Room-temperature superconductor

[KE5FX]

Claimed critical temperature is 127C:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12008

[tszaboo]

Comments turned off, unlisted video, of a channel having zero videos uploaded...
I'm a bit skeptical.

[WatchfulEye]

Better video with link to a different pre-print manuscript:
https://sciencecast.org/casts/suc384jly50n

[KE5FX]

(a) not a product

So?

(b) not a dodgy technology

If it works, it will be hugely important.  Not usually how this sort of breakthrough appears, though.

[coppice]

We got the lead out of solder, and now it could be back in the wires themselves.

[KE5FX]

(a) not a product

So?

You posted in the wrong forum.

You'll get over it.

[Marco]

The lump being repelled by the magnet is a bit more indicative of diamagnetism, but they could just hammered a chunk off a hard ferrite magnet.

[Dr. Frank]

The paper contains some odd descriptions.
It's not clear, how they have practically measured the supposed electrical superconductivity.
There is no picture of the setup, the instruments used, the geometry, structuring and contacting of the probes, was it a film or bulk sample, what real voltages had been observed, i.e. @ 100mA (very high current for such experiments at usual samples)  did they measure nV? Therefore, I can't reproduce their conductivity values.

The stricter criterion is measuring magnetic susceptibility χ' = ∂M/∂H, which is exactly -1 in case of superconductivity (that's the said Meissner effect).
That strange magnetization measurement with a supposed SQUID, how have they done that?
They measure the magnetization in "emu/g", which is an ancient, I think non SI unit nowadays, and not very convincing.. The material could be a little bit diamagnetic only..
There is no steep susceptibility step, and that measurement is not related to any geometric property.
 Why do they measure H in Oerstedt, instead of A/m? Why don't they show a measurement in zero magnetic field, or only the Earth's magnetic field of < 50µT (0.5Oe) ?

If you have a SC sample in the form of a small rod, or a thin film of a given area, you can always calculate the expected output signal of your susceptometer (SQUID or e.g. AC Hartshorn bridge) and normalize that to confirm that χ' equals exactly -1.

Has this paper already been Peer reviewed?

I'm not convinced at all.

Frank

[Marco]

If it's not an outright hoax (which is the most likely explanation) the material is still very special.

A homogeneous material which is not a superconductor, acting as a magnetic field dependent brick wall current limiter could be useful.

[switchabl]

It looks like they already published their claim in what appears to be a rather obscure Korean journal a couple of months ago (http://doi.org/10.6111/JKCGCT.2023.33.2.061). Which is ... let's just say, it seems like a weird thing to do for something of this magnitude.

In any case, this would be such a big deal, even if it were published in Nature, I would definitely want to wait for several others to replicate the results.

[BrianHG]

  He is demonstrating Lenz's law, nothing else.  Any copper or aluminum or silver would demonstrate the same motion when exposed to a strong moving magnetic filed.

Here is an extreme example:

https://youtu.be/g0amdIcZt5I?t=442

How is it possible here at EEVBlog, no one knows about Lenz's law, or recognize that this is what happens when you move a magnet in front a copper coin.

[KE5FX]

It maintains its distance when he stops moving the magnet.

Agreed, though, almost everything about this screams "Hoax."  Hence the choice of forum.  I hope I'm wrong, of course!

[thm_w]

There is a levitation video here: https://sciencecast.org/casts/suc384jly50n
But as someone points out in the comments, non-superconductors are also able to do the same thing.

I don't know if the magnet "test" is actually proving anything? Or is it just testing the properties of the material.

[MT]

Bismuth and Graphene as well.

[BrianHG]

It maintains its distance when he stops moving the magnet.

Agreed, though, almost everything about this screams "Hoax."  Hence the choice of forum.  I hope I'm wrong, of course!

LOL, it only looks that way because of when the video starts, the magnet is already in motion.  You don't know the true angle of the camera, now do you?
Otherwise, he would push and hold the magnet right against the sample just to show us it would keep it's distance even at an angle.  And like others said, there can be a tiny bit of diamagnetic material within as well as the existence of conductive copper colored diamagnetic metals exist as well.  The vast majority of the effect illustrated perfectly fits Lenz's law.

[KE5FX]

It maintains its distance when he stops moving the magnet.

Agreed, though, almost everything about this screams "Hoax."  Hence the choice of forum.  I hope I'm wrong, of course!

LOL, it only looks that way because of when the video starts, the magnet is already in motion. 

(Shrug) At 0:09 and 0:30 the magnet is being held still near the sample for long enough to demonstrate that minimal, if any, net attraction or repulsion is taking place.  Note that the polarity of the magnet has been reversed between those two timestamps. 

I don't know of anything else that will behave exactly that way... but I'm not exactly an SME, to put it charitably.  If it's a hoax, which my money says it is, it's an inexplicably-deliberate one that will torpedo numerous careers at the institution involved.

[BrianHG]

It maintains its distance when he stops moving the magnet.

Agreed, though, almost everything about this screams "Hoax."  Hence the choice of forum.  I hope I'm wrong, of course!

LOL, it only looks that way because of when the video starts, the magnet is already in motion. 

Note that the polarity of the magnet has been reversed between those two timestamps. 

... Lenz's Law doesn't care about magnetic polarity...
Ok, enough, I'm out...

[gnuarm]

It looks like they already published their claim in what appears to be a rather obscure Korean journal a couple of months ago (http://doi.org/10.6111/JKCGCT.2023.33.2.061). Which is ... let's just say, it seems like a weird thing to do for something of this magnitude.

In any case, this would be such a big deal, even if it were published in Nature, I would definitely want to wait for several others to replicate the results.

One of the videos shows what appears to be a brittle material.  Does anyone know how this can be used in practical applications?

[Marco]

Thin films could be flexible enough.

[gnuarm]

Thin films could be flexible enough.

Is there any reason to expect this material could be formed into a thin film?

Superconduction has limits on various factors, so I believe there is still minimum sizes required depending on the application.

[Marco]

The paper said they had a thin film.

Though just using glass for a thin film and magically getting the same properties as the bulk material adds to the unbelievability.

[rteodor]

Just 4 news bellow this one: "Another Retraction Imminent for Controversial Physicist" [...] "who has made controversial claims about discovering room-temperature superconductors".

[AndyBeez]

Scientist makes shocking new discovery that venture capital burns at room temperature.

Now trending on X.

[AndyC_772]

Now trending on X.

Indeed!

https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1684218600456876032

[dzseki]

Here are links for the actual paper(s):
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2307/2307.12037.pdf

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2307/2307.12008.pdf

They do show super conducting property at room temperature indeed, the critical current is around 250mA though.

[Psi]

Assuming it can be replicated it seems like good progress. 

Still some ways to go through. but very promising.

[AndyC_772]

250mA through what cross-sectional area?

[Dr. Frank]

Here are links for the actual paper(s):
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2307/2307.12037.pdf

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2307/2307.12008.pdf

They do show super conducting property at room temperature indeed, the critical current is around 250mA though.

The first paper as well is not convincing at all.
Levitation over a (super-) strong magnet does not proof SC properties, that could be some diamagnetic stuff as well.

You need a proper sample with 4W connection, defined geometry, to perform electrical measurements to prove SC properties.
No picture, and no such information given.

For the Meissner effect on a bulk sample, you need its geometry to normalize the signal.

Using 2 phase AC susceptibility, the real phase χ' represents the magnetization of the sample, the imaginary part χ'' represents the losses, which go to zero if the sample is really super conducting. Therefore, the susceptibility is as well a measure for the electrical conductivity.
The resistivity of ordinary metals like Copper and Lead goes down for decreasing temperatures, (arbitrary units used), as can be seen in χ'. χ'' first goes up, but in case of Lead, which becomes superconducting at about 7.2K, the losses vanish at its jump temperature.
For an YBCO film sample, it's equivalent.


As both these methods for proving SC are quite old, and were  intensively used on the then new High T_c SC, about 35 years ago, it is quite mediocre, what those guys have presented here, from an experimental point of view. 

Frank

[nfmax]

What would be *really* interesting is if this isn't superconductivity at all, but some different, so-far unobserved phenomenon...

[jt]

For those more knowledgeable than I - is there fundamental physics that indicates superconductivity can not exist at room temperature, or is there optimism that we will one day discover room temperature superconductive materials? 

[Dr. Frank]

For those more knowledgeable than I - is there fundamental physics that indicates superconductivity can not exist at room temperature, or is there optimism that we will one day discover room temperature superconductive materials?

SC @ RT has been observed and proven already in certain substances, but at very high pressure only.

[Kleinstein]

There are no fundamental things to no allow superconductivity at room temperature. However it can not work in a conventional simple metal. It needs special structures like a layered  (2 D) or similar materials.

As far as I understood the article they claim to have internal stress in the material in this way zones with a kind of local high pressure / distorted latice that can ac a bit like a high pressure.
The claimed measurements cover many aspects of superconductivity:  magnetic suceptibility, heat capacity (not a clear result), electric conductity - so if these are not fake data it very much looks like superconductity. The video part showing the repulsion is however poorly made with too much fast movements - so even a normal metal could act of a moving magnet via eddy currents. The special point with a SC is that it also work with DC and not just AC.

From my feeling the critical current density is rather low and maybe only for a fraction of the material actually gets superconducting. The conductivity suggests enough to get the perfect electrical conductivity and thus no big gaps (the SC current can tunnel over short gaps and thus no need to get true perculation of a superconducting phase.

[Dr. Frank]

I've googled a little bit, and I found several sceptical notes, same arguments as mine:
https://physicsworld.com/a/have-scientists-in-korea-discovered-the-first-room-temperature-ambient-pressure-superconductor/

In Germany, from IWF, Institute for Solid State and Material Research Dresden, they came to a ruinous conclusion, by Nicola Poccia, research group leader @ LIWF:
' On basis of the experimental proofs in those not yet peer reviewed papers, my first quick reaction is, that this is not a super-conductor'
The experiment might be erroneous. 'What can be observed, is probably an experimental artefact, mixed with lack of scientific diligence, in best case.
The presentation of their data is confusing, so that it is difficult to draw a final conclusion in this state.'

I've intensively done research on those YBCO and similar cuprates, 35years ago, by means of one of the first HP3458A, used for harmonic analysis of the AC susceptibility.
And I have seen a lot of samples..
That's the reason why I'm more and more reluctant about their paper.
We'll see.

