[HN Gopher] LK-99 Is the Superconductor of the Summer
___________________________________________________________________
LK-99 Is the Superconductor of the Summer
Author : redboooook
Score : 30 points
Date : 2023-08-03 20:29 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| [deleted]
| lucubratory wrote:
| Well, it's officially mainstream. No chance of this remaining an
| academic story if it fails to replicate now.
|
| Just a reminder: it could take months to a year to figure out
| whether this is legit. Contrary to initial impressions from the
| (terrible, full of holes) included methodology, the synthesis
| process is actually difficult (not gigapascal diamond anvil
| difficult, but not just baking store bought powder in a furnace
| then squeezing either). A successful replication could happen at
| any moment, but one not happening until six months or more from
| now is very possible too, and isn't a death knell for the
| material (or the material family).
|
| We normally aren't exposed to scientific research this early in
| the process. There are a lot of alleged dramatic reasons for why
| we are in this case being exposed to the research before the
| original team wanted us to be, as well as COVID normalising
| people taking arXiv preprints far more seriously (for completely
| understandable reasons). Also, while I don't agree with this
| scientific philosophy at all on principle, this is coming out of
| a commercial lab and I have no idea whether and to what extent
| they are willing to share samples/invite outside teams into their
| labs, considering they are likely attempting to monetise this as
| much as possible (I hate this mindset, hope it fails!).
|
| The wildcard here is citizen scientists (including a particular
| Soviet molecular biologist) and the various labs around the world
| that are trying to replicate. With how bad the methodology
| documentation is many labs will probably fail to replicate if
| just looking at that (but Li Liu et al of Beihang U, that XRD
| pattern really should have made you look a lot closer at whether
| you'd successfully synthesised), I don't know what the odds are
| on outside labs being able to replicate without much better
| information on methodology and materials. It could end up not
| being feasible until the original research team offers more help,
| and while they're offering some help now they've also implied
| they want to get their paper published first before really
| opening up (this part is normal).
|
| Just going to be a waiting game. If you want to follow the drama
| and find the citizen science/"It's so over... We're so back!!!"
| saga entertaining, then definitely follow the accounts on Twitter
| that are doing that. If you just want to know whether we have
| peer-reviewed, reputably published, replicated results confirming
| RTAPS, then you just have to wait it out until academia resolves
| this over the next year.
| yreg wrote:
| >including a particular Soviet molecular biologis
|
| Sigh, this again?
|
| She's an anonymous Russian troll who's only proof is a photo of
| a spec of dust (glued?) in a syringe. She refuses to take a
| video, she says _she didnt follow the paper_ beause she
| immediately invented a better way to make a different room temp
| superconductor, she says she doesnt care about superconductors
| and she keeps tweeting bizzare USSR propaganda.
|
| How can you take her seriously?
| thorncorona wrote:
| I believe she doxxed herself already
| kalupa wrote:
| "Hot Superconductor Summer"
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-08-03 23:02 UTC)