https://old.reddit.com/r/LK99/comments/1665l8p/lk99_verification_committee_there_is_no_case_of/ jump to content my subreddits edit subscriptions * popular * -all * -random * -users | * AskReddit * -gaming * -pics * -funny * -worldnews * -mildlyinteresting * -news * -todayilearned * -movies * -explainlikeimfive * -LifeProTips * -TwoXChromosomes * -tifu * -OldSchoolCool * -videos * -dataisbeautiful * -science * -Jokes * -aww * -books * -Music * -Showerthoughts * -DIY * -space * -Futurology * -IAmA * -askscience * -sports * -GetMotivated * -nosleep * -food * -nottheonion * -UpliftingNews * -history * -gadgets * -gifs * -WritingPrompts * -announcements * -InternetIsBeautiful * -philosophy * -Documentaries * -photoshopbattles * -EarthPorn * -creepy * -listentothis * -blog more >> reddit.com LK99 * comments Want to join? Log in or sign up in seconds.| * English [ ][] [ ]limit my search to r/LK99 use the following search parameters to narrow your results: subreddit:subreddit find submissions in "subreddit" author:username find submissions by "username" site:example.com find submissions from "example.com" url:text search for "text" in url selftext:text search for "text" in self post contents self:yes (or self:no) include (or exclude) self posts nsfw:yes (or nsfw:no) include (or exclude) results marked as NSFW e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog see the search faq for details. advanced search: by author, subreddit... this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023 75 points (93% upvoted) shortlink: [https://redd.it/1665] [ ][ ] [ ]remember mereset password login Submit a new link Submit a new text post Get an ad-free experience with special benefits, and directly support Reddit. get reddit premium LK99 joinleave9,315 readers 166 users here now a community for 1 month MODERATORS * message the mods discussions in r/LK99 <> X 97 * 73 comments [H-IyLQnm] [Article] The inventors of the superconductor LK-99 say it works and they will prove it 72 * 34 comments [4790hYzH] LK-99 Verification Committee: "There is no case of superconductivity in four domestic reproduction experiments" 9 * 9 comments [ooTcLiRz] [Speculation] Professor Luo Tianyong: "95% sure of room temperature superconductivity phase" 6 * 12 comments Correcting the fatal flaw in BCS theory 0 * 8 comments The Red Pill or the Blue Pill?: A decision you must make. 2 * 1 comment China's Central South University: New and improved LK-99 replication attempt 93 * 7 comments [p0K99MMN] Believe 6 * 3 comments When is the release from Q Centre making an announcement? 18 * 12 comments [Rumor] Deleted post on Korean forum states a Korean Lab announced LK-99 replication at annual symposium and offers free samples 0 * 6 comments Comment on: The interpretation of room-temperature superconductivity experiments in LK-99 Welcome to Reddit, the front page of the internet. Become a Redditor and join one of thousands of communities. x 74 75 76 [4790hYzH] LK-99 Verification Committee: "There is no case of superconductivity in four domestic reproduction experiments" (self.LK99) submitted 1 day ago by Gainz187 Breakdown from Zhihu Google translation as always The LK-99 Verification Committee of the Korean Superconducting Cryogenic Society stated on the 31st that there were no cases showing superconducting properties in the 'LK-99' replica experiments conducted by four domestic research institutions. The verification committee announced in a written briefing on the same day that the LK-99 reproduction was carried out by four institutions including the Seoul National University Complex State Research Group, Hanyang University High Pressure Research Institute, Pusan National University Quantum Matter Research Laboratory, and Pohang University of Science and Technology Department of Physics research team. The experimental results are as described above. There are eight structures that participated in the re-engraving before. In addition to the above four, there are also Kyung Hee University Energy Materials Quantum Properties Laboratory, Korea University Superconducting Materials and Application Laboratory, Sungkyunkwan University Quantum Material Superconducting Research Center, Sungkyunkwan University Electronic Active Energy Materials Laboratory. The four agencies have yet to submit their reports, and the results are not yet known. According to the verification committee, the research teams at Seoul National University, Hanyang University, and Pusan National University prepared samples according to the LK-99 preparation method proposed in the paper, but exhibited characteristics close to insulators or with a certain resistance. The Pohang University of Science and Technology research team chose an independent process for making LK-99 single crystals, and the verification committee said that insulator properties also appeared. The High Pressure Research Institute of Hanyang University made a reproduced sample according to the preparation method in the LK-99 paper, and confirmed that it is similar to LK-99 in composition and characteristics. According to the institute, this shows similar results to papers published by India's CSIR National Institute of Physics and China's Nanyang University. However, according to the institute's explanation, although there are cases of sharp changes in resistance, the resistivity is still at the level of 103O*cm, which is closer to an insulator than