Frank

[thm_w]

You need a proper sample with 4W connection, defined geometry, to perform electrical measurements to prove SC properties.
No picture, and no such information given.

Thats shown in figure 5 in the first paper...
"Figure 5 shows the temperature dependence of the resistivity of sample 2 (4.8 x 10.1 x 1.2mm) measured at 30 mA by the four-probe method"

Its not uncommon to leave out setup photos or steps if they are thought to be well-known.

Anyway there is some resistance step at 40C in the measurements which is kinda odd.

[EEVblog]

The paper in question:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2307/2307.12037.pdf

I smell BS

[EEVblog]

Anton Petrov did a video on it:

[benbradley]

So what on Earth could possibly be more BS than this superconductor announcement?

#congressionalhearings

[Brumby]

He is demonstrating Lenz's law, nothing else.  Any copper or aluminum or silver would demonstrate the same motion when exposed to a strong moving magnetic filed.

This is the very first thing I thought as well.  In fact, I dug out some neodymium magnets I have and located an aluminium knob which I hung on a piece of cotton ... and did a quick video.  It took me all of 1 minute to set up with materials I had within reach while sitting at my desk.

How is it possible here at EEVBlog, no one knows about Lenz's law, or recognize that this is what happens when you move a magnet in front a copper coin.

I am quite surprised as well that there has been as much conversation as we have seen that:
 1. Makes no reference to Lenz's law or even eddy currents
 2. Does not question the relevance of the video to the claim.  I see absolutely none, other than a possible attempt to wow the uninformed.

I add my own facepalm: 

[daqq]

I've intensively done research on those YBCO and similar cuprates, 35years ago, by means of one of the first HP3458A, used for harmonic analysis of the AC susceptibility.
And I have seen a lot of samples..
That's the reason why I'm more and more reluctant about their paper.
We'll see.

Frank

Realistically, how long till someone could verify their results? According to the paper, the manufacture should be reasonably doable with common-ish lab tech.

[EEVblog]

Claimed critical temperature is 127C:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12008

Oh, I missed that that video was from the lab and purports to show the superconducting material?
LOL, yeah, tons of things are going to do that! 

[Kleinstein]

I've intensively done research on those YBCO and similar cuprates, 35years ago, by means of one of the first HP3458A, used for harmonic analysis of the AC susceptibility.
And I have seen a lot of samples..
That's the reason why I'm more and more reluctant about their paper.
We'll see.

Frank

Realistically, how long till someone could verify their results? According to the paper, the manufacture should be reasonably doable with common-ish lab tech.

It could be relatively fast to reproduce, but there could still be minute differences that could explain a negative (no SC) result.
The alternative would be sending out a sample to an independent lab.

[bitwelder]

"Is the room temperature superconductor paper legit?"
Poll says NOPE
https://manifold.markets/fortenforge/is-the-room-temperature-superconduc

[gnuarm]

"Is the room temperature superconductor paper legit?"
Poll says NOPE
https://manifold.markets/fortenforge/is-the-room-temperature-superconduc

Yeah, they didn't believe cold fusion was real either!

[switchabl]

How is it possible here at EEVBlog, no one knows about Lenz's law, or recognize that this is what happens when you move a magnet in front a copper coin.

I am quite surprised as well that there has been as much conversation as we have seen that:
 1. Makes no reference to Lenz's law or even eddy currents
 2. Does not question the relevance of the video to the claim.  I see absolutely none, other than a possible attempt to wow the uninformed.

I add my own facepalm: 

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.

[KedasProbe]

Luckily that person has plastic gloves on because shit will be flying in that room soon

I was checking the conductivity graph yes they have an bump around 41°C but also the values on the scale seem high to me, if i'm not mistaken in that graph lead would also be on that zero line.
2.2×10-7 ohm meter  (unit is a factor 100 but still, 0.000022 ohm cm, 0.0022 10-2 ohm cm)

Graph from PDF but I deleted the 'change graph' inside it

[Psi]

Nothing new is real, until it is.

Just have to wait and hope someone can reproduce it and confirm superconductivity, or some other previously unknown new effect. Either would be great.

[Marco]

If it's not a superconductor maybe it can be useful as an inrush current limiter.

[Brumby]

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.

[switchabl]

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.

You'd have to ask them. As a basic sanity check, it certainly makes sense to check that the sample is repelled by a magnet. They may simply have wanted to document that - badly in this case because it isn't really clear from the video. But someone linked a different video that shows (partial) levitation above a magnet, so I don't think there is any doubt that the material is at the very least strongly diamagnetic.

I don't know if this was maybe rushed out, the papers aren't exactly polished either (to put it mildly). In the end the only thing that matters is if it can be replicated or not. If it holds up, we will eventually get a proper peer-reviewed paper. If it doesn't, ... 

[thm_w]

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.

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.

[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.

[Psi]

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.

It was the 'busted' in the title that I was talking about.
Only if someone watches the video do they find out the title was clickbait.
The difference is where a video is talking about brand new science that is on very shaky ground and could get labeled fake and easily burried. In this case there's no problem since 100's of people are likely trying to reproduce the results as we speak. But that is not always the case.

I don't disagree, with anything you said.
I just worry in general that we, humanity, might miss some great discovery because well-known scientists or people with influence jump to saying things like "It's totally impossible" or "It's a scam/fraud" without even trying to reproduce it. I do understand why, because 99.99% of the time if is fake, a scam, or just wrong, but that doesn't make it ok the 0.01% of times it's not and gets labeled as such and never investigated.
 

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.

yep, spot on. Critical and skeptical is exactly the right way to approach a claim like this.
I just get annoyed when the word scam/fake/busted gets thrown around without any evidence to back that up.
When scam/fake/busted get thrown around one could argue there is more evidence that it's real because that at-least has a scientific paper behind it, a claim that it's fake/impossible/scam without any evidence has nothing behind it at all.

[EEVblog]

It was the 'busted' in the title that I was talking about.
Only if someone watches the video do they find out the title was clickbait.

The LK-99 group were indeed BUSTED by making and promoting that video. It's as laughably BUSTED as anything else I've done.
And you didn't have to watch the vidoe to find out what the BUSTED part refered to, if you actually read the description you'd know.
Take the Batteriser for example, their marketing claims were BUSTED, but the ASIC chip they produced is real and actually has real use in the industry.
"BUSTED" is the title people expect when I expose something dumb in a product.
You and others would probably (not probably, I know for a fact because it's happened countless times) still complain if I made the title more lengthy and explainatory. Like "Korean LK-99 Ambient Temperature Superconductor Demo Video BUSTED!"
I even used an accurate thumbnail that showed the thing I was busting.
Sorry, but if you are too lazy to read the description then I'm not going to take your complaint seriously.

I just get annoyed when the word scam/fake/busted gets thrown around without any evidence to back that up.

I made no such claims. I busted the laughable video and that was it. In fact I was rather generous toward the possibility there may be something to this in the video.

[rteodor]

Maybe this is a language barrier thing. You know, they have something with better conductivity and in the next iteration they will get even higher conductivity and call it hyperconductor ... and in the next the ultraconductor ... and then switch to letters because they ran out of superlatives. Like with the naming of the radio bands .
Superconductivity in their minds would mean just better conductivity instead of zero resistance in ours.
If this is true, then I can only lay down on my chair and think: what social-media did to our brains ?

[Psi]

I just get annoyed when the word scam/fake/busted gets thrown around without any evidence to back that up.

I made no such claims.

Ops, i just rechecked the video and it was the text in the thumbnail image that I was referring too.
The "Superconductor Busted" text makes the claim that the superconductor is busted.
Is it just clickbait, sure, but it's also making a general claim that the superconductor everyone is hearing about is busted, unless one investigates the video or description further to find out its just a specific video.
I've never been a big fan of clickbait in general.

[Brumby]

Maybe this is a language barrier thing. You know, they have something with better conductivity and in the next iteration they will get even higher conductivity and call it hyperconductor ... and in the next the ultraconductor ... and then switch to letters because they ran out of superlatives. Like with the naming of the radio bands .
Superconductivity in their minds would mean just better conductivity instead of zero resistance in ours.
If this is true, then I can only lay down on my chair and think: what social-media did to our brains ?

While your attempt to reconcile the various parties may be well intended, I beg to differ.

As I understand it, the term "superconductivity" has a very clear meaning and has had for more than a century.  As such, anyone - especially those working in the field - should be very familiar with that meaning.  While there can be issues with language barriers, whatever word, phrase or pictographs are used to denote it, this is a concept that is very well established.  To use the term in any way other than this is disingenuous at best, if not straight out deceptive.  IMHO

These days, even the public who have half an idea about the subject will be expecting the same thing as those with a PhD.


I know what I am waiting for to either prove or disprove the claim.

[EEVblog]

Ops, i just rechecked the video and it was the text in the thumbnail image that I was referring too.
The "Superconductor Busted" text makes the claim that the superconductor is busted.
Is it just clickbait, sure, but it's also making a general claim that the superconductor everyone is hearing about is busted, unless one investigates the video or description further to find out its just a specific video.
I've never been a big fan of clickbait in general.

The problems are:
a) every Youtuber always does "click bait". You have to stand out from every other video out there.
b) You have to include in your thumbnail stuff that is relevant to the video and nothing more so it's not unreadable. So the more lengthy example of "Superconductor Demo Video" gets shortened to just "Superconductor" so it's actually visible and (along with the description) people know it's at least related the recent superconductor news.
c) It doesn't matter what we put in the thumbnail, the title, the pinned comment, or the desciption, there will always, ALWAYS be someone who complains that it's "clickbait".

e.g. if I actually put "Superconductor Demo Video" in the thumbnail, there would be people who wouldn't complain that I did actually try to make the superconductor.

So ironically we have to make "clickbait" in way that does not waste people's time clicking on it.
There is absolutely no way I can do a thumbnail or title for this thing without SOME people being upset that it's "click bait" and not what they were expecting, one way or the other.
If I left out the word debunk, I'd get people complaining I didn't call it debunk, because I clearly debunked the demo video, 100%, no question.
If I include the word debunk then I get people upset that it's not debunking the ENITRE THING.
It's impossible.

[Marco]

There should really be an online journal for paper verification (fail or success).

A few years back there was a similar hype about pyrolithic graphite. I'm sure a lot of labs tried and failed to replicate, but all that's in the open is the original papers and not write ups of the failed trials to replicate.

