[HN Gopher] LK-99: Team of Southeast University observed zero re... ___________________________________________________________________ LK-99: Team of Southeast University observed zero resistance below 110 K Author : thecopy Score : 402 points Date : 2023-08-02 18:14 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (twitter.com) (TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com) | zootreeves wrote: | Why would other teams be observing floating at room temp? Is it | possible to have a diamagnet that becomes a superconductor? | baq wrote: | 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. | dinosaurdynasty wrote: | That would suggest that a very high quality sample would | superconduct at room temperature. | feoren wrote: | Unless the "low quality" part is actually causing the | superconductivity. Remember the multiple simulations that | showed Cu replacing Pb at a less favorable site | (energetically) was better for superconductivity than at a | more favorable site. It's possible "high quality" samples | actually have less "imperfections", which seem important | for the superconductivity. | jacquesm wrote: | Exactly it's quite possible that 'worse' is actually | 'better' and vv. I'm sure that it won't be long before | that will be resolved though, this is all happening so | fast that such important answers will be sought by more | than one team. | jacquesm wrote: | Not necessarily, but possibly. | progrus wrote: | Due to how these materials behave, this likely means you can | manufacture a real-deal UFO in orbit... | legulere wrote: | I'm curious why the resistance is dropping by a lot in figure 3 | a) between around 230 and 260 K | klimt wrote: | The jump looks like bad contacts to me. The wires you attach | undergo stress during the cooldown, and such artefacts can | happen with small samples. Rewiring the sample should get rid | of it. | adad95 wrote: | I want to believe. | wilsynet wrote: | The truth is out there. | [deleted] | jacquesm wrote: | Fascinating and ultimately confusing result. What is happening in | that higher temperature window where the resistance suddenly | drops orders of magnitude? | hatsunearu wrote: | The Fig 3a)b) graphs are not showing superconductivity. That just | looks like the resistance dips below the ~1e-5 mark and goes goes | deep into the noise. That just looks like a normal conductor that | has a positive temperature coefficient. | | edit: to add speculation, I think they made something that's not | quite LK-99, and it's behaving like a normal conductor with no | superconductance. | floxy wrote: | An excitation of 1mA and R = 1e-5 means the voltage is 10 nV | (1e-8). Also the chart has a logarithmic y-axis. | hatsunearu wrote: | I know, I'm just saying their test condition has a really | high noise floor and once you dive into the noise floor there | is no meaningful result. | ochn wrote: | I also agree, looks like they just reached the instrument noise | floor. This result should be taken with a grain of salt. | norturnn wrote: | [dead] | barbegal wrote: | That would be my interpretation too. Usually you get a stronger | transition to 0 at the critical temperature but I can't see | this (although it could be hidden under the noise) | baq wrote: | What would be the acceptable noise floor here? | hatsunearu wrote: | that's the wrong way to look at this. | | what i see in this noisy measurement is nothing interesting. | that always means: | | a) the noise is obscuring something interesting | | b) there is nothing interesting | | for a), if it's practical and/or likely that there is | something interesting in the noise, I'd try to find a way to | lower the noise (or SNR). | | you would assert b) if you have some strong convictions that | there's nothing interesting down there. | | Since the assertion that LK-99 is superconducting at room | temp, there's already enough data to say that this is either | A) whatever they measured is not LK-99 B) whatever they | measured is LK-99, but doesn't superconduct at room temp. | | Their ridiculous interpretation pointing at the SNR=1 point | saying that's the critical temperature is actually hilarious. | legulere wrote: | The noise is probably just an artefact from measurement. | hatsunearu wrote: | that's almost literally the definition of noise. | | I'm saying the results are useless because the noise floor is | obscuring any interesting behavior (if any). | | Some people are saying "well, the Tc is 160K, so this result | is invalid"--the way I see it, the Tc is not 160K because the | test setup is so noisy so you're not really seeing any | superconductivity at any temperature (not because it doesn't | exist, but because their test setup is shitty) | barbegal wrote: | This doesn't look superconducting at all to me, simply the sample | is very small and below 110K the resistance of the sample is too | small to be measured by their measurement equipment. I'm happy to | be proved wrong but there should be a steeper transition at the | critical temperature. | scarmig wrote: | Interesting. Some people are getting strong diamagnetism at RTP, | and now someone is actually seeing zero resistance at a low | temperature. | | I'd take this as mildly positive news. It would be a surprising | material if it were a high Tc (only in the LN2 sense) | superconductor that is also strongly diamagnetic at room | temperature (though I'm not sure if that's more surprising than a | RTP superconductor). | jacquesm wrote: | It's confusing. You'd expect both to be present or none, it is | strange to have a material that is conducting and diamagnetic | at room temperature _and_ that shows super conductivity at much | lower temperature. You 'd expect the diamagnetism to disappear | with the superconductivity. | borkt wrote: | Observed effects which have been given a name != a single | universal truth. Just because we have experimental evidence | of effects and theoretical explanations for their occurrence | prove we actually have defined the underlying phenomenon's | which produce the observed effect accurately. The reason we | experiment isn't to prove our theories are correct so much as | it is to probe where they break down so we can further refine | our understanding of the universe. What we are likely seeing | here is the result of an organized pattern of atomic nucleii | forming a lattice which creates the conditions for the | movement of electrons to be easier (or harder) than expected | at certain temperatures (with temperature being the property | which induces strain on the lattice). This is very crude, but | begins to explain the multitude of factors at play here. | jacquesm wrote: | Yes, that's true, but that would require a shift in our | understanding of physics and everything about this saga so | far has not done that. And that in part is a reason why | people take this serious: it is believable. New physics | would raise the bar considerably. | | So for now I'm on the measuring error, impurity or process | issue side of that without committing to which team I think | has the problematic side. | borkt wrote: | The fact that our existing computational models are in | agreement with the experimental behavior leads me to | believe there is no new physics involved here. That being | said this raises the question as to whether this class of | material is known and characterized within our national | research labs but has been kept classified, and if it was | unknown it raises the question of why experimentation is | what discovered it and why weren't we able to harness the | computational model to identify it theoretically and | develop a method to produce it practically prior to this. | My money says there are people in this world who have | long been aware of this, and its either already in use in | a classified manner or it's interesting but there are | other materials which are more practical in all use | cases. | jacquesm wrote: | > why we [we]ren't we able to harness the computational | model to identify it theoretically and develop a method | to produce it practically prior to this. | | Because the computational requirements are off the scale | in the most literal sense. The search space is so large | that you won't be able to come up with an improvement in | efficiency for your search unless you guide it very | carefully with experimentally obtained results and that's | exactly what these people were doing as far as I | understand it. You mix up a batch of stuff, test it for | gross properties, do crystallography and then use the | information from that to do some numerical simulations to | check if your assumptions and observations hold up. | | I don't think we had this compound before. | dotnet00 wrote: | I think one factor that's overlooked with these | simulations is that there are a ton of parameters to | these which really hinder automated searching. | | It's easy (relatively) to verify the results from a real | world test since you know the physical parameters and can | tweak the others based on intuition, where if the result | matches the real world you can consider it valid, but if | it doesn't you can have to check all sorts of things to | be sure that it isn't a glitch due to some parameter not | being reasonable. | | That makes searching for materials really hard because | you either need an absurd amount of computational power | to be able to set the simulation parameters so high as to | not worry about their effects or you get tons of false | positives simply because the computer can't as easily | tune those parameters to ensure it produces correct | results. | | As my PhD advisor has often put it regarding my own | simulation work, if the simulations were that capable of | modeling reality, there would be no need for billion | dollar facilities to perform tests irl, you'd just spend | all that on building many supercomputers. | marshray wrote: | Multiple teams have said they had to produce 10 batches just | to get one sample with properties worth reporting on. | | Perhaps the simplest explanation is that different teams are | all ending up with different variations of a common material, | with different impurities, crystal structure, etc. | | There's likely a whole zoo of interesting materials here! | jacquesm wrote: | Yes, I thought that that might be the case from day one. | When they wrote that they had only a 10% success rate it | was clear that they were not at all in control of sample | purity. The big remaining question for me is what happens | when they start traveling with the original sample to have | another lab test their samples and how those results | compare with both the original results and the | independently recreated different samples. | | There is a good chance that there will be substantial | differences between them. | dv_dt wrote: | "Purity" is a really overloaded term here. There are vast | set of material properties that simply don't map to a | definition "purity" as in some homogeneous concentration | of a material. This is so early no one likely knows | exactly what configuration of material to "purify" for | the intended outcome. | | There will likely be years of not decades of looking at | differences in the materials and performance of related | materials to more fully explore this discovery. | jacquesm wrote: | Yes, true, let me unpack that then: | | - purity as in the sample is uniformly constructed of the | right atoms but they are not in the right configuration | | vs | | - purity as in the sample contains atoms that shouldn't | be there in the first place | | and finally | | - purity as in: the sample that purportedly did show room | temperature superconductivity turns out to be the impure | one and that impurity is so poorly understood that we | currently can not replicate it accurately, but a test by | an independent lab of the sample would verify the | properties as advertised. | | All of these are possibles, and not mutually exclusive. | trafficante wrote: | > purity as in the sample is uniformly constructed of the | right atoms but they are not in the right configuration | | The conclusions in the linked pdf suggest this may be the | issue with LK99. | | 1. https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.16892 | borkt wrote: | More than likely there is only one interesting material in | this specific composition. But understanding the phenomenon | we are observing in this material can potentially lead to | the development of other materials which display these | characteristics, and tune those to function in this way at | specific temperature/pressure situations. If we develop | efficient ways to produce these materials in bulk (which is | orders of magnitude more complicated than just | characterizing what we see here) it would be unimaginably | revolutionary. But the energy required to do this at scale | will likely require our civilization to utilize orders of | magnitude more energy, so if this is practical for our | daily lives on a wide scale I believe it's development will | be contingent on harnessing fusion. Otherwise it will be | limited to only the most extreme use cases in the way | superconductors are currently used now. | AS04 wrote: | My friend, what exactly do you think is so energy | intensive with LK99 synthesis? I've briefly taken a look | and the process proposed is really not that onerous in | terms of energy consumed. It is a matter of perfecting | the process that is the hurdle, we already spend tons of | energy happily in similar industrial processes. | jacquesm wrote: | > But the energy required to do this at scale will likely | require our civilization to utilize orders of magnitude | more energy | | As opposed to smelting aluminum or steel? And that | creates stuff that is dirt cheap in bulk... | threatripper wrote: | If only part of the sample is superconducting and the other | parts are ordinary conductors or isolators, the superconducting | islands could show diamagnetism while being isolated from each | other which means that eletrical current needs to pass | resistive areas and therefore experiences resistance. | valianteffort wrote: | Could it not also mean an impure sample? Everyone is in a | rush right now but none of these research teams are exactly | experts of manufacture. | gchadwick wrote: | Certainly no expert here but if you take the original video and | replications at face value it does exhibit strong diamagnetism at | room temperature. Superconductors are diamagnetic due to the | Meissner effect at their superconducting temperature. This would | mean LK99 is a superconductor at low temperature and separately | be strongly diamagnetic at room temperature (no Meissner effect | if it's not super conducting). Would that be unusual? | scarmig wrote: | Bismuth is a strong diamagnet, and it can enter a | superconducting state (at a fraction of a degree above zero), | so it's not impossible. (And lots of materials are weak | diamagnets and superconduct at some point.) So it wouldn't be | unheard of. That said, LK-99 would definitely be an object of | lots of research if it does have those properties. | Obi_Juan_Kenobi wrote: | The premise is flawed because that assumes the samples they are | studying are identical. | | Replication is difficult, and particularly difficult for novel | processes where the important variables are not well | understood. It could be that the methods were reported as | accurately as possible but still leave out critical detail(s). | zamalek wrote: | The strength of the diamagnetism would be extremely anomalous | if it were not a superconductor, and would need new | physics/names - super-diamagnetism or something (which itself | would still be very useful). The chances of it being new | physical phenomena is vanishingly small - we're almost | definitely seeing superconductivity at STP with this degree of | diamagnetism. | tigershark wrote: | Exactly. And from the various videos it doesn't seem | diamagnetic _at all_ because it floats in a stationary way on | a single planar magnet. Diamagnetic material can't do that, | they need an array of magnets. | depereo wrote: | I would say any results that are already out are from people | speedrunning production; give it another six or so days and | there will be a ton of labs that have managed to produce | various, better samples and will have performed decent | experimentation on these. | Workaccount2 wrote: | I have seen it posted that diamagnetic materials require | multiple magnets stuck together to create field "pockets" (?) | for the material to rest in. | | The few videos of lk99 show it reacting to a singular magnet. A | property of superconductors that apparently diamagnetic | materials don't have. | DistractionRect wrote: | That's for levitating a diamagnetic material. | | It'll react fine to a singular magnet, it just won't be | stable enough to levitate - that's why the videos show casing | replication of diamagnetism show it standing on end. | uyhgr wrote: | The term is "flux pinning", and it only applies to the | "quantum lock" effect. That is the specifically static | hovering effect. | | The diamagnetism, importantly this means repulsion of both | poles simultaneously and equally (this is how you can have | these magnets spin, a regular magnet repels same poles and | attracts opposites, diamagnets repel both poles), is simply a | characteristic of the superconductor, but it alone would just | repel the object off. | | Here is a timestamped link to NileRed's YBCO video that | visually describes the flux pinning: | | https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RS7gyZJg5nc&t=1887 | | And here's a timestamped link to Ben Krasnow's Applied | Science YBCO video where he shows a close up of the crystal's | cross section that shows the imperfections that allow the | magnetic field through for the pinning effect: | | https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sLFaa6RPJIU&t=75 | Laforet wrote: | Flux pinning of a superconductor should be able to hold it | steady _below_ a magnet, and the magnet should be able to | drag the superconductor