a conductor. Magnetic susceptibility also exhibits different properties than superconductors. Replica sample from Hanyang University The Seoul National University Composite State Research Group prepared a reproduced sample according to the preparation method of the LK-99 paper, but it is said that its crystal structure is somewhat different from that of LK-99. Seoul National University stated that the prepared sample showed a trend of increasing the resistivity by 5 to 10 times when the temperature dropped, and the magnetic susceptibility measurement results showed that the overall only showed weak semi-diamagnetic characteristics. Replica sample from Seoul National University The Quantum Matter Laboratory of Pusan National University also produced samples based on the preparation method of the LK-99 paper, but slightly changed the synthesized precursor composition ratio and synthesized two different reproduction samples. Specifically, they adjusted the ratios of Pb2(SO4)O and Cu3P to 5:6 (first rendition sample) and 6:6 (second rendition sample), respectively. The resistivity measurement results of the first synthesized sample showed that it exhibits semiconductor properties at low temperatures, and a resistance change was observed in the range of 150~180K (minus 123degC~minus 93degC), but it was not considered to be due to superconductivity. resistance decreases. The laboratory said additional measurements and analyzes on the second synthetic sample are ongoing. Pusan National University Sample A research team from Pohang Institute of Technology's Department of Physics prepared a single crystal through a different process than the one used in the paper. The results showed that the single-crystal sample exhibited insulator properties, consistent with results published by Germany's Max Planck Institute, the verification committee said. The validation committee stated that once the properties of a single crystal are accurately understood, other phenomena that arise can be considered properties caused by impurities. In addition, the verification committee also stated: "As foreign reproduction experimental research results show, the characteristics of samples prepared by different research institutions vary greatly. Each research institution prepares as many samples as possible through different methods and conducts measurements, which will result in to help draw conclusions." Pohang Institute of Technology's single crystal Afterwards, at the Society's Summer Academic Conference on the 23rd of last month, LK-99 held a private seminar and announced that one or two other places had expressed interest in conducting experimental research on the reproduction of LK-99. The verification committee will announce the information of the relevant research institutions after confirmation. 4 domestic universities going to verify LK-99 "Unable to discover superconductivity" LK-99 Verification Committee "There is no case of superconductivity in four domestic reproduction experiments" https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/653411006 * 34 comments * share * save * hide * report all 34 comments sorted by: best topnewcontroversialoldrandomq&alive (beta) [ ] Want to add to the discussion? Post a comment! Create an account [-]RomulanToyStory 19 points20 points21 points 1 day ago (3 children) Interestingly, no mention of the original sample(s) the Korean team supposedly sent to the verification committee I would have thought they'd analyse those first, so I'm wondering if they actually sent them * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]TheCoolestGuy098 1 point2 points3 points 6 hours ago (2 children) They've been real quiet save for a couple extra vague papers, so they probably never sent a sample out. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]LetsTryNewThingsGuys 0 points1 point2 points 33 minutes ago (1 child) * they got CIA'd * they know the real deal and they shared fake data to spread confusion and decoy people away from the solution Interesting isn't it? * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]TheCoolestGuy098 0 points1 point2 points 16 minutes ago (0 children) Huh? Now you're just making things up. I know the CIA can cover up (at least initially) stuff they did, but you can't just baselessly claim the CIA did something. If we do that with everything, then the CIA is the reason my credit cards maxed out. Kinda stupid right? * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]back-stabbath 24 points25 points26 points 1 day ago (21 children) For those that would say 'the LK-99 paper left out important preparation details, so everyone's testing the wrong structure'. Even if that was true, doesn't that make these guys villains? Look at all the wasted effort they could have prevented * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]dizekat 4 points5 points6 points 1 day ago* (0 children) I think this is just a bullshit cop-out, anyway. It's a theory that instead of fabricating the data (or just screwing up measurements), they secretly fabricated a real superconductor using a secret recipe, and used it instead of the non superconductor produced from their published recipe, to make an equally fraudulent (or, if unintentional, erroneous) claim that their published recipe results in a superconductor. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Gainz187[S] 2 points3 points4 points 1 day ago (19 children) doesn't that make these guys villains? Not really. Its like if someone gave me an incomplete recipe to cook them their perfect meal, I can either choose to spend hours/days/weeks/years trying to replicate it or I can promptly tell them to piss off and come back with the full recipe. Also RTSC is a big deal, so it kinda does make sense that they would keep some details hidden, like other trade secrets. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]colintbowers 12 points13 points14 points 1 day ago (7 children) It depends where you publish. If you are publishing in a respected academic journal it is absolutely expected that you give clear and complete steps for replication. Now I'm not saying everyone does this - I've encountered plenty of papers in my own field where steps of a proof are skipped over and you're left scratching your head and wasting hours trying to work out what the hell they did. But this sort of situation is definitely frowned upon, and peer review is supposed to ask for revisions from those who aren't clear and complete in their material. If you are publishing in a patent application, then yes, absolutely, you leave out details and just put in the bare minimum. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]dizekat 2 points3 points4 points 1 day ago* (5 children) If you are publishing in a patent application, then yes, absolutely, you leave out details and just put in the bare minimum. Eh, in patent applications you are supposed to do a sufficient disclosure as well. Especially see Undue experimentation Under the patent law in the United States, the enablement requirement is not satisfied, if a person having "ordinary skill in the art" (PHOSITA) of the invention cannot make and use the invention without undue experimentation I don't know about Korea but in the US their patent would be invalid on the grounds that its not possible to actually create the claimed invention from information in the patent. Now unlike scientific papers, this is just something where if they had a real superconductor and concealed details in the patent they would risk losing billions of dollars by having no valid patent at all. edit: also, note that while unimportant patents and patents on non working inventions that nobody cares about could (and do) get away with total bullshit, if they actually invented a superconductor, insufficiently describing it in a patent would be a really silly gamble with nothing to win but billions of dollars to lose. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]colintbowers 1 point2 points3 points 1 day ago (4 children) Yeah fair point - I agree you still definitely want to satisfy legal obligations. In my field though, for methods that have both an academic paper and a patent (on the same method), the academic paper tends to be significantly more thorough. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]dizekat 0 points1 point2 points 20 hours ago (3 children) Agreed on patents being shit in general comparing to papers. Requirements only come into play if there's a legal dispute. I think with a room temperature superconductor, if there's no superconductor, there's simply no need to comply with any requirements because nobody is going to ever try to invalidate your patent. All you need is to get it granted so that you can show it to the investors. If anything the investors probably would think that the more vague it is the better, less risk that someone alters the recipe a bit to avoid the patent. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]colintbowers 1 point2 points3 points 19 hours ago (2 children) All you need is to get it granted so that you can show it to the investors Haha yep, that's the key :-) * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]dizekat 1 point2 points3 points 19 hours ago (1 child) In all seriousness tho I think someone who had discovered a room temperature superconductor would've listed exact steps they took to make it, in the patent (as an example of specific values, along with broad ranges). It's one thing to fuck around if you know you haven't invented anything of value, it's another thing to fuck around with a multi billion dollar invention. edit: hell the levitating toys alone would be a multi billion dollar market. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]colintbowers 1 point2 points3 points 18 hours ago (0 children) Yeah I agree that is a fair take. Room temp superconductor really is a special case. A lot of the patents I'm thinking of were dubious that they should have even been granted. A lot of corollaries of prior art... * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]D33X-R3X -1 points0 points1 point 20 hours ago (0 children) The thing is, if you don't disclose exactly what you're patenting (like the case of broken stoichiometric formula) then it's literally useless when someone reproduces and claim ownership. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Impressive-Fig3723 11 points12 points13 points 1 day ago (7 children) If you want to publish something you are supposed to give enough details so that others can replicate everything you did. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [+]Gainz187[S] comment score below threshold-7 points-6 points-5 points 1 day ago (6 children) I mean, they did, since some have had partial success. Also remember that the original paper was leaked by a disgruntled worker. But like I said, if this was about anything else I would completely agree with you but because this is about a RTSC it kinda changes things. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]magneticanisotropy 10 points11 points12 points 1 day ago (5 children) because this is about a RTSC it kinda changes things. No, RTSC papers don't magically get to ignore scientific ethics in publishing. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Gainz187[S] 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago (4 children) They havent publised a full paper though, thats my point in all this. Am I correct in thinking that posting a paper on arxiv isnt "publishing", yes? As in publishing means submitted for peer review? * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]dizekat 6 points7 points8 points 1 day ago (2 children) Didn't you have it pointed out to you a dozen times by now that they published in a Korean journal of crystal growth and technology? Months before this whole "ohh someone leaked we had to rush our version" excuse? * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Gainz187[S] 1 point2 points3 points 1 day ago (1 child) Nope, my bad. Ok, so it went through peer review and was accepted yes? * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]dizekat 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago (0 children) Yeah, although that isn't exactly Nature. For what it's worth I think the reason nobody confirmed superconductivity is simply that it isn't superconductive. They didn't describe anything about Cu2S (and handwaved away the sulfur), and yet Cu2S resistance drop was re-created by other labs. Same would've happened to LK-99 itself if it was superconductive. They could and should have given a much better account of how they made their sample, but that they didn't shouldn't give you any hope. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Exarctus 4 points5 points6 points 1 day ago (0 children) Your assumption here is based on faith in the original authors. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]Open-Tea-8706 1 point2 points3 points 15 hours ago (0 children) In Synthesis it doesn't matter if you have incomplete recipe. Heck even if there was no recipe people would have figured out synthetic route to create the LK99. Unlike in cooking in chemistry we have something called sample characterization, if the sample composition and structure reported in paper is correct then which synthetic route is taken to create LK99 is immaterial as long as the structure created by different routes have the same structure and characterization. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]DamnDirtyApe8472 0 points1 point2 points 20 hours ago (0 children) Or if I go to price a kitchen,or windows, or such,and provide drawings for the estimate, If I smell bullshit I might put the wrong measurements on the drawings I give the customer. Just in case. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]nyl2k8 1 point2 points3 points 1 day ago (0 children) Looks like we're not back guys. Chin up. We'll get 'em next time. * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]illerrrrr 2 points3 points4 points 1 day ago (0 children) We so over guys * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]rodrigofernety 1 point2 points3 points 1 day ago (0 children) we lost * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]Broboy55 4 points5 points6 points 1 day ago (0 children) It's simply not a super conductor * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]Fi3nd7 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago (1 child) This is such a massive embarrassment to the scientific community, going on this massive treasure hunt over bad science * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]D33X-R3X -1 points0 points1 point 20 hours ago (0 children) Yeah, they should have look that the stoichiometry was broken and said fuck off. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]IvarrDaishin 0 points1 point2 points 13 hours ago (2 children) STOP USING GOOGLE instead of something like CHATGPT jesus christ * permalink * embed * save * report * give award * reply [-]Warron24 0 points1 point2 points 3 hours ago* (1 child) ChatGPT isn't a better translator. It makes the text more readable by imitating English text it's seen before. But without actually understanding the original text it doesn't really know if the tone is right or if the colloquialisms it's inserting in actually fit. Your replacing something that sounds really clunky with something that sounds good but might be dead wrong. * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply [-]IvarrDaishin 0 points1 point2 points 32 minutes ago (0 children) It's still literally better than google translate... * permalink * embed * save * parent * report * give award * reply * about * blog * about * advertising * careers * help * site rules * Reddit help center * reddiquette * mod guidelines * contact us * apps & tools * Reddit for iPhone * Reddit for Android * mobile website * <3 * reddit premium * reddit coins Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. (c) 2023 reddit inc. All rights reserved. REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc. [pixel] p Rendered by PID 32 on reddit-service-r2-loggedout-76df78c568-qhpbk at 2023-09-01 23:01:57.491944+00:00 running b7a57a3 country code: US.