[EEVblog]

They changed the video description!
It's no longer a copper plate, it's an enriched uranium 235 plate! 

I'm no chemist, but it's a very strange material choice to demonstrate your superconductor film. And it's one of the most controlled materials on earth, so the cynic in me says it's very convenient if you don't want people to verify.
I can't help but think they are just taking the piss in response to my video.
In that case it's rather funny and I tip my tap to the joke. But when the whole world is questioning the credibility of your research, is that such a good idea?
But I'm open to someone explaining why you'd use enriched uranium 235 for such a thing?

[Brumby]

They changed the video description!
It's no longer a copper plate, it's an enriched uranium 235 plate! 

 

[Bud]

I thought a scientist would know a difference between copper and uranium when originally published the video. 
Now you nuclear experts please tell why it was needed to use uranium carrier for testing magnetic property of a material. Why not to deposit the material on a piece of paper?

[Brumby]

I thought a scientist would know a difference between copper and uranium when originally published the video. 

I'm no scientist ... but ... isn't the disc the wrong colour for uranium?

[Dr. Frank]

I thought a scientist would know a difference between copper and uranium when originally published the video. 

I'm no scientist ... but ... isn't the disc the wrong colour for uranium?

Pictures of U235 discs show that it is of grey color, similar to lead.
Why should they use enriched U235, which is commonly known to be used for atomic bombs?
That makes no sense, and I can't see any real physical reason for using such a critical substance.

At that time, we have DC-sputtered our YBCO  films on pre-heated ceramic substrates of SrTiO₃ for ac measurements of resistivity and susceptibility.
The acceleration of the particles towards the substrate worked well, despite the latter is non-conductive.
That might be a reason why one wants to use a metal as a substrate for the deposited film, but copper is quite fine for that purpose.

So if they changed the description right now, that is not a good sign in regard of "scientific conduct".. and U235 could as well show the very same induction effect like copper.
Frank 

[switchabl]

The screenshot does not appear to be from the video included in the OP (nor from the same channel). That one was posted in January, has more than 150k views and still says "copper plate" for me. I don't know if Dave is just having some fun or someone else is. Either way, U235 is obviously just trolling.

[EEVblog]

The screenshot does not appear to be from the video included in the OP (nor from the same channel). That one was posted in January, has more than 150k views and still says "copper plate" for me. I don't know if Dave is just having some fun or someone else is. Either way, U235 is obviously just trolling.

Explained here:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-1555-lk99-ambient-temperature-superconductor-busted!/msg4989862/#msg4989862
It's not me, there are two legit q-centre channels with verified business email addresses at their domain name.

[EEVblog]

Someone on twitter mention you can change your youtube channel business email address without re-verifcation?
If so then I suspect the troll is either a member of this forum or a viewer...

[gnuarm]

I thought a scientist would know a difference between copper and uranium when originally published the video. 

I'm no scientist ... but ... isn't the disc the wrong colour for uranium?

Pictures of U235 discs show that it is of grey color, similar to lead.
Why should they use enriched U235, which is commonly known to be used for atomic bombs?
That makes no sense, and I can't see any real physical reason for using such a critical substance.

At that time, we have DC-sputtered our YBCO  films on pre-heated ceramic substrates of SrTiO₃ for ac measurements of resistivity and susceptibility.
The acceleration of the particles towards the substrate worked well, despite the latter is non-conductive.
That might be a reason why one wants to use a metal as a substrate for the deposited film, but copper is quite fine for that purpose.

So if they changed the description right now, that is not a good sign in regard of "scientific conduct".. and U235 could as well show the very same induction effect like copper.
Frank

This is the failure in the analysis of this video.  This video is not part of the scientific paper about LK-99.  It's something posted on Youtube that no one really knows much about.  Presently, it's a lightning rod for criticism, only because the people doing the criticizing don't have the chops to discuss the research paper. 

This is no different from the discussion about the Titan submersible.  Lots of discussion, but very little information. 

[daqq]

but very little information.

That's kind of the whole problem.
 - The communication from the authors is non-existent
 - the site's offline whenever I look at it due to excessive traffic
 - the videos are unlisted and at best document strange things that are not that telling of superconductivity
 - instead of sending samples to other institutions that could easily and quickly verify their claims, we're getting nothing
 - ...

If this turns out to be a real superconductor, it might just be the most poorly initially communicated thing to ever win the Nobel Prize.

I really want this to be real - I really want a Josephson Junction standard on my desk 

[SiliconWizard]

I want perpetual motion on my desk.

[Dr. Frank]

... Presently, it's a lightning rod for criticism, only because the people doing the criticizing don't have the chops to discuss the research paper. 

At first, those are no "Research Papers", as those document appeared on a random archive server, not on an official physics or material research journal.
It was also not officially submitted for Peer Review, and they are lacking meta data about the status of this research, like date of publishing, where to be published, and so on.
I guess, I judged these, let's say 'preliminary' papers by scientifically analyzing the content based on the elaborate research we've done decades ago. That's enough of expertise to be very sceptical in this case.

Today I've found several measurements of resistivity and susceptibility from identical samples of sputtered YBCO films from way back then, which fit together in T_c and shape of the SC transition.
I only can stress the fact, that in this case, especially their magnetic measurements were mediocre, and do not fit at all to the rest. They also give no explanation on that diverging behavior.
Frank   

[gnuarm]

but very little information.

That's kind of the whole problem.
 - The communication from the authors is non-existent
 - the site's offline whenever I look at it due to excessive traffic
 - the videos are unlisted and at best document strange things that are not that telling of superconductivity
 - instead of sending samples to other institutions that could easily and quickly verify their claims, we're getting nothing
 - ...

If this turns out to be a real superconductor, it might just be the most poorly initially communicated thing to ever win the Nobel Prize.

I really want this to be real - I really want a Josephson Junction standard on my desk 

Why not sit back, relax, and wait for the full story to come out? 

I see the posts about the Titan submersible have finally petered out.  That was literally 99% imagination and 1% posting of information. 

[EEVblog]

The rest of the internet took hold of those videos and propagated them virally. You apparently took the internet's viral promotion of the clip as the entire group "promoting a fraud."
Seems a little careless, but YouTube's audiences have forgiven far worse from other creators.

When did I ever use the word "fraud"?
It was literally the #1 news story trending in science.
I wasn't actually going to do a vidoe on this until I actually saw the video promoted on the front page of their own commercial website.
This was not a video that was leaked and shared around virally.
When you promote stuff on your commercial web site then you are absolutely open to criticisim of that, no ifs no buts.

[EEVblog]

This is the failure in the analysis of this video.  This video is not part of the scientific paper about LK-99.  It's something posted on Youtube that no one really knows much about.

It is promoted by THEM on their OWN website front page. Why should this be out of bounds for criticism? Why?

[Psi]

Nothing wrong with criticism, and the video in question warranted lots of it!
Potential collateral damage of new discoveries is the only thing I have any issues with, but in this case there is no risk of any collateral damage. The discovery is being replicated currently (or attempted) and we will find out if it's real or not.

[EEVblog]

Nothing wrong with criticism, and the video in question warranted lots of it!
Potential collateral damage of new discoveries is the only thing I have any issues with, but in this case there is no risk of any collateral damage. The discovery is being replicated currently (or attempted) and will find out if its real or not.

Exactly. I do not understand the criticism of my video from this standpoint.
The "clickbait" claim, and people expecting to see me to "bust" the whole thing, I can at least undersatnd where people are coming from.
But I've had people basically telling me to shut up and that I shouldn't have a posted a video at all even mentioning that demo video. As if they are protecting some sacred cow I dared criticise in any way.

[Psi]

The "clickbait" claim, and people expecting to see me to "bust" the whole thing, I can at least undersatnd where people are coming from.

I think most of the criticism of your video came from that,  but there will always be the 'crazies' who take issue when someone says the sky is blue.  And any new discovery or fringe science always attracts more of those.

The video just seemed too get more criticism than a typical busting video because the two groups were mixed together.

[AndyBeez]

But I'm open to someone explaining why you'd use enriched uranium 235 for such a thing?

Random gamma rays would certainly do something to the test results. If not turn the test equipment into low grade radioactive waste. Anyway, UE is not something they stock on DigiKey, so I'm wondering where they purchased it from? Just saying

Re the video: can they take their evidence to a jury? A jury comprised of jurors who know the Earth is round and that Apollo did land on the moon? Of course not. Good jurors will ask questions of the scientific and technical evidence presented before coming to a verdict. So unless there is immutable proof that convinces this public jury, maybe they should get on a bike and go ride that solar freekin' roadway back to the land where free energy is in perpetual motion.

Keep calling out

[PlainName]

When did I ever use the word "fraud"?

The word 'busted' implies fraud, scam, misdeed - or whatever other word you want to imply that but be able to say you haven't used - has been outed. And it's not even a diplomatic way of implying it.

[AndyC_772]

"First claimed successful replication of LK-99"

https://twitter.com/Andercot/status/1686286684424691712

[gnuarm]

Nothing wrong with criticism, and the video in question warranted lots of it!

Only because you are reading into it what you want.  The video has virtually no attached text and says nothing itself.  It's silly to make such a big deal of this video.

Potential collateral damage of new discoveries is the only thing I have any issues with, but in this case there is no risk of any collateral damage. The discovery is being replicated currently (or attempted) and we will find out if it's real or not.

We will know, when we know.  Until then, this thread (and the other one) is just gossiping over the back fence.

[gnuarm]

"First claimed successful replication of LK-99"

https://twitter.com/Andercot/status/1686286684424691712

Another video.  I wonder when someone will have the appropriate measurements needed to actually validate or refute this material?

[Marco]

Ignoring LK-99 for a moment, there have been a few papers published recently suggesting graphite is a granular superconductor ... the idea refuses to die.

Comparing the diamagnetism of LK-99 to pyrolithic graphite might not be a good argument against superconductivity. Maybe the diamagnetism there was due to superconductivity all along.

[PlainName]

"First claimed successful replication of LK-99"

https://twitter.com/Andercot/status/1686286684424691712

Another video.  I wonder when someone will have the appropriate measurements needed to actually validate or refute this material?

Perhaps some of these videos (and other things) are posted because the poster isn't sure what they mean, and comments such as we've seen in this thread clarifies the applicability (or not) of the material. For instance, in the Other Thread there were posts of various tubes of different materials being crushed in inappropriate ways, but a non-expert may not realise that and wonder how it might be relevant. By posting in the thread they would get better info, and learn something new to boot.

