Live data from Hacker News

The first room-temperature ambient-pressure superconductor?

arxiv.org

861–870 of 906 posts

Re: The first room-temperature ambient-pressure superconductor?

#861
post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many years ago, as an undergrad, I was telling a grad student friend how I'd been learning about the Selection algorithm- it lets you pick the Kth largest element from an unsorted list in linear time, which is pretty neat. I said "It's O(n), but the constant is ridiculous in most implementations so it's usually better just to sort and then pick the kth element". The grad student friend said something that stuck with…

> That was never guaranteed Branching off into a philosophical thought here, but I find this to be completely wrong. It was always guaranteed; logic, like physics and chemistry is not an environment that changes. We have discovered a functioning technique which might be improved upon. What wasn’t guaranteed was that it would be found . Biology is the root of most, perhaps all, uncertainty. After all, it is our biolog…

I think the point is that we live in either a universe where X is possible or a universe where X is not possible.

What we don't know is which we exist in.

Re: The first room-temperature ambient-pressure superconductor?

#862
On page 4 they list two equivalent criteria for superconductivity: "the electric field criterion with 1 μV/cm or 0.1 μV/cm and resistivity criterion with 10^-11 Ω·cm." On the same page they write: "In various bulk samples, specific resistance was measured in the range of 10^-6 to 10^-9 Ω·cm." That does not meet the resistivity criterion, not even close.

In the second paper ( https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12037 ) on page 8 they write: "In the first region below red-arrow C (near 60°C), equivalent to region F in the inset of Fig. 5, the resistivity with noise signals can be regarded as zero." I can only see from the plotted curve that the resistivity below 60°C is below about 5·10^-4 Ω·cm. Compare that to the resistivity of silver, which is 1.59·10^-6 Ω·cm.

It doesn't get better if you test the electric field criterion. On page 11 of the second paper you can see in Fig 6a that they measured a voltage of about 2mV in the "superconducting" state, and the voltage only drops off when the current approaches 0. In the first paper on page 19 they write that they used pogo probes with a distance of 1.2mm. So the electric field they measured is about 17mV/cm. That is a lot higher than the superconductor criterion of 1µV/cm, let alone 0.1µV/cm. Even if they mistakenly used mV instead of µV in their diagram, a factor of 17 would still need a good explanation.

So either a complete fake or an interesting effect but not superconductivity.

Re: The first room-temperature ambient-pressure superconductor?

#863

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be specific look at how long it has taken cuprate superconductors to find practical applications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuprate_superconductor This was something that people said would change the world when I was in high school and it really hasn't. (For that matter, the fundamental physics is still not very well understood)

Going from 23K to 35K is useful but not a game-changer. Going to 127 C will be, if it works.

133K is the record for them

Re: The first room-temperature ambient-pressure superconductor?

#864
post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think this team would jeopardize their reputations by faking this data with such easily verifiable and thus refutable claims?

It's not unheard of. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02401-2

Fair point. I’m just waiting for reproduction, like everyone else. We’ll know soon enough.

Re: The first room-temperature ambient-pressure superconductor?

#865

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who doesn't follow superconductors, what sorts of things about life/engineering/society would change, how dramatic would it be, and more importantly: which stocks would you pick :)

The direct impact could be relatively limited, at least for a while. Having a room-temperature superconductor is really awesome, but existing high-temperature superconductors are fragile and expensive. You can make motors, electromagnets, and power grids with much better efficiency—but that’s not so useful if the parts break when you look at them wrong. You’ll still get better magnets and sensors, probably. Maybe eve…

Back in the 90s or maybe early 2000s, everyone was convinced that silicon was almost dead for high-performance chips like CPUs, and that we'd all be switching to GaAs (gallium arsenide) very soon. Turns out that GaAs wasn't that practical and silicon's limitations could be overcome, so we still use silicon today.

Re: The first room-temperature ambient-pressure superconductor?

