[HN Gopher] The first room-temperature ambient-pressure supercon...
___________________________________________________________________
The first room-temperature ambient-pressure superconductor?
Author : Akronymus
Score : 734 points
Date : 2023-07-25 16:14 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arxiv.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (arxiv.org)
| mepian wrote:
| Is "Quantum Energy Research Centre, Inc." a well-known
| institution in its field?
| mynameisbob wrote:
| It doesn't need to be well known IMO. It just needs to be
| legitimate and by appearances it is given it is part of a major
| SK university.
| obblekk wrote:
| The method to produce this material as described in the related
| paper [1] is fairly simple and could be done at home with a $200
| home metal melting furnace from amazon and the precursors (which
| also seem to be fairly standard easy to obtain metals).
|
| If this is real, I'd expect some smart people from hackaday /
| youtube to reproduce this within weeks if not days.
|
| If this is real, it'll change society quickly and permanently for
| the better. There's obvious wins in energy transportation and
| even generation, but actually having a room temperature
| superconductor is likely to result in an explosion of engineering
| use cases. It will be like the discovery of lithium ion which
| slowly transformed the use of energy throughout society, but
| faster.
|
| Hopefully it repros.
|
| [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.12037.pdf page 3
| quux wrote:
| Looking forward to the inevitable Nile Red & Applied Science
| videos
| VMG wrote:
| Please don't blow the lead smoke over to your neighbors house
| though
| Roark66 wrote:
| Seriously, people should stop panicking about lead that much.
| You know there is this fairly common hobby people have, it's
| called casting bullets. With lead. I've done it, I know many
| people that do it regularly and they're all fine.
|
| Furthermore, shooting ranges are full of lead in the ground.
| The laws around here(Poland) require a cleanup by specialised
| companies every few years and a concrete slab to separate the
| lead/soil mix from the groundwater near the targets, but
| still there are tons of the stuff just sitting there for
| years and no one gets hurt. Fun fact. These specialised
| cleanup companies don't cost anything for big ranges. They're
| either free, or they pay the shooting club that owns the
| range money, because the lead they recover is worth a lot.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| Yes lead in the ground isn't all that scary. Lead in your
| body is a concern.
|
| So don't blow lead smoke over your neighbors house.
| guerrilla wrote:
| > it'll change society quickly
|
| True.
|
| > and permanently for the better.
|
| You can't know that.
| lazide wrote:
| Are you saying superconducting railguns could possibly cause
| problems?!?
| post-it wrote:
| They could only cause problems solvable by more
| superconducting railguns, so they're a net zero at worst.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _could only cause problems solvable by more
| superconducting railguns_
|
| If the projectile is ferromagnetic, or potentially even
| just diamagnetic, a defense system involving shaped
| ultra-high intensity magnetic fields becomes conceivable.
| Arrath wrote:
| Hopefully they don't cause solar system wide loss of
| consciousness events.
| p1mrx wrote:
| When you activate the city shield, all your buildings
| become projectiles.
| carabiner wrote:
| I believe ultrafast capacitors for high-energy lasers
| would be possible. Most likely some type of laser gatling
| gun configuration.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Ok, let me just add the obvious disclaimer: don't try this
| yourself unless you have a pretty good understanding of
| chemical lab safety.
|
| Really.
|
| It's more likely that you will contaminate your land, and
| possibly your neighbors land too than that you will manage to
| replicate it.
| [deleted]
| hinkley wrote:
| What do you suppose the odds are that there's a Tin-based
| compound instead of lead based?
|
| (Which would effectively make a bizarre form of brass a
| superconductor)
| marcosdumay wrote:
| I doubt this one chemistry will be all that useful on
| practice. But after people understand it, I expect them to
| recreate the effect with completely different components,
| not on just slightly different ones.
| m463 wrote:
| Yes, but chernobyl produced a lot of useful electricity (at
| first)
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| It's more likely that you are confusing lead and Sarin.
| Maxion wrote:
| You need a furnace that can hold a vacuum, though.
| MisterTea wrote:
| Those are easy to make.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _need a furnace that can hold a vacuum_
|
| Here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icniCydn_kE
| overnight5349 wrote:
| In the paper, they sealed the material in a quartz ampuole
| under vacuum.
|
| I wouldn't call it an easy process, but it's achievable
| without highly specialized equipment. Just a torch and a
| vacuum pump.
| local_issues wrote:
| There's a surprising number of them around. I think the
| bottleneck for quick repro will be mat sci people, not
| equipment.
| swagmoney1606 wrote:
| Does anyone in the twin cities area want to pair up and try to
| make this? Might be a fun group project.
| valine wrote:
| I'd be down. Shoot me an email: hn@valine.io
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Is the superconductivity present in the powder? Or does it
| require vapor deposition?
|
| If the latter, it implies a cloth versus fibre topology, which
| forces an interesting rethink of many paradigms forced by the
| ductility of our present conductors.
| dudley96 wrote:
| its been 4 months since they first synthesized it !
| shadowgovt wrote:
| If manufacturable at scale, does this allow for MRI machines that
| could operate without perpetual consumption of liquid helium?
| willis936 wrote:
| And potentially reduce the cost of fusion reactors by tens of
| percent.
| sigy wrote:
| Yes
| maccam912 wrote:
| As someone who knows more about words than superconductors,
| gentle correction in case it is an actual misunderstanding
| instead of misspeaking, but a correctly running MRI shouldn't
| ever CONSUME the liquid helium, it would recycle as much as
| possible.
|
| But as a newly self-proclaimed expert on superconductors as
| well, yeah this would probably help MRIs. My understanding is
| that the reason for superconductors in MRIs is so that the
| wires doing the electricity stuff don't interfere with the
| small electrical responses from the tissue it's measuring.
| Without resistance, you don't get magnetic fields around the
| wires or something.
| Turing_Machine wrote:
| Liquid helium is very sneaky stuff. Sure, they try to keep it
| in as much as they can (it's expensive!) but it's gonna leak
| eventually. A quick web search indicates that MRIs in common
| use lose 1-6% of their helium per month.
| eig wrote:
| A sister paper [0] has a photo of the material exhibiting the
| Meisner effect and levitating over a magnet, and claims to have a
| video too.
|
| Either they blatantly photoshopped the photo or they actually
| made a room temperature super conductor. I can't see how the
| could have made a subtle mistake that resulted in magnetic
| levitation at room temp without making a superconductor.
|
| [0] - https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12037
| ahlCVA wrote:
| This seems to be the corresponding video (linked in the
| associated media tab on arXiv):
| https://sciencecast.org/casts/suc384jly50n
| tinco wrote:
| Is there an alternative explanation possible for the video?
| Couldn't it just be a magnetized piece of ferrite that is
| magnetized in a weird way causing it to lift up like that on
| a strong magnet?
| swagmoney1606 wrote:
| Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtVjGWpbE7k
|
| I really need someone to bring me down a notch. This is too
| exciting!
| megaman821 wrote:
| What material and setup could even fake that result?
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Photoshop.
|
| On reality, you would need a good computer with a large set
| of sound emitters just outside of the screen and a huge lot
| of tries. It would be a project for a small team and many
| months of work.
|
| Or maybe a few transparent wires and less photoshop.
|
| I do think the easiest way to fake a video like that would
| be to use a cool superconductor and change the atmosphere
| so nobody notices its temperature.
| XorNot wrote:
| Complicated fakes wouldn't masquerade as scientific
| papers though. The FTL neutrino comes to mind, where it
| turned out to be a misconnected fiber optic cable - but
| everyone involved was genuine.
|
| The bits and pieces of this certainly look like little
| are being genuine, so the new question is what non-
| obvious mistake could they be making?
| RivieraKid wrote:
| And why fake it in the first place? I don't see the
| benefit.
| bilsbie wrote:
| Simply using a lower temperature with a known SC would be
| an easy way.
|
| He should hold it in his hand for 10 seconds before the
| test.
| foota wrote:
| A fan?
| stronglikedan wrote:
| It would be very hard to fake the locking effect at 0:08
| and 0:18 (and a few more times) with a fan.
| lilgreenland wrote:
| Well normal copper does this in presence of a strong
| magnet. I don't think we are seeing superconductivity, just
| regular copper Meissner effect. Super conductive would
| frame lock the copper. right?
| megaman821 wrote:
| Eddy currents have a dampening effect. I am not expert
| enough to say we aren't seeing that here, but it looks
| different to me.
| giarc wrote:
| They specifically act in a way to rule out fakes. For
| example they turn the magnet around to show that there are
| no small wires connecting the edges. They start and stop
| many times, they move in different directions. They knew
| the video would be watched with the default mind set that
| it is fake.
| chris_va wrote:
| A moving magnetic field will move around any conductor, it
| doesn't have to be superconducting. A better video would be
| nice.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| But it wouldn't lock the target in place when they stop,
| which is what this video demonstrates very well. The
| conductor would move towards the magnet and try to stick
| to it.
| floxy wrote:
| >The conductor would move towards the magnet and try to
| stick to it.
|
| No, only ferromagnetic material would behave like that.
| Copper foil will also move in a moving magnetic field,
| and won't be attracted to a stationary magnet.
| jdiff wrote:
| > But it wouldn't lock the target in place when they stop
| eig wrote:
| That's not the video I'm referring to. It is a different
| experiment from Fig 4b in the paper, which is showing
| magnetic levitation.
|
| I agree with swamp40: the video you linked is not
| demonstrating the Meissner effect, and is just showing Lenz's
| law.
| swamp40 wrote:
| The video text says: "The sample was thermally deposited on a
| copper plate."
|
| The video headline says: "Magnetic Property Test of LK-99
| Film".
|
| That's how copper acts with a moving super magnet[0], so the
| video doesn't really show anything.
|
| [0] https://youtu.be/KrH3t1H6fOc?t=50
| pengaru wrote:
| The video shows that this is all bollocks
| floxy wrote:
| This is the better video:
|
| https://sciencecast.org/casts/suc384jly50n
| mikewarot wrote:
| I don't see anything special in that video, you're using eddy
| currents to exert forces on a conductive material. It wasn't
| levitating.
|
| Given the apparent size/strength of the magnets, you could
| probably replicate that with a silver coin
| XorNot wrote:
| That video isn't very convincing. The usual test is that the
| material can float above the magnet.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| solarmist wrote:
| The effect is weak, but seeing that it behaves the same by
| flipping the magnet means that it can't be a standard
| magnet like we're used to seeing. (If I understood some of
| the other comments correctly).
|
| Other comments.
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36867758
| lilgreenland wrote:
| Copper does this already. It's not like ferromagnets.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sENgdSF8ppA
| solarmist wrote:
| In the video, it's when they stop moving the magnet, it
| maintains its position, neither repelling nor attracting.
|
| Several physicists have spoken up and said this, and a
| few other tells distinguishes it from any conventional
| materials, which is why they made the video to begin with
| I'm sure.
|
| That said I'm just parroting back the things I've picked
| up from this discussion.
| piyh wrote:
| Unmoving copper also neither repels or attracts a magnet.
| Eddy currents impede movement of non ferrous metals in a
| static magnetic field. This looks like slow motion
| falling or resistance to spinning when the metal is in a
| fixed field. This is how auto belays work.
|
| If you move the magnet, the metal will also move since
| you're inducing a current and the fields from the eddy
| currents will react against the moving magnet.
| solarmist wrote:
| > This is how auto belays work.
|
| That is super cool!
|
| That said, I'm enough of a layman not to be able to
| connect this explanation to what I saw in the video.
|
| Are you saying because it wasn't moving in "slow motion,"
| we can rule out non-ferrous metals? Or are you saying the
| alternating movement/stillness of the magnet shows this?
| lilgreenland wrote:
| When does the hanging copper maintain a position in the
| video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtVjGWpbE7k
|
| All I see is the normal dampening and dragging effects
| that I show in my physics classroom.
| solarmist wrote:
| As I've said, I'm fuzzy on the details, so I'm relying on
| the expertise of the physicists here.
|
| I can tell it doesn't react to a magnet in ways that I'm
| familiar with (copper, iron, other magnets), but that's
| all the detail I can tell from the video.
| [deleted]
| carabiner wrote:
| If this enables monopole magnets?
| solarmist wrote:
| That's one tell. There are several tells that, in
| combination, mark it as a super conductor.
|
| But I'm just parroting back what the physicists in the
| thread have shared, so I might have some details wrong.
| floxy wrote:
| This is the better video:
|
| https://sciencecast.org/casts/suc384jly50n
| jacquesm wrote:
| Indeed, this will change pretty much everything if true. A
| true room temperature / ambient pressure superconductor will
| cause a revolution in so many fields that I find it hard to
| believe. But if... Let's wait for replication before throwing
| a party. This is on par with the discovery of the transistor
| and possibly bigger.
| colechristensen wrote:
| Superconductors have a current limit above which they are
| no longer superconductors. It is possible that a room
| temperature superconductor could be created that has a
| limit too low to be of any practical use.
|
| It seems this is worth cautious excitement, but don't get
| too excited yet.
| prewett wrote:
| The abstract says that T_c is 127 C, which should be
| comfortably above room temperature for most of the planet
| jacquesm wrote:
| GP is talking about the current density rather than the
| temperature.
| quux wrote:
| For now...
| tux3 wrote:
| Couldn't we make really thick wires to increase the
| current limit :) ?
|
| After all, there's no need for expensive cooling and the
| material looks reasonably cheap! (assuming it's real, of
| course..)
| jacquesm wrote:
| Let's wait to see what the maximum number of A/cm^2 is
| before determining if that is even necessary.
|
| It's possible that they already normalized the figure,
| and if that's the case then 125 mA/cm^2 would be 'bad
| news' in the sense that even though the temperature and
| pressure are much better than other superconductors the
| critical current is much, much worse. But given the way
| the paper is formulated I'm not sure if that is a proper
| reading and it is very well possible that they are
| talking about a particular thin film sample (which would
| make it a small fraction of a square centimeter in cross
| section) and how much current they passed through that
| sample. In which case the situation would be much better
| already, especially if it turns out that the sample was
| extremely thin and/or narrow.