with it when moving (within | reasonable weight limits of course). These will demonstrate | for sure that levitation is not simply a force equilibrium | between gravity, magnetic repulsion and one corner of the | material resting on the surface. | | There is a video from the Korean team showing LK99 moving | when both poles of a large magnet is swung nearby, however | the effect was a bit weak to conclusive. | uyhgr wrote: | Correct, the imperfections of the crystal allowing the | flux pinning permits even a "hanging levitation". Here is | a timestamped video showing that: | | https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws6AAhTw7RA&t=90 | | If we develop methods of creating these superconductors | with perfect crystal composition then there will only be | the repulsion, allowing for levitation in a bowl shaped | superconductor, but this "hanging levitation" would be | impossible. | | Perhaps we will develop manufacturing techniques to | induce specific imperfections into the material to ensure | predictable flux pinning; it seems like a useful, and | wildly interesting side effect. | adolph wrote: | When NileRed puts the YBCO on top of the row of bar magnets | and it ping-pongs back and forth is awesome! | | Timestamp: https://youtu.be/RS7gyZJg5nc?t=2496 | uyhgr wrote: | The best thing about the NileRed superconductor video is | it shows him initially failing to reproduce a YBCO | superconductor after having already succeeded once | before! | | It goes to show how difficult manufacture, or in the case | of the LK-99 news cycle "reproduction", of these | materials really is, and YBCO was a well documented area | of superconductor manufacture. | jacquesm wrote: | NileRed is youtube gold. It's one of very few channels that | I follow and learn from. | faraggi wrote: | I agree, great channel, but the cadence in his narration | is atrocious. | jacquesm wrote: | It's fantastic compared to a lot of the people that I | interact with on a daily basis so it doesn't bother me. | jacquesm wrote: | It's all unusual because it is uncharted territory. My guess | would be assuming that it all pans out that this is due to | various impurities and that it will take a while before we have | a sample that is pure enough that all of these properties can | be nailed down for good. | | What's strange is that drop at higher temps, that's either a | measurement anomaly or something really odd. | lambdasquirrel wrote: | According to wikipedia, that was observed by the original | team in Korea. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK-99#Replication_attempts | | > Claimed to have synthesized LK-99 and to have measured | superconductivity up to a temperature of 110 kelvin. Claimed | to have observed an abrupt drop in resistance between ~300K | and 220K, aligning with the Korean LKK team's results. | Claimed to have confirmed structural consistency with x-ray | diffraction. | jacquesm wrote: | Yes, but it does not drop nearly as far and there is the | suggestion of equipment malfunction while at the same time | that gear seems to work just fine around -110 C. | pama wrote: | Just a word of caution that Wikipedia entries around LK99 | are unusually poor at this point in time. The citation of | an attempt to publish it in Nature in 2020 is completely | made up when the original Korean only mentions in passing a | completely different paper that was withdrawn from Nature | at the time. I hope the understandable excitement around | this new invention will allow for a correct eventual | accounting of the events. | adolph wrote: | > due to various impurities and that it will take a while | before we have a sample that is pure enough that all of these | properties can be nailed down for good. | | Do you think it will be "purity" or understanding material | variance/specific impurity? | | It reminds me of Fogbank, the nuke material claimed to be "so | secret they forgot how to make it." Part of the story of | manufacturing difficulty was due to increased purity of | modern materials/processes. | | _In a bizarre twist, the new production facility and | reverse-engineered production process yielded a version of | Fogbank that was of a higher purity than it had been in the | past, according to the article. The problem, however, was | that for Fogbank to work as intended in existing warhead | designs, that previous level of impurity was actually | essential. NNSA had to revise the process to ensure the final | product was just as impure._ | | https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32867/fogbank-is- | myste... | hyperman1 wrote: | It reminds me of Max Gergel's Isopropyl bromide book: | | When Hildebrand ran the baths the silver came out bright, | and stuck to the objects; the minute he left troubles | started. No one knew why. Shortly before he left to go into | the antique business in Charleston he showed me the secret. | It was his chewing tobacco, spat into the bath from time to | time. From then on, one man in each shift chewed, and the | problem was solved | alephnerd wrote: | What's the name of this book? It sounds really cool! | | Any other recommendations on books about the history of | MatSE/Chemistry? | grandpa wrote: | The title is "Excuse me sir, would you like to buy a kilo | of isopropyl bromide?" | | https://archive.org/details/gergel_isopropyl_bromide | jacquesm wrote: | That's a hilarious book: "There was a jar which I had not | noticed before containing potassium metal. I knew that | potassium was a silvery metal, but this was one inch | spheres, green with the oil in which they were immersed. | I removed two for a collection of elements we were | starting at Columbia High, scraped off the oil and put | the marbles in my handkerchief which I added to a | collection of miscellaneous glassware in my back pocket. | " | | Oops... I can see where that is headed. | alephnerd wrote: | Thanks for the rec! Gunna dive into it tonight! | jacquesm wrote: | > Do you think it will be "purity" or understanding | material variance/specific impurity? | | It could be either. | | As I pointed out in other comments, that's how | radioactivity was discovered and it is very well possible | that they blundered into something exceptional by accident, | it is also possible that _both_ parties got it wrong and | there are yet other effects at play (see the big gap in the | t /R curve, that really needs explaining). | fgeahfeaha wrote: | That's a failed repro then right? | | Below 110K is below -163.15 Celcius | | How would that compare to other superconductors? | HybridCurve wrote: | One of the most well known, YBCO, has a Tc of 95K. | BasedAnon wrote: | technically a failure, but still a strange result | piyh wrote: | I don't think it's a failure if the original claims are | showing some kind of promise, science is being done, and the | frontiers of knowledge are being pushed forward. | | In other words, not "Eureka!" but "that's weird". | p1mrx wrote: | Tc = 110 K would take the #4 spot on | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_superconductors | [deleted] | moffkalast wrote: | > HgTlBaCaCuO | | New band name. And band gap. | wthomp wrote: | #3 spot at atmospheric pressure | rbinv wrote: | At atmospheric pressure, no less. | jacquesm wrote: | It is and it isn't. It's at ambient pressure (which is | something useful), and there is something very odd happening | much higher up that needs to be explained. They say their | sample purity is higher than the one the Korean team had, so | that would normally lead to better yield and easier | confirmation of the superconductivity. But since it does show | the Meissner effect in other samples as well at room | temperature there is a lot that still needs explaining before | we can say it is a failed reproduction. | BasedAnon wrote: | perhaps an impurity caused the effect they're looking for | jacquesm wrote: | Yes, that's possible and something that has already | happened once before: this is exactly how x-rays and | eventually radioactivity were discovered, a chance | contamination. | bloopernova wrote: | I adore stories that include the phrase "that's odd" or | "something odd happens when ..." | | Even if we don't get the astonishing result originally | claimed by the rogue paper, it's still a triumph of science | in my ignorant opinion. | jacquesm wrote: | And sometimes 'that's odd' leads to things larger than the | original goal. You really don't want to hear those words in | the doctors' office though. | omgJustTest wrote: | This appears to be a great result. | | "Room temperature" super conductor result? No. | | But this is basically showing there is some superconductivity in | the sample, and cooler temperatures expose intrinsic band | structures. | | Pretty exciting! | hcks wrote: | How is it exciting? It invalidates the original claim. We | already have better SC. | matsemann wrote: | It doesn't invalidate the original claim, as they haven't | been able to make a pure sample to test with, as I understand | it. Or at least that there is some difference