[SiliconWizard]

LK-99 sounds like the name of an assault rifle.

So, nomination for the Nobel prize yet?

[thm_w]

"First claimed successful replication of LK-99"

https://twitter.com/Andercot/status/1686286684424691712

Another video.  I wonder when someone will have the appropriate measurements needed to actually validate or refute this material?

There were two links, but sounds like its all simulations as to how it might function,
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.16892.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.16040.pdf

https://twitter.com/Andercot/status/1686215574177841152

The simulations modeled what the original Korean authors proposed was happening to their material - where copper atoms were percolating into a crystal structure and replacing lead atoms, causing the crystal to strain slightly and contract by 0.5%. This unique structure was proposed to allow this amazing property.

It turns out that there are conduction pathways for electrons that are in just the right conditions and places that would enable them to 'superconduct'. More specifically, they were close to the 'Fermi Surface' which is like the sea-level of electrical energy, as in '0 ft above sea-level.' It's believed currently that the more conduction pathways close to the Fermi surface, the higher the temperature you can superconduct at (An analogy might be how its easier for planes to fly close to the surface of the ocean due to the 'ground effect' that gives them more lift.)

Lastly, these interesting conduction pathways only form when the copper atom percolates into the less likely location in the crystal lattice, or the 'higher energy' binding site. This means the material would be difficult to synthesize since only a small fraction of crystal gets its copper in just the right location.

[EEVblog]

Comments on the simulation:
https://twitter.com/MichaelSFuhrer/status/1686267690770739200

[Marco]

It's possible it's a granular superconductor, with resistance measurements seeing a series of josephson junctions.

[deepfryed]

moreeee news

https://www.fastcompany.com/90932066/team-claims-to-successfully-replicate-lk-99-superconductor

[Psi]

It's going to be a while before we get any hard scientific data on this, assuming it's legit.

If it is legit I expect we'll probably see a lot more positive evidence coming from amateur/backyard scientists first. Well before any official scientific data. Writing papers and getting them reviewed takes ages.

Of course the problem with amateur/backyard scientist data is you need to filter out all the crazies and all the people doing fake stuff for clicks.

[deepfryed]

all the people doing fake stuff for clicks.

that's going to be 99% of the internet 

[Dr. Frank]

moreeee news

https://www.fastcompany.com/90932066/team-claims-to-successfully-replicate-lk-99-superconductor

That's another B.S. article of a science journalists who have half baked knowledge at most.

First off, it must clearly be emphasized, that this levitation effect is no real evidence for SC at all, it could be as well a simple diamagnetic behavior.
Therefore all following statements, that this could be a sign of proof, is misleading.

Second, even the older High T_c type II superconductors did not give a technological breakthrough, as their magnetic properties were too weak to provide SC wires with good properties at liquid nitrogen temperature. To make wires out of Perovskit Ceramics is also extremely difficult, compared to the traditional metallic superconductors. I've heard of some projects using such wires for energy transfer, but I doubt that it is really an industrial application. (*)

It's also not possible to produce mono crystalline and stable layers / structures for Josephson Junction or other Quantum devices.
There was an approach for a JJA from the Jülich Research Center (linked to Aachen and Cologne Universities), the laboratory sample also worked quite ok, demonstrating the existence of Shapiro-steps, but that paper is maybe over 20 years old, and I did not hear anything that you could commercially buy such a device. Would have been great for all of us volt-nuts.

With increasing jump temperature, the magnetic "hardness" (pinning of magnetic field lines) gets worse and worse. So a room temperature superconductor would have even worse characteristics, I guess.

Third, the Nobel Price was also not granted for already existing RT SCs at high pressure, so it's very unlikely that there would be even a nomination.
It might be of academic interest only, but it would not yield new physics and no new revolutionary application as such articles imply.

Think how the discoveries of the Blue LED, the Li system for batteries, the GMR (Giant Magnetic Resistance, Peter Grünberg et al, as well from Jülich) for high capacity HDs, the LASER really changed our lives. That is not to be expected at all from a new class of superconductors. 

There's too much hype and wishful thinking inside this story.

Frank

(*) The City of Munich is planning a 12km long High Voltage line to transfer energy from a power plant to a south access point.
German company THEVA advertises to have working SC cables with Gd, but the latter project is still in evaluation phase , since 3 years. 

[PlainName]

Think how the discoveries of the Blue LED, the Li system for batteries, the GMR (Giant Magnetic Resistance, Peter Grünberg et al, as well from Jülich) for high capacity HDs, the LASER really changed our lives. That is not to be expected at all from a new class of superconductors.

All of those are, to the end user, just better previous products. Blue LEDs are brighter and less boring red ones. Li batteries are longer lasting and more powerful previous ones, etc. (I know it's much more than that, but to the end user with stuff on his desk, that's how it looks.)

Ignoring whether or not this alleged superconductor is real, how would a room temperature superconductor affect the end user? That is, what kind of cool product might he have on his desk that either isn't available now or would be much better?

[Marco]

If nothing else, a cheap room temperature superconductor would be nice for magnetic shielding.

[nfmax]

Think how the discoveries of the Blue LED, the Li system for batteries, the GMR (Giant Magnetic Resistance, Peter Grünberg et al, as well from Jülich) for high capacity HDs, the LASER really changed our lives. That is not to be expected at all from a new class of superconductors.

All of those are, to the end user, just better previous products. Blue LEDs are brighter and less boring red ones.

Rubbish! White LEDs are basically a blue LED plus a phosphor. And white LEDs have revolutionised lighting!

[PlainName]

Think how the discoveries of the Blue LED, the Li system for batteries, the GMR (Giant Magnetic Resistance, Peter Grünberg et al, as well from Jülich) for high capacity HDs, the LASER really changed our lives. That is not to be expected at all from a new class of superconductors.

All of those are, to the end user, just better previous products. Blue LEDs are brighter and less boring red ones.

Rubbish! White LEDs are basically a blue LED plus a phosphor. And white LEDs have revolutionised lighting!

You're getting technical. To the user they are just brighter and nicer than the previous ones.

[PlainName]

If nothing else, a cheap room temperature superconductor would be nice for magnetic shielding.

Sure, but what could you use that for? I mean, what does the average bod need to shield? You don't even need to worry about TV distortion from a carelessly placed super-magnet nowadays.

[thm_w]

Two teams were unable to replicate:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.16402
https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.16802

Sounds like they said their sample wouldn't levitate at all.

The phase is confirmed through X-ray diffraction (XRD) measurements, performed after each heat treatment. The room temperature diamagnetism is not evidenced by the levitation of a permanent magnet over the sample or vice versa. Further measurements for the confirmation of bulk superconductivity on variously synthesized samples are underway. Our results on the present LK-99 sample, being synthesized at 925∘C, as of now do not approve the appearance of bulk superconductivity at room temperature. Further studies with different heat treatments are though, yet underway.

[AVGresponding]

Think how the discoveries of the Blue LED, the Li system for batteries, the GMR (Giant Magnetic Resistance, Peter Grünberg et al, as well from Jülich) for high capacity HDs, the LASER really changed our lives. That is not to be expected at all from a new class of superconductors.

All of those are, to the end user, just better previous products. Blue LEDs are brighter and less boring red ones.

Rubbish! White LEDs are basically a blue LED plus a phosphor. And white LEDs have revolutionised lighting!

Yes, it's moved the cost of lighting from electricity to installation and maintenance.  Net savings: zero. What a fucking con

[Psi]

Think how the discoveries of the Blue LED, the Li system for batteries, the GMR (Giant Magnetic Resistance, Peter Grünberg et al, as well from Jülich) for high capacity HDs, the LASER really changed our lives. That is not to be expected at all from a new class of superconductors.

All of those are, to the end user, just better previous products. Blue LEDs are brighter and less boring red ones.

Rubbish! White LEDs are basically a blue LED plus a phosphor. And white LEDs have revolutionised lighting!

Yes, it's moved the cost of lighting from electricity to installation and maintenance.  Net savings: zero. What a fucking con

The LED technology didn't do that, all the manufactures making LED stuff designed to fail did.
They simply run them way to hot. Driver and LEDs.
Build your own LED lighting and avoid that issue.  Good quality LED strip lighting is one option. Keep its temp under 50C and it will last 20 years. Maybe more.

Or you can even just disassemble off the shelf LED lamps (kind that fail often) and change the resistor/cap to reduce the brightness and get the heat under control. Then they will last at least 4x longer

[gnuarm]

Think how the discoveries of the Blue LED, the Li system for batteries, the GMR (Giant Magnetic Resistance, Peter Grünberg et al, as well from Jülich) for high capacity HDs, the LASER really changed our lives. That is not to be expected at all from a new class of superconductors.

All of those are, to the end user, just better previous products. Blue LEDs are brighter and less boring red ones.

Rubbish! White LEDs are basically a blue LED plus a phosphor. And white LEDs have revolutionised lighting!

Yes, it's moved the cost of lighting from electricity to installation and maintenance.  Net savings: zero. What a fucking con

The LED technology didn't do that, all the manufactures making LED stuff designed to fail did.

Not sure what you are going on about.  LED bulbs work just fine.  But they can't tolerate high temperatures, they are electronics, like your phone or PC.  But people forget that their light fixtures were designed for incandescent bulbs which only work when they are very hot.  So the recessed ceiling fixtures that allow no cooling will result in premature overheating failure.  Same with bulbs enclosed under globes.  It's up to the user to use them properly.

They simply run them way to hot. Driver and LEDs.

Not the makers, the users.

Build your own LED lighting and avoid that issue. 

Only if you give them adequate ventilation.

Good quality LED strip lighting is one option. Keep its temp under 50C and it will last 20 years. Maybe more.

Or you can even just disassemble off the shelf LED lamps (kind that fail often) and change the resistor/cap to reduce the brightness and get the heat under control. Then they will last at least 4x longer

Or, just install them where they can get air flow.

[Dr. Frank]

Think how the discoveries of the Blue LED, the Li system for batteries, the GMR (Giant Magnetic Resistance, Peter Grünberg et al, as well from Jülich) for high capacity HDs, the LASER really changed our lives. That is not to be expected at all from a new class of superconductors.

