I think we'll eventually discover superconductivity isn't possible at STP
I think you will be proven wrong.
Absence of superconductivity in LK-99 at ambient conditions
41–50 of 81 posts
Re: Absence of superconductivity in LK-99 at ambient conditions
#42https://twitter.com/floates0x/status/1688727233521979392 NEW and IMPORTANT : Study performed at Lanzhou University heavily indicate that successful synthesis of the LK-99 superconductor requires annealing in an oxygen atmosphere. They are suggesting that the final synthesis occurs in an oxygen atmosphere rather than in vacuum. The original three author LK99 paper and nearly every subsequent attempt at replication inv…
why would this be the case? (not a chemist, but was trained in physics)
According to the screenshot attached to the tweet, it seems that the material needs to have oxygen atoms in exactly the right locations, too, not just copper. Annealing in an oxygen-deprived environment might not be conducive to that.
The original two papers were inconsistent with respect to the vacuum required in the process. Perhaps they were working with crappy equipment that can't maintain a vacuum and accidentally annealed their sample in normal atmosphere, giving rise to unusual properties. Kinda explains why even the original authors don't have enough good samples.
Re: Absence of superconductivity in LK-99 at ambient conditions
#43https://twitter.com/floates0x/status/1688727233521979392 NEW and IMPORTANT : Study performed at Lanzhou University heavily indicate that successful synthesis of the LK-99 superconductor requires annealing in an oxygen atmosphere. They are suggesting that the final synthesis occurs in an oxygen atmosphere rather than in vacuum. The original three author LK99 paper and nearly every subsequent attempt at replication inv…
This seems super interesting, waiting to see if this sparks another round of fabrication attempts!
Oh man, “fabrication” isn’t a word I’d use :)
I had to reread that a couple times before I realized you meant “make” and not “fake” (…right?)
Re: Absence of superconductivity in LK-99 at ambient conditions
#44At this point, profit off the morons still clinging to the hype in the betting markets and move on. I guarantee some people will be clinging to claims that LK-99 was a superconductor even 5 years from now, just like the cold fusion crowd that still exists.
A bit harsh don’t you think?
LK-99 was plausibly a high T superconductor candidate, and high T superconductors are a real thing that exist. It is worth attempting to replicate.
Cold fusion says “all of thermodynamics is wrong”. A much bigger claim…
Re: Absence of superconductivity in LK-99 at ambient conditions
#45I think we'll eventually discover superconductivity isn't possible at STP
Well, except for the whole "research over the last decade or two has born superconductors that work at warmer and warmer temperatures" thing. Superconductors look far more promising than the economics of nuclear power (which have gotten worse, not better) or fusion (still perpetually 20+ years out), and it's a critical field to work on because we desperately need stuff that superconducts at LN2 (or warmer) temperatur…
It's half-truth, higher temperatures usually require high non-ambient pressure to achieve superconductivity.
Re: Absence of superconductivity in LK-99 at ambient conditions
#46I think we'll eventually discover superconductivity isn't possible at STP
Well, except for the whole "research over the last decade or two has born superconductors that work at warmer and warmer temperatures" thing. Superconductors look far more promising than the economics of nuclear power (which have gotten worse, not better) or fusion (still perpetually 20+ years out), and it's a critical field to work on because we desperately need stuff that superconducts at LN2 (or warmer) temperatur…
[deleted]
Re: Absence of superconductivity in LK-99 at ambient conditions
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you need to believe anything at this point. Unless you regularly dance at the bleeding edge of material science, either sit back and enjoy the show, or change the channel and watch something else.
Conversely, why wouldn't someone believe something if there are no consequences to being wrong? As you say, unless you regularly dance at the bleeding edge of material science, nothing you believe really matters, so why not jump in with both feet?
For some of us, being wrong is its own consequence.
Re: Absence of superconductivity in LK-99 at ambient conditions
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you need to believe anything at this point. Unless you regularly dance at the bleeding edge of material science, either sit back and enjoy the show, or change the channel and watch something else.
Conversely, why wouldn't someone believe something if there are no consequences to being wrong? As you say, unless you regularly dance at the bleeding edge of material science, nothing you believe really matters, so why not jump in with both feet?
Because the act of the believe doesn't affect reality. Either u have a robust way to make the right judgement of the progress (in the case u r at the forefront of the research and knows what they r talking about), or u r just a bystander.
In the later case, the is no point in overthinking
Re: Absence of superconductivity in LK-99 at ambient conditions
#49I think we'll eventually discover superconductivity isn't possible at STP
Well, except for the whole "research over the last decade or two has born superconductors that work at warmer and warmer temperatures" thing. Superconductors look far more promising than the economics of nuclear power (which have gotten worse, not better) or fusion (still perpetually 20+ years out), and it's a critical field to work on because we desperately need stuff that superconducts at LN2 (or warmer) temperatur…
tbf there are nitrogen-temperature superconductors already, they just aren't easy to produce or work with.
Re: Absence of superconductivity in LK-99 at ambient conditions
#50At this point, profit off the morons still clinging to the hype in the betting markets and move on. I guarantee some people will be clinging to claims that LK-99 was a superconductor even 5 years from now, just like the cold fusion crowd that still exists.
A bit harsh don’t you think? LK-99 was plausibly a high T superconductor candidate, and high T superconductors are a real thing that exist. It is worth attempting to replicate. Cold fusion says “all of thermodynamics is wrong”. A much bigger claim…
This is the first time I've heard someone claim that cold fusion is flat-out impossible by the laws of thermodynamics, as opposed to just "very unlikely".