[HN Gopher] Superconductor news: What's claimed, and how strong ...
___________________________________________________________________
Superconductor news: What's claimed, and how strong the evidence
seems to be
Author : etiam
Score : 486 points
Date : 2023-07-26 17:46 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.science.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.science.org)
| carabiner wrote:
| Researcher on reddit thinks it's probably spurious measurement
| artifacts, not superconductivity:
|
| > I would say they are not faking it, but instead they just don't
| understand what they are looking at. Based on what measurements
| they are doing, as well as how they are doing them, they do not
| have a good understanding of the standard processes to
| characterise a superconductor. Also, based on their
| analysis/discussion, they do not have scientific knowledge of the
| background theory. In review of these two papers, it's terrible
| science, not something malicious (as has been seen before in RT
| superconductivity work...). Even if these claims turn out to be
| true, it's still terrible science, and that's my main criticism.
| Either way, these types of claims are not uncommon, see for
| example this paper from a few years ago which went nowhere.
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1807.08572
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/159g2k4/comment/...
| macromaniac wrote:
| He doesn't provide an actual counterargument,he just says he
| doesn't like the data without explaining why.
|
| His earlier comment that graphite can do the same thing is
| untrue afaict. Graphite can repel the magnetic field but it
| would slide off, this is why in diamagnetic experiments
| multiple magnets are used to keep it in place. In the video it
| doesnt seem to be sliding anywhere, so imo the video is not
| showing diamagnetism.
|
| https://sciencecast.org/casts/suc384jly50n
|
| Edit: Actually, now I'm not so sure, it does seem like it's
| held in place by one corner which is always pointing towards
| the outside of the magnet, so maybe it is just diamagnetism. If
| anyone has some pyrolytic carbon and wants to try it out?
|
| Edit2: 99% of YouTube videos on diamagnetism have multiple
| magnets, the only one I could find that has diamagnetism on one
| pole magnets shows it not working:
|
| https://youtu.be/D-tW8_SRW3g
|
| I think it's more than just pyrolytic carbon
| mhh__ wrote:
| Intuition shouldn't be considered harmful.
| whatshisface wrote:
| It is clearly resting on the magnet. I don't know the
| mechanics off the top of my head, but that is enough
| mechanical constraint for a pair of permanent magnets to
| levitate.
| willis936 wrote:
| It isn't. Permanent magnets would be unstable. This would
| have to be a diamagnetic or superconducting material.
| IshKebab wrote:
| It is, depending on how big the contact patch is. But
| does look pretty small in this video and it doesn't
| really behave like a permanent magnet would.
| [deleted]
| jeepers6 wrote:
| Superdiamagnetism occurs primarily in superconductors.
|
| Reminder that flux-pinned levitation only occurs when
| superconductors are cooled from above to below their
| critical temperature while in a local magnetic field.
|
| The researchers probably didn't heat up their big sample
| above the critical temperature in air as that could have
| mechanically destroyed it. It was already chipped almost
| in two.
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| > Reminder that flux-pinned levitation only occurs when
| superconductors are cooled from above to below their
| critical temperature while in a local magnetic field.
|
| Casual demonstrations of levitating superconductors
| involve first submerging the superconducting material in
| a (non-magnetized) tub of LN2, and then moving it onto a
| magnetic track. For example,
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5EoUD-BIss
| floxy wrote:
| >so maybe it is just diamagnetism.
|
| Superconducting levitation is just due to the perfect
| diamagnetism of the superconductor, right?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdiamagnetism
| hatsunearu wrote:
| I'm not a materials scientist but an electronics guy.
|
| > 1b) shows the resistivity at some unknown temperature. They
| are applying current and measuring no potential drop. Just
| what? First, state the temperature, next measure it as a
| function of temperature. At the critical temperature the
| resistance drops to zero. All they have shown is that the
| contact inputting the current is probably disconnected...
|
| this does not pass the sniff test for me. I explained on reddit
| myself why I think it doesn't make sense.
|
| The only way that could work is if they just straight up
| fabricated everything, and in that case all bets are off.
|
| I can't comment about the others since I don't know enough
| about it. Considering 1b) makes no sense with a modicum of
| knowledge, I really doubt the veracity of the rest.
| foven wrote:
| Agreed, this looks bogus. Some suspicious points:
|
| In the first paper, they claim to measure zero resistance (on a
| scale of microvolts), but are very careful not to show full RvT
| curves - in the second paper, we can still see significant
| changes below Tc where they include more complete curves. How
| can the resistance change significantly in the superconducting
| (zero resistance) state? We can actually see significant noise
| in paper 1 fig. 1c in the ohmic state and it even appears to
| behave as an insulator at 0 field (increasing resistance with
| decreasing temperature), but a metal with applied field.
| There's something wrong with the measurement.
|
| 400 K is an odd choice for your superconducting temperature,
| and just so happens to be the top end of what an MPMS system
| can measure so is not completely random. Surely it makes sense
| to measure significantly above this with one of the oven
| attachments, verify these results with collaborators at other
| labs even.
|
| 10 Gauss is an extremely small field to use for a ZFC-FC
| measurement and again if their superconducting Tc is at or
| above 400K they need higher temperature data to show anything
| about the phase transition.
|
| The claim that they have measured the density of states is
| completely unjustified - not even a citation. I don't know how
| you can believe that to be the case.
|
| And in general the presentation both of the data and the paper
| itself is poor - if you just made a groundbreaking discovery
| like this, wouldn't you care?
| LargeTomato wrote:
| >I would say they are not faking it, but instead they just
| don't understand what they are looking at
|
| What? How do they get funding and lab space if they can't read
| their own measurements? Something is fishy here.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| From what I understand, this group wasn't actually funded to
| look for superconductors but instead for materials to aid in
| quantum nanoscience - so the claim isn't that they don't know
| how to read their instruments but rather that they aren't
| well-versed enough in superconductor research to
| appropriately design/test for the phenomenon.