All of those are, to the end user, just better previous products. Blue LEDs are brighter and less boring red ones. Li batteries are longer lasting and more powerful previous ones, etc. (I know it's much more than that, but to the end user with stuff on his desk, that's how it looks.)

Ignoring whether or not this alleged superconductor is real, how would a room temperature superconductor affect the end user? That is, what kind of cool product might he have on his desk that either isn't available now or would be much better?

For all the mentioned technologies, Nobel Prices have been granted, because they really revolutionized our daily life; that's been the reasoning of the Nobel Prize committee.
Your statement about Blue LEDs is complete nonsense.
Only these made white light available for portable and battery driven devices.
Only Li batteries also made all these portable devices useable.
I.e. there would be no smart phones w/o both inventions.

[Psi]

Rubbish! White LEDs are basically a blue LED plus a phosphor. And white LEDs have revolutionised lighting!

Yes, it's moved the cost of lighting from electricity to installation and maintenance.  Net savings: zero. What a fucking con

The LED technology didn't do that, all the manufactures making LED stuff designed to fail did.

Not sure what you are going on about. 

I was commenting on AVGresponding saying that the LED lighting revolution was a con because they fail so often.

[PlainName]

Your statement about Blue LEDs is complete nonsense.
Only these made white light available for portable and battery driven devices.
Only Li batteries also made all these portable devices useable.
I.e. there would be no smart phones w/o both inventions.

Er, that's what I was asking - what equivalent nice thing(s) would the end user experience because of room temperature superconductors? That is, to be clear because it seems to need to be made clear, what existing product would be made much better? Or new product brought into existence?

I can see perfectly well what effect LEDs and Li batteries have had. For instance, I buy electric garden tools now instead of petrol-powered ones, and LEDs aren't just indicators now but actual useful lights. But for superconductor... I am lost as to what difference that would make to my day-to-day life and toy depository.

[gnuarm]

Rubbish! White LEDs are basically a blue LED plus a phosphor. And white LEDs have revolutionised lighting!

Yes, it's moved the cost of lighting from electricity to installation and maintenance.  Net savings: zero. What a fucking con

The LED technology didn't do that, all the manufactures making LED stuff designed to fail did.

Not sure what you are going on about. 

I was commenting on AVGresponding saying that the LED lighting revolution was a con because they fail so often.

I was commenting on the false statements you appeared to be making.

[AVGresponding]

Rubbish! White LEDs are basically a blue LED plus a phosphor. And white LEDs have revolutionised lighting!

Yes, it's moved the cost of lighting from electricity to installation and maintenance.  Net savings: zero. What a fucking con

The LED technology didn't do that, all the manufactures making LED stuff designed to fail did.

Not sure what you are going on about. 

I was commenting on AVGresponding saying that the LED lighting revolution was a con because they fail so often.

In fact that wasn't what I said at all; I said the installation and maintenance costs have increased.

MTBF is a problem yes, but the more serious issue is that replacement lamps are now a thing of the past; entire fittings and in some cases entire rooms and floors of fittings have to be replaced, because manufacturers force obsolescence.
Note that I'm talking about commercial and industrial applications here.

[Marco]

In a competitive market manufacturers do what customers let them get away with.

They could/should standardize some new 48V DC sockets for LED bulbs, but apparently the customers on average don't care. One really big customer could force the issue. Just create some procurement offers for spot lights and linear with new 48V DC specific sockets and once the ball gets rolling it won't stop, it just makes too much sense. CFLs got new sockets for linear lamps, why the hell haven't LEDs? Because the large industrial customers are stupid.

[AndyC_772]

Er, that's what I was asking - what equivalent nice thing(s) would the end user experience because of room temperature superconductors?

I'm glad I'm not the only one for whom the answer to this isn't completely obvious.

My first guess would be that it might improve the performance and/or efficiency of CPUs / GPUs, if it can be incorporated into ICs in the form of an interconnect layer in place of aluminium or copper. There's a lot of process engineering involved there, though; if it's not straightforward to incorporate into existing wafer production processes, it'll simply never happen.

Slightly easier might be replacing bond wires for power electronics - but again, lots of engineering required to replace a ductile gold wire with a brittle ceramic material.

There will be desktop toys galore, obviously. Toy maglev trains, inverted monorails, that kind of thing.

Or it may be a complete non-starter, not because it doesn't work, but because it contains lead. Since people seem to have become completely incapable of understanding the concept of a trade-off, especially where environmental issues are concerned, it may just end up being banned from useful applications 'because lead'.

[KedasProbe]

nice summary of fails and partial success in reproducing
https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/claims-of-room-temperature-and-ambient-pressure-superconductor.1106083/page-11

https://twitter.com/ppx_sds/status/1686790365641142279
110K is still very cold though.

[gnuarm]

Er, that's what I was asking - what equivalent nice thing(s) would the end user experience because of room temperature superconductors?

I'm glad I'm not the only one for whom the answer to this isn't completely obvious.

My first guess would be that it might improve the performance and/or efficiency of CPUs / GPUs, if it can be incorporated into ICs in the form of an interconnect layer in place of aluminium or copper. There's a lot of process engineering involved there, though; if it's not straightforward to incorporate into existing wafer production processes, it'll simply never happen.

I've never heard anyone say the resistivity of copper or aluminum produced much heat in ICs.  The energy used is mostly from charging/discharging capacitors.

Or are you talking about some other problem?  I doubt it would impact the speed much.  I expect most of the resistance in the RC is from the channel driving the trace.

Slightly easier might be replacing bond wires for power electronics - but again, lots of engineering required to replace a ductile gold wire with a brittle ceramic material.

There will be desktop toys galore, obviously. Toy maglev trains, inverted monorails, that kind of thing.

Or it may be a complete non-starter, not because it doesn't work, but because it contains lead. Since people seem to have become completely incapable of understanding the concept of a trade-off, especially where environmental issues are concerned, it may just end up being banned from useful applications 'because lead'.

Lead is not banned.  Lead in throw away, consumer items is banned.  The military and various exempt uses are excluded.  The point is, lead needs to be collected and removed from the waste stream, rather than thrown in a dump.  A local conservation club got a shooting range to change their layout, after they were able to scoop up handfuls of lead pellets from the stream behind it.  That's the sort of negligence we need to end.

[PlainName]

Er, that's what I was asking - what equivalent nice thing(s) would the end user experience because of room temperature superconductors?

There will be desktop toys galore, obviously. Toy maglev trains, inverted monorails, that kind of thing.

I guess I could manage with just those. Could be some big improvements over marble machines! 

[TimFox]

A true room-temperature semiconductor with reasonable current and magnetic field capability would reduce copper loss in utility-system transformers (although there are other losses there including core loss).
A commercial from the copper industry:  https://www.copper.org/environment/sustainable-energy/transformers/education/trans_ad.html

[thm_w]

nice summary of fails and partial success in reproducing
https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/claims-of-room-temperature-and-ambient-pressure-superconductor.1106083/page-11

https://twitter.com/ppx_sds/status/1686790365641142279
110K is still very cold though.

Good table. One cool thing is some teams were able to get a resulting material that levitated really well, so the material is already shown to be unique in some way.

Translation: Currently the zero resistance test takes a few days to focus on the diamagnetic value. Judging from the video of the author of the paper, it is far superior to pyrolitic graphite.
https://www.zhihu.com/question/614426480/answer/3142610238

Now, let's move on to the most important part - the zero resistance results. Let's take a closer look at our measurements. We started measuring from 300K and gradually decreased the temperature. The current passing through the sample was one milliampere. Due to the fragility of the sample, it was difficult to shape it into a regular form. Therefore, we used an irregularly shaped sample to save time. We measured the resistivity using the four-probe method. Under a current of one milliampere, we observed that the resistivity exhibited slight semiconductor behavior at high temperatures. As the temperature decreased, the resistivity decreased as well. The most crucial observation was made at 110K. At this temperature, we observed that the resistance approached zero. Why do we say it approached zero? If you look at the scale of the resistance on this side, it is around 10^-5 to 10^-6 ohms. Considering the current of one milliampere, the corresponding voltage is around 10^-8 or 10^-9 volts. This is within the measurement range of our instrument, PBMS. Therefore, we believe that we have observed zero resistance.

We tested a total of six samples, but we only observed zero resistance in one of them. In most of the other samples, we observed behavior characteristic of semiconductors.
https://twitter.com/altryne/status/1686796796859908096

[Psi]

I was commenting on the false statements you appeared to be making.

Ok, fair enough, I should have said "most" instead of "all". I know there are some LED lighting manufactures that sell good products.
I was not suggesting that manufacturers are having design meetings on how to get their devices to fail just outside of the warranty in order to sell more. Or they're testing them to ensure they do fail soon after warranty.
I'm saying they are choosing their product design requirements based on their chosen product lifespan and they are doing that process wrong. Lifespan requirements in the design process should be determined by a cost/benefit analysis from the users perspective, not the sellers perspective. If you can add $0.05 of extra parts to a product with $2 BOM cost and that will make it last twice as long then you should do that. Not doing that means you are designing it to fail prematurely.

[gnuarm]

I was commenting on the false statements you appeared to be making.

Ok, fair enough, I should have said "most" instead of "all". I know there are some LED lighting manufactures that sell good products.
I was not suggesting that manufacturers are having design meetings on how to get their devices to fail just outside of the warranty in order to sell more. Or they're testing them to ensure they do fail soon after warranty.
I'm saying they are choosing their product design requirements based on their chosen product lifespan and they are doing that process wrong. Lifespan requirements in the design process should be determined by a cost/benefit analysis from the users perspective, not the sellers perspective. If you can add $0.05 of extra parts to a product with $2 BOM cost and that will make it last twice as long then you should do that. Not doing that means you are designing it to fail prematurely.

I hate reading stuff like this.  You essentially claim that "most" manufacturers actually go to the trouble of designing the product to be a time bomb, rather than simply minimizing the product cost, which sets the minimum selling price.   Yet, You offer zero evidence of anything you say.  What $0.05 worth of parts will make an LED bulb last twice as long?

Whatever.   People believe what they want to believe and there is little in the way of facts or evidence, that will change their minds. 

[Siwastaja]

Yes, it's moved the cost of lighting from electricity to installation and maintenance.  Net savings: zero. What a fucking con

What utter bullshit. Even if you consider all the bullshit low quality LED fixtures, the lifetime increased so much that installation and maintenance costs have plummeted. You just don't remember the days of 1000-hour incandescents and crap quality "10000" so actually 2000-hour CFLs which had exactly the same issues with their aging electronics as crap quality LEDs except they generated more heat and died even more prematurely. Compare to that and our "50 000" so really 5000-10000 hour LEDs are a huge improvement.