between their | samples and the others, but still it shows promise. | Palpatineli wrote: | Purity does not affect Tc. Your argument is invalid. | lnenad wrote: | Holy shit what a statement. | stasmo wrote: | The worlds best scientists don't even know how to make | room temp superconductors but this one person on HN is | certain that purity doesn't matter. | flumpcakes wrote: | > Purity does not affect Tc. | | Here's a lump of 100% Cu and another lump of 50% Cu and | 50% "other". | | If purity doesn't matter, they must have the same | properties? Why not just use 0.0001% copper in all our | applications and save millions on material costs. | amluto wrote: | I know nothing about the theory of superconductors, but | purity can affect electronic properties. For example, | pure silicon is quite a poor conductor. If you dope it | with a little bit of an n- or p-type dopant (an | impurity), it conducts better. Add a bit more, and it | conducts more. There are other effects, too. | overnight5349 wrote: | Purity would affect superconduction. Consider grains of | superconducting material embedded in a matrix of regular | conductive metal. | | One of the theories for the behavior of this material | explains that the copper atoms preferentially form a | structure that does not superconduct. The structure that | _does_ superconduct is tricky to achieve due to the | energy levels. (Paraphrased summary) | | It's likely that a poorly prepared sample will have | discontinuous regions of both superconducting and non- | superconducting material. If that is the case, you won't | observe superconduction. | | It may be that the non-superconducting material _does_ | superconduct at low temperatures, which would mask the | purity problem. | | The truth is that quite literally nobody fully | understands what's actually happening here. That's kind | of the point of all this experimentation | numpad0 wrote: | That supplemental video files and drama around submission | process seemed to exhibit telltales signs of forged science, | so the fact that this seems not nothing and is getting | material scientists excited is exciting. | notorandit wrote: | > below 110 K | | It is not room temperature, is it? | nmeagent wrote: | 0 C is 273.15K, so room temperature is around 295 K. 300 K is a | decent approximation to make back-of-the-envelope calculations | easier, but I don't know anybody that actually keeps their room | at 80 F. | brookst wrote: | Not Canadian, eh? | motoboi wrote: | I suppose it is, if the room is in Mars. | MayeulC wrote: | Room temp is 300K. Liquid nitrogen boils at 77K, though. | [deleted] | saberdancer wrote: | Huge news. This means it is not a scam as a discovery of this | type of superconductor would be big enough. | | It also means it is unlikely they were measuring wrong for | multiple years. | | My layman take is that Korean sample is just a better or | different batch that is properly superconducting at room | temperature. | carabiner wrote: | As a layman, how do you know this is huge? | vl wrote: | I don't know why people say it's huge, so far all the images | released show it is tiny. | saberdancer wrote: | Until today main hypothesis was that it is a scam by original | team or a mistake when measuring resistance. | | Now it looks unlikely as it would be very strange to luck | into a new superconductor (pretty "good" one too) if they | were faking it. It also means it is unlikely they made | fundamental measuring mistakes such as thinking the sample is | in room temperature when it was at 100K. | | What seem plausible is that the process to make the material | is not well defined and that there is high degree of | variability. Even this chinese 110K replication only one of 6 | samples shows superconductivity, meaning there is much room | for improvement, perhaps with fine tuning they will find | sample with characteristics that Korean team observed. | d1str0 wrote: | Assuming they discovered a low cost, room temperature, room | pressure, superconductor, there are many HUGE technological | advancements that can be made that would impact your daily | life. | | Possibilities include improved battery longevity in all | devices(probably in an order of magnitude), low friction | transport improvements (ie. cheaper high speed rail), and | faster and higher bandwidth wired connections. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_applications_of_. | .. | cogman10 wrote: | > improved battery longevity | | No | | > probably in an order of magnitude | | Absolutely not. | | > Low friction transport improvements | | This material is superconductive at 110K (-163C). Not | exactly usable for transport applications. | | > faster and higher bandwidth wired connections. | | Absolutely not, resistance has no impact on bandwidth. | | I've seen variations of this comment on hacker news. | Superconductors are not magic dust to make things better. | They are conductors with 0 resistance. There are certainly | applications for that (see the wiki you linked) but like | all things based in reality those are all a lot more muted | and probably not possible with the current materials. | | You are getting excited about the possibility of wires. | There are certainly cool things you can do with a nice | wire, but it's still a wire. You can't store power much | with it, It's too big to make logic circuits with, and | applications (like levitating a train) require too many | amps for our poor wire to remain a special wire. (Most | super conductive materials lose conductivity when amps are | too high). | [deleted] | carabiner wrote: | No I mean why is this "huge" when each time that's happened | it's been deflated within 12 hours: | | - initial LK-99 paper upload on Arxiv: HUGE, then it's | probably nothing until replication (waiting) | | - DFT release: HUGE, then probably nothing (DFT has poor | predictive power) | | - 110K SC: HUGE, then ... ? | | In every case it's been the laymen saying HUGE, then the | experts saying it's probably insignificant. Then the laymen | settle on what the experts said. | throwanem wrote: | Derek Lowe is a layman? I grant his specialism doesn't | precisely match the field, but it's easily close enough | I'd expect him to be able to smell bullshit on this if | there was any, and his latest "In the Pipeline" suggests | much more the scent of roses. | tigershark wrote: | Why are you always trying to ignore every new positive | result since the beginning? Maybe because you are scared | of getting called out for throwing literal sh*t at what | it seems to be a very fundamental discovery in the worst | case and in the best case a world changing, nobel prize | worth research? | norturnn wrote: | [dead] | creatorpiece123 wrote: | Read the graph, there is a sharp drop in resistance from | 220K-250K. Its still not superconducting but it could be hinting | something? | valine wrote: | That's what I was thinking. In the video he brushes it off as a | potential equipment malfunction, but perhaps it's the effect | everyone is looking for. | pokey00 wrote: | A sudden discontinuity like that but continuing the same | curve and jumping back... that's equipment malfunction 99% of | the time. | jacquesm wrote: | And yet, they published that instead of figuring out what | is possibly wrong with their gear which in turn may | invalidate the rest of the their results. I'm not going to | second guess their motivations though, they probably know | what they are doing but it is interesting and deserves | explanation. | valine wrote: | Seems reasonable, then again we're dealing with a potential | superconductor where sudden discontinuity is the expected | result. | baq wrote: | Why publish this graph without running the measurements | again though? Serious question since I've no idea about the | effort needed to get this data. | | I've got a small hope that they actually did and found the | effect didn't go away. They'll still say 'equipment | malfunction', there isn't any downside, only upside if it | gets reproduced somewhere else. | jacquesm wrote: | I'm _really_ curious what the eventual explanation of this is | and whether other teams will observe this happening as well. | azernik wrote: | Could indicate some superconducting regions in the whole | sample, or some weird anisotropic superconduction at higher | temps... | | That sharp drop, if not equipment error, could be a lot of | things. | obituary_latte wrote: | There are multiple mentions of "extraterrestrial super islands", | is this a mistranslation of the Meissner effect? Great term | nonetheless. | ansbalin wrote: | The extraterrestrial super island of stability | jacquesm wrote: | Let's break one rule at the time, please. I don't think I'm | quite ready for heavy elements that are long lived, either at | room temperature or any other, and even less so if they turn | out to be non-radioactive... | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability | jacquesm wrote: | Yes, I saw that, there are some more obvious translation | errors. | rfoo wrote: | It's the mistranslation