| _0ffh wrote:
| >> they do not have scientific knowledge of the background
| theory
|
| One of the co-authors of the 6-author-paper, Hyun-Tak Kim, is
| at least answering questions about superconductor theory on
| Quora starting five years ago, whatever that counts for.
|
| He states there "I am studying the MIT mechanism in strongly
| correlated systems, the high-Tc mechanism in cuprate
| superconductors, the MIT devices, and quantum transistors.".
|
| https://www.quora.com/profile/Hyun-Tak-Kim?share=1
| fluidcruft wrote:
| Another interesting comment by that redditor
| https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/159jojs/comment...
| [deleted]
| WaffleIronMaker wrote:
| Another interesting analysis from that post:
|
| > So, to clarify for my nonexpert brain, if this were a
| superconductor and their measurements were accurate:
|
| > Fig 5 means the sample must be completely pure to be a
| superconductor
|
| > The rest of the paper indicates the sample must have
| impurities.
|
| > So it's pretty safe to say that either it's not a
| superconductor or their measurements are wrong (or most likely
| both). Since they never got it to the critical temperature and
| showed the full Meissner effect, if the measurements are wrong
| it's fair to say they don't have evidence for superconductivity
| anyway, just diamagnetism, which isn't really that big a deal
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/159g2k4/comment/...
| btilly wrote:
| The paper that I'm seeing only has 4 figures.
|
| In any case, the need for impurities would not itself
| surprise. Having controlled amounts of impurities is called
| "doping", it is well-known from studying semiconductors and
| other high temperature superconductors that the amount of
| doping can have a huge impact on a substance's properties.
|
| See https://physicsworld.com/a/the-ups-and-downs-of-doping/
| for verification of this point.
| tux3 wrote:
| This is the second, slightly cleaner paper with more
| figures:
| https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2307/2307.12037.pdf
| tigershark wrote:
| As far as I understand there is no real explanation for the
| measurements and the video demonstrating the Meissner effect
| apart from faking it. The Reddit thread that you posted alleges
| that they were faking the video by super-cooling a non-room
| temperature superconductor for example. Do you have proof that
| they actually are so crazy to fake a certain Nobel prize when
| their research can be verified in a short time? From my side I
| will wait a week or two for the reproduction from other labs.
| You can continue spreading your reddit-based opinions until
| then.
| archepyx wrote:
| Another comment from a well informed source on the topic:
| https://nitter.net/condensed_the/status/1684255515944034304
|
| Also, on the sentences in the manuscripts trying to explain the
| effect: I think that is wild guess at best. The measurement
| results done in the manuscripts probably can be taken at at face
| value (at least until there is a reproduction). Whether they
| really indicate superconductivity or something else that looks
| like it in some of the aspects is then a different question.
| thepasswordis wrote:
| It's probably better to link to the original, not this mirror:
| https://twitter.com/condensed_the/status/1684255515944034304
| MikeBVaughn wrote:
| The replies don't load for me in this one.
| floxy wrote:
| Lots of people are saying there should be a quick turnaround time
| here for trying the replication. I wonder how much it would cost
| to try and replicate this, in materials, labor costs, and vacuum
| furnace time/costs. My naive thought is that that labs in general
| aren't just going to drop everything to try an replicate every
| instance of someone declaring they've discovered room temperature
| superconductivity. Seems more like a "there's a lull in paying
| work, so hey, why don't some of you junior technicians try this
| out" thing? Anyone have insight into this? I suppose a university
| lab might have more leeway here to try out spur of the moment
| experiments? Maybe this is a "I'm personally interested in this
| and I'll work in the evenings to test it out, instead of on
| company/university time"? Or are the authors high profile enough
| in the community that it meets a certain threshold of credibility
| that it seems more worthwhile than the average?
| nharada wrote:
| Under a week of work to publish potentially the highest impact
| paper of your PhD (especially if you're first)? I'm guessing
| most students would take that chance.
| soligern wrote:
| I'm sure this is on Applied Science's (a YouTube channel)
| radar. He recently went on a deep dive on making YBCO
| superconductors so it's right up his alley.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Just testing the samples already made in an independent
| laboratory would be replication enough!
| refulgentis wrote:
| Not much, see article (~1 day), or article + thread from
| yesterday. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36864624
|
| I don't think, at least generally, work is as rigid as
| indicated. At least at white collar jobs, and especially a
| research lab, and most especially a university research lab.
| floxy wrote:
| $10, $100, $1,000? 1 hour, 10 hours of labor?
| marcosdumay wrote:
| If you have the equipment, some $100s on consumables, some
| 10 hours of labor, and some 60 hours of waiting.
| abibibo wrote:
| From what I recall of the original paper, 1-2 hours of actual
| labor with equipment and reagents many labs already have on
| hand--although it required 24-48hours in the furnace at each
| step which is the only reason for the delay and why the article
| author mentions we should see results tomorrow. So, trivial
| enough most people in similar labs already spent more time
| discussing the implications than actual labor/investment to
| replicate.
| nneonneo wrote:
| Fleischmann and Pons' famous cold fusion result was announced
| on March 23 1989 and a spate of replication attempts followed
| in the ensuing weeks; by April 30 1989, the NYT ran an article
| calling cold fusion dead due to the large number of reported
| negative reproduction attempts.
|
| Scientists can move far quicker than you expect, and a positive
| or negative replication of this superconductor claim should be
| a very easy publication to grab. It would definitely be worth
| alloting a few weeks of grad student time to replicating this
| ASAP to get that publication.
| m463 wrote:
| The fact that there are other (competing?) scientists doing
| superconductor research suggests there will be organized
| attempts to verify it.
|
| That said, I remember reading about shockley having ideas
| about the transistor that he only fessed up to as his other
| more open collaborators started understanding the phenomenon.
