511–520 of 659 posts
I’m just curious as a layman, why aren’t the paper authors helping in this race whatsoever? It seems a lot of folks are guessing on the recipe. I haven’t seen any communication from the LK from LK99. Seems like radio silence
I’m not an expert, but I’ve used superconductors (I believe YBCO) when I taught physics lab. We cooled samples down with liquid nitrogen and put them over a magnet. They levitate, but not like in the video that the Korean team released. True superconductors enjoy “flux pinning”, meaning wherever you put them on a magnet, they’ll freeze in that position (or move around an axis of constant flux.) In the LK-99 video tha…
Type-II super conductors may exhibit "flux pinning". Type-I super conductors do not.
Type-II diamagnetism?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What are good examples of their “disbenefits”? Overwhelmingly unaddressed externalities.
Prediction markets seem blessedly free of externalities though, compared to, say, the energy market (CO2) or textiles (child labor, sweatshops.) except for incentivizing action to tilt the odds, which is weirdly amoral. if you bet on a bad thing happening, you can cash in by making it happen yourself.
It depends on what's at stake. One example is predicting someone's death.
> if you bet on a bad thing happening, you can cash in by making it happen yourself.
Yes, and that could be a huge problem, don't you think? It creates an incentive for a bad thing happening that wouldn't exist otherwise.
I say this as someone who is in huge favor of markets but also hates their externalities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The variables that lead to its formation are not all accounted for yet. The process is understood, but it doesn’t always work. So there must be something missing every now and then.
So they have a batch of the material as proof, but no idea how to exactly reproduce it? That would be a wild story if true.
I am surprised that anyone still thinks this thing is legit. I mean, I wish it was true, but the publication, the approach and the infights in the team do not instill confidence. To me, it seems they can not recreate the "effect" themselves. Otherwise they would be shipping their samples around the world by now.
Damn, why is nobody talking more about the theory of it? What I see to ponder: - (1970, brinkman, rice) "application of gutzwiller's variational method to the metal-insulator transition" - (2001, hyun-tak kim) "extension of the brinkman-rice picture and the mott transition" - (2002, hyun-tak kim) "extended brinkman-rice picture and its application to high-Tc superconductors" - (2021, hyun-tak kim) "Room-temperature-s…
I’m just curious as a layman, why aren’t the paper authors helping in this race whatsoever? It seems a lot of folks are guessing on the recipe. I haven’t seen any communication from the LK from LK99. Seems like radio silence
And it's patented. There's no rush for them.
If they are faking, then there's still no rush.
As I learned from the Dave's EEVBlog video [1], their demonstration video [2] says in the description that the material was deposited onto a copper plate which could probably explain the interaction with the magnet. And as I just noticed, the description has since been changed and now says »The sample was thermally deposited on a enriched uranium 235 plate.« EDIT: Correction, I got the link to the video saying deposi…
Can someone explain why you'd use the 235 isotope? I know there are different magnetic properties but it still seems an odd choice to use something that is highly controlled, difficult to produce, and rather dangerous. It seems like there would be far better choices unless you absolutely need that mass or they very weak valance electrons. And those videos being identical is also suspicious. [2] Uploaded 2 days ago, c…