|
| Too early to tell without more information.
| jychang wrote:
| 250mA at 25 Celsius, according to the paper
| colechristensen wrote:
| Oof, all right then. Perhaps there's room for
| improvement, but there would need to be a lot before this
| is useful/competitive even in lab settings.
|
| For comparison, high temperature superconductors (in this
| context high temperature means tens of degrees kelvin)
| like the recently rather revolutionary ReBCO has critical
| current values measured in hundreds of thousands of amps
| per square centimeter. That would be a factor of a
| million.
| jacquesm wrote:
| It's a thin film according to the article linked, but
| there is no mention of how thin it is (it could be a
| monolayer) and there is no mention of how wide the film
| was so the 250 mA figure can not be used to determine
| whether or not there is 'room for improvement' or even a
| necessity for that (unless it was already normalized, for
| which I see no evidence). The 'Critical current' isn't
| mentioned at all in terms of the cross section of the
| conductor, just as a function of temperature and magnetic
| flux which they _really_ should have provided to be able
| to make sense of the figure. ReBCO is 8 MA / cm^2
| (that's _million_ , not milli), the thin film layer they
| tested with could well be so thin that it is in the same
| ballpark or it could be a small fraction.
|
| This is clearly a very early result and until they have
| more insight into how it works (assuming it really
| works...) we'll have to be patient before we get more
| meaningful figures on the actual current carrying
| capacity of thicker conductors made out of this stuff.
| They were happy enough to be able to prove
| superconductivity at room temperature and normal
| pressure, clearly they are still a ways away from being
| able to line up a comparison with ReBCO with respect to
| current density. But surely that will happen soon if this
| is real.
| jacquesm wrote:
| That needs another element, the cross section of the
| conductor otherwise it is meaningless.
| javajosh wrote:
| Everyone is so excited, and it is exciting, but I guess I don't
| see how this will "change the world". It doesn't seem applicable
| for transmission lines (it's brittle and cannot conduct large
| amounts of current), which is what I would imagine would be the
| biggest world changing thing. Maybe it could make maglev trains a
| more common reality? But we seem to have trouble building trains
| of any sort. If you could use the material for PCB traces you
| could eliminate (a lot?) of heat loss from computing equipment.
| But you're still stuck with Si on the chip itself. You're still
| stuck with high voltage copper power lines.
|
| What, exactly, are the "world changing" applications? Perhaps my
| imagination isn't up to the task of seeing this. What I see is a
| novelty for physics students to levitate magnets without the need
| for liquid nitrogen, and perhaps it will make some quantum
| computing designs more efficient (and therefore render PKI
| obsolete. yay?)
| Mizza wrote:
| I don't see why these transistors are going to be so much
| better than tubes. Okay, so you can make a smaller radio?
| People don't move their radios around all that much anyway.
|
| We don't know what we will know in the future, or else we would
| already know it.
| Meegul wrote:
| I think the excitement around this is partially people
| overestimating the properties of this particular material, but
| also partially people excited that if this is true, the method
| by which it works might result in the discovery of materials
| with even better properties.
|
| Even this paper doesn't claim to have a particularly good
| superconductor as far as overall performance is concerned. It's
| not particularly close to the state of the art in critical
| field or current. But if it does turn out that their hypothesis
| claiming that the internal stress of the material allows it to
| bypass the current need for extremely high pressures / low
| temperatures, then perhaps there can be new materials developed
| that are better superconductors while still overcoming the
| current limitations presented by REBCOs and other leading
| superconductors. Also, that's not even mentioning that LK-99
| has no particularly exotic materials. REBCOs rely on rare earth
| elements like Yttrium, but this just uses lead, copper, and
| phosphorus.
| drbaba wrote:
| > What, exactly, are the "world changing" applications?
|
| Superconducting computing is a big one - even if we stick to
| classical computers (i.e. not quantum computers), there are
| estimates that superconducting computers could be ~1000x more
| energy efficient than state-of-the-art semiconductor computers.
| westurner wrote:
| Room-temperature superconductor:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room-temperature_superconducto...
|
| Superconducting quantum computing:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_quantum_comput...
| inasio wrote:
| - Please check out my paper, we just found a new superconductor,
| it has a critical temperature of 127 degrees.
|
| - Look, I'm a bit busy right now
|
| - Celsius
| mchusma wrote:
| I re-read 127 celsius multiple times to try and make sure I
| understood that (260 Fahrenheit). This is a nice extra bonus,
| not only does this work at "room temperature", it works in
| death valley.
|
| At 127 celsius, you have a lot of margin even over the hottest
| temperatures on earth (which appear to be mostly recognized as
| 56.7 degC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest_temperature_re
| corded_o....
| refulgentis wrote:
| I don't understand, I assume it's a dialogue? What is the
| meaning of the punchline being Celsius? Does the first sentence
| intend to include "room-temperature"?
| [deleted]
| vermarish wrote:
| The joke is, the second person heard 127 degrees, assumed
| that was Kelvin, and dismissed it as unimpressive. Then they
| realized it was 127 degrees Celsius, which is MUCH more
| impressive.
| malnourish wrote:
| The punchline is the temperature was originally presumed to
| be Kelvin.
| kridsdale3 wrote:
| Which business do I invest in assuming this is real and has IP
| protection? It would be like buying Intel in 1971 or getting
| shares in Edison in 1878.
| allenrb wrote:
| If this were true, I would've expected to see it on the front
| page of the New York Times, not hiding in a scientific journal.
|
| Color me skeptical, with a hint of optimism.
| Sharlin wrote:
| That's not how either science or NY Times works. First you
| write the journal article. Then if it's peer-reviewed,
| published and seems otherwise legit, your university writes a
| more layman-friendly press release. If it's something huge,
| they'll probably even arrange a press conference. But they have
| to be pretty darn certain that it's legit because retracting
| something that's already in the wild is very embarrassing.
| _Then_ NY Times may make an article of it.
|
| Science is based on replicability, and you just don't go
| straight to mass media before at least other groups have had a
| chance to replicate your findings. Definitely not when it's
| something this big. Or if you do, your institution will likely
| be incredibly pissed. I'd say that the more careful they are,
| the more slowly and by the book they proceed with this, the
| _more_ , not less, likely it is that this is a real deal.
| eterevsky wrote:
| It's a preprint. Also, NYT doesn't publish scientific papers.
| floxy wrote:
| >If this were true, I would've expected to see it on the front
| page of the New York Times
|
| Welcome to the information age my friend! Where you can know
| things before the gatekeepers do.
| bilsbie wrote:
| You have a lot of faith in the New York Times to know what's
| important.
| xsmasher wrote:
| Isn't that what Pons and Fleischmann did, calling a press
| conference? Going through review and publication first seems
| more prudent.
| fulafel wrote:
| Mainstream press doesn't have the ability to replicate physics
| research results you may indeed first get the results in a
| journal. It can take some time before the research community
| manages to decide if something replicates or not.
|
| But there doesn't seem to be any indication in the link that
| this has been published in a peer reviewed journal, or received
| kinds of community peer review, either.
| Schiphol wrote:
| AFAICT this has not yet been published in a scientific journal,
| and has not passed peer review of any sort. Having said that,
| there's been at least one story on HN this past week where
| researchers were chastised for going to the press before
| properly vetting their results.
| Mizza wrote:
| It seems to have been published in a Korean journal: http://j
| ournal.kci.go.kr/jkcgct/archive/articleView?artiId=A...
| mercurywells wrote:
| Back in April and there's been no other cites of it since
| then?
| Maxion wrote:
| It's very common to post papers to arxiv while at the same
| time submitting the paper to a journal.
| elashri wrote:
| Almost all research are published in scientific journal. News
| outlets then pick some to report deepening on many factors from
| breakthrough development to just pure chance. So this is not
| something strange.
|
| Actually the opposite is the strange. I would be skeptical of
| any group the report something in media before publishing the
| results in a journal (or arxiv like this case).
|
| This is not to say anything about this particular paper. I
| still have to read it eventually.
| raincole wrote:
| First of all arxiv is not even a scientific journal.
|
| Second, you're literally saying you expect to read important
| things on mainstream press instead of scientific journals.
| DarmokJalad1701 wrote:
| I really hope we see some verification (the opposite) in the
| coming weeks/days. This is huge!
| jiggawatts wrote:
| Keep in mind that superconductors are not just useful for
| powerful electromagnets! They're also excellent for all sorts of
| other functions such as EM shielding, antennas, etc...
|
| High temperature superconductors are not likely to be useful as
| powerful magnets, but they can be useful for almost _everything
| else_.
| tantony wrote:
| Based on the paper, results, video etc., this is either legit, or
| a massive fraud. I guess we will know soon enough.
|
| If it is real though, this is a massive step up for humanity. The
| stuff of science fiction.
| varjag wrote:
| The first this month.
| RyanAdamas wrote:
| Holy crap.
| foota wrote:
| So who has got the setup and wants to test this for us? :)
| k2xl wrote:
| Can someone explain like I'm five why this is "huge if true"?
| joquarky wrote:
| If this is true, superconductors will become practical in
| everyday items.
| BizarroLand wrote:
| If you're not sure what a superconductor is, basically anything
| that conducts electricity has resistance in it.
|
| That resistance turns the energy that is being transmitted
| through the conductor into heat, essentially wasting it for
| useful purposes unless you're running a hair dryer or oven.
|
| For instance, one of the reasons why power plants have to be
| near the cities they serve, aside from practical logistics, is
| that if you send electricity over power lines, you lose some of
| that electricity to the resistant line drop, the voltage
| decreases over time, and ultimately you could lose all of your
| usable power to heat.
|
| However, that changes when superconductors come into play. Many
| power plants already use them for short distances where the
| heat is high and the line drop is also high, but if you
| replaced every power line in America with superconducting lines
| a power plant in Florida could sell extra spare power to Alaska
| with no loss between the two plants. (This is in theory, it is
| still likely that there would be losses where the lines are
| split and connected, but that would still be far less than the
| greater than 100% voltage loss over 7,000 miles of traditional
| copper lines that you would expect.)
|
| Room temperature superconductors would provide many benefits
| aside from power transmission as well. Electric vehicles would
| be more efficient with power coils made from them, allowing
| more of the electricity from the batteries to be turned
| directly into vehicle movement.
|
| Cell phones would heat up less with superconducting wires,
| losing less of their battery power to heat and lasting longer.
|
| Computers would run longer. CPUs would heat up less, requiring
| less cooling to operate at higher speeds and less power to run
| closer to the atomic limit of processing.
|
| If it is proven that this works, then we may be very close to
| the system by which superconductivity works, and solving that
| may allow for hundreds or thousands of compounds exhibiting
| superconductivity to be made for myriad applications, allowing
| for us to live closer to the way we tend to while being a bit
| greener in the process.
| foxhill wrote:
| big if true. far from a chemistry expert here, but synthesis
| looks basically trivial (if you consider 10e-5 torr vacuum to be
| trivial), and the materials are readily available. hell, from the
| instructions alone _i_ could probably make it at home.
|
| i mean the search space is unfathomably large, so i suppose it's
| possible that something like this exists, but the paper quality
| itself doesn't.. spark joy? :)
|
| i'll maintain a healthy level of skepticism until some real
| materials scientists opine and/or someone else is able to
| reproduce.
| lordnacho wrote:
| You can just make the thing they claim is superconducting? No
| special requirements?
|
| I guess this will be replicated/not pretty soon then.
| giarc wrote:
| Likely a lot of labs doing it right now.
| foxhill wrote:
| i expect so. there are some chemistry youtubers who read HN.
| i'd imagine they're gonna have a fun few days!
| ragebol wrote:
| If it's true, it'll also SPARC joy. And ITER etc
| foxhill wrote:
| well.. my understanding is that the difficulty with those
| projects is converting fast moving neutrons into electricity
| without degrading the material.. :)
|
| but a room-temperature superconductor would certainly lower
| the operating costs of all of the prototype fusion reactors
| that currently exist.
| JoeMattie wrote:
| I've made YBCO superconductors in my garage many times and the
| solid state synthesis method in the paper is very similar to
| that used by hobbyists. In fact, it seems to not require the
| usual careful slow annealing under flowing oxygen.
|
| I wouldn't be at all surprised if even simpler methods are
| feasible.
|
| For instance, there's a rapid synthesis method for YBCO that
| uses a small alumina boat, some glass wool, a residential 800w
| microwave oven, and slightly modified mixture of precursors to
| allow free oxygen to be liberated in the mixture during heating
| and trapped in the wool around the sample so you don't need to
| rig an oxygen concentrator up. IIRC it only takes about 15
| minutes to prepare a sample.
|
| This is extremely exciting! I've read hundreds of papers on
| superconductor manufacture and testing over the years and this
| has all the hallmarks of legitimacy, at least from my citizen-
| mad-scientist perspective.
| Mizza wrote:
| Sounds like you've got a very interesting weekend project
| coming up!
| Maxion wrote:
| The synthesis section honestly looks very simple, I would
| assume a simple ceramic kiln could be used?
|
| You just need PbO, PbSO4, Cu, and P powders.
| foxhill wrote:
| kiln materials are listed, too
|
| not that i think it matters that much. the paper doesn't
| indicate that synthesis is a particularly sensitive step.
| aden1ne wrote:
| The powdered lead seems like something you need to be
| careful with tho. Quite toxic.
| MisterTea wrote:
| > if you consider 10e-5 torr vacuum to be trivial
|
| Its not hard to achieve at all. Electron beam welders at work
| have 10E-6/10E-7 in the E-gun chamber all day long held by a
| little turbo or diffusion pump. The chambers aren't made from
| anything exotic just stainless steel and/or aluminum with viton
| o-rings.
| Brusco_RF wrote:
| Please go ahead and make it at home. Like many others, I want
| this to be true badly but my BS detectors are blaring
| Akronymus wrote:
| Yeah, thats about what I expected.
|
| This seems way too good to be true. But hope that it actuaoly
| is true.
| MisterTea wrote:
| > if you consider 10e-5 torr vacuum to be trivial
|
| Its not hard to achieve at all. Electron beam welders at work
| have 1E-6/1E-7 in the E-gun chamber all day long held by a
| little turbo or diffusion pump. The chambers aren't made from
| anything exotic just stainless steel and/or aluminum with viton
| o-rings.
|
| My little e-gun experiments are all done with a Alcatel Pascal
| 2008 and I can achieve ~3E-3 with just that pump. I'm building
| a bigger system with a VHS4 diffusion pump w/cold trap that
| should get me into -6 territory easily.
| jacquesm wrote:
| What on earth are you up to? :)
| ridgeguy wrote:
| I've looked briefly at the materials synthesis (first part of
| their Supplementary Materials section). I agree with you, the
| synthesis is trivial. The 10e-5 vacuum is easily reached with a
| turbopump backed by a mechanical pump, nothing exotic or
| expensive.
| foxhill wrote:
| indeed, and i wonder if you could elide the vacuum entirely
| with a noble gas (presuming the vacuum is required to avoid
| reactions with atmospheric gases)
| arnaudsm wrote:
| Exciting paper. I hope this won't be the same scenario as the
| other team that claimed a room-temperature superconductor in 2020
| and was later proven to be a fraud.