| scarmig wrote:
| It's a reasonable enough paper, and replicating should be
| pretty easy (an undergrad could do it). Because the
| implications are so massive if true, people are going to jump
| on it.
|
| From the linked article:
|
| > You can bet that furnaces in solid-state materials labs
| around the world have been cooking yesterday and today to try
| to reproduce its synthesis and the properties, and we should be
| hearing about the results of these experiments very soon. The
| first samples should be coming out of the quartz vessels. .
| .sometime tomorrow, perhaps? Depends on what was available
| around the lab!
| floxy wrote:
| Yes, that quote from the article makes it seem like everyone
| is dropping everything and jumping right on it. I'm wondering
| how likely that is we'll find out this Friday vs. in the next
| couple of months, as people get around to it.
| kadoban wrote:
| It's an easy thing to attempt to replicate, and it's
| probably _the_ single biggest goal in a particular field of
| science in at least decades.
|
| It's impossible that at least some people didn't drop
| everything to try it.
| bluGill wrote:
| That depends on how easy it is to replicate, and if it is
| true. If it is easy (the 24 hour in the furnace is really
| long enough for everything to get to temperature - 10
| minutes is enough in ideal cases) then we will get lots of
| success Tomorrow. If it is hard, well we will get a lot of
| failures, but a few will try again an in a month as they
| refine technique will report a success.
|
| If it is false we may never get a final report, just
| everyone gives up on reproducing it. (though with the hype
| we may see it like cold fusion were a few not very good
| researchers keep it alive via badly done experiments).
|
| Only time will tell.
| scarmig wrote:
| Friday is more plausible than a couple months. If the radio
| silence ends up extending well-into next week, people are
| having trouble replicating and want to cross their ts
| before calling it out as fraud.
| bawolff wrote:
| If i make an analogy to p=np.
|
| If someone claimed to have a complex proof, i dont think people
| would stop and drop everything.
|
| If someone claimed to have a constructive solution to p=np,
| claimed to have implemented it, and put the code on github -
| yeah i think lots of people would drop everything to run it and
| see if it works.
|
| Im not a physicist, but maybe with the relative ease on making
| this material (according to other comments) it is more like the
| second situation.
| hatsunearu wrote:
| For real; the original paper is kinda shitty in terms of data
| presentation, and there's _significant_ value to make a
| follow up paper to create data and try to get your name out
| there.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| It doesn't require the kind of equipment that you have to
| justify to accountants and run at full capacity. And while the
| reactants are things that I believe most labs won't have at
| hand, they are the kind of thing anybody can buy on the web to
| arrive this week.
|
| Whether people will stop what they are doing to verify it is
| literally a matter of people stopping what they are doing.
| University labs are usually quick on that.
| mataslauzadis wrote:
| One of the elements used here is phosphorus (P) which is
| regulated by the DEA in the United States, and can't just be
| purchased online
| toast0 wrote:
| If you are at a materials science or physics lab, it can't
| be difficult to get.
| TillE wrote:
| Hell, Sigma Aldrich will sell you LSD. Established labs
| have no trouble with lightly restricted drug precursors,
| they've done all the paperwork.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _One of the elements used here is phosphorus (P) which is
| regulated by the DEA_
|
| I would have figured ATF. What drug can you synthesize with
| phosphorus? (EDIT: Apparently meth [1].)
|
| [1] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2000/09/25/00
| -2455...
| light_hue_1 wrote:
| > My naive thought is that that labs in general aren't just
| going to drop everything to try an replicate every instance of
| someone declaring they've discovered room temperature
| superconductivity. Seems more like a "there's a lull in paying
| work, so hey, why don't some of you junior technicians try this
| out" thing? Anyone have insight into this?
|
| Labs all over the world are dropping everything to replicate
| this. It's simple self interest.
|
| It only takes 2-3 days and the people involved in the paper are
| credible.
|
| If it's real, your lab would be at the forefront of the biggest
| revolution since the transistor. If it's real, there will be
| hundreds of papers on the topic by next year. Your lab could be
| the one to discover a variant that can carry more current, that
| could have patent on the material of the future power grid. The
| papers that provide the basics for how this works and the data
| that everyone will be using will get 100k+ citations in a few
| years. The PhD students that become experts in this will be in
| high demand everywhere.
| fortysixdegrees wrote:
| This is going to mess up RoHS
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restriction_of_Hazardous_Subst...
| bawolff wrote:
| There is already a bunch of exceptions for lead, if this is
| useful with no alternatives they would probably just add more
| exceptions.
| cperciva wrote:
| Not necessarily. The "strained crystal" approach probably
| extends to other elements; mixing Pb and Cu works well since
| there's a large difference in their sizes, but rare earths
| might work just as well as Pb.
| NoMoreNicksLeft wrote:
| Can we get those in volumes necessary to do high voltage
| lines though?
| varjag wrote:
| RoHS has a number of exceptions. Ambient temp/pressure
| superconductivity will absolutely be excepted too.
| seventytwo wrote:
| Nope, sorry. The EU is probably just gonna pass on RT
| superconductors. /s
| xeonmc wrote:
| See? Brexit was a good idea after all ;)
| konschubert wrote:
| I mean, they are trying to take a pass on AI... I wouldn't
| put it past us.
| [deleted]
| ajuc wrote:
| Lead-acid batteries are mostly lead and legal. I'm sure they
| will make this legal too.
| Exuma wrote:
| So where do we stay up to date with whether it's valid or not.
| mrandish wrote:
| TFA notes that it should be quick to replicate and it's
| definitely gotten enough attention. If the right lab has the
| needed materials readily available, I expect we'll start seeing
| credible people posting excited tweets implying initial
| confirmation as soon as Friday afternoon/evening (assuming it
| replicates on the first go). If we don't see anything by the
| end of next week I'd guess that either it's not replicating or,
| at minimum, it's more finicky than it first appears.