In the past changing a lightbulb was a monthly endeavor. CFLs offered only limited relief; they could not be used everywhere as they took so long to light up and did not work in cold, and still faded to significantly reduced brightness during the first 1000 hours so you had to replace all those "60W equivalent 11W" things prematurely, generating a lot of unnecessary waste. After LEDs came out my maintenance time went down by more than an order of magnitude, now I have to change a lightbulb maybe once a year. (If the LEDs lived up to their specifications, that would be even more rarely, but I gladly accept this 10x improvement.)

[BBBbbb]

Regardless of the outcome of the LK99 saga, following it for the past 2 weeks has been better than any tv show/move I watched recently - so many plot twists and the best thing there is quite a non-zero chance that it's a real deal.

[PlainName]

Sorry? Did I miss the sex scenes?

[EEVblog]

Regardless of the outcome of the LK99 saga, following it for the past 2 weeks has been better than any tv show/move I watched recently - so many plot twists and the best thing there is quite a non-zero chance that it's a real deal.

Well it's certainly opened my eyes to jusy how many people are unwilling to have anything even remotely negative said about research like this.
And how quick they are to jump on even the smalled amount of news that it might be CONFIRMED! HA! TOLD YOU SO!

If that demo video I busted had been on any other website and was related to anything else, everyone would have laughed their arse off at how dumb it was to publish on your website. But when it comes to this, nope, that's "just marketing", it's "not relevant", "it's an old video", "it's got nothing to do with the research group" etc etc 

[PlainName]

that demo video I busted

Perhaps it's the way you tell 'em.

What I mean by that is we're all aware that bad news sells. Newspapers, and especially tabloids, use bad news as clickbait. Rarely are great things pushed, and when they are there's usually some negative, because negative sells. I think that's the same with busted videos - negative sells so people flock to view diss videos regardless of merit or content.

Just out of interest, when was the last "gee, this will be a great thing" video you posted? Did you ever post a video showing some thing you 'busted' that turned out not to be after all?

So my contention is that when you wade in with the busted stuff you're triggering people. You can show it's likely wrong without the clickbait, and probably get better quality discourse, but of course you'd get fewer viewers.

[BBBbbb]

Sorry? Did I miss the sex scenes?

yup, when Kwon (it always has to be a Kwon doing some bs) tried to fu*k them over by rushing the first (Word) paper to the publication process presumably so he'd get the Nobel prize (limited to 3 persons).
There's your sex scene.

[BBBbbb]

Regardless of the outcome of the LK99 saga, following it for the past 2 weeks has been better than any tv show/move I watched recently - so many plot twists and the best thing there is quite a non-zero chance that it's a real deal.

Well it's certainly opened my eyes to jusy how many people are unwilling to have anything even remotely negative said about research like this.
And how quick they are to jump on even the smalled amount of news that it might be CONFIRMED! HA! TOLD YOU SO!

If that demo video I busted had been on any other website and was related to anything else, everyone would have laughed their arse off at how dumb it was to publish on your website. But when it comes to this, nope, that's "just marketing", it's "not relevant", "it's an old video", "it's got nothing to do with the research group" etc etc 

Academia publishing has been broken for a long time for various different reasons.
Team was pushed to publish without the article being completed at a standard level due to the first submission.
Recreating it in labs is not easy (US has additional problems with substance control and also general lack of financial incentives for such work).
Chinese researcher OTOH are under higher pressure and have been known to mass produce papers of debated quality at higher % than the western ones. (Not sure if this view is distorted through western optics or really the case) In general similarly to how Covid topic attracted a lot of researchers looking for an easy funding or a spotlight this could be the case as well.

Nevertheless, the fact that there is still non-zero chance of this being something great has me excited.

[deepfryed]

that demo video I busted

So my contention is that when you wade in with the busted stuff you're triggering people. You can show it's likely wrong without the clickbait, and probably get better quality discourse, but of course you'd get fewer viewers.

I agree with this, academics are just like anyone else in a high a pressure environment - they make mistakes or overlook things. People that sometimes publish PR stuff are not academics and can end up making a mess of things, I've worked in academia so I can attest to that

Also hope is such a human quality, though always not rational.

[KedasProbe]

Extra info and video, seems they can only make small pieces 7mm flat (brittle material)
hence measuring electric resistance isn't easy.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2308/2308.01516.pdf

https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV14p4y1V7kS/?spm_id_from=333.999.0.0&vd_source=510b6eac8fec748481fb4b933932e80c

[TimFox]

that demo video I busted

So my contention is that when you wade in with the busted stuff you're triggering people. You can show it's likely wrong without the clickbait, and probably get better quality discourse, but of course you'd get fewer viewers.

I agree with this, academics are just like anyone else in a high a pressure environment - they make mistakes or overlook things. People that sometimes publish PR stuff are not academics and can end up making a mess of things, I've worked in academia so I can attest to that

Also hope is such a human quality, though always not rational.

This is why peer review is such an important concept in legitimate scientific publication, although it tends to be conservative.
I would advise against investing money in a novelty that cannot pass peer review, but I am a very conservative investor.

[AVGresponding]

Yes, it's moved the cost of lighting from electricity to installation and maintenance.  Net savings: zero. What a fucking con

What utter bullshit. Even if you consider all the bullshit low quality LED fixtures, the lifetime increased so much that installation and maintenance costs have plummeted. You just don't remember the days of 1000-hour incandescents and crap quality "10000" so actually 2000-hour CFLs which had exactly the same issues with their aging electronics as crap quality LEDs except they generated more heat and died even more prematurely. Compare to that and our "50 000" so really 5000-10000 hour LEDs are a huge improvement.

In the past changing a lightbulb was a monthly endeavor. CFLs offered only limited relief; they could not be used everywhere as they took so long to light up and did not work in cold, and still faded to significantly reduced brightness during the first 1000 hours so you had to replace all those "60W equivalent 11W" things prematurely, generating a lot of unnecessary waste. After LEDs came out my maintenance time went down by more than an order of magnitude, now I have to change a lightbulb maybe once a year. (If the LEDs lived up to their specifications, that would be even more rarely, but I gladly accept this 10x improvement.)

No, I'm afraid it's you that is talking "bullshit". Just in case you missed the point, I'm talking about COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL applications, which are quite different from domestic ones.

I work as a sparks for a northern metropolitan council, and have direct experience of the situation whereof I speak. The best example of this wasteful new order I can give you is the full, back to bare concrete refurb we did on one of our multi-storey office blocks, some 8 years ago now.
Most of the new lighting was LED (two mezzanine floors had HF fluorescents fitted, because they worked with an automatic DALI controller), and it was mostly Philips, Cooper/Eaton for the dedicated emergency fittings, and some locally remanufactured specialist DMX compatible fittings.

The first of the DMX compatible fittings failed within a day, two others followed in quick succession, but that's entirely down to the incompetence of the remanufacturer; I wouldn't hold it up as an example.

The Cooper/Eaton emergency lights however, are worth mentioning. Within two years, the failure rate was nearly 50%, and the manufacturer had to come and do a warranty replacement on them, and on a significant number that had been fitted a year earlier to another of our office buildings. Most, though not all, of these failures were battery/charger related.

Now to the meat. The Philips fittings started to fail about 3 years in, mostly ones that had integrated emergency backup batteries, but soon after the control gears (obsolete and not compatible with anything still made), and then the LEDs within the fittings themselves. Now, these are a completely integrated fitting, and you cannot replace the LED. Further, they are an "architectural" design, and not a generic one, and so when one fails in an area, they all have to be replaced in order to maintain a homogenous appearance.

This is far from a unique issue; I recently mentioned this to Big Clive and he replied with the fact that Glasgow council have also had the same problem with some rather expensive street lights. My guess is that anyone that works for a council or large business and is involved in estate maintenance will have similar stories.

I was commenting on the false statements you appeared to be making.

Ok, fair enough, I should have said "most" instead of "all". I know there are some LED lighting manufactures that sell good products.
I was not suggesting that manufacturers are having design meetings on how to get their devices to fail just outside of the warranty in order to sell more. Or they're testing them to ensure they do fail soon after warranty.
I'm saying they are choosing their product design requirements based on their chosen product lifespan and they are doing that process wrong. Lifespan requirements in the design process should be determined by a cost/benefit analysis from the users perspective, not the sellers perspective. If you can add $0.05 of extra parts to a product with $2 BOM cost and that will make it last twice as long then you should do that. Not doing that means you are designing it to fail prematurely.

I hate reading stuff like this.  You essentially claim that "most" manufacturers actually go to the trouble of designing the product to be a time bomb, rather than simply minimizing the product cost, which sets the minimum selling price.   Yet, You offer zero evidence of anything you say.  What $0.05 worth of parts will make an LED bulb last twice as long?

Whatever.   People believe what they want to believe and there is little in the way of facts or evidence, that will change their minds. 

Yes, they do. This is not a secret, nor is it difficult to understand; if lights lasted as long as they could be made to, the manufacturers would go out of business from lack of sales, once everyone had all the ones they needed. Replacement sales through non-wear breakage wouldn't be enough to sustain them.

The $0.05 worth of parts that could make them last twice as long is actually much much cheaper; a simple change of resistor value in the current sense of the driver would do the job, and indeed, to mention Big Clive again, he regularly posts videos of him doing exactly that.

[gnuarm]

<much pointless rambling trimmed>

I was commenting on the false statements you appeared to be making.

Ok, fair enough, I should have said "most" instead of "all". I know there are some LED lighting manufactures that sell good products.
I was not suggesting that manufacturers are having design meetings on how to get their devices to fail just outside of the warranty in order to sell more. Or they're testing them to ensure they do fail soon after warranty.
I'm saying they are choosing their product design requirements based on their chosen product lifespan and they are doing that process wrong. Lifespan requirements in the design process should be determined by a cost/benefit analysis from the users perspective, not the sellers perspective. If you can add $0.05 of extra parts to a product with $2 BOM cost and that will make it last twice as long then you should do that. Not doing that means you are designing it to fail prematurely.