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02401-2
| sheepscreek wrote:
| One of the authors in a related paper[1] is Hyun-Tak Kim. He has
| many publications in peer-reviewed journals[2]. One even has >
| 1500 citations[3].
|
| I can't tell if there is a catch anywhere, this seems pretty
| legitimate. Also, unlike some previous claims that required
| sophisticated setup to reproduce, this seems dead simple. I think
| we will hear from other researchers very soon.
|
| 1. Superconductor Pb10-xCux(PO4)6O showing levitation at room
| temperature and atmospheric pressure and mechanism:
| https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.12037.pdf
|
| 2. Google Scholar:
| https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=_P8mux4AAAAJ&hl=en
|
| 3. Mott transition in VO2 revealed by infrared spectroscopy and
| nano-imaging:
| https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&h...
| [deleted]
| coolspot wrote:
| > Superconductor Pb10-xCux(PO4)6O showing levitation at room
| temperature and atmospheric pressure
|
| Is it late April Fools joke?
|
| It can't be true.
|
| Edit: I am not surprised it levitates. I am astonished by how
| much it will reshape our world if it is real room-temp and
| ambient-pressure superconductor. Also is easy to produce. Just
| too good to be true.
| scarmig wrote:
| Levitation is to be expected for any superconductor when it's
| in a superconducting state; that part is banal. The big
| question is whether it's actually a superconductor at RTP.
| Their results are strong enough that it's unlikely to be a
| mistake, though fraud is possible too (although it is so
| easily uncovered given the simplicity of preparing the
| material and the strength of the reported effects that fraud
| seems almost pointless since it'll be uncovered immediately).
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| The recipe in the paper is so simple that it's giving me
| Pons-Fleischmann vibes. It reads more like an entry from an
| alchemist's journal, reproducible with chemicals and
| equipment you could buy on eBay or Amazon.
|
| So, yeah: big if true.
| kridsdale3 wrote:
| Silicon is one of the most abundant elements on Earth and
| for thousands of years humans had no idea what would be
| possible with very controlled etching of it.
| Terr_ wrote:
| Mildly-topical Terry Pratchett amusement quote, since it
| involves a society that has overlooked the power of
| silicon plus the potential of superconductivity:
|
| > Detritus blinked. There was a tinkle of falling ice.
| Odd things were happening in his skull. Thoughts that
| normally ambulated sluggishly around his brain were
| suddenly springing into vibrant, coruscating life. And
| there seemed to be more and more of them.
|
| > 'My goodness,' he said, to no-one in particular.
|
| > This was a sufficiently un-troll-like comment that even
| Cuddy, whose extremities were already going numb, stared
| at him.
|
| > 'I do believe,' said Detritus, 'that I am genuinely
| cogitating. How very interesting!'
|
| > 'What do you mean?'
|
| > More ice cascaded off Detritus as he rubbed his head.
|
| > 'Of course!' he said, holding up a giant finger.
| 'Superconductivity!'
|
| > 'Wha'?'
|
| > 'You see? Brain of impure silicon. Problem of heat
| dissipation. Daytime temperature too hot, processing
| speed slows down, weather gets hotter, brain stops
| completely, trolls turn to stone until nightfall, ie,
| colder-temperature,however,lowertemperatureenough,brain
| operatesfasterand--'
|
| > [...] Detritus sat down again. Life was so simple, when
| you really thought about it. And he was really thinking.
| He was seventy-six per cent sure he was going to get at
| least seven degrees colder.
|
| -- _Men At Arms_ by Terry Pratchett
| floxy wrote:
| I wonder if anyone has tried to contact one of the
| authors to confirm the paper is legitimate (i.e. someone
| isn't spoofing the author's names in order to create
| chaos).
| guerrilla wrote:
| Good thinking. I'm guessing journalists lurk here so
| we'll probably find out soon enough.
| gene-h wrote:
| This isn't too different from how conventional high
| temperature superconductors are made.[0] A converted
| pottery kiln can be used to make them
|
| [0]https://www.greenoptimistic.com/make-superconductor-
| home/
| alexb_ wrote:
| Just give it to me straight - when will the levitation give
| us hoverboards?
| marcosdumay wrote:
| As long as you only want them to hover over a magnet...
| [deleted]
| skykooler wrote:
| I wonder how big of a superconductor you'd need to use
| Earth's magnetic field.
| m463 wrote:
| I believe I saw a video of a hoverboard that worked over
| a carefully constructed magnetic skatepark...
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KtzyZKSuls
| BizarroLand wrote:
| Assuming the lift is there or the magnets are strong
| enough, it would be plausible to have an electromagnetic
| hover skate park where you could pay by the hour, and
| possibly even future X-game like events where the boards
| and riders could move in any direction they can get
| acceleration in.
| Arrath wrote:
| Well that would be very, very cool.
| distortedsignal wrote:
| All of those elements are so common - this should be easy to
| test. We'll see.
| zenexer wrote:
| Superconductors will typically levitate if placed above a
| magnet, and vice versa. Magnets are _weird_ --superconductors
| even more so. I assume that's what they were referring to?
|
| Edit: Judging by Fig 4, which has a large object
| conspicuously labeled "magnet", that's probably what they're
| referring to.
| amluto wrote:
| This whole experiment is quite reminiscent of an experiment
| I did in high school. We synthesized a high temperature
| superconductor (IIRC it was YBCO) by grinding some powders
| together with a mortal and pestle and baking the result.
| And we stuck it in a little cup of LN2 and floated a magnet
| on it. It really works!
|
| This group used somewhat nastier powders, they had to cook
| parts of it in a vacuum, and they floated the result on a
| magnet instead of vice versa. And it only floated a bit.
| But they did it without any cooling!
| inasio wrote:
| One obvious application: your family doctor will have an MRI
| machine in her office, same for all physio clinics
| Roark66 wrote:
| Not so fast... These superconductors although revolutionary
| loose superconductivity in high magnetic fields (or with
| high currents).
|
| If this proves true I'd see their use more in electronic
| circuits. Novel sensors etc rather than classic high power
| high field uses people dream about when the words "room
| temperature superconductivity" gets thrown about.
| carabiner wrote:
| What are the failure modes for a superconductor MRI? Could
| it cause a resonance cascade?
| post-it wrote:
| Sign me up, I'd like to be one of the biped critters with
| giant mouths on their stomachs. Short pipeline, very
| efficient.
| ben_w wrote:
| That description sounds like the F'lickta in Marathon 2,
| was it also something in Half Life?
| moffkalast wrote:
| At least now the silo doors will open by sliding on
| superconductors.
| delecti wrote:
| I think "superconductor MRI" is redundant.
|
| The failure modes would mostly be the same as for the big
| ones: sucking in metal chairs if you're not careful.
| ben_w wrote:
| I hope I never find out which is worse of chairs vs.
| piercings...
| scythe wrote:
| MRI will get _much_ cheaper, but you still need a good
| upper critical field and a proper access control (Zone 2
| /3/4) protocol. So probably not in very small buildings.
| fluidcruft wrote:
| From what I can tell this material can't provide higher
| than 0.3T. We've had permanent magnet MRI at 0.3T but the
| drawbacks vs superconducting magnets are weight and lack
| of active shielding.
| cperciva wrote:
| With room temperature superconductivity doesn't it become
| possible to turn the magnet on and off far more easily?
| MRIs would be much safer if they were only energized
| during the actual imaging process.
| zardo wrote:
| To turn the magnet off you need to get the current out, I
| don't see why raising the temperature would make that
| easy.
| [deleted]
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Unlike those guys in Rochester, this seems to be a good
| experiment that is testing many of the signs of
| superconductivity.
| amluto wrote:
| The actual picture of (poor) levitation in the paper you
| linked is pretty compelling. This isn't a complex, noisy
| measurement showing something that's related to
| superconductivity -- this is a magnet and a supposed
| superconductor repelling each other.
|
| As far as I know, that's possible with permanent magnets (and
| it would be weird, but not impossible, if the group instead
| synthesized a novel ferromagnet and didn't notice), electrets
| (seems pretty unlikely here), very extreme amounts of static
| charge (again, seems unlikely), and actual superconductivity
| (would be awesome).
|
| Random bits of cooked oxides, ceramics, and such don't float
| on a magnet.
| colechristensen wrote:
| >As far as I know, that's possible with permanent magnets
| (and it would be weird, but not impossible, if the group
| instead synthesized a novel ferromagnet and didn't notice)
|
| As far as I know a stable arrangement of permanent magnets
| levitating is impossible without a baring surface to keep
| them aligned. (i.e. free floating levitation is not
| possible without active control)
| floxy wrote:
| Just so everyone is on the same page, static passive
| diamagnetic levitation is possible with materials like
| pyrolytic graphite.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamagnetism
|
| https://www.kjmagnetics.com/blog.asp?p=diamagnetic-
| levitatio...
|
| ...and superconductors are usually perfectly diamagnetic.
| jacquesm wrote:
| That's not quite true. There is a Halbach array with a
| bunch of compensation coils that will nicely center as
| long as it is moving, no active control or bearing
| required.
|
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03
| 048...
|
| And many others besides. Halbach arrays are fascinating.
| floxy wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnshaw%27s_theorem
| jacquesm wrote:
| _stationary_. Hence the 'as long as it is moving' bit
| above. Because the motion allows for the coils to
| generate enough of a current to drive the compensation.
| So you need a support system to bring the assembly up to
| a certain minimum speed above which it will stably
| levitate.
| floxy wrote:
| Right. Everyone should just read up on Earnshaw's theorem
| to know what all the boundary conditions are.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levitron
| whatshisface wrote:
| Believe it or not, the levitation effect can be found in
| non-superconducting materials with a high diamagnetic
| constant such as pyrolytic carbon. Induced magnetic fields
| are created by "effective currents," which can occur in
| zero-resistance systems that are not called superconductors
| (because they can't conduct across a significant distance,
| only around a tiny loop) like molecular or atomic orbitals.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrolytic_carbon
| howmayiannoyyou wrote:
| Diamagnetism was my first reaction when I saw lead, and
| the addition of copper makes me think eddy current
| reactivity.
| PlasmonOwl wrote:
| I would say that this type of levitation where it sort of
| half levitates is quite common. I taught YBaCuO
| superconductor experiments for a few years. That Meisner
| effect would get full marks in my institution!
| scarmig wrote:
| Their other data doesn't line up with ferromagnetism,
| though. It's either the real thing or a big fraud. Guess
| we'll find out soon enough.
|
| ETA: the video referenced is apparently available at
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtVjGWpbE7k .
| Interestingly, posted on Feb 26, 2023.
| mildchalupa wrote:
| Electromagnetic solenoid designer here...
|
| Copper and a magnet can certainly interact. Drop a magnet
| through a copper pipe and the eddy currents will induce a
| field that's opposed to the magnet causing a damping
| effect. Maybe something like this is going on where
| movement of the magnetic field is inducing an opposed
| magnetic field in the copper, and thus interacting.
|
| Anyhow it will be interesting. if It can generate a field
| of 1.5-2 Tesla you could have more efficient solenoids
| and probably motors.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Yeah, that thing does really want to stay in a constant
| level on the magnetic field. That would dispel every
| other explanation on the GP, as it's not simply being
| repelled or attracted.
| Baeocystin wrote:
| I found that video very compelling. If it was eddy
| current, the float standoff distance would have decayed.
| It sure looked to me like there was no decay at all, and
| wow! if true.
| [deleted]
| xxpor wrote:
| One catch would be the use of lead would restrict the use cases
| fairly heavily
| Roark66 wrote:
| Cobalt is way more toxic than lead and yet every consumer
| grade lithium ion battery contains it. The fact something is
| toxic is not that important. What is that we manage the end
| of life for the products it contains responsibly.
| rezonant wrote:
| Well yes and that its properly contained or otherwise shown
| to not pose an ingestion or undue exposure risk
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _the use of lead would restrict the use cases_
|
| Most people aren't licking the insides of their computer
| processors, fusion reactors, radio telescopes and MRIs.
| amatecha wrote:
| It's more about producing toxic waste and contaminating the
| environment - no one's licking the solder joints in their
| electronics either, but you still have to use lead-free
| solder.
|
| For instance in EU, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
| content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...
|
| Canada, https://www.canada.ca/en/health-
| canada/services/environmenta...
|
| USA, https://www.epa.gov/lead/learn-about-lead
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _more about producing toxic waste_
|
| Compared to refining traditional conductors and
| recycling/disposing of used electronics?
|
| > _you still have to use lead-free solder_
|
| One, fumes. Two, people touch their solder and then grab
| a cookie.
|
| We're premature. The results need to be proven. But the
| benefits of RTP superconductors is mindblowingly high
| enough that risks from lead contamination (far from a
| novel problem, I might add) can be safely ignored.
| mrob wrote:
| Soldering temperatures don't produce significant lead
| fumes. The fumes you see are flux fumes (which are also
| bad to inhale).