of room-temperature superconductivity. | | "super islands" is likely translated from Chao Dao which | sounds the same as Chao Dao (superconductivity). I have no | idea how Shi Wen (room-temperature) became extraterrestrial, | must be extraordinarily bad speech to text model. | | edit: could be Shi Wen (shi4wen1) -> shi4wai4 -> Shi Wai | (outdoors)/Shi Wai (out of this world) -> extraterrestrial | devindotcom wrote: | What a hilarious mistranslation. Somehow it is fitting | though, as a totally unprecedented floating material. | wg0 wrote: | I wish I could learn CJK. Will take a lifetime to master. | eunos wrote: | Almost all replication attempts are done on Bilibili, which | namesake Mikoto Misaka using Railgun which would be made by | superconductors. | | Very beautiful. | modeless wrote: | 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 temperature, superconductor. | | At worst it seems to me like they discovered a cool new | superconductor that may have commercial applications. At best, | they may have a variant of this material that really is a room | temperature superconductor. Either way, there is an important | scientific discovery here. | | I'm surprised the prediction markets don't seem to be reacting. | Maybe the source isn't actually credible? Any Chinese speakers | here know? | crazygringo wrote: | > _I 'm surprised the prediction markets don't seem to be | reacting._ | | Where can we look at prediction markets on this? For those of | us who aren't familiar. | | I'm very curious -- because unlike sports scores or political | elections, this seems like such a hard thing to define a | prediction market around, because what is the exact threshold | you're defining and what is the threshold of proof of that | thing and on what date is that decided? | staunton wrote: | Metaculus has some markets on LK-99, for example | asdfman123 wrote: | Those rules are defined in the actual bet. I think it was | "three replications of room temperature superconductivity by | X date" or something like that. | | I looked closely because I very much wanted to bet tens of | thousands of dollars on "no", but I couldn't because I'm in | the US. The two outcomes would be I'd make a lot of money or | humanity would make the biggest breakthrough in generations. | tshaddox wrote: | > I think it was "three replications of room temperature | superconductivity by X date" or something like that. | | That doesn't sound like a sufficient market resolution | condition. Surely it would need to be something like | "declared by specific Party X to be a room-temperature | superconductor" where Party X is sufficiently trusted by | all market participants. | asdfman123 wrote: | I was worried about that too before making the bet, but I | realized I couldn't do it anyway and stopped worrying | about it. | | You can find the whole resolution criteria here if you | want: | | https://manifold.markets/QuantumObserver/will-the- | lk99-room-... | crazygringo wrote: | Thanks. And wow, that's as fuzzy as I was afraid it would | be: | | > _...Willing to adjust this criterion after receiving | more info from relevant theorists /experimentalists..._ | | > _...I don 't intend to require that replications be | published in a peer-reviewed journal... However, I do | intend to wait a few weeks/months to resolve so that any | pre-print can be adequately investigated..._ | | > _...Since high Tc superconductivity is not my specific | field of expertise, I 'm willing to defer to a consensus | of subject matter experts on whether a pre-print is | convincing or not, and I am willing to contact some | beyond the usual twitter personalities..._ | | In other words, if there's any kind of gray area in the | results, it's going to be whatever this person decides, | whenever they want to decide it. Definitely not something | I would ever put money behind. | asdfman123 wrote: | Yeah, I was definitely concerned about losing my money to | a technicality. | [deleted] | codethief wrote: | Yesterday someone posted a couple links and I remember this | one: | | https://manifold.markets/QuantumObserver/will-the- | lk99-room-... | aqme28 wrote: | > I'm surprised the prediction markets don't seem to be | reacting. | | Which way would you have the prediction markets go? Is this | evidence for or against room-temperature superconductivity? | modeless wrote: | Since IMO this makes fraud a less likely explanation, and it | seems easily possible to me that there are many materials in | this family with different critical temperatures, and it | seems really unlikely that the original researchers would | correctly measure superconductivity but simply get the | temperature wrong by more than 200K, then it seems strongly | positive to the probability that the original researchers | discovered room temperature superconductivity. Not | confirmation, of course. | spandrew wrote: | The initial claim was speculated to be room temp and ambient | pressure superconduction. 110K is a far cry from that. | ivalm wrote: | It's easy to make a high tc superconductor have lower tc | through poor production quality. It may very well be that a | poor sample is 110K while a high quality sample is >400K. | mytailorisrich wrote: | Looks like 110K still puts this in the top 5 highest temp | known superconductors and it only takes a couple of days to | produce out of the blue. | | So even if that's all it sounds like an important discovery. | asdfman123 wrote: | 110K actually makes me excited as someone with a physics | background. It seems more realistic, and there's always the | possibility of finding full room temp later, too. | kulahan wrote: | That could still be possible. We haven't found the ideal form | of LK-99 yet, so another lab might have a form which is only | stable to 110K, but that doesn't mean all will see the same | thing. | jiggawatts wrote: | Not to mention that every new category of SC discovered | helps nail down the theory of how it all works. | gus_massa wrote: | Everyone agree. Oversimplifying, there are 3 categories to | classify the initial team: | | 1) A bunch of clowns. | | 2) Interesting | | 3) Next Nobel prize winners | | I think they had a good reputation in the community, so the | opinion of the hivemind was to discard 1. But there was still | the possibility of a honest mistake or something weird. | | If this post is correct, other team confirmed that they | discovered a new family of "high temperature" superconductor. | The old families have been tweaked and explored to death. A | new family gives a lot of room to optimize the composition | and building process. So perhaps they found it. | | If this is confirmed they are definitively in the | "interesting" category, at least. | _hypx wrote: | It seems pretty similar to BSCCO: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bismuth_strontium_calcium_copp... | callalex wrote: | What prediction markets are you looking at? Are there any | concrete examples of these markets being accurate, or just a | venue for gambling addicts to feel smart? | refulgentis wrote: | One prediction market company spent a day spamming e v e r y | tweet with a link to their own stuff, so it's adopted a | meme-y link to LK-99 but it's honestly unrelated other than a | clever marketing campaign | callalex wrote: | My question is also broader than LK-99, and my point still | stands. | freitzkriesler2 wrote: | What's impressive to me is how simple making it is. There are | still low hanging scientific discoveries that are out there but | that we haven't figured out yet. | cyberlurker wrote: | Like ancient Roman concrete. | arrosenberg wrote: | I believe that one was recently figured out - | https://news.mit.edu/2023/roman-concrete-durability-lime- | cas.... | qwezxcrty wrote: | For non-Chinese speakers: one can jump to 01:50 and 02:32 of | the original video, the key figures (XRD and resistance) are | presented with English captions. | | The data look legit although there is a curious dip in | resistance in Fig.3(a) between 200K and 250K. Fig.3(b) is also | a bit weird as somehow the resistance behaves irregularly with | magnetic field strength. | saberdancer wrote: | 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. | tootie wrote: | I'm still unclear. Why is the test limit 110K? If this is | supposed to be usable at ambient temperature then this seems | like not a useful finding. Is it just some artifact of how | superconductivity is measured? | saberdancer wrote: | Most materials are not superconductors at 110K. If this one | is, it is possible Koreans did not fake room temperature | results but rather their sample is slightly different for | some reason, maybe pure luck, maybe some part of process | that they didn't clearly define or that their precursor | materials have certain impurities. | [deleted] | danielheath wrote: | Some people say they can get it to work at room | temperature, and others say they can't. | | Testing a sample at superconductivity-friendly temperatures | helps figure out whether there's something to investigate | here, since most materials do not superconduct at any | useful temperature. | golol wrote: | The common understanding seems to be that producing true | LK99 is very difficult as you need to get the crystal | structure just right. Many samples probably have mixes of | the correct and other structures. That's why some float and | some don't. The sample might be quite "dirty", meaning the | critical temperature is lower. | trafficante wrote: | Seems like it may depend on getting specific binding | sites. | | > Finally, the calculations presented here suggest that | Cu substitution on the appropriate (Pb(1)) site displays | many key characteristics for high-TC superconductivity, | namely a particularly flat isolated d-manifold, and the | potential presence of fluctuating magnetism, charge and | phonons. However, substitution on the other Pb(2) does | not appear to have such sought-after properties, despite | being the lower-energy substitution site. This result | hints to the synthesis challenge in obtaining Cu | substituted on the appropriate site for obtaining a bulk | superconducting sample. [1] | | 1. https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.16892 | valianteffort wrote: | I believe 110K is where it hit zero resistivity (the lower | bound) but any increase from there and it was no longer | presenting superconductivity. | | If we are to trust the SK team, it's possible the design in | the paper is outdated and in-house they have dialed it in | to something stable at room temperature. | cpleppert wrote: | They aren't reacting because this isn't really proof of | anything. The test apparatus they used can't actually measure 0 | resistance. Superconductivity is implied (thats the most | straightforward explanation) but not actually demonstrated | here. Its very hard to interpret from the limited data | presented. There could be a whole host of contaminants, issue | with the experimental setup etc etc. Its hard to go from look | at the interesting material properties in this graph to room | temperature superconductor. This is also the only confirmatory | information we have from the team; their sample didn't show | diamagnetism. | | The reasons to be skeptical are: 1) lot of videos floating | around that are just at the threshold of convincing 2) poor | results from other teams 3) there is a history of | superconductivity discoveries like this that never pan out 4) | skepticism of the original paper | ramesh31 wrote: | >At worst it seems to me like they discovered a cool new | superconductor that may have commercial applications. At best, | they may have a variant of this material that really is a room | temperature superconductor. Either way, there is an important | scientific discovery here. | | I feel like this whole thing is going to be graphene all over | again. A massive initial hype around "world changing tech" that | ends up being very difficult and costly to scale and produce | commercially. | | Probably we'll see some niche applications in industry after a | decade of further refinement, but I'm not holding my breath for | hoverboards any time soon. | EthanHeilman wrote: | > I feel like this whole thing is going to be graphene all | over again. A massive initial hype around "world changing | tech" that ends up being very difficult and costly to scale | and produce commercially. | | That's kinda how science goes. The first free-electron laser | was built in 1971. It took decades to develop and | commercialize free-electron lasers and we still in the early | days. | | It is rare for a single discovery to revolutionize everything | especially in the 21st century. Typically it is a series of | discoveries in a row that taken together allow new processes | and technologies. Each discovery on that road is important. | | The short term impacts of discoveries are overestimated, the | long term impacts are underestimated. | | On a 50-100 year time scale, the perception of graphene may | be very different from what it is now. We are looking at a | tadpole and saying, I thought these eggs were suppose to | hatch into frogs, not tadpoles. | asdfman123 wrote: | I think the rule of thumb, though, is that most things don't | turn out to be viable, and then most viable things are only | barely useful due to constraints. But occasionally they DO | occasionally come up with world-changing technology. | | Dark example, but the atomic bomb for instance was a dramatic | improvement in our capacity to destroy things: night and day | difference. | bilsbie wrote: | Ok not sure how to phrase this: | | Could there be small pieces of RTSC inside the sample (causing | the floating) | | But then enough impurities to not be able to complete a circuit | through the sample? | | And cooling makes other parts of the sample super conducting? | psychphysic wrote: | Could be insulated RTP superconducting crystals, grains, | islands with the bulk being a high temperature superconductor? | bilsbie wrote: | Yes exactly. | overnight5349 wrote: | It seems likely. Given that the copper atoms prefer to form | a non-superconducting material, it makes sense that there | would be regions where the energy is _just right_ to form | the correct structure, and you get the incorrect structure | everywhere else. | | Given the way crystals grow, it then would follow that | you'd get discontinuous crystals or grains within the | material. | | If we're taking bets, my money is on this exact thing | happening. It'd explain the inconsistent results we've seen | so far. | klimt wrote: | This is my first comment on this material, because I've been | skeptical, but this result shouldn't be understated. It basically | confirms the existence of a new family of high-temperature | superconductors, the first of its kind since the cuprates in | 1986. And for context, in the initial paper on the cuprates the | critical temperature was measured to be 36 K. By synthesising | other members of the cuprate family and optimising the growth, it | was possible to raise it to 127 K in the subsequent few years. | The 110 K seen today for LK-99 sets a baseline, and it's a very | good baseline at that. Confirm me as excited. | danpalmer wrote: | > It basically confirms the existence of a new family of high- | temperature superconductors, the first of its kind since the | cuprates in 1986. | | Specifically, it seems, a family based on a novel | superconductivity mechanism. If this a real effect, there's not | only significant scope to improve LK-99 synthesis, but also | scope to find new materials that could use the same mechanism | that operate at even higher temperatures, are easier or cheaper | to produce, or that can move more current. | klimt wrote: | The jump at 250K looks like bad contacts to me that fixed | themselves during cooldown. Rewiring the sample and remeasuring | should get rid of it. The field dependence is indeed a bit | weird. One would expect the critical temperature to reduce with | increasing magnetic field (magnetic field weakens | superconductivity), but here you don't see that. It's expected | that the superconductivity is very strong for such a high | critical temperature and the fields applied are not strong | enough, but with better measurements you should still see a | small reduction in the critical temperature. | 999ms wrote: | TOTK Sky Islands effect is what we're looking for. | blkhp19 wrote: | Shouldn't the title say "above 110 K" ? | bigmattystyles wrote: | 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? | sema2 wrote: | I do find that interesting... I found a graph of another HTSC's | (YBCO) resistance vs temperature [1], and the function is much | more discontinuous looking than the one shown in the article. | That would lead me (someone not at all trained in the physics | of superconductors) to believe that perhaps the purity of the | sample is a factor here, with different parts of the sample | having different critical temperatures, gradually decreasing | resistance until an inflection point is reached at 110K. | | 1. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-electrical- | resistivi... | [deleted] | floxy wrote: | The ResearchGate chart has a linearly scaled y-axis, the | Southeast University chart has a logarithmic scaled y-axis. | consilient wrote: | > (edit) Also is it resistance (aka if I remember my EE degree | correctly), DC only or also impedance where frequency also | matters? | | Just resistance. Impedance in an ideal BCS superconductor goes | roughly as the square of the AC frequency. | weard_beard wrote: | all at once. It instantaneously expels the magnetic field. You | can observe experiments on youtube: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS7gyZJg5nc#t=32m30s | marcosdumay wrote: | It's like freezing water. | | It happens at a single temperature. It doesn't happen at once, | there is a small amount of heat you must take from the material | before it becomes a superconductor. Regions of it become | superconductors on the process, and those grow until the entire | material change. | | After the change, it becomes a stronger (yes, there is such a | thing) superconductor the cooler it gets. | | (Or, at least that's what happens to the kinds I know about. | The thing is complex enough that I wouldn't be too surprised to | learn about one that behaves differently.) | _0ffh wrote: | >After the change, it becomes a stronger (yes, there is such | a thing) superconductor the cooler it gets | | Do you mean the tradeoff between temperature, field strength | and current? Like, if you lower the temperature, the SC will | be able to handle a stronger field or more current in return? | marcosdumay wrote: | Yes. | guywithabowtie wrote: | In the video, it says above 110K and not below, I got confused as | well. I will add that a lot of people are deleting retweeting | this. May be there is something more to it. | threatripper wrote: | It should say "up to 110K". | WinstonSmith84 wrote: | The first comment tells (from the professor talking in that | video): | | > In order not to misunderstand everyone, let me say that it is | below 110K, and 0 resistance is observed at normal pressure. | | Google translation, but I think it's clear that it's below and | not above. At least normal pressure ... that's disappointing | but still an improvement | psychphysic wrote: | I still don't understand what this is saying. | | There was 0 resistance below 110 Kelvin (-165celcius)? | | But not at room temperature? | papercrane wrote: | In their sample they measured no resistance below 110 | Kelvin. After 110 Kelvin resistance increased, although | there was a weird dip in resistance around 225-250K that | they can't explain (maybe instrument error.) | TylerE wrote: | Yes. | | At 110 the resistance is 0.0001 ohms. At the highest point | on the chart, 200k (Still 100 below 0 F) the resistance is | up to 0.1 ohm. | thecopy wrote: | In the Resistance-Temperature graph (https://twitter.com/Lipez4 | 00/status/1686793608626663441/phot...) the resistance starts | increasing from 110K | valine wrote: | What's the explanation for the sudden drop between 230K and | 250K? It's not dropping to zero but something is happening | there. | BasedAnon wrote: | perhaps it's an imperfect synthesis? | jacquesm wrote: | Or perhaps the _other_ sample was an imperfect | synthesis... | tigershark wrote: | It was exactly one of the point that were criticised in the | original paper. I think that the supposed Reddit "expert" | that ridiculed it should really be shamed to apologise to | the authors. And together with him a lot of other people in | various other places on the net. | [deleted] | jacquesm wrote: | Yes, very odd. This may be why the original team believes | they have a superconductor on their hands, but it doesn't | quite get there and _yet_ it does show the Meissner effect | so something doesn 't quite add up yet. | valine wrote: | Original team had 20 years to play the synthesis lottery. | Maybe you tweak the setting just enough and that low | resistance drops to zero. Who knows, I'm still feeling | optimistic. | | He said in the video that their sample was more pure than | the original paper. Would be wild if some impurity is | what pushes it over the edge to a full blown super | conductor. | jacquesm wrote: | They weren't quite playing the lottery as much as they | were taking stacks of tickets and scratching them all off | one by one to find something that looks like it might be | a winner. This was very hard work. 100's or even | thousands of samples. | | > Would be wild if some impurity is what pushes it over | the edge to a full blown super conductor. | | I already mentioned this in another comment, but x-rays | and radioactivity were discovered in that precise way. | rfoo wrote: | Note that the team claiming a zero resistance replicate | at 110K is the same team who said failed to replicate | Meissner a few days ago. In the latest video they still | don't think they have observed Meissner. | jacquesm wrote: | Yes, true, but other teams say they have so it's a bit of | a mixed result. | | But given some time all of that will resolve. Fascinating | to see science at work at this level out in the open. | uj8efdjkfdshf wrote: | The one interesting thing I should note is that synthesis of the | copper phosphide intermediate tends to result in a copper | deficient product, so I wonder if the presence of lattice defects | in this might have an effect on where the copper atoms | intercalate in the lattice. | coryfklein wrote: | Why are all these materials confirmations coming from Chinese | speaking scientists? Do scientists in the US not do materials | science so much? | tigershark wrote: | I guess that you can thank the DEA for this specific case... | username332211 wrote: | What about European or Japanese scientists? And about Korean | scientists not part of the original team? | | The last should also be able to get their hands on a sample | provided by the original team and won't have to do | reproduction attempts, right? | tigershark wrote: | Who told you that they are not attempting the reproduction? | Even US labs are attempting it, some of them explicitly in | the open like the Argonne National Laboratory. Here you can | find a non-comprehensive list of reproduction attempts: | https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/claims-of-room- | tempe... | username332211 wrote: | Oh, so there are finally Korean labs in that list! Last | time there were 1 American, 1 Indian and 5 Chinese labs | which I thought very weird. Hopefully the Korean labs can | get an original sample. | xdennis wrote: | The Drug Enforcement Administration? What does that have to | do with physics? | anabab wrote: | This is probably about the fact that red phosphorus | (required for the original process) cannot be purchased | without a license (https://nitter.net/andrewmccalip/status/ | 1684191067477004288#...), so kitchen chemists are out of | the race. Established labs should have less problems | though. | norturnn wrote: | [dead] | carabiner wrote: | 996 culture | hiddencost wrote: | US does fine; likely in less of a rush to be first-past-the- | post on announcing results. When the big US labs announce, they | will likely be more careful and vetted and authoritative. | SamPatt wrote: | As I understand it, this is strong evidence of this being a novel | new superconductor, but not at room temperature. | | That's still TBD but hasn't been replicated by anyone reputable | yet. | ugh123 wrote: | The linked video mentions something about "outer space islands" | in the subtitles. Is that just bad auto-translation or did they | seriously discover something amazing? | coolspot wrote: | They found "islands" of superconductivity on the resistivity | graph. | stonemetal12 wrote: | In American dollars that is -261.67F, a little chilly for room | temp. | declan_roberts wrote: | One point in favor of a novel superconductor material, one | strike against it being a superconductor at room temperature. | azernik wrote: | But on the warm side for a superconductor, and displaying some | weird behavior just below water ice temperatures. | zevv wrote: | https://nitter.net/lipez400/status/1686793608626663441 | QuadrupleA wrote: | 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 exciting and apparently obvious applications that | have everyone so excited? Is it a fusion / tokamak containment | thing, that the cost of cooling current superconducting magnets | is one of the big barriers to net energy generation? | saulrh wrote: | The BIG change is if this supports high magnetic flux | densities, in which case literally everything that depends on | magnetism or magnets or electromagnets gets an order of | magnitude better - ten times as much power per unit of heat | disappeared and ten times as much power per unit of mass or | volume or just ten times more powerful. Remember how battery | energy density increased by a factor of five (nicads -> | lithium-ion) and we suddenly had quadcopters and flashlights | that could burn paper at ten paces and handheld vacuum cleaners | the size of a soda can that could suck pet hair out of shag | carpets and cars running off batteries? Imagine that happening | _again_. | codedokode wrote: | Transporting solar energy from deserts. | ijustlovemath wrote: | Transmission loss is a real and important reason why you can't, | say, cover the Sahara with solar panels to get unlimited free | energy for mainland Europe and Africa (barring all the | logistical challenges of actually pulling something like that | off). This is because you lose a significant amount of energy | just by moving it from one place to another. | | With RTP superconductors, you get near perfect transmission | from the site of energy production to the site of consumption. | You could put wind turbine in remote sections of Montana and | power up Chicago, something which previously would have been | impossible. | nazgulnarsil wrote: | Sahara solar panels were economically viable according to | multiple studies, and there have been some limited plans | made, but it has turned out