| TigeriusKirk wrote:
| This site will no doubt have the reports in either direction on
| the front page.
| algo_trader wrote:
| > (as well as an obvious instant Nobel prize).
|
| South Korea has been waiting for a (real, STEM) Nobel prize for
| decades.
|
| These guys will be worshipped as gods if they deliver
| mrandish wrote:
| South Korea: "We've developed reliable superconducting
| electricity."
|
| North Korea: "We're still working on reliable electricity."
| worik wrote:
| > (real, STEM) Nobel prize
|
| Ouch.
| xeonmc wrote:
| do stem cells count?
| nemo44x wrote:
| > These guys will be worshipped as gods if they deliver
|
| And rightfully so. Humanity is moved by great people and these
| would be great people. We would build monuments to them to
| symbolize their importance.
| carabiner wrote:
| I'd bet the country would be transformed by this. SK
| universities (SNU, KAIST) would rocket in reputation for solid
| state physics research. Massive money inflows to the country
| from production of the material. Deep down I think most of us
| realize that this will probably turn out to be nothing.
| dougmwne wrote:
| It's nothing unless it turns out to be something.
|
| I'll draw an analogy to the LLMs and diffusion models that
| have lately rocked the computer world. These things are
| straight up science fiction. I would have said computers
| would have never been capable of art and poetry. It was all
| fantasy until it was suddenly reality.
|
| We'll probably know if this can be replicated relatively
| soon. And if it can it will kick off a whole new branch of
| materials science and begin a multi-year race to
| commercialization.
|
| We are facing gigantic challenges in energy and climate. We
| need the win, so my fingers are crossed.
| chasd00 wrote:
| Dude I'm right there with you, fingers crossed!
| CBarkleyU wrote:
| >"real nobel price" "maths"
|
| psht, as if
| tux3 wrote:
| New scientist got a reply from the authors and a few other
| experts: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2384782-room-
| temperatur...
|
| >Kim has only co-authored one of the arXiv papers, while the
| other is authored by his colleagues at the Quantum Energy
| Research Centre in South Korea, some of whom also applied for a
| patent on LK-99 in August 2022.
|
| >Both papers present similar measurements, however Kim says that
| the second paper contains "many defects" and was uploaded to
| arXiv without his permission. In that paper, the work is
| described as opening a "new era for humankind".
|
| >Other experts that New Scientist consulted were similarly
| sceptical about the results and the data produced. Some raised
| concern that some of the results could be explained by errors in
| experimental procedure combined with imperfections in the LK-99
| sample.
| tigershark wrote:
| "Both papers present similar measurements"
|
| I'm not a physicist expert of superconductors, although I've
| followed quite closely that field since the '90s. But if the
| measurements are similar and correct and if the video of lk-99
| levitating above a magnet demonstrating the Meissner effect is
| not fake, I don't really have an alternative explanation to
| account for all of that. I guess that we'll see what happens in
| the next week or two. This is too high stakes to take longer
| than that for a so easily reproducible experiment.
| DarmokJalad1701 wrote:
| Without paywall: https://archive.is/Lve8I
| scarmig wrote:
| One odd thing that I've not seen any discussion on: the reported
| heat capacity of LK-99 decreases above 250K, which is pretty
| atypical. Has there been any commentary on that?
| groestl wrote:
| > Has there been any commentary on that?
|
| German, but nevertheless: http://blog.fefe.de/?ts=9a3f8740
|
| "I work in the field [...] we don't believe a word of this.
| [...] The data set in Fig. 4(b) is also a treat. It is VERY
| unusual when the heat capacity decreases again at high
| temperatures. This can happen at low temperatures, but not at
| high temperatures. [...] My personal assumption is that the
| authors measured an insulator, so no current flow and therefore
| no voltage occurred (4-point measurement). This would look like
| a superconductor. But if you then turn up the current (i.e. the
| applied voltage), breakdowns may occur and a current begins to
| flow. That would explain the sharp increase."
| scarmig wrote:
| Nice find.
| RyanAdamas wrote:
| Wow, that's pretty damning. Good one.
| jeepers6 wrote:
| "Damning" is the wrong word here. "Damning" would be "oh,
| look, the researchers forgot that the plot showing zero
| voltage also shows current dropping to zero. They're
| clearly measuring a bad contact."
|
| But the papers don't show that. There's no obvious
| contradiction unless you make some big assumptions.
| jonplackett wrote:
| If this material does just what they say it does, what would it
| revolutionise?
|
| Or as the article talks about, is this just a pointer at other
| possibilities that would be the real game changers?
| tamimio wrote:
| I would build a drone that levitates indefinitely.. for a
| starter.
| RC_ITR wrote:
| A lot of people are talking about very cool practical use
| cases, but I'm here just thinking 'all of our trains could
| float, wouldn't that be neat?' [0]
|
| [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCMaglev
| scarmig wrote:
| I'm excited about the ball bearings.
| Fordec wrote:
| In the immediate short term, the power level supported is too
| low for the real shiny applications that everyone talks about.
|
| But the main one that is screaming at me for this technology
| sitting in front of us is SQUID sensors and RF antennas that
| will operate in the lower power range of the potential
| applications spectrum.
| hatsunearu wrote:
| how does superconductivity benefit RF antennas?
|
| AFAIK loss at AC still occurs with superconductors because
| the dielectric loss through the materials still exists.
| floxy wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_radio_frequen
| c...
| superkuh wrote:
| Search "superdirective superconducting antenna". With
| normal conductors the directivity of an antenna depends on
| how many wavelengths it spans; the summation of the
| currents over the effective aperture. With superconducting
| materials you can exploit the weirdness in current
| distribution to make very directional antennas that are
| _small_ relative to the wavelength.
|
| It could be a game changer for making efficient directional
| small receive antennas. Normally electrically small
| antennas are just super inefficient but it's made up for
| either on the transmit side (like with high power AM radio)
| or with most of the gain coming from some low noise
| amplifier (like small UHF wireless devices).