|
| IMO, the most dangerous thing about lead solder is
| cleaning the iron. Both the common methods (damp sponge
| and brass wool) create many tiny little balls of solder
| that are hard to see and bounce about all over the place.
| Because of the high density of lead they're less affected
| by air resistance than you might expect, and they roll
| easily, so they can move surprising distances. They can
| easily end up caught in clothing, and from there fall
| into food. This will result in much higher lead ingestion
| than just touching solder then touching food.
|
| I personally always use lead-free solder. If you have a
| good temperature controlled soldering iron it's nearly as
| easy to use as leaded solder.
| amatecha wrote:
| It's like fundamental best practice to always wash your
| hands thoroughly with soap if you handle leaded solder.
|
| You might want to read more in the links I shared about
| the harmful effects of lead before "whatabouting" to
| other problems of electronics recycling/waste.
|
| and yes, it's entirely possible this application would
| get an exemption from usual restrictions on lead. For
| example in the EU directive, one of the exemptions is:
|
| > Lead in solders for servers, storage and storage array
| systems, network infrastructure equipment for switching,
| signalling, transmission, and network management for
| telecommunications
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _fundamental best practice to always wash your hands
| thoroughly with soap if you handle leaded solder_
|
| But people don't, particularly students, and sometimes
| they also let their irons run too hot at which point
| fumes become an issue. Also, there is an easy
| alternative, so why not.
|
| If the choice is lead superconductor or not, nobody is
| going to pause on a use case because there is lead. If
| they do, and if this is real, please let me know--I'd
| love to have them as competition.
|
| > _might want to read more in the links I shared about
| the harmful effects of lead before "whatabouting" to
| other problems of electronics recycling/waste_
|
| The point is, whether a RTP superconductor does or
| doesn't contain lead is irrelevant to its adoption. The
| advantages are too large. What current directives say
| are, similarly, irrelevant.
| amatecha wrote:
| Oh, sure. You could have just said that then. You instead
| originally said something about "no one licks the insides
| of the computers", which isn't the reason lead in
| electronics/PCBs/etc. is restricted, and what I was
| pointing out.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Was being cheeky in response to OP claiming "the use of
| lead would restrict the use cases fairly heavily."
| refulgentis wrote:
| Usually people who are making the argument you were
| making with the words you were using are signalling that
| lead is "lump of rock from center of nuclear reactor"
| dangerous. Honest to god, a lot of people believe this
| phatskat wrote:
| > fairly heavily
|
| Not being in sciences I can't tell if this sentence is legit
| or you just got a good joke in there
| petsfed wrote:
| Its not a dirty secret, but just like the rules on chemicals
| under the organic certification, if you can show that there's
| no way to do what you want to do with lead-free, you can get
| an exemption. I suspect that "significantly lowers the cost
| of power generation" would outweigh "contains lead".
| amatecha wrote:
| Yeah, I just mentioned in another comment that there
| already exist exemptions such as server/networking
| hardware:
|
| "Lead in solders for servers, storage and storage array
| systems, network infrastructure equipment for switching,
| signalling, transmission, and network management for
| telecommunications"
|
| ( https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
| content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A... )
| reaperman wrote:
| For the benefits of superconduction, I imagine RoHS
| exemptions would be made.
| fijiaarone wrote:
| If you think lead is scary, wait till you hear about carbon
| dioxide.
| tga_d wrote:
| I mean, modulo edge cases, lead is a lot scarier than CO2;
| it's only because of the ridiculously obscene quantities of
| CO2 being produced that it's a more immanent threat.
| There's obviously not enough information yet to weigh the
| value/consequences of the amount of lead used here, but if
| your measure of whether something is a good idea for
| mitigating carbon emissions is just "it's not carbon
| emissions", you're going to find yourself kicking a can a
| bit down the road, or (much) worse.
| carabiner wrote:
| Lead is used everywhere. Not in paint anymore but you can buy
| lead weights at hardware stores. Don't grind it up and put it
| in your muni water supply, but it's a household substance
| that is harmful if ingested, like many others.
| geph2021 wrote:
| another example, you can still buy lead based solder, even
| at a local hardware store.
| lazide wrote:
| Also lead acid batteries which have ~ 50 lbs of lead
| sulfide in them (which also releases toxic gas if
| melted!)
| pfdietz wrote:
| Sulfate, perhaps.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| > you can buy lead weights at hardware stores
|
| Those are often bismuth weights.
| johncalvinyoung wrote:
| Found another earlier paper on LK-99, published in Journal of
| the Korean Crystal Growth and Crystal Technology in April '23.
| I don't read Korean though so didn't get a lot out of it.
| http://journal.kci.go.kr/jkcgct/archive/articleView?artiId=A...
| meindnoch wrote:
| Ah, I see, they decided to start leaking some of the alien stuff
| they recovered from UFO crash sites in the 50s.
| r00fus wrote:
| Obligatory Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri [1] quote:
|
| "Important? Yes! Critical? Absolutely. I would go so far as to
| say that Superconducting Fiber alone makes our present economy
| possible."
|
| Just imaging what the changes in our world would be if even half
| of what's possible comes true.
|
| [1] https://alphacentauri.fandom.com/wiki/Superconductor
| danbruc wrote:
| After skimming the paper, it reads like a legitimate paper even
| though I have zero expertise in the area. That it is in Word
| instead of LaTeX makes it feel a bit less legitimate to me and
| they could of course always have some error in there setup.
|
| The most notable thing to me was that this was done in a thin
| film where structural defects are supposedly responsible for
| strain in the material which in turn enables the
| superconductivity. Probably because it is only a thin film, the
| material could only support about 250 mA at 25degC before losing
| superconductivity. So even if the paper is correct, it might turn
| out to be challenging to get to higher currents. Or maybe not and
| one could just roll up a wide thin film and have as much amps as
| one likes.
|
| EDIT: I misread the thin film thing, they also produced a thin
| film but primarily they describe the material testes as follows
| without any dimensions I could immediatly spot.
|
| _After the reaction, a dark gray ingot was obtained reproducibly
| and then made into the shape of thin cuboids for electrical
| measurements [...]_
| klodolph wrote:
| Word is one of the most common tools for writing papers. There
| was a study a while back that looked at the quality of Word or
| Latex papers. The study found that researchers using Word were
| more effective, and the working theory that explained it was
| that people who focused on the research did better research,
| and people focusing on the typesetting do better typesetting.
| EvgeniyZh wrote:
| Ironically, the paper itself was republished to fix figure
| placement [1].
|
| To your main point, no, theoretical physics paper are almost
| all written in latex. I can't recall word-written theory
| paper. Experimental papers are sometimes word, but pretty
| rarely. You can try randomly sample papers from cond-mat
| arxiv to verify it.
|
| [1] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/jour
| nal...
| mat_epice wrote:
| I can believe that this is true today. As recently as 15 or
| 20 years ago, Word was awful enough that seeing through
| significant technical documents was a terrible experience.
| Horror stories of large corrupted documents and mysterious
| formatting behaviors were very common.
|
| Today, Word is much more capable as a scientist's tool.
| fellowniusmonk wrote:
| Latex is a waste of human potential.
|
| I've done professional typesetting and cataloging with
| QuarkXPress and InDesign both and it was extremely fast,
| that's for professional high quality publishing. .doc and .md
| is fine for information first publishing.
|
| Latex is not simple and is in my opinion just a big nerd
| snipe, its the intrusive thought of layout software, for
| humanities sake we'd be better off with simpler tools like
| markdown + math notation and if latex had been never
| invented.
| chihuahua wrote:
| I think it would be nice if everyone can decide for
| themselves which software they prefer. Some people prefer
| Latex, others prefer Word or InDesign etc.
|
| I would prefer not to have gatekeeping either way, both "It
| was written using Word, it must be fake" and "Latex should
| never have been invented."
| fellowniusmonk wrote:
| I'm not saying latex should be banned or disallowed
| anywhere, no actual gatekeeping in that regard.
|
| There are big geek communities that lead newbies astray
| by recommending it, it's a nerd snipe that wastes a lot
| of brain cycles better used elsewhere. It's only little b
| bad, not big B bad.
|
| I am saying it's a poor tool, a waste of time and an
| evolutionary dead end, people are allowed to fetishize
| poor tools, efficiency, simplicity and legibility are
| very poor in latex world with a high learning curve for a
| task that is at best tertiary to the task of doing real
| research, it's a tool that promotes rabbit trails, bike
| shedding and procrastination.
|
| And the small amount of research that has looked into
| this has apparently born this out in at least some small
| degree. It's not a hot take if it's got backing.
| carabiner wrote:
| Reminds of "command line is faster than GUI" folks who get
| timed doing every task slower. "But it feels faster!"
| mavhc wrote:
| Now repeat what you did
| iopq wrote:
| Every task? If I want to rename all of the .pdf files in
| the folder to .avi I would just do it in the command line
|
| Or would you rather have me google a GUI that lets me
| "quickly rename" and download a few programs that have
| this capability? Or do a few hundred files by hand?
| sfink wrote:
| So you're saying it could be a great sensor, similar to a
| Josephson junction? :-)
|
| Update: "yes", from the paper: "The Josephson-like phenomenon
| for the under-damped junction of superconductor-normal metal-
| superconductor(21, 22) or Inter-grain coupled
| superconductors(23) and the thermoelectric effect(24-26) of the
| inter- or intra-grain network were also observed."
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| It'd be nifty enough if we just got a new room-temperature
| voltage reference standard out of this.
| carabiner wrote:
| > After skimming the paper, it reads like a legitimate paper
| even though I have zero expertise in the area.
|
| Ummm am I the only one who finds this line hilarious?
| [deleted]
| nephyrin wrote:
| This whole thread is full of Dunning-Kruger victims
| misexplaining magnets to each other, this is pretty tame.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Or even wires.
| postmortembees wrote:
| Yeah, it seems like (to me, a naive layperson) to be similar to
| how a prince rupert's drop exerts strong forces thanks to the
| mechanism of its cooling/shape. The copper somehow forcing
| other structures to form in an atypical way which enables the
| superconductivity.
|
| And even at 250mA, there'd be _tons_ of different usecases for
| a superconductor.
| barelyauser wrote:
| It is not limited to 250mA overall. A physically larger
| specimen would be capable of more current.
| danbruc wrote:
| I got this wrong, they also produced a thin film in
| addition to bulk material. And my worry was that one could
| maybe not easily scale this up in case the effect relied on
| it being a thin film in which case you can only make ever
| so wide before it becomes impractical or you have to layer
| or fold the thin film which might also be problematic. But
| as I said, I just read this wrong.
| nine_k wrote:
| Thin layers can be stacked.
|
| What's more interesting is flexibility. Current ceramic liquid-
| nitrogen-cooled superconductors are not flexible at all; they
| are brittle. This can be fine for a transmission line, but
| makes things hard for various coils.
| jychang wrote:
| Meh. Wake me up when Graphene is commercially sold.
| shantara wrote:
| Plenty of examples online, it's a matter of purity and
| number of defects:
| https://www.acsmaterial.com/materials/graphene-series.html
| oceanplexian wrote:
| Graphene is being used in high performance batteries for RC
| use (https://hobbyking.com/en_us/turnigy-graphene-lipo-
| batteries....). They can put out a good bit more current
| than a regular lipo, I don't know the science behind it
| though.
| generalizations wrote:
| How much is latex used for papers outside of computer science?
| Medical researchers I know generally used word for their
| papers.
| Sharlin wrote:
| LaTeX is of course big in math and physics because its math
| typesetting is unparalleled. And generally it's just much
| more convenient to write a lot of math in LaTeX than a
| wysiwyg editor once you're proficient. Outside hard sciences
| it's probably not common.
| ccppurcell wrote:
| It's a red flag for a physics paper. It's a coffin for a
| mathematics paper.
| doctorwho42 wrote:
| As a physicist, it's not a red flag... It's a red klaxon
| blaring out an alarm.
|
| I have only met a few physicists who don't write papers in
| latex. They are all 65+ and generally work with younger
| scientists/grad students who prepare the paper in latex for
| final drafts and submissions.
| fijiaarone wrote:
| TeX was written in the 1970s for typesetting when there
| were no word processors by a computer programmer who
| couldn't afford professional typesetting and couldn't be
| bothered to learn assembly language so he wrote his own
| fictional one for his book -- the same book he wrote TeX
| to publish.
| Forgotthepass8 wrote:
| >A Computer Programmer
|
| No less than Donald Knuth in fact
| beanjuice wrote:
| Chemists and material scientists that I have met largely use
| word documents and not LaTeX.
| klyrs wrote:
| (note: using language that accepts the claims of the paper for
| simplicity -- I remain skeptical)
|
| For what it's worth, superconductors have a shared budget[1] of
| (magnetic field, temperature, current). At 25degC, the material
| is near its critical temperature, so its current-carrying
| capacity is _necessarily_ diminished. At a lower temperature,
| the film should be able to carry more current.
|
| That said, 250mA is plenty of current if you're interested in
| making a superconducting CPU.
|
| [1] http://hyperphysics.phy-
| astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Solids/scbc2.html
|
| edit after reading the paper: they claim an _extraordinarily_
| high critical temperature of ~126degC. You can see the
| temperature dependence in Figure 1e; they 're much further from
| the critical temperature than I expected, and at room
| temperature, a little cooling appears to go a long way. I'm
| eager to see an attempt to reproduce this result. That said,
| the material is essentially a 2d molecule -- we've been hyped
| on graphene for decades, and have yet to see it integrated into
| a scalable process.
| aden1ne wrote:
| Wow, if true this would be absolutely huge!
| hatsunearu wrote:
| I don't have any proof of this other than "vibes", but I read
| through the Korean website for their research lab and I'm getting
| major scam vibes: https://qcentre.co.kr/
|
| Hard to put it into words, but there's something that just
| doesn't feel right--I'd be very skeptical of these results.
| valine wrote:
| It would be a really dumb scam. The paper is allegedly easy to
| reproduce. It'll be proven or disproven in short order, where's
| the motive?
| Akronymus wrote:
| I severly doubt that it is an actual room temperature
| superconductor, but would love to hear the opinions of more well
| informed people on that topic.