I hate reading stuff like this.  You essentially claim that "most" manufacturers actually go to the trouble of designing the product to be a time bomb, rather than simply minimizing the product cost, which sets the minimum selling price.   Yet, You offer zero evidence of anything you say.  What $0.05 worth of parts will make an LED bulb last twice as long?

Whatever.   People believe what they want to believe and there is little in the way of facts or evidence, that will change their minds. 

Yes, they do.

Not sure who "they" are in your reply. 

This is not a secret, nor is it difficult to understand; if lights lasted as long as they could be made to, the manufacturers would go out of business from lack of sales, once everyone had all the ones they needed. Replacement sales through non-wear breakage wouldn't be enough to sustain them.

I believe you are in the UK.  From this comment, I have to assume this means your economy has zero growth.  Sounds like the comments I hear from many people in the UK.  Improvement is not possible.  They have to continue doing things the way they've done them for a hundred years.

The $0.05 worth of parts that could make them last twice as long is actually much much cheaper; a simple change of resistor value in the current sense of the driver would do the job, and indeed, to mention Big Clive again, he regularly posts videos of him doing exactly that.[/color][/b]

I've never seen Big Clive test anything I can buy in a store in the US.  The tests I've seen are of junk he buys from Aliexpress and such.  The original claim was that all devices were designed to be crap.  Psi had to step back from that.   The reality is there's no proof of any of this.  It's just like I've said, people believe what they want to believe.  You would seem to be a perfect example.  You can only offer your personal experience as "proof" of the quality of industrial equipment.  The problem is, you don't realize that your argument is not valid.

[BBBbbb]

No, I'm afraid it's you that is talking "bullshit".

The starting premise was that the LED was great progress as a lighting solution.
You outright called it a scam and gave an argument that has nothing to do with LEDs,
What you are describing is a general trend in the industry and something (safe to say) everybody on this forum is ranting about in one way or another and trying to push against - trying to make things unrepeatable without direct involvement of the OEM, (directly and indirectly) planned obsolescence and overall pushing the consumer from a buying a product to actually buying a service - to use Doctorow's term - enshittification of tech products.

But again - this has nothing to with LEDs. The incandescent lights are the OGs of this with the planned obsolescence, and if they were viable today, you would have seen further enshittification of industrial lighting  even with them there. The industry would find a way.

[SiliconWizard]

Any news regarding this incredible groundbreaking discovery?

It's apparently become viral and is currently being relayed by almost all tech blogs/channels and on social media, and more, all based on near-void.

I'm hungry.

[Bud]

It's apparently become viral and is currently being relayed by almost all tech blogs/channels and on social media

Am i having a dejavu moment... hmmm..where did I see that happening before...

Ah, yes! That thing was called Theranos.

[thm_w]

So because something is viral or interesting it is instantly a scam? Makes no sense.
Theranos actively deceived investors to bring in millions of dollars, based on hundreds of useless patents. At no point were other scientists replicating her tech to see how it works (as is being done here). Even if LK99 is an intentional scam, the result will come out within weeks at a relatively low price, instead of after 10 years.

“Those of us that were in the legitimate diagnostic community were very puzzled by their claims without substantiating with peer reviewed publications,”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/11/16/blood-startups-theranos/

[EEVblog]

So because something is viral or interesting it is instantly a scam? Makes no sense.

Is anyone calling it an outright scam?
At worst it looks like it will be just a case of being a novel find, but nothing practical will come of it.

[EEVblog]

This is why peer review is such an important concept in legitimate scientific publication, although it tends to be conservative.
I would advise against investing money in a novelty that cannot pass peer review, but I am a very conservative investor.

As a practical rule of thumb, in general you can take half of all published research as being wrong.
Getting it "peer reviewed" adds nothing to those odds.

Obviously some things are way more certain than others based on the data and the method, but as a general rule, it's a coin flip.

When it comes to "game changing" stuff like this though, the practical odds of it being true are single digit at best.
Count the number of new battery technologies published and media hyped that will revolutionise the industry, it's endless. As such you can quite reliably give near zero odds to any new announcement in that field.

[thm_w]

Is anyone calling it an outright scam?
At worst it looks like it will be just a case of being a novel find, but nothing practical will come of it.

Theranos is primarily known for being as scam, why would someone compare to Theranos unless implying intentionally misleading results. Either they made a poor analogy or don't understand the difference.

When it comes to "game changing" stuff like this though, the practical odds of it being true are single digit at best.
Count the number of new battery technologies published and media hyped that will revolutionise the industry, it's endless. As such you can quite reliably give near zero odds to any new announcement in that field.

The published battery tech (in the scientific paper itself) is usually not "false" it just ends up not commercially viable/scalable/reliable (true reliability testing could take years). I'd still be interested to hear about research, even if the tech is never practically implemented.

Of course if media hypes the research that's their own problem, blame them, don't blame the scientist for posting a paper or a clip that wasn't fully thought through. Sure if they purposefully rigged the result, then have at it.

[deepfryed]

Obviously some things are way more certain than others based on the data and the method, but as a general rule, it's a coin flip.

What makes you say that ? I'd say peer review adds confidence and depending on who does the peer review (journal, research group / university) the level of confidence varies. This is especially true when replicating experimental results / observations. It may be a coin flip if you take the whole body of research across the world but I think that distribution is definitely not uniform.

Commercialisation of the findings / discovery is a different question altogether and I agree with you, it may not be something that's commercially viable and practical to make a difference. We'll have to wait and see, I'm cautiously optimistic.

[Psi]

The discovery is currently not looking good at all, but I don't think we can call it just yet.

[Psi]

For the people discussing LED lighting and planned obsolescence I have created a new thread for it.
Since it doesn't really belong here.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/led-lighting-and-planned-obsolescence-intentional-or-not/

[gnuarm]

The discovery is currently not looking good at all, but I don't think we can call it just yet.

LOL  I didn't realize that we had anything to do with "calling it". 

[Psi]

The discovery is currently not looking good at all, but I don't think we can call it just yet.

LOL  I didn't realize that we had anything to do with "calling it".

How do you know what 'We' I was refereeing too.
The engineering/scientific community.

[deepfryed]

It's a bit of like the Tulip craze, every material scientist and his dog's on the replication train. 

Someone associated with University of S. California's claimed to have replicated it  https://twitter.com/floates0x/status/1687461340607311872

and Argonne has apparently synthesised the sample, so we'll hear about it from some of the best material scientists in the next week or so.

[gnuarm]

The discovery is currently not looking good at all, but I don't think we can call it just yet.

LOL  I didn't realize that we had anything to do with "calling it".

How do you know what 'We' I was refereeing too.
The engineering/scientific community.

Which "engineering/scientific community"

There is a relatively small set of professionals who are qualified to evaluate these claims.  I don't think the use of the term "we" is remotely appropriate.  It has nothing to do with "we". 

[Psi]

You don't need to be a professional or qualified to evaluate the claims.
Anyone can test and evaluate the claims. And everyone else gets to personally decide if they want to accept that persons evaluation or not.
Just because someone is qualified in the superconductor industry doesn't make their evaluation legitimate, or worthy of consideration. That comes from their reputation of accuracy/integrity/honesty etc. which isn't limited to people who are qualified.

[gnuarm]

You don't need to be a professional or qualified to evaluate the claims.

Sure, everyone has an opinion.  Mostly no one cares. 

Anyone can test and evaluate the claims.

Are you planning to do that?

And everyone else gets to personally decide if they want to accept that persons evaluation or not.
Just because someone is qualified in the superconductor industry doesn't make their evaluation legitimate, or worthy of consideration. That comes from their reputation of accuracy/integrity/honesty etc. which isn't limited to people who are qualified.

Ok, I get it.  You reject anyone and everyone, other that who you want to consider.   

Whatever.   Bye

[EEVblog]

Of course if media hypes the research that's their own problem, blame them, don't blame the scientist for posting a paper or a clip that wasn't fully thought through. Sure if they purposefully rigged the result, then have at it.

WAY too often I've seen the researchers themselves fueling the media hype. And there are countless commercialisation arms of universities that talk things up until the cows come how, that's their job.
Example of one I busted:

[AVGresponding]

<much pointless rambling trimmed>

Context trimmed, in preparation for your straw-man arguments.

I was commenting on the false statements you appeared to be making.

Ok, fair enough, I should have said "most" instead of "all". I know there are some LED lighting manufactures that sell good products.
I was not suggesting that manufacturers are having design meetings on how to get their devices to fail just outside of the warranty in order to sell more. Or they're testing them to ensure they do fail soon after warranty.
I'm saying they are choosing their product design requirements based on their chosen product lifespan and they are doing that process wrong. Lifespan requirements in the design process should be determined by a cost/benefit analysis from the users perspective, not the sellers perspective. If you can add $0.05 of extra parts to a product with $2 BOM cost and that will make it last twice as long then you should do that. Not doing that means you are designing it to fail prematurely.

I hate reading stuff like this.  You essentially claim that "most" manufacturers actually go to the trouble of designing the product to be a time bomb, rather than simply minimizing the product cost, which sets the minimum selling price.   Yet, You offer zero evidence of anything you say.  What $0.05 worth of parts will make an LED bulb last twice as long?

Whatever.   People believe what they want to believe and there is little in the way of facts or evidence, that will change their minds. 

Yes, they do.

Not sure who "they" are in your reply.

Of course you are, you're just being facetious imo, but just on the off-chance that you are clinically thick, "they" are the LED lighting manufacturers.

This is not a secret, nor is it difficult to understand; if lights lasted as long as they could be made to, the manufacturers would go out of business from lack of sales, once everyone had all the ones they needed. Replacement sales through non-wear breakage wouldn't be enough to sustain them.

I believe you are in the UK.  From this comment, I have to assume this means your economy has zero growth.  Sounds like the comments I hear from many people in the UK.  Improvement is not possible.  They have to continue doing things the way they've done them for a hundred years.

Aaand, here we have it. I never said any of these things. Nobody who understands anything says these things. Obvious troll is obvious.

The $0.05 worth of parts that could make them last twice as long is actually much much cheaper; a simple change of resistor value in the current sense of the driver would do the job, and indeed, to mention Big Clive again, he regularly posts videos of him doing exactly that.[/color][/b]

I've never seen Big Clive test anything I can buy in a store in the US.  The tests I've seen are of junk he buys from Aliexpress and such.  The original claim was that all devices were designed to be crap.  Psi had to step back from that.   The reality is there's no proof of any of this.  It's just like I've said, people believe what they want to believe.  You would seem to be a perfect example.  You can only offer your personal experience as "proof" of the quality of industrial equipment.  The problem is, you don't realize that your argument is not valid.