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| > what would it revolutionise?
|
| "Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats living together! Mass
| hysteria!" --Venkman
| local_issues wrote:
| Fusion.
| [deleted]
| gene-h wrote:
| As far as I can tell the critical field, the maximum magnetic
| field it can withstand before turning into a regular conductor,
| is relatively low at 0.3 Tesla. In superconductors like YBCO,
| it's often more than 100 T. If critical field cannot be
| increased this will limit applications.
|
| Near term may be useful for devices which take advantage of
| quantum effects such as Superconducting QUantum interference
| devices or SQUIDs.
|
| Use in microelectronics may be possible, but is likely quite
| difficult. Making complicated structures out of this material
| will require radically new microelectronic manufacturing
| processes. HTSC microelectronics don't exist as far as I can
| tell.
|
| If critical field can be improved things get interesting. If it
| can be increased to that of known HTSCs at liquid nitrogen
| temperatures(critical field scales with temperature), that's
| interesting because this material should be cheaper.
|
| If it can be increased moderately at room temperature, there is
| the potential for it replacing rare earth magnets because the
| material should be cheaper.
| foven wrote:
| 0.3 T is pretty insignificant for everyday use - you need
| some pretty big coils carrying around 10 A to produce that
| sort of field. For something like this, the benefit would be
| in just making wires out of it for driving currents without
| loss of power (no resistance, no heating). Think big bulky
| overhead wires - but it's all moot if the material isn't a
| superconductor.
| syntaxing wrote:
| There's a ton of electromagnets that are super cooled (like
| single digit K cold) so that it can maintain a large magnetic
| field. While this is only the first step, pretty much any
| application that does something similar can be replaced with
| this room temperature super conductive material.
|
| Not only products would be impacted but experiments too,
| particularly particle experiments. All colliders need some sort
| of ridiculous magnetic field which uses a close loop helium
| chiller.
|
| Long term wise, anything that uses electromagnetic fields would
| be impacted, like motors and generators. You in theory can get
| stupidly efficient motors (99%+) motors with super conductors.
| ska wrote:
| Lots of systems with bulky and expensive cooling (think MRI
| scanners, e.g.) could become vastly more accessible.
|
| Wildly improved efficiency on some sensors, antenna, motors,
| etc.
| hovering_nox wrote:
| Here's a few from the top of my head:
|
| - A global power net. No solar power during the night? Just
| produce it on the other side of the planet.
|
| - A superconducting computer. Less resistance when pushing bits
| around = 500x less power consumption.
|
| - A Superconducting magnetic battery. Store power indefinitely
| with high efficiency.
| scarmig wrote:
| Most power loss in a computer comes from MOSFETs, not
| resistive loss. Which isn't to say that RTP superconductors
| wouldn't open up wild new possibilities.
|
| ETA: wrong
| hovering_nox wrote:
| _Much of the power consumed, and heat dissipated, by
| conventional processors comes from moving information
| between logic elements rather than the actual logic
| operations. Because superconductors have zero electrical
| resistance, little energy is required to move bits within
| the processor._
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_computing#Fun
| d...
| amelius wrote:
| Incorrect.
|
| https://www.ti.com/lit/an/scaa035b/scaa035b.pdf
|
| This document explains it well. (The resistance of the
| interconnect is not even mentioned as a significant
| component of power consumption.)
| hatsunearu wrote:
| I don't think this is true. Most of the power is dissipated
| in the metal interconnect.
| pyrale wrote:
| If yesterday's comments were correct, you can strike the
| power transport and storage use cases, as this material has a
| pretty low electric current density.
| SkyBelow wrote:
| Wouldn't less power loss not just mean lower power
| consumption, but the ability to run it at higher speeds while
| keeping the same cooling technology we current have?
| mmastrac wrote:
| This is an extremely useful summarization of the original paper.
|
| > The authors believe that the modified/strained structure of
| their material creates a large number of "quantum wells" between
| particular lead atoms and the adjacent oxygens of the phosphate
| groups bound to them, in effect making a two-dimensional
| "electron gas". They propose that electron tunneling between
| these quantum wells, which are between 3.7 and 6.5 Angstroms
| apart, is the superconducting mechanism. I am not enough of a
| solid-state physicist to judge this proposal, but the authors are
| making a detailed mechanistic claim that is subject to
| experimental proof, which is very good to see, and and they
| adduce a good deal of data to back it up (x-ray diffraction, EPR,
| and more). And they demonstrate the behaviors that a
| superconductor should have, such as the Meissner effect
| (expulsion of a magnetic field), sudden resistivity changes at a
| critical temperature (bizarrely high though that is in this
| case), current-voltage (I-V) plots at different temperatures and
| under different magnetic field strengths, etc. If these data
| reproduce, the superconductivity of this material seems beyond
| doubt.