| mightykipper wrote:
| 127degC, so it is room temperature if you first set your room
| alight.
| Akronymus wrote:
| From my understanding it is superconductive up to that temp.
| So, superconductive at room temp and even further.
| alsaaro wrote:
| The critical temperature (Tc) >= 400 K or about 127 C, so
| apparently this material requires relatively high heat to
| reach superconductivity.
|
| This is unusual, superconductivity is a low temperature
| phenomenon. Recently though, other researches have claimed
| room temperature superconductivity at high pressures, but
| low temperatures.
| sfink wrote:
| Uh no, I'm pretty confident they are just saying that
| whatever the Tc is, it's at least 127degC. I don't think
| they're redefining Tc to mean that it superconducts
| _above_ that temperature. That would be... interesting.
|
| "You can't run across this bridge without falling? Here,
| I'll have an elephant bounce up and down on one end,
| that'll make it easier!"
| dspillett wrote:
| That makes me even more sceptical. In recent years
| confirmed discovery of superconducting materials have gone
| from working at best up to ~100K below room temperature to
| at best a few 10s of K below. To jump to a material that
| claims to exhibit superconductivity as far as >100K _above_
| room temperature, at ambient pressure too, is an
| extraordinary claim and so needs to be presented with
| extraordinary evidence.
| scarmig wrote:
| I mean, the paper has experimental results and it should
| be easily reproducible by pretty much any lab. Do you
| think they should be hopping on CNN to give a public
| demonstration with the announcement?
|
| If a material with the properties described actually
| exists, this paper is exactly the kind of announcement
| and evidence we'd want for it.
| dspillett wrote:
| No, I agree with you that a quiet "this is what we've
| found, this is what we think it means, please reproduce
| or tell us if you find something we've misinterpreted",
| rather than a public fanfare, is how a potential
| scientific breakthrough should be done IMO.
|
| I think I cross-pollinated this thread with another where
| someone was asking "if this is true why isn't it on the
| front pages". The extraordinary evidence I'd want before
| it hits the front pages and TV talk shows is other
| scientific/engineering groups managing to reproduce the
| findings, or at least showing a significant improvement
| over previous discoveries (there could be a mistake that
| means the result isn't _that_ big a thing while still
| leaving room for it to be a significant finding).
| Maxion wrote:
| But this is exactly the quiet please reproduce? It's a
| preprint posted to arxiv, with a very easy to follow
| material synthesis process in the supplemental materials
| section?
| scarmig wrote:
| In fairness, the paper isn't exactly humble about its
| claims. But I appreciate their candor, and if they
| believe they've found a RTP superconductor and
| sufficiently verified it is a RTP superconductor, a bit
| of arrogance isn't unwarranted.
| hatsunearu wrote:
| I'm sure they believe their own results, but if they made
| a mistake, parading on TV would be a horrible mistake and
| a horrible embarrassment.
|
| Also this is a preprint so clearly it's not vetted by
| others yet.
| tyre wrote:
| All server farms are now in Death Valley.
| noiv wrote:
| I share your doubt, but on the other hand I wonder why? Could
| you tell how a breaking message of this magnitude should be
| decorated to make all doubts go away?
| dspillett wrote:
| _> Could you tell how a breaking message of this magnitude
| should be decorated to make all doubts go away?_
|
| You'll never make all doubt go away on a new extraordinary
| discovery, mainly because most claims of an extraordinary
| discovery turn out to be mistakes (like the FTL neutrino
| thing a while ago that turned out to be a wiring fault that
| caused a minute timing error) or occasionally fabrications.
|
| A quiet publication of "this is what we've found, this is
| what we think it means, please try reproduce or tell us what
| you think we've misinterpreted" is the way it _should_ go.
| Unfortunately too subtle a release would be at risk of being
| ignored, and on the other side you get the mad public press
| and massive recriminations when it turns out a mistake was
| made and the finding is not reproducible (like the cold
| fusion thing I remember from the late 80s).
| doctorwho42 wrote:
| The cold fusion people were actively touting data that
| didn't align to known fusion reactions. Like there are a
| limited number of elements one can fuse, but for some
| reason their reaction (which is known) had the energy off
| by like 300-400 KeV. For example: a proton signal of 2.6
| MeV instead of the known 3MeV signal.
| mlyle wrote:
| It might be broken in an unreviewed preprint like this.
|
| But there will likely be very many bogus preprints for each
| true extraordinary finding.
|
| Therefore most things showing up like this are untrue.
| amerine wrote:
| Wasn't there some recent excitement about some hydrogen sulfide
| superconductor thing? But the pressure required was wild/not-
| useful-for-use or something like that?
| XorNot wrote:
| Uh.. What?
|
| This is a Nobel prize if true. This is literally a world
| changing, history defining moment if true.
|
| Like "renewable energy storage solved" scale of revolutionary.
|
| So I'm very skeptical right now.
| pfdietz wrote:
| This is either enormous or nothing. It will be very interesting
| to see it play out.
| thevania wrote:
| seems it already went thru some peer review here:
|
| http://journal.kci.go.kr/jkcgct/archive/articleView?artiId=A...
| drsopp wrote:
| Can you make a practical battery with such a superconductor?
| dvaun wrote:
| See
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_magnetic_ene...
| andreiklochko wrote:
| Guys, even if everything in this paper is true, the material as
| it is might have limited applications.
|
| From what they show, the _critical field and critical current_
| seem very low. 2500 Oe is like 0.25 Tesla. Even REBCO at 77K is
| >1T. And 2500 Oe is not even at critical temperature but much
| lower. From skimming through the article I couldn't find the
| sample size of the current measurement to get the critical
| _current density_ , not just current which is meaningless (and
| around 300 mA).
|
| This means you can't actually push big current through this thing
| (yet). You can't make a powerful magnet, and you can't make
| viable power lines, both applications that were the hallmark of
| "room temperature superconductor revolution".
|
| Of course, maybe one or a few more tweak(s) of the material and
| boom, it will give high J_c and B_c. I really hope it does, it
| would be super cool!
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| That's the D part. This is just the R part.
| remote_phone wrote:
| I genuinely hate responses like this.
|
| For some reason, there's a contingent of people that think that
| by poking holes and pooh-poohing things, it gives them clout.
| It happens far too often in tech and I hate it. Look how often
| the post has "can't" or "couldn't".
|
| Instead of giving reasons why something sucks, how about being
| supportive and talking about why it's awesome and what
| possibilities this opens up?
| rezonant wrote:
| I generally agree but the post in question isn't a strong or
| extreme example of this. The only thing that irked me was the
| "Guys," part
| Meegul wrote:
| I don't think OP is being overly negative in relation to the
| tone of the rest of the comments here. Nobody else up until
| this comment had mentioned anything about the actual
| important performance characteristics that the paper's
| authors' are claiming, and this does put it into perspective
| with the current state of the art. And OP does even end on an
| optimistic note anyway. No need to resort to personal
| attacks.
|
| Edit: I appreciate you toning down the more combative part of
| your comment.
| fabian2k wrote:
| Just for comparison, an typical MRI magnet is 1.5 Tesla. An NMR
| spectrometer can go up to 28 Tesla (using new high-temperature
| superconductors). The LHC magnets are around 8 Tesla.
|
| Those are the kinds of magnetic fields the classic
| superconductors and the newer high-temperature superconductors
| can achieve.
| baq wrote:
| Can you make wires in chips out of this? MRIs are nice but
| maybe zero resistance between transistors on my phone's cpu is
| cool, too?
| jacquesm wrote:
| Not yet. Maybe never.
| mcv wrote:
| CPUs that don't generate heat? That would be pretty awesome.
| z3t4 wrote:
| Im thinking transportation pipelines for small packages. A
| superconduction railway inside a vacum tube.
| ReptileMan wrote:
| One miracle at a time.
| jacquesm wrote:
| This is a dancing pig. The thing to appreciate is not how well
| it dances but _that it dances at all_.
| opwieurposiu wrote:
| You can improve the current density a lot if you can make a
| single crystal, or at least make your crystal grains larger.
|
| Impure superconductor samples often come out as a spongey
| mixture of superconducting and non-superconducting bits, the
| critical current is limited because less then 25% of the cross
| section is actually carrying current. When I was DIYing YBCO
| this is what happened most of the time. Every now and then you
| would get a good one.
|
| See this patent for growing single crystals of YBCO.
| https://patents.google.com/patent/US6046139A/en
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _the material as it is might have limited applications_
|
| Is LK-99 part of a larger (either known or emerging) class of
| materials? I'm not understanding what the lead and copper ions
| are doing to create internal stress, and why that leads to
| superconductivity.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Just like in previous super conductor findings once a
| material is made and understood that usually paves the way to
| new discoveries, sometimes those are (big) improvements on
| the status quo. I'd expect this finding - assuming it is true
| and verified - to result in massive funding towards the
| material science labs to try to improve on it. So I'd say
| this is example '1' of a new class of materials and if it
| holds up then probably we will find more members of that
| class once the mechanisms are understood.
| inasio wrote:
| No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame
| WithinReason wrote:
| It would be super cool, without being supercool
| rezonant wrote:
| or superhot for that matter!
| thehappypm wrote:
| They've just proven (if true of course) that it's possible at
| all. That is a massive, massive leap.
|
| And once it's possible, it won't be long until it's optimized.
| We've seen this everywhere -- transistors were once huge and
| now nanometers; solar cells have improved in every where;
| batteries are cheaper and better than ever.
| pohl wrote:
| I was with you on the first part. If this proves room-
| temperature/ambient-pressure is possible at all, that is
| huge.
|
| Not so sure about the "won't be long until it's optimized,"
| though. There are a lot of examples where something seems
| perpetually 20 years away. I'd advise tempering the
| transistor-based optimism with just a skosh of fusion energy
| skepticism.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Compared to fusion it _should_ be a lot simpler and if
| there is one material that exhbits these properties there
| might be more. I 'm really hoping this isn't a scam and
| that there isn't some kind of critical error. Regardless of
| how much more work needs to be done to get this to
| commercially viable at scale _if_ true I would imagine that
| massive investment will start chasing that goal.
|
| Just thinking about the possible applications for storage
| makes me dizzy. Fingers crossed.
| serf wrote:
| >There are a lot of examples where something seems
| perpetually 20 years away. I'd advise tempering the
| transistor-based optimism with just a skosh of fusion
| energy skepticism.
|
| most of the common examples are in-the-works or exist in
| some form, they just don't satisfy the 'every-person'
| checkbox yet.
|
| AI? sure. Flying cars? sure. Robots? sure.
|
| Fusion is in the works, too. Tens of billions of dollars
| being thrown into the ring by private capital -- and
| recently -- which is a pretty good indicator of 'perceived
| realistic' historically.
|
| Also, it's kind of apples/oranges. We had equivalent
| mechanisms before the transistor, transistors just lead to
| extreme miniaturization of logic gates that we now enjoy.
| Fusion energy production doesn't (really) have that
| equivalent.
|
| similarly : room temperature atmospheric pressure
| superconductors are _a new thing_ if proven possible.
| jacquesm wrote:
| > Fusion energy production doesn't (really) have that
| equivalent.
|
| It does, actually. It's the miniaturization that's the
| hard part.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| How powerful is the magnetic field in typical brushless motor?
| Even if it can't be used for an MRI machine, it could do
| wonders for efficient robotics and electric vehicles.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| Super cool!
|
| What's the queue of things we'd like to do with a room
| temperature superconductor, and how might they affect my life?
|
| [I'm not being sarcastic, genuinely curious]
| swayvil wrote:
| This is huge. I am stunned and advise withholding judgment until
| further evidence arrives.
|
| My second thought, how does it respond to magnetic fields?
| WizardClickBoy wrote:
| Holding... But I do so badly want this to be true.
| swayvil wrote:
| Me too.
| skunkworker wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtVjGWpbE7k
|
| This is an unlisted video of the LK-99 film (purportedly)
| cududa wrote:
| I need someone to burst my bubble, this is too exciting
| stronglikedan wrote:
| I can't deboonk it from what I can see. It would be
| interesting if it zoomed out to show the environment this was
| occurring in.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Expect the first iterations of that material to not actually
| hold currents well in a long (macroscopic) distance and
| create much weaker magnets than one would expect from a
| random superconductor.
|
| But it's also a surprise for theoreticians, and I guess the
| mechanism is very prone to improvement.
| lilgreenland wrote:
| Isn't this how copper already works without superconductivity?
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sENgdSF8ppA
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Only temporarily. After a fraction of a second the dampening
| isn't strong enough anymore to prevent the two from entering
| into contact.
| lilgreenland wrote:
| And I think that's what we are seeing in the video. The
| eddy current effect isn't permanent like in
| superconductivity. They have to keep moving the magnet
| around.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Ah, that's not the video I saw. I was referring to this
| one : https://sciencecast.org/casts/suc384jly50n
| [deleted]
| jeepers6 wrote:
| Number 5, 250 points, 200 comments, immediately suppressed to #59
| so pg and co can make sure they have time to line up some
| investments and launch SuperconductorFund.
| dang wrote:
| That's not how HN works.
|
| It set off the flamewar detector, as foota indicated. We've
| turned that off now.
| foota wrote:
| I think it's probably tripping the flame war detector, which
| triggers based on comment to upvote ratio iirc.
| lokl wrote:
| Will they invite a wide range of experts to publicly test their
| material?
| floxy wrote:
| Let's hope so. The easiest way to convince the world that you
| have a room temperature superconductor is to make up a big
| batch of samples and offer to distribute them to national labs
| for testing. First test, does it levitate a small permanent
| magnet, demonstrating diamagnetism?
| Mizza wrote:
| They have photographs of that on page 7 of the sister paper:
| https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2307/2307.12037.pdf
|
| Would love 3rd party confirmation as well, of course.
|
| Edit: Here's a video!