politically non viable so far. | Transmission losses are smaller than often assumed. | Havoc wrote: | The fact that result seem to be all over the place has me | hopeful. | | If it was just straight up wrong/fraud it wouldn't be playing out | like this. | | Perhaps with some finetuning we'll nail it down. | chaimanmeow wrote: | credibility of LK99 claims is very very high. What are the medium | term practical implications for all these potential applications? | Night_Thastus wrote: | What do you mean? If it's only a superconductor below 110K, | that's not nearly as significant. | jacquesm wrote: | Yes, that's what one team now says: that they have observed | super conductivity and that this happens at a much lower | temperature than the one claimed by the other team. But it is | at ambient pressure and more importantly there are already | multiple confirmations of the Meissner effect at room | temperature. Besides that this experiment shows some really | weird stuff happening at higher temperatures that needs to be | explained. | | So this race is far from run yet. | Q6T46nT668w6i3m wrote: | What confirmations? | ralfd wrote: | Very informal "leaked" confirmations, but that is the | current state: | | https://twitter.com/elsa17z/status/1686763798294593536?s= | 20 | ReptileMan wrote: | 0 applications out of the door but huge leap for material | science. And some of the best and brightest people will look | for something deep there. | BasedAnon wrote: | increased geopolitical tension | jacquesm wrote: | That is an interesting observation and puts words to some | thoughts that I've had: if it turns out that this is 'the | real thing' and the patent holds up South Korea is suddenly a | superpower. | roboror wrote: | IP laws--should any even apply--won't prevent any state | from using this material should the claims be proven true. | jacquesm wrote: | Of course it won't. But then I predict that there will be | a massive impact on IP laws as a construct. Because this | is the one that counts, if they don't work here they're | doomed. | dralley wrote: | Depends. This feels a bit like the Wright Brothers | patenting wing warping. It's possible that innovation will | happen so quickly that the original patents become | worthless. | | Frankly there is also zero chance that the patents are | respected by all parties (i.e. China), regardless. | jacquesm wrote: | Yes, that is a definite possibility. | brookst wrote: | I don't think you can patent a material, just the methods | you use to produce it. And if this is the real thing, there | are probably dramatically more efficient ways to produce | than this first step. | jacquesm wrote: | I don't think you should be able to, but there is this | story that I read a while ago that makes it seem like you | can: | | https://www.nature.com/articles/35003008 | mjh2539 wrote: | That doesn't follow at all. Lead and copper aren't | exclusive to South Korea. The authors get prestige and the | owners of whatever patents are granted get some money. | montecarl wrote: | Carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfur | make up the bulk of organic molecules and plenty of those | are covered by world wide patents (drugs). | jacquesm wrote: | Of course they aren't. But patent owners get to set the | terms under which their patents are licensed. It's not | like the record business where there is a fixed deal and | if you use someone's lyrics you know up front what it is | going to cost you. Someone might not even want to do | business with you at all... | consilient wrote: | > But patent owners get to set the terms under which | their patents are licensed | | To private entities, sure. The US government can and will | force you to grant them a license if necessary. | jacquesm wrote: | Yes, except that's the US government and the inventors | here are in South Korea. I don't think the US would get | away with declaring 'eminent domain' over something | invented in a different country. They could choose to | simply not honor the patent but that will open a massive | can of worms, especially because a lot of this stuff | depends on reciprocity: if your government doesn't honor | our key patents, why should we do the reverse? | distortionfield wrote: | It seems more and more like it's credible, but that synthesis | is going to prove to be the issue. All these repro attempts are | having too much success for there to be nothing behind the | team's claims. | ianburrell wrote: | We also don't know its critical field strength. The original | measurement from Korea was low. That could improve as they | improve synthesis, but could be problem with the material. | There are lots of high temperature superconductors that | aren't useful; YBCO is important because of high field | strength and liquid nitrogen coooling. | | I'm sure there are lots of uses for low current room- | temperature superconductor. But powerful magnets and long- | distance power transmission require large currents and big | magnetic fields. | Q6T46nT668w6i3m wrote: | Credible? Their claim was "room-temperature | superconductivity." | meepmorp wrote: | It looks like they've at least discovered a novel high | temperature (relatively speaking), low pressure | superconductor. That does lend some credibility to the | original claim, and perhaps reproduction of the result is | trickier than originally thought. | Q6T46nT668w6i3m wrote: | There's a Grand Canyon sized chasm between creating a | "low pressure superconductor" and creating a room- | temperature superconductor and, unfortunately, Evel | Knievel wasn't a co-author. | monkeynotes wrote: | Can you explain why -160c is a measure of success when the | claim was room temperature? A super conductor functioning at | -160c would make MRIs simpler, but it's not world changing. | ianburrell wrote: | I don't think -160C would change much since it would still | need cryogenic cooling. Liquid nitrogen is the most common | and cheapest cryogenic. YBCO is liquid nitrogen cooled and | has the advantage that can make in large quantities and has | high field strengths. | | But if it was slightly warmer, over -153C, then it could | use non-cryogenic refrigerants. | BasedAnon wrote: | because it's a very unexpected result, it shouldn't be | levitating at room temperature and the random drop in | resistance at certain temperatures doesn't make sense | floxy wrote: | Does anyone know what S.R. Hadden has been up to lately? | A new high-temperature superconductor seems like the | perfect cover story for a fraud scheme around room | temperature superconductors. | meindnoch wrote: | Start shorting power companies. | kaibee wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox | NickM wrote: | Hypothetically, if we did end up with a worldwide | superconducting energy grid, this would smooth load, which I | would expect would make generation cheaper (since we can get | rid of the need for expensive peaker plants and/or stationary | storage requirements to handle local demand spikes). This | would therefore make power companies more profitable, no? | ceejayoz wrote: | Probably depends on the power company. | | The ones with a lot of coal plans would suffer; the ones | with a bunch of solar/wind farms in prime locations that | can dramatically expand capacity (think things like giant | solar farms in the Australian outback) would benefit. | hadlock wrote: | HVDC and HVAC transmission lines already only see single | digit transmission losses over hundreds of miles | | This has bigger implications in reducing wiring (and | weight) costs in things like electric vehicles. Instead | of fat finger diameter 20' copper cables, you could | replace them with tooth floss. | ceejayoz wrote: | > HVDC and HVAC transmission lines already only see | single digit transmission losses over hundreds of miles | | Quite a bit of the world is _thousands_ of miles from | sunlight at any particular time. Being able to power | Northern Europe off solar farms in the Sahara has the | potential to fix a number of challenges with green | energy. | 1attice wrote: | upvoted for the latent pun | floxy wrote: | Looks like it still goes superconducting at a magnetic field of 9 | Tesla. Does that seem like a really high critical field? | klimt wrote: | YBCO which has a critical temperature of around 90K has a | critical field in excess of 250T. So 9T is not expected to | weaken superconductivity much for a sample with a critical | temperature of 110K. | e63f67dd-065b wrote: | The actual video is here: | https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1pM4y1p7u5 | | They synthesised 6 samples, only one of which exhibited zero | resistance at below 110K. They had another sample which had | almost zero resistance as temperature decreased, which led them | to the final sample, which their XRD showed as even purer than | the Korean sample (whatever that means). | | Basically, results are inconclusive, but it's promising. | [deleted] | manav wrote: | good not great. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-08-02 23:00 UTC)