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| Totally agree. This is science at it's best, with maximum
| skepticism (and a dash of hope), in front of our eyes!
|
| Even better, it's a HUGE claim that is going to show how
| epistemology in science works (reproduction!!)
| akjssdk wrote:
| I don't think the actual proposed superconductivity mechanism
| is the relevant part of this paper. It is much easier to prove
| that this is superconducting than to prove why. And in a sense
| it is a bit less relevant. Although developing a working theory
| for room temperature is also probably worth a Nobel prize, so I
| am willing to bet some theorists are also running to their
| blackboards as we speak.
| local_issues wrote:
| Ding ding ding! We still don't know how bikes work, we have a
| pretty good but incomplete model for lift on airplanes, and
| no one has the faintest why Tylenol works.
|
| We should figure that out! But we can definitely keep using
| all the applications until then. (Except for Tylenol, we keep
| learning how bad that stuff is)
|
| EDIT: It won't let me post more, so here's the answers to
| responses.
|
| For sure!
|
| https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-
| mys...
|
| http://www3.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hemh1/gyrobike.htm
|
| https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730370-400-how-
| does...
|
| It's a fun little fact. We know a ton about BUILDING bikes,
| which is a more useful tool anyway
| mthomasmw wrote:
| Do you have a link handy for "we don't know how bikes work"
| ?
| hughw wrote:
| e.g. _What keeps bicycles balanced with or without a
| rider is still an active area of research, and even the
| seemingly basic idea that, for a bicycle to be self-
| stable, it needs to turn the handlebars into the fall,
| has not yet been proven._
|
| [*]https://ciechanow.ski/bicycle/
| IshKebab wrote:
| "Active area of research" is quite different to "we don't
| know how they work".
|
| We know how they work. We might not have _fully
| characterised the stability conditions_ , but that's not
| the same thing.
| hughw wrote:
| Cmon, man
| prasadjoglekar wrote:
| "Most people", rather than a blanket "we". Still a good
| video.
|
| https://youtu.be/gGoNyvAvhf0
| post-it wrote:
| I'm not super interested in watching Joe Rogan and RFK,
| is there a particular bit where they talk about bikes?
| CSMastermind wrote:
| There's nothing about bicycles in the video he linked.
| post-it wrote:
| A classic Freudian clip.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Amazing choice of word. Always check your clipboard links
| before pushing send.
| riversflow wrote:
| I think that is the wrong link?
| SkyBelow wrote:
| I'm assuming they mean the balance mechanism, and
| specifically what allows us to balance. How much is it
| the rider shifting their weight, how much is micro
| steering adjusts as we move forward, how much is the
| gyroscopic forces of the wheels, how much of it has to do
| with the angle of the handle bars to the wheel verse the
| center of weight.
|
| That said, I'm guessing this one is well understood by
| experts, but more complex than someone would assume at
| first glance, and many who have some understanding likely
| have an incorrect or at least incomplete understanding of
| how balancing works.
| scarmig wrote:
| Yeah. BCS was proposed a half century after the first
| conventional superconductor was discovered, and even today we
| don't have a convincing mechanism for "regular" high-Tc
| superconductors. But if it superconducts, it superconducts,
| and research into the how is useful but not a blocker to
| using it.
| bluGill wrote:
| That depends. If it super conducts, but it isn't useful in
| the real world, then we will be waiting for theory to -
| hopefully - give us some insight into how to improve things
| to useful.
|
| This only can carry a small amount of current. I'm not sure
| how to figure out what small means (numbers are given in
| the article if you know how to use them!), but if the
| losses using regular wire are less than the energy needed
| to make this stuff then it isn't useful.
|
| This is made out of lead. Even if it is useful for
| transmission, the difficulty of working safely with lead in
| a factory may mean it is impractical. Or it make leach lead
| into the real world making it not safe to deploy.
|
| There are probably other ways this can turn into a "it
| works but isn't practical" thing that would force us to
| wait for theory (or luck!) to point to something better.
| What I wrote above is what I can think of in a couple
| minutes. Only time will tell though, I hope it works out.
| reaperman wrote:
| > If it super conducts, but it isn't useful in the real
| world, then we will be waiting for theory to - hopefully
| - give us some insight into how to improve things to
| useful. This only can carry a small amount of current.
|
| Thank you for this.
|
| > This is made out of lead. Even if it is useful for
| transmission, the difficulty of working safely with lead
| in a factory may mean it is impractical.
|
| Have you been to a hardware store lately? A huge amount
| of pipe fittings for gas and non-potable water are made
| from lead. Factories don't find it hard to work with
| lead. It might be inadvisable but it's not hard.
|
| We can argue about the "working safely" part, but in
| terms of "does this make it impractical?" the answer
| seems to be no under the current global regulatory
| environment.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| > This is made out of lead. Even if it is useful for
| transmission, the difficulty of working safely with lead
| in a factory may mean it is impractical. Or it make leach
| lead into the real world making it not safe to deploy.
|
| Lead is still routinely used in many applications today,
| either in metallic form, from ICE car batteries, to
| fishing or hunting gear, or as chemical compound in
| different kinds of glass. And the same can be said about
| other heavy metals like Cadmium or Mercury. Industries
| also routinely work with much more nasty things than
| lead, so it really doesn't sound like a show-stopper.
| scythe wrote:
| In particular, lead is still extremely common in
| radiation shielding, possibly because the drop in demand
| for other applications made it so cheap. Lead-lined
| drywall is the default approach for setting up a
| radiography, fluoroscopy or CT suite.
| jpmattia wrote:
| > _They propose that electron tunneling between these quantum
| wells, which are between 3.7 and 6.5 Angstroms apart, is the
| superconducting mechanism._
|
| That is a very strange explanation. As someone who has done a
| decent amount of solid-state physics work, I would expect the
| explanation to involve a mechanism for pairing of electrons.
| Mere tunneling between quantum wells has been a staple since
| the "metamaterials" of the 80s and 90s.
|
| That said, the measured curves do not lie, and I haven't kept
| up with the field. So I'm all ears (and very much hoping the
| superconducting revolution is upon us!)
| dexwiz wrote:
| Are you referring to a Cooper pair?
| rohan_ wrote:
| What do the "super forecasters" have to say about this? Was this
| predicted on prediction markets? Was the assumption of this tech
| existing already factored into prediction models?
| hcks wrote:
| Prediction markets say this will probably not replicate (and
| imo even overestimate the probability of replication)
| amelius wrote:
| Can we just send some current through it and see if it heats up?
| simmanian wrote:
| I see a few comments saying this can also be used to "solve"
| climate change, but I am trying to understand the how. Do people
| mean that the world will have less carbon footprint overall
| because everything will be much more efficient?