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtVjGWpbE7k
| skunkworker wrote:
| Thanks, I was looking for that video that was referenced in
| https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2307/2307.12037.pdf
|
| It's unlisted as well but published back in January of
| 2023. I wonder what they are going to think with the influx
| of views on it, (43 views as of this post)
|
| Is it just me or is it odd not seeing the normal
| condensation of the surrounding air due to a chilled
| superconductor like you get with a YBCO.
| megaman821 wrote:
| Partially levitating on the magnet seems kinda convincing.
| None of those materials would do that on their own.
| gus_massa wrote:
| They wrote the recipe. It looks like it's easier (for people
| that has a similar lab) to make your own instead of filling
| all the import reports to get one.
|
| Some superconductors get destroyed by humidity, so it may be
| difficult to ship them.
|
| If nobody can reproduce them, then they can send samples or
| travel the word making samples on site, or receive researches
| to train them.
|
| The good part of publishing the recipe, is that other people
| can make small variations. If this is true, there is just now
| a big race to get a higher record temperature.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| This stuff is the materials science equivalent of making a
| baking soda volcano, in terms of difficulty. If their results
| are BS we will know quite quickly. I have no doubt people are
| attempting to reproduce their results right now. If they wanted
| to get the credit for a BS discovery they definitely could have
| picked something harder to reproduce. They're making a very
| easily verifiable or falsifiable claim.
| giarc wrote:
| That's a good way of putting it. If you are a fraud, why make
| it so easy for someone to call your bluff.
| Maxion wrote:
| This comes accross as very passive-aggressive.
|
| Researchers come to a conclusion and make a paper, this is
| exactly how it is done.
|
| Others can try to replicate their results, the paper is very
| explicit with what they've done.
| postmortembees wrote:
| The instructions they provide in the paper seem fairly
| straightforward and reproducible, I'd expect that if this is in
| fact legit, there will be many attempts to replicate the result
| quite quickly.
| lokl wrote:
| Thanks for commenting, as I'm not qualified to evaluate this.
| Authors providing such instructions should be commended, even
| if their result turns out to be false due to errors in
| measurement or interpretation.
| jacquesm wrote:
| If true this will be worth a Nobel.
| downWidOutaFite wrote:
| Would lead-apatite be amenable to creating wires out of it?
| TNorthover wrote:
| Doesn't matter how amenable it is, if it's a room temperature
| superconductor wires will be made out of it. We'd make wires
| out of jelly for that.
| carabiner wrote:
| [flagged]
| alliao wrote:
| this invoked a dusty memory of the back to the future II movie;
| the hover board was a Barbie branded one
| kensai wrote:
| It reminds me the properties of "Floatstone" in Civilization:
| Beyond Earth! :)
| voldacar wrote:
| The graphs on page 3 are exactly what you would expect with a
| real superconductor. The current/voltage/temp relationship
| especially. In fact I don't see how you get graphs that look like
| that unless you either created a superconductor or are just
| blatantly making up the data. This could be enormous.
| icodestuff wrote:
| My first thought was "I really hope this is real and not
| someone having left the data collection software in simulation
| mode." If this reproduces, it's historic. If it doesn't, it's
| either cold fusion or faster-than-light neutrinos.
| Geee wrote:
| Insane if true. Unlocks a completely new chapter for the human
| tech tree.
| carabiner wrote:
| This is too soon. We don't even have monopole magnets but we
| have superconductor fusion powered AGI. This will destabilize
| society.
| swarfield wrote:
| https://imgflip.com/i/7tq0s3
| BariumBlue wrote:
| Ohh ... this could actually be relatively big. From abstract:
| "The superconductivity of LK-99 originates from minute structural
| distortion by a slight volume shrinkage"
|
| There was previously research done investigating how changes in
| atomic structural alignment affect superconductivity (such as by
| cooling). I think researchers were trying to maintain the spacing
| that superconductors had while cool even when it was heated up.
| This sounds line with that other research, though I can't find
| the article again, please correct me if you find otherwise.
|
| Still likely to be rather fragile and temperamental to work with
| ... but this seems like it's possibly legit.
| LastMuel wrote:
| Is this the prior post you're referencing?
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36479776
| BariumBlue wrote:
| Yes! That was exactly what I was thinking of! I love one of
| the comments - "But might this physical stretching then also
| allow room temperature superconductors, if not why not?"
|
| They were thinking of stretching at a macro scale (like
| bending a bar of stuff), rather than essentially "stretching"
| at the chemical scale which is what I understand they did
| here. Super cool!
| foota wrote:
| If true, this should dramatically improve the timeline for
| practical fusion energy, right?
| jjk166 wrote:
| Not necessarily. While obviously it would be nice to not have
| to cool superconductors, it's not much of a technical
| challenge. Much more relevant is the strength of the magnets -
| fusion reactors need very strong magnets which is why they use
| superconductors, but there is still a limit to how strong they
| can be made. Unfortunately the higher temperature a material
| becomes a superconductor, typically the less able it is to
| handle strong magnetic fields. The extent depends on the type
| of material it is and there can be other benefits like smaller
| size that could justify using weaker magnets, so it is still
| possible it could help, but it's unlikely to be a game changer.
| foota wrote:
| Ah interesting, thank you! Maybe I can hope that the
| discovery leads to further novelty then :) Maybe the same
| effect can occur in lower temperature superconductors as
| well. I guess there's a sweet spot for ease of construction,
| field strength, and temperature.
| peter_d_sherman wrote:
| My takeaway:
|
| >"In 2008, Gozar et al. reported hightemperature interface
| superconductivity between metallic and insulating copper
| oxides(39). The thinner the layer, the greater the stress-
| inducing effect, the greater the strain, which seems to be the
| higher the superconducting transition temperature. Therefore, we
| argue that the stress caused by temperature and pressure brings a
| minute structural distortion and strain, which create an
| electronic state for superconductivity."
|
| Anyway, very interesting paper!
| otikik wrote:
| Huge if true.
| intrasight wrote:
| The Sagan standard is the adage that "extraordinary claims
| require extraordinary evidence" (a concept abbreviated as ECREE).
| But one can hope such evidence is forthcoming. And if it is, then
| short the oil majors.
| floxy wrote:
| Regular evidence will suffice. If people can make the material
| and levitate a small permanent magnet above the sample at room
| temperature, that will be sufficient.
| nine_k wrote:
| "Extraordinarily" may mean here "reproduced in 100
| laboratories consistently", beyond any doubt.
| jjk166 wrote:
| If 99 labs reproduce the results and 1 doesn't, my guess
| would be that the one lab screwed up.
|
| Realistically, once you get a handful of independent
| reproductions, the odds that something is an error or a
| fraud drop to basically nil.
| floxy wrote:
| >"reproduced in 100 laboratories consistently"
|
| That's a pretty high bar. Everyone has their own threshold
| of skepticism, but if NREL announced next week that they
| followed the recipe and it was superconducting at room
| temperature, I'd be willing to bet money on it being real.
| nine_k wrote:
| High indeed, as in "extraordinary".
|
| I think that "reproduced at 100 labs" is near the level
| of reproduction at any university lab, maybe even as a
| part of students coursework. Which would actually be
| great, since we don't have trouble reproducing some other
| important electromagnetic and quantum phenomena, like
| light diffraction, at an ordinary university lab.
| floxy wrote:
| Yes, I'm saying my threshold is a _lot_ lower than
| reproducibility at 100 labs.
| hatsunearu wrote:
| superconductivity isn't really "extraordinary" though, the
| evidence to tell whether superconductivity is happening is
| relatively mundane.
| abtinf wrote:
| Or go long--such a breakthrough would radically increase demand
| for energy.
| nine_k wrote:
| Depending on the expense of making the new material, it may
| become actually feasible to build solar panels across Sahara
| and feed both Africa and Europe with the electricity
| generated, because transmission will become lossless and
| physically compact.
| WanderPanda wrote:
| Geopolitically infeasible, look at the mayhem caused by
| nord stream alone
| nine_k wrote:
| Maybe it could be a stabilizing factor, because the many
| interests involved would be mostly aligned. However
| unstable Middle East is, most of the time no oil well is
| on fire, or in a war zone.
| WanderPanda wrote:
| It is not about the steady state being unstable on its
| own, it is about how easily it can be brought out of
| equilibrium with a very small force (of a hand full of
| people). An inherent flaw in the centralized nature of
| such a system
| nine_k wrote:
| How easily Saudi oil industry could be brought out of its
| equilibrium?
|
| How easy was it to do that for Kuwaiti oil industry, and
| how long did it last?
|
| When enough interests are aligned, equilibria stay pretty
| steady, exactly because there are _several_ powerful
| interests.
| aqme28 wrote:
| The other paper from them claims to have a video of room-
| temperature magnetic levitation with one of their samples, but
| I haven't been able to find the link.
| balloonthief wrote:
| https://sciencecast.org/casts/suc384jly50n
| telltruth wrote:
| Could someone explain why is this world changing?
| unethical_ban wrote:
| I believe MRIs use superconductivity, so I assume any
| application of superconductors that doesn't require heavy,
| large, energy-consuming cooling will benefit greatly.
|
| Perhaps MRIs will become ubiquitous and cheap, something we all
| get every time we go to the doctor?
|
| Superconduction also has some weird magnetic properties I
| believe, so there could be benefits regarding maglev transport.
|
| And finally and most basically, the movement of electrical
| energy across potentially large distances with zero loss would
| be a great thing.
| fluidcruft wrote:
| I have no real idea what I'm talking about but figure 1 has
| critical magnetic flux curve ranging up to 3000 Oe so... in
| MRI-speak maybe it tops out before 0.3T? IIRC permanent
| magnet MRI have already been built in the 0.3T range, but
| they're very heavy and outclassed by the higher-field
| scanners. Clinical MRI nowadays typically runs at 1.5-3T
| (with some clinical scanners at 5-7T).
|
| Having said that there is a resurgence of interest in low-
| field MRI lately, primarily marketed for use in developing
| nations and for combination machines that integrate radiation
| therapy. From what I've heard from diagnostic radiologists,
| the low-field MRI scanners seem to be of limited diagnostic
| value on their own.
|
| Anyway that's just my thought that the best/first
| applications here may not be about generating magnetic
| fields.
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| Superconductors change every assumption about how we harness
| electricity and magnetism. Beyond reducing the cost of
| electricity transmission, they enable all sorts of fascinating
| applications:
|
| - They enable low cost, continuous, passively-stable magnetic
| levitation. Superconductors could replace ball bearings in many
| applications.
|
| - They enable permanent magnets that are far stronger than any
| we make from conventional magnetic materials. For example,
| motors tend to run at high speed and low torque, so as to
| minimize heat generated from current in the copper windings.
| Superconducting direct-drive motors could allow for ultra-high-
| torque actuators without any need for gearing, and with minimal
| heat generation or losses. So superconducting electromagnets
| could replace everything from electric motors to hydraulic
| pistons to simple springs.
|
| - Superconductors allow for very sensitive antennas and
| magnetic field sensors, allowing for near-field detection of
| very small signals (such as from neurons firing in the brain).
| There is a lot of impressive technology that only exists inside
| research labs where a generous supply of cryogenic liquids are
| always on hand. Those could make their way into mass-market
| products.
|
| That's just a very short list.
| postmortembees wrote:
| What if your PC did not need cooling, because it generated no
| heat? How much more potent could computers be?
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Computation inherently generates heat, but if you could
| make chips that release negligible amounts of heat, you
| would unlock the third dimension which would help with
| reducing signal length and enable computers to be
| significantly faster.
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| It probably wouldn't greatly affect the heat generation in
| a PC, unless the transistors could themselves be replaced
| with some superconducting alternative. Harnessing the
| efficiency from that would probably require that the
| computer be designed as a reversible computer. It would be
| its own research avenue.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Unfortunately, as soon as you actually use the result of
| the computation in any kind of practical manner as an
| output, you break reversibility, though you could make
| the heat production happen away from the computation.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| The idea of reversible computing is that if you only add
| heat in a few instructions, you can have a much more
| economical computer. And magnetronics is a good candidate
| for implementing this, so yeah, computers that use a
| _lot_ less power are an application too.
| MayeulC wrote:
| I don't think you actually need reversibility if you
| don't discard the energy but return it to the power
| supply?
|
| In other words, "reversibility", but you can actually
| pool the useless results together, you don't need to
| separate them later. Or so I read somewhere...
| sudosysgen wrote:
| I might be wrong since I've studied this a long time ago,
| but from what I remember, in order to do that
| classically, you need to copy the output bits somewhere
| else before uncomputing your system and recovering the
| ancilia.
|
| That's technically fine, as long as you have an infinite
| supply of stably initialized bits onto which to copy your
| result. Initializing those bits is going to be non-
| reversible in some way.
| piyh wrote:
| Pentium 4 to 10 GHz, here we come!
| LinAGKar wrote:
| Something that immediately comes to mind for me in Sweden, is
| that the country is fairly long in latitude, and most of our
| electricity production is from hydroelectric power in the
| northern half of the country, while most of the population is
| in the southern half of the country. Better energy
| transmission could help a lot.
| cassepipe wrote:
| I read that as an overly conservative cry :D
| traverseda wrote:
| Superconductors are basically perfectly conductive wire. Wires
| that transfer 100% of power over arbitrary distances and that
| don't heat up. Obviously there are limits, you can't put
| arbitrary power over a hair thin filament but as long as you're
| under that limit you get perfect efficiency.
|
| MRI machines can be made a lot simpler as you no longer need to
| use liquid nitrogen to cool the superconductors. MRI machines
| could end up being small and cheap.
|
| Perfectly efficient electromagnets make a lot of problems in
| fusion reactors simpler, I'm not sure that room temperature
| superconductors make fusion reactors instantly viable but it's
| a big step and would reduce the energy requirements for a
| fusion bottle by a lot.
|
| Basically anything involving electromagnets becomes a lot more
| efficient. Motors can be made smaller, generators can be made
| much more efficient for the weight, maglev trains can require
| very little power to hover. It has effects on almost every
| industrial process as it fundamentally changes the weight and
| energy efficiency of anything involving electromagnets.
|
| One neat things would be surgical robots that can work as an
| MRI while also levitating a small blade in a 3D space.
