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

LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 754 posts

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#51

Post by darth_avocado »

vecter wrote: post #14

In their preprint, the Korean authors note one particular temperature at which LK-99’s showed a tenfold drop in resistivity, from about 0.02 ohms per centimetre to 0.002 ohms per cm. “They were very precise about it. 104.8ºC,” says Prashant Jain, a chemist at the University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign. “I was like, wait a minute, I know this temperature.” The reaction that synthesizes LK-99 uses an unbalanced recipe…

> Jain, a copper-sulfide expert

I would have never known that people are actual experts in one material. This is impressive.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#52

Post by haswell »

HaZeust wrote: post #27
RationPhantoms wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're arguing for less transparency here? I think one of the side benefits to witnessing the LK-99 discussion is people from all walks (sure, Twitter/X isn't the end all/be-all of global communication) discussing/following/listening to actual science happen. Do you know how much of that is worth to the world with knock-on effects? Maybe there were future material scientists sitting in the room with their parents lis…

You cannot please these people, simply put. These folks STILL want the ESSENCE of a shared respect and excitement from the common man for scientific progression - and these folks are the same people, mind you, that speak loudly on the ignorance of the cluster groups within the "anti-science" big tent. But when these same folks see a glimpse of collective curiosity for science and methodologies among a lot of people,…

I think a different way to frame this is that an Internet discussion will involve people with opinions across the spectrum.

I don’t think this is about pleasing “these people”, but about recognizing which attitudes are useful and which are not. Encountering some mix of all of the above is a product of the diversity of people involved in the conversation, and not necessarily “these people” wanting it both ways.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#53

Post by rgoulter »

chubot wrote: post #5

Well I'm kinda glad I missed this whole news cycle IMO this phenomenon seems to be kind of an artifact of modern media -- I feel like in the old days, peers would have settled it among themselves, and we would have never heard about it The same thing happens in tech -- there is a lot of stuff that people talk about, that ends up being worth ignoring ... I always bring up that whole news cycle in 2017 about a potentia…

> IMO this phenomenon seems to be kind of an artifact of modern media

To my understanding, these researchers had been working on this for decades and were confident what they had was good.

Once the information was leaked, the scientific community was roused, and came to consensus within days.

I think the contrast in those two timescales is noteworthy.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#54

Post by csours »

archepyx wrote: post #31
Waterluvian wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed! There's this bizarre reaction I see from many where they see the excitement and curiosity and hopefulness as a form of error and source of embarrassment. When mixed with an open mind and reasonable skepticism, it's a powerful opportunity to get people engaged in imagining a different world. I had all kinds of exciting conversations about what a validated, commercially viable LK-99 could produce. Why would I e…

HN discussion did not particlarly have "reasonable skepticism". This is probably because people (i) were not aware that there had been many other hypes about RTSC before but less publicly visible all proved to be false, (ii) not being able to accurately judge the technical quality of the initial evidence, (iii) uncritically believing that the data in the initial preprints was proof for superconductivity because their…

And the people most likely to join the discussion were the most enthusiastic. It's hard to talk sense when people are excited. See also crypto.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#55

Post by eesmith »

chubot wrote: post #5

Well I'm kinda glad I missed this whole news cycle IMO this phenomenon seems to be kind of an artifact of modern media -- I feel like in the old days, peers would have settled it among themselves, and we would have never heard about it The same thing happens in tech -- there is a lot of stuff that people talk about, that ends up being worth ignoring ... I always bring up that whole news cycle in 2017 about a potentia…

When are these old days? I remember cold fusion from the late 1980s.

There's polywater from the 1960s.

N-rays in the 1900s (the first decade) made it to "spiritualists" and "crackpots and extremists" outside of academia, https://archive.org/details/flashofcathodera0000dahl/page/24... .

Giovanni Schiaparelli 1877 observation of "canali" on Mars captivated the public.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#56

Post by floxy »

Moomoomoo309 wrote: post #25

I found Thunderf00t's video on LK-99 to be funny because he pointed out something no one else did: In almost all applications of superconductors, they don't use high-temperature ones for one simple reason: Material properties. Most high-temp superconductors (including LK-99, he was assuming it was one, since he's not qualified to say one way or the other) are a ceramic. The ones that see use in the LHC, for instance,…

The existing high temperature superconductors in production are also ceramics. They just deposit thin layers on another substrate and then you get flexible tapes. When you hear "second generation" HTS tapes, that is what people are referring to. AMSC and SuperPower crank it out by the mile.

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=superconducting+tape&iax=im...

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#58

Post by javajosh »

archepyx wrote: post #31
Waterluvian wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed! There's this bizarre reaction I see from many where they see the excitement and curiosity and hopefulness as a form of error and source of embarrassment. When mixed with an open mind and reasonable skepticism, it's a powerful opportunity to get people engaged in imagining a different world. I had all kinds of exciting conversations about what a validated, commercially viable LK-99 could produce. Why would I e…

HN discussion did not particlarly have "reasonable skepticism". This is probably because people (i) were not aware that there had been many other hypes about RTSC before but less publicly visible all proved to be false, (ii) not being able to accurately judge the technical quality of the initial evidence, (iii) uncritically believing that the data in the initial preprints was proof for superconductivity because their…

I feel that I had reasonable skepticism based on the consequences to the scientists if they turned out to be wrong. Korea is not known to be a particularly forgiving or understanding culture, and I suspect that all of these men will be working at a fast food restaurant soon.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#59

Post by morelisp »

usrbinbash wrote: post #39

One of the good things that came out of this whole story: A very public demonstration, transported through mass and even social media channels, how empiricism and the principle of falsification work, and why they are the only known reliable process for generating knowledge.

No, mass and social media stopped paying attention days ago because Trump or Hawai'i or whatever. In a few years some might have a flashback, Google "what happened stupor conduct", and after a few sentences conclude science isn't really worth paying attention to after all.

Re: LK-99 isn’t a superconductor

#60

Post by earthboundkid »

thinkingkong wrote: post #2

It’s disappointing news but the excitement and amount of replication on this paper was pretty fun to witness and experience. To me the most interesting part was everyone talking about potential consequences, uses, the order of magnitude improvements we’d see in certain costs or areas. Pumps, MRIs, power grids, chips, etc. Great reminder what materials science can do to some underlying economics.

The real superconductors were the friends we made along the way.
Post reply on HN