| XorNot wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_magnetic_energ...
|
| You build a big inductor, and because it's superconducting
| current just goes round and round. At room temperature you have
| no refrigeration losses, you can build more just as fast as you
| can kick out superconductor. It would be 100% efficient, have 0
| self-discharge, and enormous power capacity and infinite power
| cycles.
| NeoTar wrote:
| I think it may be that electrical power could be generated in
| places where (carbon free) energy production can be abundant
| but consumption is low (e.g. Solar power in the Sahara desert)
| and then transported with almost no losses to sites of high
| energy consumption (e.g. the cities of North Africa and
| Europe).
| t3estabc wrote:
| [dead]
| curiousObject wrote:
| While we're waiting for experimenters to reproduce this, it's
| worth comparing this amazing announcement to the Cold Fusion
| affair of 1989[1]
|
| It's notable that the first publications about attempts to
| reproduce the Cold Fusion experiment all reported _positive_
| results.
|
| It's probably because experimenters who got negative results
| decided they might have done something wrong so they kept trying,
| and delayed, and they did not publish until later.
|
| Those early reports of positive results were largely retracted
| within a few weeks.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
| selestify wrote:
| Why did those early experimenters report positive reports? Did
| they inadvertently do something wrong themselves that looked
| like cold fusion?
| wolfram74 wrote:
| Small effect sizes make it easy to confuse noise for positive
| results. Throw into it the very strong desire to see the
| thing work, and, well, even the best of us are only human.
| curiousObject wrote:
| > Did they inadvertently do something wrong themselves that
| looked like cold fusion?
|
| Yes, probably
|
| This blog talks about some of the many pitfalls that could
| mislead researchers:
| https://coldfusionblog.net/2019/03/13/the-case-against-
| cold-...
|
| Some of the errors are very subtle. It's not surprising that
| mistakes were made
| m463 wrote:
| I remember being interested enough to suspend disbelief for a
| little while with rossi's e-cat:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer
|
| nothing happened, of course, but the idea of an elegant energy
| source was so seductive.
| gus_massa wrote:
| The experiments with the e-cat were measuring temperatures
| and estimating heat flow of the hot air flowing arround the
| device. That's too difficult to do acurately.
|
| If you see a report of a groundbreaking experiment that only
| measure the heat of the air, you can safely press the "meh"
| button.
| dtgriscom wrote:
| I miss Cold Fusion. What a wonderful idea. It's a shame reality
| didn't cooperate.
| perihelions wrote:
| Another example of this was Millikan's determination of the
| fundamental electric charge (of one electron). The first,
| famous experiment had a major error; and subsequently everyone
| who independently replicated the experiment, for two decades,
| came up with the same error, in the same direction. The people
| whose experiments got the _correct_ value probably self-
| selected themselves out of publishing it.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment?useskin=ve...
| ( _" Millikan's experiment as an example of psychological
| effects in scientific methodology"_)
| IX-103 wrote:
| It is interesting to note that while the error was in the
| same direction, the magnitude of the error decreased in
| subsequent studies. No one expects to get exactly the same
| result, so there was room for variation towards the true
| result.
| Analemma_ wrote:
| Room-temperature superconductors have so many urgent
| commercial uses that if this fake, I doubt the error will
| persist for that long. There's too much at stake.
| cryptonector wrote:
| Boiling-water-temperature superconductors. Pinch me, it
| feels like a dream.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| There's also probably a hundred labs skipping over
| replication completely to try and beat someone else out on
| a random permutation of these materials and methods and
| hoping to get lucky.
| gus_massa wrote:
| Yes, "replication" in this experiments usualy means
| foloeing the oficial recipe and many small variants.
|
| Publishing an exact reproduction is difficult, but a new
| record a few degrees hotter is easy. (And even another
| variant with a lower temperature and more tolerance for
| current or magnetic field can be published with the right
| text.)
| [deleted]
| eig wrote:
| This video (https://sciencecast.org/casts/suc384jly50n) showing
| the Meissner effect should be the easiest to replicate: just send
| a sample to another lab and put it over a large magnet.
|
| As far as I know, the only explanations for this occurring is
| room temp superconductivity, or a strong diamagnetism (which
| would also be very cool to see)!
| ortusdux wrote:
| That video reminds me of the way pyrolytic graphite floats on
| strong magnets.
|
| https://scitoys.com/scitoys/scitoys/magnets/pyrolytic_graphi...
|
| https://youtu.be/Wk3seHNmNs8
| littlestymaar wrote:
| The common point being that it levitates, at room temperature
| (so no cryogenic fumes on the video), but that's exactly what
| you'd expect from a room-temperature SC... The big difference
| between your graphite video and the one from yesterday is
| that the later doesn't move, whereas the former never rests.
| XorNot wrote:
| The problem with the video we see is that the sample never
| actually levitates - one side is touching the magnet. So a
| regular diamagnetic material, with enough weight on one
| side, would display the same effect.
|
| In this video shortly after this moment you see something
| _very_ similar looking with pyrolytic carbon:
| https://youtu.be/VC3r9-OaWes?t=133
| eig wrote:
| Yep, that's strong diamagnetism.
| soligern wrote:
| I don't know enough about this but shouldn't the entire
| superconductor be floating above the magnet? Why is one part
| still attached (or maybe attracted) to the magnet?