| Challenging for sure but when you can replace complicated
| liquid-nitrogen cooled coils with an array of simple passive
| coils a lot of options open up.
|
| Superconductors can also be used for power storage, and at room
| temperature that becomes a lot more viable.
|
| Here's this big wikipedia page on applications of
| superconductivity:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_applications_of_...
|
| Also on the less useful side, rail guns.
| bilsbie wrote:
| What kind of energy density could we get using it for energy
| storage?
|
| Maybe it's competitive with batteries if you don't need any
| cooling?
| traverseda wrote:
| Like 1-10 wh/kg from what I've seen. Probably better off
| building a ring around the planet so we can just always
| have solar panels lit up somewhere.
| bilsbie wrote:
| I wonder if that low number includes all the cooling
| equipment though?
|
| But even if not it could be great for a capacitor
| alternative or stationary storage.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| Superconductors are a transferring energy technology, not a
| storing energy technology. Although they would likely
| augment the efficiency of storage technologies.
| [deleted]
| bilsbie wrote:
| Actually both https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconduc
| ting_magnetic_ene...
| sudosysgen wrote:
| They can be used to store energy, though they're pretty
| terrible at it for all but specialized applications.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| > What kind of energy density could we get using it for
| energy storage?
|
| Actually, not a lot. The are some very compelling uses of
| them for storing energy, but they are much more relevant
| for distribution grid stability and control than for raw
| energy storage.
|
| There are people here are pushing some really non-
| compelling use cases (like long distance power
| distribution), but there are plenty of transformative ones.
|
| (But the thing is that this one on the paper is much less
| useful than it could be. There is still some work on
| understanding why and fixing it.)
| Kirby64 wrote:
| A note about MRI machines: they use liquid helium, not liquid
| nitrogen. LN2 isn't cold enough. Being able to eliminate
| liquid helium would be huge, as helium is scarse and quite
| expensive. Its roughly 10x the cost of LN2 and only going to
| get more expensive.
| fluidcruft wrote:
| They use both liquid helium and liquid nitrogen. The
| nitrogen is used to cool the helium. On MRI scanners that
| have come to market in the last few years, helium volume
| has been reduced at least 100x and is now only a few liters
| (i.e. previously >1000L and requiring frequent top off to
| <1L and requiring refill only after emergency/full power
| loss).
| Tuna-Fish wrote:
| Previous improvements in high-temperature superconductors
| already made it possible to build a MRI machine using LN2
| instead of LHe. I think all existing operational units
| still use LHe, but using LN2 has been demonstrated in lab
| conditions, and the next generation of machines will almost
| certainly use it instead of helium.
| inasio wrote:
| Or maybe not anymore ...
| zardo wrote:
| It still might be worth cooling this with LN2, in many
| applications, assuming critical current and critical
| field scale up as temperature decreases as they do with
| other superconductors.
| chasd00 wrote:
| i bet companies that make elaborate cooling system for gaming
| pcs are getting nervous hah.
| ZiiS wrote:
| His many devices rely on coduction, how many are thermally
| limited by efficencies?
| GordonS wrote:
| I see lots of comments saying this is a huge deal if true. Can I
| ask... well, why? What can we do/make with this?
| Rhapso wrote:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_magnetic_ene...
|
| Basically really high density batteries that work efficiently
| forever, zero friction bearings via levitation, zero resistance
| long haul energy transport, and an MRI you can probably run on
| household current.
|
| Plus maximally efficient (not perfect efficiency just the best
| we could theoretically practically get) energy storage,
| transport, generation, and conversion back to motion.
| GordonS wrote:
| Wow, that really does make it sound like a potentially world-
| rocking discovery! (if it turns out to actually work in
| reality, of course).
| foota wrote:
| (don't forget super CPUs)
| slashdev wrote:
| This is an unreviewed preprint coming out of South Korea. If it's
| reproducible it would be the biggest scientific discovery of the
| last hundred years. It will literally reshape the world.
|
| However, the most likely thing is they made a mistake and the
| paper will be withdrawn.
|
| But imagine if it's true.
| alsaaro wrote:
| They claim to have observed the Meisner effect, quantum locking
| unique to superconductors, a pretty big signal, so more likely
| fraud than a mistake.
| hinkley wrote:
| I haven't touched much physics since college. Could the
| Meisner effect be observed in a material that is not
| superconducting? Or would that be new physics if it were the
| case?
|
| I suppose that would be a useful material even if it couldn't
| be used for high current applications.
| rotexo wrote:
| Yeah, very probably fraud. Only puzzle is why they would
| choose something so easy for other labs to try (and fail) to
| replicate.
| carabiner wrote:
| Desperate people do crazy things. This is career-ending
| fraud. South Korea has the highest suicide rate in the
| world. The pressure to achieve is enormous and makes people
| shortsighted.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| This also wouldn't be the first time a south korean
| scientist blatantly made shit up to be a super special
| scientist in ROK.
|
| All judgement withheld until we get a few more labs
| chiming in with their results though.
| sfink wrote:
| Yes, normally when people come up with some BS about room
| temperature superconducting, they really just mean they've
| observed one of the indirect effects of superconductivity.
| "If you put an ohmmeter in my funky circuit, it displays
| zero!" Which usually just means you've come up with a clever
| way to break an ohmmeter.
|
| Ejecting the magnetic field (the Meissner effect) is a way
| better sign.
|
| I find it very hard to believe that this could be true, but
| at least they're measuring the right things.
| giarc wrote:
| How long do you think it'll take for the scientific
| community to determine whether this is fraud, error or the
| real deal?
| scarmig wrote:
| Less than a week. It's a simple material to synthesize,
| and the tests conducted on it are pretty typical with
| effect sizes that don't require any sophisticated
| statistics to observe.
| zardo wrote:
| I don't think mistake is a possibility. If it doesn't
| superconduct at room temperature, the photo of it levitating
| has to be faked.
| tigershark wrote:
| There is also a video posted above from where the photo is
| taken and it doesn't look fake.
| DrBazza wrote:
| Indeed, huge if true. I hope it's not another cold fusion
| moment.
| [deleted]
| Mizza wrote:
| "We believe that our new development will be a brand-new
| historical event that opens a new era for humankind."
|
| Hell of a way to end a paper.
| ZiiS wrote:
| If iron was worth naming an era after this will be.
| botro wrote:
| But they've trademarked the name KL-99 ((r)) in their
| follow-up paper:
|
| https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.12037.pdf
| WASDx wrote:
| Stone age
|
| Bronze age
|
| Iron age
|
| LK-99 ((r)) age
| optimalsolver wrote:
| If this is real, I wouldn't even mind.
| arrowsmith wrote:
| Can someone ELI5 to those of us who aren't even sure what a
| superconductor is?
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| A material with no electrical resistance. Build a wire out
| of it and the voltage will be the same on both ends.
| MayeulC wrote:
| That also means that electrons flow unimpeded from one
| side to the other.
|
| Great for energy transmission (though you can't put too
| much current, superconductivity breaks down under strong
| fields).
|
| Great for fast circuits, such as CPUs, that don't waste
| energy just transmitting data.
|
| Great for storing energy (in principle) by just making a
| loop and let current flow indefinitely.
|
| Related, great for building powerful magnets (that are
| just such a loop) without wasting too much energy.
| Applications: MRI machines (they already use
| superconductors but are bulky due to the need for
| cooling) and other powerful magnets: LHC/particle
| accelerators, Tokamaks/plasma control/fusion. But also
| improved motors and generators.
|
| Nice for levitating stuff since they levitate above
| magnets "for free" (due to their interaction with
| electrical fields, they reject magnetic fields). Possible
| applications for maglev (trains, etc), magnetic bearings,
| etc.
|
| And possibly a lot of new applications opened up if you
| remove the need for cooling (Faraday cages?).
|
| Of course, it all depends on how much current and
| temperature it can handle. But if this is real, just
| having one material is game-changing, and it will surely
| be improved upon by looking for similar properties in
| other materials. This one contains lead, which is a non-
| starter for a lot of applications due to its toxicity.
|
| Someone else wrote a few use-cases in that other comment:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36866686
| littlestymaar wrote:
| > This one contains lead, which is a non-starter for a
| lot of applications due to its toxicity.
|
| We've been using cadmium-based batteries for ages despite
| Cadmium being even more toxic than lead, and are still
| using lead batteries in ICE cars AFAIK. Lead toxicity
| isn't really a problem unless you burn it, deliver water
| through it or you put it on paint that end up in kids'
| mouth...
| MayeulC wrote:
| I agree that it can still be used in a lot of
| applications, but this would probably restrict its use in
| everyday items, such as over-the-counter magnetic
| bearings,long-distance transmission lines, or consumer
| electronics (RoHS).
|
| Lead batteries for cars are a bit special, as the whole
| supply chain goes both ways for recycling, while
| batteries are rather self-contained and not usually
| exposed to harsh environments.
|
| Though I suspect you are right in the end, as it's a
| matter of judging the risk vs reward, I wouldn't be
| surprised if other materials with a similar structure end
| up performing similarly.
|
| Pb is also quite hard to use in integrated circuits, as
| far as I know. I am no material scientist, but it could
| be due to its low melting point or tendency to
| contaminate other metals.
| jacquesm wrote:
| And the voltage will be the same on both ends _when it
| has current flowing through it_.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| The only thing that holds a voltage without current
| flowing through it is an insulator.
| jacquesm wrote:
| This isn't even wrong. A voltage can be present without a
| current flowing. Touch any live wire to get an instant
| demonstration that there indeed was a voltage present
| even if no current was flowing. Not because the wire is
| an insulator but because it wasn't at that point in time
| conducting any current. Your finger (also not an
| insulator) closing the circuit however and then allowed
| current to flow.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Ouch, you need to take another look at that.
|
| The definition of an insulator is a material that holds
| (up to some amount of) voltage without electrical
| currents appearing.
|
| Your example needs two wires. And the wires themselves
| don't have any voltage. All of the voltage is between
| them, and is only there because they are insulated from
| each other.
| jacquesm wrote:
| No, the definition of an insulator is a material that
| doesn't have the ability to carry current because it has
| no free electrons.
|
| You are conflating 'insulated' and 'insulator'.
| Tuna-Fish wrote:
| When you cool some materials down until they are very cold,
| something weird happens: Their electrical resistance
| vanishes, and they start rejecting all magnetic fields.
| It's important to note that this is not a continuous
| process where things slowly change until it reaches zero,
| it is a step change after which everything related to
| electricity works very differently.
|
| This doesn't mean there is no resistance in the wires that
| move electricity to your house, because superconductors
| only work when cooled to unpractically low temperatures,
| meaning they can only be used for special things like the
| magnets in MRI machines and fusion reactors.
|
| That is, until now. This paper reports on a material that
| remains a superconductor at 127C.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Their electrical resistance vanishes_
|
| To put this in further context, RTP superconductors mean
| compact, low-power MRIs and a massive shrinking,
| simplification and superpowering of magnetic-confinement
| fusion and ion propulsion designs. It blows apart chip
| designers' thermal constraints and opens up entire
| classes of energy-storage chemistries.
|
| If this is real, it will be the defining discovery of our
| lifetimes.
| bananapub wrote:
| > superpowering of magnetic-confinement fusion
|
| though worth remembering we still don't know how to
| stabilise plasma or sensibly generate electricity from
| it.
|
| > It blows apart chip designers' thermal constraints
|
| really? much of the heat in chips comes from the
| /connections/ between transistors etc?
| bertil wrote:
| Better than "Further research is warranted" and love "Further
| research is warranted." I really wish they didn't get that
| one wrong.
| downWidOutaFite wrote:
| Even if we found the perfect material, where it was easy and
| cheap to create long strong wires for power transmission as
| well as semiconductor-scale nano wires, we'd be gaining
| something like (wild ass guess) 20% gain in efficiency. 20%
| would be nice but would it really beat the last hundred years
| of discoveries? I don't think so, especially with digital
| tech's profound world-reshaping continuing to accelerate.
| abtinf wrote:
| There is no substitute for infinite.
| adrianmonk wrote:
| It could potentially change energy storage. Superconductors
| with refrigeration are already used for this, but only in
| niche applications.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_magnetic_energ.
| ..
|
| I'm not an expert, and everything that follows comes from a
| quick reading of this Wikipedia article.
|
| It seems like (counter-intuitively) refrigeration isn't a
| significant cost compared to all the other stuff that's
| necessary. So at first glance it seems like high-temperature
| superconductors might not make a big difference.
|
| However, that Wikipedia article does say this:
|
| > _The critical temperature of a superconductor also has a
| strong correlation with the critical current. A substance
| with a high critical temperature will also have a high
| critical current. This higher critical current will raise the
| energy storage exponentially. This will massively increase
| the use of a SMES system._
|
| Right now, superconducting energy storage has a lot of
| advantages, but it doesn't have very good energy density (by
| mass). Not even a tenth of what lithium-ion batteries have. I
| assume you couldn't power a car with it. But it has some
| compelling advantages in other areas. It has unlimited
| charge/discharge cycles. It has zero self-discharge. It has
| unlimited (in theory) power density, so you could charge or
| discharge it arbitrarily fast.
|
| Depending on what the energy density ends up being, it might
| suddenly become way more useful. It would have to be a
| gigantic leap in energy density, though.
|
| Also, not needing refrigeration could potentially open up
| smaller scale applications. Maybe you could have a
| residential superconductor storage system for your solar
| panels. (Although I don't know about its safety, so maybe
| not.)
|
| All this assumes the cost to build it is reasonable compared
| to other alternatives, that the discovery is real, etc.
| [deleted]
| sigy wrote:
| EMF becomes a fungible energy medium. Imagine storing energy
| in a field, just as we do with MRI machines, momentarily in
| the poles of motor windings, essentially anything inductive,
| or that operates as an electromagnet. Apart from dielectric
| losses and other environmental factors that are inescapable,
| the magnetic field becomes elastic like air [in] a balloon.
| The potential for this to modify energy consumption patterns
| is mind-boggling.
|
| [edit: typo]
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Don't superconducting magnets make fusion much easier?
