Room-temperature superconductor

[gnuarm]

Someone is quite excited to share their opinion. https://twitter.com/thunderf00t/status/1685054068983549952

This twit says you can't make wires from a ceramic.  I don't get why not.  "Wires" come in many forms.  They don't have to be flexible.  They simply need a specific shape.  Don't we make ceramics in many shapes?  A coil can be made from a block of material, by cutting, no? 

I recall some years back, a company formed actual wires by putting the superconductor in a tube, and drawing it into a small diameter wire.  I suppose the superconductor would fracture, but as long as it is touching adjacent pieces, it would still conduct, no?

[Marco]

This twit says you can't make wires from a ceramic.

It's almost as silly as a glass wire.

[gnuarm]

This twit says you can't make wires from a ceramic.

It's almost as silly as a glass wire.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=ceramic+wire

[rolycat]

This twit says you can't make wires from a ceramic.

It's almost as silly as a glass wire.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=ceramic+wire

That's metal wire with ceramic fibre insulation. Wires are made from metal, by definition.

[benbradley]

The word wire is a non-sequitur. Conductor, whether metallic or not, would be a better word. Superconductor would be the best word, but we don't know yet.

[EEVblog]

I don't think anyone really cares about the video, it just isn't very relevant one way or the other. Ultimately, the important parts are the susceptibility, resistance and specific heat measurements, so that's what people are discussing.

The issue I have is why the video was even presented at all.  Anybody even vaguely familiar with the principles involved will know there is no need for superconductivity to explain the behaviour.
The only purpose I can see is to "wow the uninformed" - which leads me to think the whole exercise is bulls**t.
If, in the unlikely event, it is real, then they really need a technically savvy publicist who can get a useful demonstration video together.

Agreed. It's absolutely embarressing to even make such a video, let alone present it. AND the video is unlisted and there are no videos on their channel, and the comments are turned off.
Regards of how potentially good any of the other research is, this cannot be excused, so you have to assume it's all bullshit as the default position.

[pickle9000]

My favourite.

[Brumby]

Did you read the title of the video? "Magnetic Property Test of LK-99 Film".
It doesn't say "proof video of superconductivity!!! *WOW* MUST SEE"

Its a simple test showing the magnetic properties of the material, that is it, as I stated above already.

But I still ask, what was the purpose of this video?  That it is not ferromagnetic and that it is a conductor to some degree?  So what?  There are a bucketload of such materials that have no claim to superconductivity in any sense.  The video distinguishes this material no more than a strip of copper or aluminium.

To me, it's the equivalent of showing a video of an egg being dropped and splattering on the floor in the midst of a discussion on galactic scale gravitational waves.   

It is entirely pointless, IMHO.

[Psi]

It's more likely the person in charge of maintaining the website is not an engineer or scientist and grabbed videos from the file server to create the website without a complete understanding of what the videos were showing.

Rather than someone who's employed as an engineer/scientist actually thinking it was showing superconductivity.

At least I hope so.

[EEVblog]

[gnuarm]

I watched about half and couldn't take it anymore.  How many times can we sniff the air, claiming this is BS?

This is just like the submersible implosion, where there is very little info to go on, but it doesn't stop people from speculating wildly. 

Just as this video repeatedly judges the evidence of this new superconductor as being inadequate, no one seems to pay attention to the fact that there is no real evidence the superconductor is not real and that more evidence will be forthcoming.

A paper has been published.  Others will try to duplicate the results.  Other papers will be published about the results.  That's the scientific process.  Eventually there will be a common opinion by the scientific community, regarding the reality of these results.  An opinion will be formed, by people who work with this stuff every day and know what they are doing. 

Until then, I can't see any value in everybody and his brother throwing stones at the little info that is available. 

Just like the Titanic submersible.  We will know, when the experts let us know and not before.

[EEVblog]

Until then, I can't see any value in everybody and his brother throwing stones at the little info that is available. 

You don't get to publish that type of demo video on the front page of your website and not get called out for how ridiculous and embarrassing it is.

[Psi]

Agreed. It was total fail and should be called out.

But I think it's unfair to call it a scam or busted until after others have tried to replicate it and failed.

[gnuarm]

Until then, I can't see any value in everybody and his brother throwing stones at the little info that is available. 

You don't get to publish that type of demo video on the front page of your website and not get called out for how ridiculous and embarrassing it is.

If you say so.  I'm trying to point out that this discussion is not really accomplishing anything.  We aren't adding anything of value to the matter. 

I guess I should just not worry about it.  We will likely have more info in the next few weeks.  It does take time to attempt to duplicate the results of the paper.  If there are no results, it could be a mistake by the researchers, so they will make serious attempts to work with the original authors to see what they might be doing wrong.  This takes time.

[Brumby]

Agreed. It was total fail and should be called out.

But I think it's unfair to call it a scam or busted until after others have tried to replicate it and failed.

While I don't disagree, that video was - at the very least - a disservice.



I will be waiting......

[AndyBeez]

The law of hypothesis:

H₀ It is not true
H₁ It is proven by independent evidence to be true

Which in the competitive world of venture funded research mutates into:

H₀ We know it is true
H₁ Our evidence needs no proof
In fairness, maybe they should have published their results as an anomalous observation and asked other reputable institutions to reproduce their methods; before any conclusions became social media clickbait. But no money and fame in that.

