one dimensional superconductor.

I don't think there is any experimental evidence for that, and the original 1996 theory paper looks sketchy from what I managed to understand (it talkes about van der Waals transition and it is unclear for me where zero resistance would come from in that case)

Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts

#273

Post by dimillian »

ant6n wrote: post #228
dimillian wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever it is? I mean it could change our relationship to energy in the next 10 to 20 years. If you don't get excited by this then I don't know.

Perhaps more interested in the next generation of adtech?

Prob making quick bucks on cryptos

Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts

#274

Post by bestcoder69 »

harles wrote: post #230
Plankaluel wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I think unless the authors are deliberatly misleading the public (which is of course a possibility, though not very likely I think) it is hard to imagine a scenario where all of this won't turn out to be highly interesting in one way or another (even if it might turn out to not be a superconductor)

I really doubt there’s intentional fraud here, but they were forced to publish (or pre-print to be pedantic) early. [0] This certainly led to less rigor. [0]: https://twitter.com/8teAPi/status/1684385895565365248 apologies for the Twitter link, I didn’t have time to find a better source.

That Twitter user is making up details and writing a fan-fic: https://twitter.com/8teAPi/status/1686217806298423299?s=20

So you won’t find any other sources, other than other people who have also been misled by @8teAPi.

Frustrating because it’s also chaotic, trying to keep the events straight.

Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts

#275

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

psychoslave wrote: post #150
patrickthebold wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would you suggest? Do you have any specific reforms to the laws regarding patents in mind? What would happen in those cases?

well, put a limit on how much profits you can make through patent. Like based on how much r&d was spent?

I'll just leave this here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts

#276

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

hungryforcodes wrote: post #260
rwmj wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Filing in juridictions worldwide is a routine process when you apply for an important patent. Any respectable patent lawyer should be able to deal with it.

But you have to choose to do it and there is an additional cost, if I am not mistaken. When our startup filed our patents in the US market, we chose not to do the same in Europe...

Sure, and most large corporations with worldwide influence do it automatically.

The last action one of my previous employers took was to send me payments for a patent I'm named on when they filed it in the EU. I had already quit, but it was easier to just send me the check than to cancel it :-)

Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts

#277

Post by krab »

sudosysgen wrote: post #253
krab wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the case of drugs, it works. The day a patent expires, you have generics that instantly lower the market price. Replicating a drug from a patent is not free but you know that the compound works and can be synthesized. It's much cheaper than doing original research where a drug candidate can fail after you invested a lot into it.

That's generally because other companies figure out the synthesis themselves in that 20 years timespan, not because they got accurate synthesis instructions.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. But the generics researchers know exactly what they're trying to make. And they don't have to prove that their drug is better than the standard of care. Just that they synthesized the right thing.

Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts

#278

Post by krab »

Qwertious wrote: post #262
krab wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the case of drugs, it works. The day a patent expires, you have generics that instantly lower the market price. Replicating a drug from a patent is not free but you know that the compound works and can be synthesized. It's much cheaper than doing original research where a drug candidate can fail after you invested a lot into it.

For drugs, patents: 1. Successfully provide a profit 2. Are necessary to provide said profit 3. Are long enough to provide enough profit to pay back the investment But it's not clear that they're short enough to encourage further rapid improvements. Like, suppose a patent lasts 20 years but would still be worth pursuing even if it lasted only 5 years; that's 15 years of public development opportunity lost, for each p…

I agree. This might be worth optimizing. In case of drugs, you can easily spend the first ten years in research and testing, while paying the patent fees. Software or manufacturing patents, on the other hand, might get different time frame.

Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts

#279

Post by cubefox »

kergonath wrote: post #109
cubefox wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1D would arguably make it even more challenging to synthesize than 2D.

Not really. It’s more of a matter of chemistry and bonding than the dimensionality of the structure.

I think the lower the dimensionality, the harder it is to align pieces. For 3D material you could probably just grind your impure sample down into a powder, isolate the grains that levitate, and press them back together. That wouldn't preserve structures in 2D though, let alone 1D.

Re: Compilation of claims/reports of LK-99 replication efforts

#280

Post by throwawaaarrgh »

stormfather wrote: post #263
hcks wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The smartest people are not obsessing over LK-99, actually

Well there are some people whose personality is their snarky cynicism and negativity. If other people weren't getting excited about stuff, they wouldn't have anything to reject and belittle! Then we wouldn't all get to know how smart they are. How unfortunate that would be.

And some people's personality is to be an armchair expert speculating for speculation's sake. I guess it makes them feel smart, and they like to hear themselves talk
Post reply on HN