| benlivengood wrote:
| Specifically you could lay undersea superconducting cables
| around the world and rely on a global electrical grid which
| allows for nearly 100% solar generation.
|
| Superconducting magnets become cheap and widely available
| which allows for maglev trains at massive scale. Costs for
| the LHC and similar experiments would drop dramatically. MRIs
| would only require air conditioning, if that; Modern cell
| phones are sufficient to compute tomography. Magnetic
| confinement fusion also becomes cheaper and easier. Electric
| cars could use superconducting motor magnets allowing for
| even greater power to weight ratios and efficiency.
|
| Just a few things off the top of my non-mechanical-engineer
| head.
| thfuran wrote:
| Global electric grids aren't on a common standard. They're
| not all the same frequency or voltage, so you can't just
| wire them together. And changing over would be a mess. MRIs
| require very high field strength that this superconductor
| likely cannot sustain.
| benlivengood wrote:
| But the interties between grids are often high voltage DC
| which would work fine between incompatible AC grids. I
| think, but am not sure, that you'd always want DC
| superconducting transmission lines to avoid inductive
| losses.
| hinkley wrote:
| You could also build power transformers that are more
| efficient. Transformers can be up to 95-98% efficient when
| running at their ideal power levels, but those numbers fall
| off when they are operating outside of that range. So
| you're probably looking at an almost 10% reduction of power
| usage by electronic equipment even before you get to making
| superconducting integrated circuits.
| nine_k wrote:
| I think not just maglev: a lot of typical bearings could
| possibly be switched from ball / roll to maglev, saving a
| lot on friction and maintenance.
|
| Undersea cables are a pie in the sky; current high-load
| cables in urban an industrial areas could be made much
| smaller, simpler, and lossless.
|
| I wonder if transformers, currently huge and expensive,
| could be made better with this, too; at least the ohmic
| losses could be removed, and thus a lot of need for
| cooling, and the fire hazards.
| soperj wrote:
| Why would you need transformers if you can send it
| losslessly?
| duskwuff wrote:
| Because, even in a superconductor, current density isn't
| unlimited.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_field
| toast0 wrote:
| > Specifically you could lay undersea superconducting
| cables around the world and rely on a global electrical
| grid which allows for nearly 100% solar generation.
|
| Not really, when the sun is up over the Pacific ocean,
| there's not that much sun over land. Maybe a global grid
| happens anyway, but cabling losses aren't the only source
| of cost, so I'd put my money on more localized
| improvements.
|
| Better interconnection between and within local grids
| (maybe a viable Tres Amigas interconnection, but even just
| better connections between sections of the major grids
| would help with grid management. Improvements in motors,
| MRIs, magnetic bearings, transformers, etc.
| abecedarius wrote:
| Scientific discoveries since 1923 include quantum mechanics,
| just for the first 1920s discovery to come to mind.
|
| Still it'd be a prime new part of "living in the sci-fi future"
| for me.
| eterevsky wrote:
| > the biggest scientific discovery of the last hundred years
|
| I would say that electronic computers would take take the first
| spot for me, but I don't deny that room-temperature
| superconductors would be pretty close to the top.
| barnabee wrote:
| Discovery vs invention
| rwmj wrote:
| This (or something derived from it) would be used for power
| delivery literally everywhere in the world. It might well be
| bigger in scale and volume than all the computers.
| nine_k wrote:
| I think it's comparing incomparable technologies. Like the
| wheel and the alphabet; both changed human history in
| profound ways, without competing with one another.
| amluto wrote:
| Dunno. A fancy tape or such made out of lead compounds
| would be a hard sell in comparison to ordinary copper for
| household wiring.
|
| But yes, for serious uses, this will be a big deal if it
| works out and can be made into a flexible cable. And I'm
| sure people will work on a less-toxic version.
| slashdev wrote:
| Losses to resistance inside your home don't matter much.
| In your computer they do, but it's not clear this helps
| with that.
|
| This would enable really long distance electrical
| transmission, which solves the whole intermittency issue
| with solar energy.
| nradov wrote:
| Long distance electrical transmission will still require
| huge capital investments and lots of maintenance even if
| transmission losses are eliminated. And as a practical
| matter, strategic political concerns will take
| precedence. In the current political climate it's hard to
| imagine connecting our grid to potentially hostile nation
| states which might cut off power supplies to apply
| pressure during a crisis.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| If we can't handle / get motivation for long-line HVDC
| transmission I guarantee you we aren't going to be able
| to put together the will to make an entire transmission
| system out of a novel material with unknown mechanical
| constraints. Long distance transmission is not a solved
| problem, but it's close. We have the technological
| capability now to make much, much better transmission
| systems. We just don't want to.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| I think we'd get over the whole RoHS thing, if room-
| temperature superconductivity is part of the deal.
| Maxion wrote:
| Superconducting power transmission cables solves the power
| storage problem of renewable energy sources.
|
| We'd just make a global energy grid, and the sunny side
| powers the dark side.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| It solves them for some cost of power cables < $X, where
| X is the cost of the power lost in traditional cables.
| Paul-Craft wrote:
| That won't save us. Not unless you know how to build it
| in the next 5 years.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36836722
| pcdoodle wrote:
| ^Soyjacks pointing^
|
| Joking aside, besides power transmission, what other
| obvious things can this tech be used for?
| MayeulC wrote:
| I'm just going to link the comment I wrote above :)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36867709
|
| Needless to say, this would be game-changing. But
| extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence etc,
| let's be cautiously optimistic here.
| pcdoodle wrote:
| Thank bro! are we talking like no heat loss in the traces
| on the motherboard type a deal or also on a wafer level
| internal to the CPU?
| slashdev wrote:
| Even if you were right, it behooves us to act as if our
| actions mattered. Otherwise, what's the point.
|
| I don't think you're right, for the record.
| jjk166 wrote:
| While that would be nice, it's not exactly revolutionary.
| We can already build cables to transmit power over vast
| distances and can certainly imagine a world where we do the
| same, but with higher efficiency. The computer transformed
| how we live our lives and reshaped our culture, to the
| point where what we are doing right now - casually chatting
| with anonymous people spread around the globe about a
| scientific paper that we can all read at our leisure
| immediately upon publication - was inconceivable within
| living memory.
| slashdev wrote:
| I'd say electronic computers were the biggest invention of
| the last 100 years. But it wasn't one discovery, that built
| upon many, many discoveries and breakthroughs.
|
| As a singular discovery goes, it's hard to think of something
| that tops this. Of course, even if this is true, bringing it
| to market in a practical way will probably look a lot more
| like the invention of electronic computers.
| MayeulC wrote:
| Hmm, maybe the atomic bomb? The wright brothers's first
| flight took place about 120 years ago, so it doesn't
| qualify. However, in both cases, people knew it was a
| matter of time before someone figured the proper recipe.
| Room temperature/pressure semiconductors? That was still
| science fiction yesterday.
|
| In short, you are probably right, with the sibling
| commenting on (BJT) transistors.
| LinAGKar wrote:
| The transistor could probably qualify
| slashdev wrote:
| Yeah, probably.
| ralfn wrote:
| Computers were invented long before they became invented.
|
| So that wouldn't be in the last 100 years.
|
| However unlike computers, if this idea works, it will get
| productized quickly.
| rewmie wrote:
| I'd say that not keeping electronic computers in mind is a
| testament to how big of a discovery they were, in the sense
| that we need to think hard about transformative discoveries
| to realize that not so long ago humanity didn't had
| electronic computers,and yet they are everywhere.
| frognumber wrote:
| No. It's not. The impact won't be bigger than, say, the jet
| engine (1935), nuclear power (1951), the computer processor
| (???), the internet (???), DNA (1953), or many others.
|
| The past century has had a lot going on.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| To change the world it has to be manufacturable at scale,
| stable, etc.
| rewmie wrote:
| I don't agree. Producing something at scale is only relevant
| if the goal is mass commercial distribution. Communication
| satellites changed the world and they are practically all
| (i.e., some exceptions such as space-x constellation) one-off
| builds of single-shot projects.
| barelyauser wrote:
| Communication satellites only changed the world because
| they broadcast to mass produced receivers.
| rewmie wrote:
| Mass produce as many receivers you want and don't launch
| the ad-hoc satellite. How useful are the receivers?
| akasakahakada wrote:
| I believe receiver use same tech as transmitter. When you
| have one, you must have the counterpart.
| rewmie wrote:
| > I believe receiver use same tech as transmitter.
|
| The hard problem solved by satellites is getting the
| satellite in orbit and getting it to stay there.
|
| Humanity already could send radio waves across the
| planet. Emitter and receiver is not the hard problem.
| barelyauser wrote:
| There is always low range broadcast I suppose.
| akasakahakada wrote:
| People use the same stupid argument when commenting on
| quantum computer. But in case of QC, one is powerful enough
| to compute everything and we might not even need two, except
| for spare. Say a 1000 qubits QC exist, Work that it can do is
| the sum of all computering power in human history. You cannot
| even verify if the result is right or not because simply you
| don't have any classical alternative for that workload.
| jcranmer wrote:
| > But in case of QC, one is powerful enough to compute
| everything and we might not even need two, except for
| spare. Say a 1000 qubits QC exist, Work that it can do is
| the sum of all computering power in human history. You
| cannot even verify if the result is right or not because
| simply you don't have any classical alternative for that
| workload.
|
| A 1000-qubit QC can't break a RSA-2048 key, let alone a lot
| of other interesting tasks. Quantum computers aren't
| magical things that provide exponential speedups on
| absolutely everything; they can only provide exponential
| speedups on some algorithms, and those algorithms generally
| require linear numbers of qubits to the problem size, so
| 1000 qubits is greatly limiting to problem size.
| Maxion wrote:
| Not necessarily. If this material is legit, this proves that
| room temperature superconductors can exist. If it works in
| this material, others might also work. Eventually it may lead
| to a material that can be manufactured cheaply enough. The
| potential monetary savings of such a material is so great,
| that you'll see billions flow into materials research.
| carabiner wrote:
| South Korea has been desperate for a Nobel prize for a long
| time. Don't be surprised if they jumped the gun for a false
| exciting result for national pride.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| You're not gonna get a noble prize for unverified results.
| laverya wrote:
| It's almost happened before! https://youtu.be/nfDoml-Db64
| carabiner wrote:
| Ya no shit. Desperation makes people do dumb things.
| distortionfield wrote:
| You think this team would jeopardize their reputations by
| faking this data with such easily verifiable and thus
| refutable claims?
| mrguyorama wrote:
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1892198/
|
| It's absolutely a possibility in the space of this
| situation. However, any judgement, positive or negative,
| should be withheld until other labs and people claim to
| reproduce or not.
| kjs3 wrote:
| It's not unheard of. [1]
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02401-2
| whiskeytuesday wrote:
| I mean that's almost exactly what happened with cold
| fusion, not faking so much as convincing yourself. What's
| the Feynman quote? "The first rule is do not fool
| yourself and you're the easiest person to fool" -
| something like that anyway.
| jakedata wrote:
| I was with them until I came across Figure D on page 7. It uses
| Comic Sans and calls the entire paper into question.
|
| Please note: this comment is an attempt at humor. Various
| people seem to have a difficult time discerning humor or
| sarcasm and choose to downvote. It is also possible (but
| unlikely) that I am not funny.
| tomashubelbauer wrote:
| Neither humor nor sarcasm advance interesting conversations
| on their own IMO.
| jakedata wrote:
| And yet humor and sarcasm can add spice to the
| conversation. I really did read the entire paper at the
| level of detail that allowed me to spot the inconsistency
| in the font. That was not made up, was substantive and
| should be corrected before it goes to print.
|
| The PS was also very real as the grandparent gets buried
| under downvotes.
| vpribish wrote:
| room temperature superconductor does not need 'spice',
| save the clowning for something trivial
| blobbb wrote:
| the patent application is here
|
| https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2023027536A1/en?oq=WO202...
| COGlory wrote:
| Yeah, nobody get too excited. We still have to wait 20 years
| for the patent to expire.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Unless they are blatantly faking data, the released evidence
| looks very convincing. I am curious the degree to which this
| actually validates the theory they are discussing in their paper
| versus is some property they stumbled upon and have some
| retroactive justification for.
| Roark66 wrote:
| I very much wish it to be true, but until it is at least
| published in a peer reviewed journal I'm not holding my breath.
| blobbb wrote:
| the patent application on LK-99 is here
| https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2023027536A1/en?oq=WO202...
| blobbb wrote:
| filed 2022-08-25
| lopuhin wrote:
| I think it's even from 2021-08-25, see https://patents.google
| .com/patent/KR20230030188A/en?oq=WO202...
| roomey wrote:
| This would change the world of it was true
| beanjuice wrote:
| There was another in the same day [0], funny. Maybe it really did
| happen.
|
| [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12037
| svnt wrote:
| Two of the authors are the same. A little odd.
| moh_maya wrote:
| I mean- not really? They have developed / synthesized the
| material, and they collaborated with another lab that had the
| skills and equipment to conduct and interpret specific
| experimental techniques and results.
|
| Fairly common, especially in life sciences, and I suspect
| chemistry and materials science.
|
| Added in edit: This doesn't make the result any more or less
| credible; for that, the true test is independent replication
| of both the synthesis as well as the experimental
| measurements. But the fact that the two authors published two
| papers with different groups is orthogonal to whether the
| result is real / an experimental error / fraud. I so hope its
| true - but..lets wait for replication and validation by other
| qualified experts :)
| botro wrote:
| I think they also make mention of the other paper in the
| one being discussed, pages 12,13:
|
| "The Additional experimental results and discussions on
| LK-99 will be published immediately in the next paper,
| including an interesting controllable levitation phenomenon
| and the coexistence of magnetism and superconductivity,
| theoretical calculation, etc."
| [deleted]
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| This is almost certainly a mistake at best or completely bogus at
| worst. Reminds me a bit of that situation with someone who
| claimed they had evidence of successful human cloning - when it
| turned out all their results were lies.
|
| If it is true, it would be a revolution for nearly every field.
| So I certainly hope I'm wrong!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-25 23:00 UTC)