[EEVblog]

Until then, I can't see any value in everybody and his brother throwing stones at the little info that is available. 

You don't get to publish that type of demo video on the front page of your website and not get called out for how ridiculous and embarrassing it is.

If you say so.  I'm trying to point out that this discussion is not really accomplishing anything.  We aren't adding anything of value to the matter. 

Really? You think there is no value in people pointing out the ridiculousness of the main demo video on their website?
The world is going ape over this announcement, their website is being swapped with so much traffic it has to shut off.
The majority of people talking about this will not be aware of how ridiculous that demo is.

As I said in my video, there may very well be something to this, but they are not getting let off the hook for that video, no chance.

[EEVblog]

But I think it's unfair to call it a scam or busted until after others have tried to replicate it and failed.

I did not call it a scam, and was even generous toward the research at the end of the video.
I was clearly busting the main video on their website.
Call it clickbait if you want, that's fine by me. But I don't see it as much different to any of my existing BUSTED videos.
Solar roadways, uBeam etc are not totally useless, they are just overhyped marketing bullshit, not unlike the demo video here.

[iMo]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK-99

[Dr. Frank]

Thanks Dave for finding the reference, that the disc where they claimed to sputter the sample film onto, was made from copper.
That video therefore indicates, that it was not done by the scientists themselves.. as they probably would have known about the induction effect.
For proof of SC, you need consistent measurements of resistivity, and magnetic measurements, like my complex susceptibility.
The authors here show a very steep step in resistivity, but a very broad step in the magnetization.
That does not fit together at all, it's unclear why they would have chosen such a relatively high magnetic field H.
An AC susceptibility measurement would have been better for demonstration, as you could compensate for the DC magnetic field of the earth, and you could have chosen a very small probing ac field as of ~ 100nT. Both papers are therefore very badly prepared.
BTW.: The first, Nobel Prize winning  paper by Bednorz and Mueller in June 1986 was very carefully titled "Possible high T c superconductivity in the Ba−La−Cu−O system", containing very mediocre resistivity measurements as well.
Frank

[iMo]

..
BTW.: The first, Nobel Prize winning  paper by Bednorz and Mueller in June 1986 was very carefully titled "Possible high T c superconductivity in the Ba−La−Cu−O system", containing very mediocre resistivity measurements as well.

Lucky guys - no internet, no google, no twitter, no facebook, no eevblog, etc., etc. at that time..
Btw I still remember the "Cold-Fusion" discovery where we were running around our Uni looking for a bottle of heavy water to try as well. It was also in late 80ties..
PS: March 1989 imho
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

[gnuarm]

Until then, I can't see any value in everybody and his brother throwing stones at the little info that is available. 

You don't get to publish that type of demo video on the front page of your website and not get called out for how ridiculous and embarrassing it is.

If you say so.  I'm trying to point out that this discussion is not really accomplishing anything.  We aren't adding anything of value to the matter. 

Really? You think there is no value in people pointing out the ridiculousness of the main demo video on their website?

No, I don't. 

The world is going ape over this announcement

And you are doing the same thing.

Every time there is something newsworthy, the media gets fired up and reports the same info over and over again.  That's the nature of the news business.  Some of us also get over excited over all the reporting.  That only feeds the frenzy further. 

I think it is best to simply discuss the facts of the matter and ignore the sillier aspects, such as this video. 

This conversation reminds me of the scene from 2001, where the primates are jumping up and down, screaming at each other, in their form of fighting.  I'm waiting for someone here to pick up a femur. 

[gnuarm]

But I think it's unfair to call it a scam or busted until after others have tried to replicate it and failed.

I did not call it a scam, and was even generous toward the research at the end of the video.
I was clearly busting the main video on their website.
Call it clickbait if you want, that's fine by me. But I don't see it as much different to any of my existing BUSTED videos.
Solar roadways, uBeam etc are not totally useless, they are just overhyped marketing bullshit, not unlike the demo video here.

The video you are complaining about, is not remotely, any form of proof of their claims.  They've published a paper, and the scientific process is underway to verify, or dispute it.

This conversation is part of the side show, having nothing to do with the main event.  This is the two headed calf in a jar.

[pickle9000]

What I like about this particular story is that for the first time in quite a while, scientists are acting like scientists. Being critical and skeptical is a joy to behold.

[BrianHG]

Anton Petrov did a video on it:

Looking at the photo in the video above:

I can say 2 things...

1. I used to play with pennies on speaker magnets when I was young and I could occasionally get 1 or 2 coins to slightly stand at an angle if placed down and oriented 2 to 3 pennies just right.  If this material isn't evenly magnetically distributed across it's surface, this effect could be a fluke.

2.  I've seen examples of diamagnetic materials, the effect shown is a little too strong for the run of the mil diamagnetic materials, if it wasn't for their other super blunder video, I might be forced to say they may have the beginning of something, but don't have a clue as to the required refinement component which makes it work or how to replicate.  Basically what you see here is the sole semi-functional sample in existence and they have yet to replicate anything larger than what you see.