#866

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who doesn't follow superconductors, what sorts of things about life/engineering/society would change, how dramatic would it be, and more importantly: which stocks would you pick :)

Note that when we invented the aeroplane, uses weren't immediately obvious. People would have suggested things like cities in the sky, looking down on things, and traversing marshland easily. The actual main use for planes has turned out to be fast long distance travel. But we don't actually theoretically need to be up in the air to travel fast or far - in fact, had we never invented the aeroplane, we'd probably have…

You're forgetting the other primary use of airplanes: to drop bombs on things.

Re: The first room-temperature ambient-pressure superconductor?

#867
post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it'll change society quickly True. > and permanently for the better. You can't know that.

Are you saying superconducting railguns could possibly cause problems?!?

[flagged]

Re: The first room-temperature ambient-pressure superconductor?

#868
Figures 1(a) and (c) are implausible. Usually something like this looks like this [0]. Note the gradual increase at low currents, this effect is to be expected especially with magnetic fields.

     Fig. 1(d) cannot be correct either. At Tc ~ 400K the Meissner effect would displace a much stronger field than 10 Oe = 1 mT. I.e. the distinction between FC (field cooled) and ZFC (zero-field cooled) should not be that pronounced. It should look more like this [1].
What the authors might mean is that they are outside the Meissner range, which can occur at higher magnetic fields (keyword: Type II superconductors). It will look like that [2].

In this case, however, the temperature dependency does not agree at all with the critical currents of Figs. 1(a) and (c).

Also, that ALL the values in Fig. 1(d) are negative is extremely unusual, but that could perhaps be argued with.

     The data set in Fig. 4(b) is also a treat. It is VERY unusual when the heat capacity decreases again at high temperatures. This can happen at low temperatures, but not at high temperatures.

     I am very familiar with the described experimental setup / the cryostat. There is no good reason why the authors did not measure at higher temperatures to show that the behavior is markedly different above Tc ~ 400K. For example, a temperature dependency of the resistance would have been absolutely necessary.

     In general, the paper is very poorly written. The data is under-discussed, the explanations are sparse, and the work cited is, shall we say, sparse. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence in what the authors measured and claim to have seen.

     My personal assumption is that the authors measured an insulator, so no current flowed and therefore no voltage occurred (4-point measurement). Then it looks like a superconductor. But if you then turn up the current (i.e. the applied voltage), breakdowns may occur and a current begins to flow. That would explain the sharp increase.
Src: Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research

[0] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Matthias-Graf-4/publica...

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370037045/figure/fi...

[2]https://www.europhysicsnews.org/images/stories/hl/472/Guo.jp...

Re: The first room-temperature ambient-pressure superconductor?

#869
post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just so everyone is on the same page, static passive diamagnetic levitation is possible with materials like pyrolytic graphite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamagnetism https://www.kjmagnetics.com/blog.asp?p=diamagnetic-levitatio... ...and superconductors are usually perfectly diamagnetic.

Every substance is one of * ferromagnetic - attracted to one pole of a magnet but not the other (in a given orientation), this is what everybody thinks of when they think of "magnets" * paramagnetic - attracted to both poles, i.e. stuff that sticks to magnets * diamagnetic - repelled by both poles, except in superconductors, this effect is very weak compared to the forces experienced involving ferro-ferro or fero-par…

You literally missed the most common magnetic phase - antiferromagnetism

Re: The first room-temperature ambient-pressure superconductor?

#870

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Nuclear power and coal power are both heat engines turning heat into mechanical energy and subsequently electricity. They merely use a different heat source. Not completely true. There are some experimental nuclear reactors that convert nuclear energy directly to electricity without the heat cycle, such as [Helion]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helion_Energy ).

When presenting working experimental nuclear reactors Helion is not the company that I would use as my example. They are borderline scammy and given their lack of progress they seem to be stuck in the moving the goalposts phase for a long long time now. I wouldn't bet on them ever completing a working reactor that produces net power.

Maybe, but my point is that it does seem to be possible to generate electricity directly from nuclear reactions, without going through a thermal cycle (making heat, creating steam, using that to turn a turbine). I think there's some other experimental process that promises to do this with fission.
Post reply on HN