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

LK-99: Team of Southeast University observed zero resistance below 110 K

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 361 posts

Re: LK-99: Team of Southeast University observed zero resistance below 110 K

#341

Post by prohobo »

saberdancer wrote: post #148
modeless wrote: post #121

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…

I think most people are just seeing the headline 110K instead of realizing the implications (not a scam, not a mistake, hard to replicate). I was quite sceptical earlier today due to unconvincing videos but this finding pushes it heavily into "This might be it" territory.

From my perspective the story has went like this:

1. It's probably fake/fraud/error/hopium.

2. Yeah but, it's not a superconductor, it's just diamagnetic.

3. Yeah but, theoretically maybe, but not practically.

4. Yeah but, it's just a warmer superconductor, not room temperature.

I don't know if my sensibilities are "bayesian" or something, but while the naysayers are totally correct, their predictions are not where the trend is heading. This thing is consistently defying expectations and gradually becoming more "important" as more information comes out.

I believe if the Q-Centre team say it's room-temperature SC, then given the evidence so far I expect to get closer to that conclusion over time. If it fails, then I think it'll fail for very good reasons, not simple error or incompetence. At this point, fraud is totally ruled out.

Re: LK-99: Team of Southeast University observed zero resistance below 110 K

#342

Post by KeplerBoy »

prohobo wrote: post #341
saberdancer wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most people are just seeing the headline 110K instead of realizing the implications (not a scam, not a mistake, hard to replicate). I was quite sceptical earlier today due to unconvincing videos but this finding pushes it heavily into "This might be it" territory.

From my perspective the story has went like this: 1. It's probably fake/fraud/error/hopium. 2. Yeah but, it's not a superconductor, it's just diamagnetic. 3. Yeah but, theoretically maybe, but not practically. 4. Yeah but, it's just a warmer superconductor, not room temperature. I don't know if my sensibilities are "bayesian" or something, but while the naysayers are totally correct, their predictions are not where t…

Wasn't fraud basically always ruled out?

If you want to benefit from dubious and/or fake research, you'll have to be a lot more subtle about it.

Announcing you just found the holy grail will get you all the attention in the world, attention you don't want if you just forged the paper to advance your career.

Re: LK-99: Team of Southeast University observed zero resistance below 110 K

#343

Post by baq »

whimsicalism wrote: post #329
baq wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s possible there are tiny bits of superconducting stuff at room temperature which connect into bigger and bigger bits as temperature drops, until it starts working as a whole at 110K. Maybe. Don’t quote me.

what? give me an effective field theory for that lol because that is not a thing

Of course I can't but https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-06707-y maybe

Re: LK-99: Team of Southeast University observed zero resistance below 110 K

#344

Post by jacquesm »

neltnerb wrote: post #327
selestify wrote: post #283

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

Amusingly, some friends asked me about it shortly after the original announcement. I'm not a superconductor person, but I am a materials person. My response was, basically, the biggest risk (after toxicity) "is that they got lucky and there are subtle things they did that aren't in the recipe which will turn out to have been critical." I've done a lot of materials research. It's pretty likely that they got lucky on a…

Exactly my take. The big question for me is whether or not they haven't accidentally included some contamination that makes all the difference or whether or not the geometry of the placement of the atoms is controlled tightly enough and whether either of those is going to make a huge difference in the outcome. And then there are a hundred different process errors that could have similar effects. This could take a while to be nailed down.

Re: LK-99: Team of Southeast University observed zero resistance below 110 K

#345

Post by jacquesm »

im3w1l wrote: post #301
QuadrupleA wrote: post #195

Can someone with field expertise explain the implications if this material were real / replicable / cheaply manufacturable? I see a lot of breathless excitement in these comments, as if free energy and perpetual motion machines are right around the corner, but from the few details I've delved into it's more like the electric grid might get 10% more efficient, MRIs might get a little cheaper, etc. What are the excitin…

For some reason what my brain keeps imagining is pulling out a drawer of a cabinet and it being perfectly silent and butter smooth because it uses mag-lev instead of wheels. Mag-lev based bearings might be nice too.

That's already possible.

Re: LK-99: Team of Southeast University observed zero resistance below 110 K

#346

Post by yreg »

55555 wrote: post #338
yreg wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Does anyone know which real money prediction market is deepest? The ones I see everyone referencing are fake money

I know only about this one https://polymarket.com/event/is-the-room-temp-superconductor...

Re: LK-99: Team of Southeast University observed zero resistance below 110 K

#347

Post by 4ad »

weard_beard wrote: post #79
bigmattystyles wrote: post #75

Novice question - does a material behaving as a superconductor occur all the sudden like a step function if resistance is plotted against temp and pressure - or does it ease into super conductor behavior? (edit) Also is it resistance (aka if I remember my EE degree correctly), DC only or also impedance where frequency also matters?

all at once. It instantaneously expels the magnetic field. You can observe experiments on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS7gyZJg5nc#t=32m30s

Only type-I superconductors expel significant magnetic fields. Virtually everything you see on YouTube is a type-II superconductor. type-I superconductors require liquid helium.

Also, only type-II superconductors can hover in a stable configuration near magnets. Flux pinning is required for that.

Re: LK-99: Team of Southeast University observed zero resistance below 110 K

#348

Post by unaindz »

yreg wrote: post #334
selestify wrote: post #283

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?

Probably people who knew above average about the process and sourcing materials to realize you just had to throw some common stuff in a furnace but without being experts in material science. Even then if it's tricky to do its most likely because the process is not well know/refined yet

Re: LK-99: Team of Southeast University observed zero resistance below 110 K

#349

Post by tootie »

caturopath wrote: post #286
selestify wrote: post #283

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

- It was naive to think a simple recipe was going to play out with everyone getting what they wanted easily when they tried to follow it. - It's still a huge deal if the manufacturing is as easy as it appears to be, even if most of the replication attempts aren't getting _quite_ the right thing. It's hilarious if room temperature superconductors were always "Put these two things in a lucifer furnace and roll a die" a…

It's extraordinary how many replication experiments are happening so quickly and how tantalizing the results are. It would be optimistic to say the original research was just going to unlock this tech for everybody at once but even if it's the clue that leads to dozens of refinements that eventually lands on a winning material then it's still a landmark event.

Re: LK-99: Team of Southeast University observed zero resistance below 110 K

#350

Post by P_I_Staker »

refulgentis wrote: post #272
callalex wrote: post #214

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

You're reply falls like a house of brick with no mortars.
Post reply on HN