331–340 of 361 posts
Why are all these materials confirmations coming from Chinese speaking scientists? Do scientists in the US not do materials science so much?
To me this is encouraging. 110K is really high! It's higher than YBCO which is what they make commercial "high temperature" superconducting tape out of. IMO if this is legit (I have no way of judging the source) then this is the first good third party evidence that the original researchers are not just doing some kind of fraud. A total fraud wouldn't have actually discovered a novel high-temperature, but not room tem…
They aren't reacting because this isn't really proof of anything. The test apparatus they used can't actually measure 0 resistance. Superconductivity is implied (thats the most straightforward explanation) but not actually demonstrated here. Its very hard to interpret from the limited data presented. There could be a whole host of contaminants, issue with the experimental setup etc etc. Its hard to go from look at th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is apparently extremely difficult to fabricate LK-99 and most of the time the process being used creates similar substances but without appropriate Cu substitution in its lattice. All of the videos have been of generally quite small samples and the manufacturing difficulty is the purported reason. The SK also supposedly had more details on this but with the leak of the paper those haven't been cleaned up and added…
I thought the original hype around LK-99 was that it was supposed to be easy to manufacture with materials most labs have on hand? E.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36865106
I wonder if the people who steered the discussion just pretended to be experts or what happened. Where were the people who now in these threads explain the reasons why it is really difficult to bake? Or are those the same users?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My question is also broader than LK-99, and my point still stands.
And my reply still stands, if not read for signs of an adversary, you would read a comment that reinforces (B) of the (A) and (B) you offered people to reply with. Its for gambling addicts
Either the markets have more insight (swarm intelligence or agents who know more leveraging their knowledge) than me – and in that case they give me some information – or they have less insight and in that case I should play them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought the original hype around LK-99 was that it was supposed to be easy to manufacture with materials most labs have on hand? E.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36865106
The consensus of this forum was absolutely that it's super easy to manufacture, any chemistry youtuber can do it, and that we are going to know whether it works or not within 48 hours. I wonder if the people who steered the discussion just pretended to be experts or what happened. Where were the people who now in these threads explain the reasons why it is really difficult to bake? Or are those the same users?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The test apparatus they used can't actually measure 0 resistance. Can you explain how you would make that measurement? It seems like your testing equipment would need to be made of superconductors as well, right?
Usually superconductor resistance is measured using four probes: current goes through the two outer probes, and voltage is measured across the two inner probes. Then V=IR. Lead resistance can play a role, but superconductivity is a phase transition: there's a significant discontinuity. It's not a matter of something going from 0 + e (for small e) to 0 (which doesn't happen), but one of going from x (x >>> 0) to 0. Wh…
Not clear to me how you know the resistance is nothing at all vs just very small.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And my reply still stands, if not read for signs of an adversary, you would read a comment that reinforces (B) of the (A) and (B) you offered people to reply with. Its for gambling addicts
If it's for gambling addicts who know very little then it shouldn't be that difficult to make money on it (not necessarily on LK99, but in general). Either the markets have more insight (swarm intelligence or agents who know more leveraging their knowledge) than me – and in that case they give me some information – or they have less insight and in that case I should play them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Transmission loss is a real and important reason why you can't, say, cover the Sahara with solar panels to get unlimited free energy for mainland Europe and Africa (barring all the logistical challenges of actually pulling something like that off). This is because you lose a significant amount of energy just by moving it from one place to another. With RTP superconductors, you get near perfect transmission from the s…
From what I've read, grid transmission losses are something like 5-10% - e.g. this page ( https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3 ) cites 5% in the US. Fine and nice, but seems incremental, not earth shattering, and I wonder about the logistics / ROI of manufacturing thousands of miles of LK-99 cables to achieve that. But maybe I'm missing something.
Now, if transmission losses are near-zero, then yeah – you'd still get the same power for the same price & losses (for other reasons), but from 500-1000 miles away instead of 50-100 miles. Residential customers won't notice anything immediately because they'll pay the same due to initial capital costs and stuff. But decades down the line it would slowly, invisibly transform everything around you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Spicy take: Theory is shit (betraying my bias here). If someone released a paper that theoretically proved a material was a superconductor from first principles, I would ignore it, every bit as much as I would if it had the opposite results. In materials, experiment has always led theory. Theory has use in suggesting new angles to explore with experiment, but theory is fundamentally reactive: get new data, try to fit…
There are plenty of theories backed up by hard math which can be summarised as "this _should_ work" and then it usually does.
As long as it's classical physics I guess. Even with math it seems quantum physics still surprises us.