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| Contamination/impurities or something else in it that's not
| superconducting?
| soligern wrote:
| A strange exposition video then, I would try to remove the
| part that wasn't superconducting (the part touching the
| magnet) before I released this. A completely floating piece
| of this superconductor would remove literally all doubt.
| xeonmc wrote:
| You say to do WHAT to the best piece of sample they
| synthesized?
| XorNot wrote:
| Scope of the claim. This is world changing. Shoot the
| first video, then get the dremel/pliers and cut that
| large bit off. It would be worth it, because if this
| works at all, then it's vital to prove it. We'd be having
| a very different discussion if that small piece was
| umabiguously floating and remaining locked in place.
| petsfed wrote:
| Based on what I'm hearing, it sounds like they weren't able
| to produce a macroscopic ingot of the stuff, so it seems
| likely _to me_ that the superconducting part is up at the end
| there. However, without further explanation, I 'm disinclined
| to take that video (fantastic as it seems) to be conclusive
| evidence of anything.
| rsfern wrote:
| The original preprint mentions bulk samples, but I'm not
| sure what size they were. I would guess at least a few
| millimeters scale, but really bulk just mostly means "not a
| thin film"
| petsfed wrote:
| As an undergrad I helped with research on quasars, where
| reasonable precision was solar mass orders of magnitude
| and tens of parsecs, and the periodic table was Hydrogen,
| Helium, and "metals". Then I switched to condensed matter
| physics for grad school, where "bulk" meant "a scale
| visible to the naked eye under very good conditions".
|
| The dichotomy makes me laugh.
| t3estabc wrote:
| [dead]
| JacobAldridge wrote:
| I'm reminded of the paper, just over 10 years ago, that reporting
| measuring neutrinos travelling faster than the speed of light.
|
| When published, the authors made it clear: this is probably
| wrong, but we can't see where we made a mistake ... so what if
| we're right and just upended relativity theory?
|
| That was turned out to be a measuring error [1]. This one may be
| the same, though the lead authors publishing two versions of the
| paper - one with only 3 names, ostensibly because the Nobel Prize
| can only be awarded to a maximum of 3 people - suggests less
| modesty and vulnerability on their behalf.
|
| I hope they're right though!
|
| [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2012.10099
| thepaulthomson wrote:
| Can't wait to be flying my car to work
| iceflinger wrote:
| "this stuff is claimed to superconduct all the way up to room
| temperature and indeed up past the boiling point of water. Its
| critical temperature is said to be 127C"
|
| Would this have implications about possible efficient methods of
| converting heat back into electricity? Or even just more ways of
| harnessing heat energy in general. I'm imagining heat pumps built
| with superconductors could be a critical part of mitigating
| climate change, but I'm far from a scientist and barely
| understand the physics here.
| ayakang31415 wrote:
| No, it just means that the material conducts electricity
| without losing almost any energy through heat at that critical
| temperature. Heat itself is a process of energy transfer (heat
| itself is not energy which many people fail to recognize if
| they haven't studied thermodynamics thoroughly).
| etiam wrote:
| Thoroughly upvoted and discussed "The first room-temperature
| ambient-pressure superconductor?"
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36864624 has barely fallen
| to second page yet, but as the topic is of exceptional interest,
| and under development, and Lowe's commentary is usually welcome
| and well received on HN, maybe some duplication can be justified
| in this case?
| orblivion wrote:
| So what kinds of cool stuff could be built with a room
| temperature superconductor? Better levitating trains?
| [deleted]
| ianmcgowan wrote:
| From the article,
|
| "Who knows what could come out of that? Robust high-current-
| density room-temperature superconductors are right out of
| science fiction (SF readers will recall that one such material
| was a big plot point in Larry Niven's Ringworld). Electrical
| generation and transmission, antennas, power storage, magnet
| applications (including things like fusion power plants),
| electric motors and basically everything that runs on
| electricity would be affected. We could stop throwing away so
| much generated power on heating up the wires that deliver it,
| for starters."
| swader999 wrote:
| Nuclear fusion much easier, quantum computing, lossless
| electricity transmission, insane batteries. Dirt cheap MRIs,
| Basically welcome to the Jetsons. Much easier to mitigate
| climate change to the point where we can just deal with it.
| krastanov wrote:
| Room temperature superconductivity does not help with quantum
| computing. The transmons or atoms or ions need to be cold so
| that they do not get "flipped", not because of the need for
| superconductors.
| NotYourLawyer wrote:
| This would only solve one of the more minor problems with
| fusion. And what would it do for batteries?
| willis936 wrote:
| The challenge of fusion is a collection minor problems that
| add up to machines that are unviable for our current level
| of industrial output. Eliminating one of the three key
| plant systems (cryo, vacuum, and heating) is not a
| molehill, especially when it is the second highest user of
| power (after heating).
| p_l wrote:
| Battery grid storage would be dead in the water, as we
| already use Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage for
| grid stability and ultra-clean power in certain industries
| - except suddenly a huge chunk of issues involved in making
| large power SMES will disappear.
|
| They won't replace portable batteries soon, but room
| temperature superconducting will greatly increase
| efficiency in all areas of electricity, including higher
| power motors (the efficiency gains are good enough that
| superconducting motors and generators have been attempted
| despite needing supercooling). Also, a simple SMES could
| easily buffer future BEV truck charging station despite
| projected 1MW connection per charging truck.
| m463 wrote:
| I wonder if it would really mean a different sort of
| battery maybe like a super capacitor that doesn't
| discharge.
| [deleted]
| simmanian wrote:
| How would this make climate change easier to deal with?
| Because it would make everything that much more efficient?
| I'm honestly trying to understand the implications.
| hatsunearu wrote:
| The last line of the paper says this discovery will lead to a
| new age of humanity, and they aren't joking.
| willis936 wrote:
| Lead is used in many places. You should avoid checking what
| battery is in your ICE vehicle.
|
| What matters is how lead is handled. With hope, mankind will
| never lead a generation the way burning millions of gallons
| of leaded fuel did. Certainly no use of a lead superconductor
| could hope to accomplish that level of damage.
| kube-system wrote:
| This is a leading example of how homographs can lead us
| astray.
| hatsunearu wrote:
| I think you replied to the wrong parent?
| tamimio wrote:
| ??
| seventytwo wrote:
| Fingers crossed!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-26 23:00 UTC)