I've seen plenty of LED lamp teardowns from big manufacturers on Big Clive's channel; just because you haven't doesn't mean he doesn't do them, it just means you are unaware of them. My original claim is that the cost of lighting in large installations has moved from electricity to installation and maintenance, and I have provided examples of this. You on the other hand have only provided examples of straw-man arguments and faulty logic. The problem is, you don't realise you don't have an argument at all.

No, I'm afraid it's you that is talking "bullshit".

The starting premise was that the LED was great progress as a lighting solution.
You outright called it a scam and gave an argument that has nothing to do with LEDs,
What you are describing is a general trend in the industry and something (safe to say) everybody on this forum is ranting about in one way or another and trying to push against - trying to make things unrepeatable without direct involvement of the OEM, (directly and indirectly) planned obsolescence and overall pushing the consumer from a buying a product to actually buying a service - to use Doctorow's term - enshittification of tech products.

But again - this has nothing to with LEDs. The incandescent lights are the OGs of this with the planned obsolescence, and if they were viable today, you would have seen further enshittification of industrial lighting  even with them there. The industry would find a way.

You are both correct, and also missing the point. That planned obsolescence is not new, is not new. The point I'm making is that modern LED fittings give manufacturers a unique opportunity to enhance their profit margins by making them completely integrated, so that it is impossible (technically simply economically impractical) to replace a lamp, and the whole fitting must be replaced.

[Psi]

Move the lighting discussion to the new thread I created.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/led-lighting-and-planned-obsolescence-intentional-or-not/?topicseen

[Psi]

New video supposedly showing full levitation / flux pinning.
Obviously video could be fake, but if not it looks like flux pinning to me.

[deepfryed]

New video supposedly showing full levitation / flux pinning.
Obviously video could be fake, but if not it looks like flux pinning to me.

Yeah, saw that on Twitter with some added context https://twitter.com/andercot/status/1687740396691185664

There was also some discussion on that thread about the possibility of islands of superconductivity, beyond my basic physics comprehension.

[EEVblog]

There was also some discussion on that thread about the possibility of islands of superconductivity, beyond my basic physics comprehension.

I heard something similar. Sounds kinda-sorta not very practical superconductory? 

[Psi]

Even if it turns out to be of no use for power transmission the new physics is cool.

[iMo]

When not a fake below - I do not understand why those researches are unable to shoot a better video..

[gnuarm]

@iMo, what is it you think this video is showing?

[PlainName]

why those researches are unable to shoot a better video..

Most people are crap at shooting videos. And most people that shoot crap videos don't realise how crap they are because they see what they want to see, knowing what it is they're seeing. I would suggest trying it yourself sometime, but you might not appreciate how the result looks to everyone else

[coppice]

I do not understand why those researches are unable to shoot a better video..

I do not understand why people good at explaining things, visualising things, and constructing a well crafted video presentation can't come up with the next breakthrough in superconductors.

[iMo]

@iMo, what is it you think this video is showing?

I do not know, you have to tell me
But I've stepped through the video frame by frame and "it seems" the "something" freely rotates around all axes..

[iMo]

I do not understand why those researches are unable to shoot a better video..

I do not understand why people good at explaining things, visualising things, and constructing a well crafted video presentation can't come up with the next breakthrough in superconductors.

The presentations/videos of those scientists always look like "I want to show you what I just have discovered, and I do not want to show you what I have just discovered as well".. 

[Bud]

Because such videos get passed via TikTok manh times and nobody knows the link to the source 

[coppice]

I do not understand why those researches are unable to shoot a better video..

I do not understand why people good at explaining things, visualising things, and constructing a well crafted video presentation can't come up with the next breakthrough in superconductors.

The presentations/videos of those scientists always look like "I want to show you what I just have discovered, and I do not want to show you what I have just discovered as well".. 

You might not be their target audience. They may be more interested in showing their work to others versed in their field.

[Brumby]

There was also some discussion on that thread about the possibility of islands of superconductivity, beyond my basic physics comprehension.

I heard something similar. Sounds kinda-sorta not very practical superconductory? 

@EEVblog

As I understand it, the manufacturing process at this stage is somewhat primitive.  As such, I would not find it all all difficult to believe that they don't create a homogenous superconducting substance throughout the entire volume of the material.  That would, as I see it, be the result of further refinement of the process.

To demonstrate an impure sample where superconductivity is indicated is a first step - just as the first silicon wafers would have been less than ideal for today's chip fabrication.  To get the ultimate product straight out of the gate is a bit overly optimistic, IMHO.


Nevertheless - let's see how things progress ...

[PlainName]

To get the ultimate product straight out of the gate is a bit overly optimistic, IMHO

But, nevertheless, if they don't then it's worth a BUSTED video, surely 

[Psi]

As I understand it, the manufacturing process at this stage is somewhat primitive.  As such, I would not find it all all difficult to believe that they don't create a homogenous superconducting substance throughout the entire volume of the material.

Yeah, its plausible that getting a sample that's homogenous enough to measure its superconductivity is quite rare.

[gnuarm]

@iMo, what is it you think this video is showing?

I do not know, you have to tell me
But I've stepped through the video frame by frame and "it seems" the "something" freely rotates around all axes..

You are the one who posted it.  I thought you had something to say...

[thm_w]

When not a fake below - I do not understand why those researches are unable to shoot a better video..

youtube.com/watch?v=tG1-RFWxPmo

This video was admitted to be faked:

The video in question is allegedly from the University of Science and Technology in Beijing and purports to show a small black substance floating in the air as it follows a magnet. According to the video's poster, he did it for "attention grabbing purposes" - it was a way to coast the hype around LK-99.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/lk-99-video-fraud-taken-down

They seem to have regretted it massively.

[SiliconWizard]

As I understand it, the manufacturing process at this stage is somewhat primitive.  As such, I would not find it all all difficult to believe that they don't create a homogenous superconducting substance throughout the entire volume of the material.

Yeah, its plausible that getting a sample that's homogenous enough to measure its superconductivity is quite rare.

Like with graphene?

[Bud]

According to Sabine Hossenfelder, several research groups actually concluded this thing is an INSULATOR 

https://youtu.be/LoKWourNJEs

(Use pause control to read info in the scrolling table in LK99 update part of the video)

[EEVblog]

According to Sabine Hossenfelder, several research groups actually concluded this thing is an INSULATOR 

Both Sabine and Anton Petrov are two of the latest science summary Youtubers I follow, and yeah, both of them are not at all confident.

[Psi]

The current view seems to be that there's indeed some odd magnetic properties no one has seen before from those elements mixed together, but no one has been able to measure any low resistances path across their sample.

But as other have said, the samples come out pretty terrible quality with crap mixed in. So you can't really conclude anything from measuring across it.  Cant prove a negative etc..

I'm hoping we might get a video showing it fully levitating coming from a legit research company/person. but we will see.
The only video so far showing it fully levitating is very suspicious and has no other info or anyone backing it up.

[coppice]

So, the current consensus is that this new material is a superconductor..... or an insulator...... or an ordinary mundane conductor.

It is a type 1... or a type2..... or some entirely new kind of superconductor/conductor/insulator.

It is diamagnetic.... or ferromagnetic.... or paramagnetic.... or just sits there not getting magnetically involved.

It excludes flux.... and/or traps flux..... or doesn't give a toss about magnetic flux.

It superconducts at room temperature..... or below 100K..... or not at all.

And then we gets single studies, with no attempt at replication, being used in all sorts of scientific areas as gospel. "Breakthroughs" in science are interesting, but replication is where the rubber meets the road.

[TimFox]

In my decades of experience, I have seen other flashes in the pan (magnetic monopoles in cosmic rays, polywater, cold fusion without neutrons, etc.) announced in popular media that vanished when exposed to peer review in the scientific journals.

[coppice]

In my decades of experience, I have seen other flashes in the pan (magnetic monopoles in cosmic rays, polywater, cold fusion without neutrons, etc.) announced in popular media that vanished when exposed to peer review in the scientific journals.

Peer review is useless. Most peer review is not even by people steeped in the same field as the study. Something that has recently embarrassed a couple of journals, and got them to promise to pick reviewers better. Peer review is a relatively modern approach, whose purpose was to limit discussion rather than clean up the dead wood. Its replication that sorts the wheat from the chaff.

[TimFox]

In my decades of experience, I have seen other flashes in the pan (magnetic monopoles in cosmic rays, polywater, cold fusion without neutrons, etc.) announced in popular media that vanished when exposed to peer review in the scientific journals.

Peer review is useless. Most peer review is not even by people steeped in the same field as the study. Something that has recently embarrassed a couple of journals, and got them to promise to pick reviewers better. Peer review is a relatively modern approach, whose purpose was to limit discussion rather than clean up the dead wood. Its replication that sorts the wheat from the chaff.

Decades ago, I attended a lecture at the Univ. of Chicago by Dr. Samuel Goudsmit, who discussed his tenure as editor of "Physical Review".
He had interesting anecdotes about peer review.
If I remember correctly, one author complained that "the reviewer was unfamiliar with the work of Frank Yang" (the English name for Dr. Yang Chen-Ning).
The reviewer was Frank Yang.
It was often said that Dr. Goudsmit (the co-discoverer of electron spin) did not get a Nobel Prize because everyone thought he already had it.

[gnuarm]

In my decades of experience, I have seen other flashes in the pan (magnetic monopoles in cosmic rays, polywater, cold fusion without neutrons, etc.) announced in popular media that vanished when exposed to peer review in the scientific journals.

Peer review is useless. Most peer review is not even by people steeped in the same field as the study. Something that has recently embarrassed a couple of journals, and got them to promise to pick reviewers better. Peer review is a relatively modern approach, whose purpose was to limit discussion rather than clean up the dead wood. Its replication that sorts the wheat from the chaff.

You mean like the many opinions expressed in this discussion?  Yeah, pretty worthless. 

[Rick Law]

In my decades of experience, I have seen other flashes in the pan (magnetic monopoles in cosmic rays, polywater, cold fusion without neutrons, etc.) announced in popular media that vanished when exposed to peer review in the scientific journals.

Peer review is useless. Most peer review is not even by people steeped in the same field as the study. Something that has recently embarrassed a couple of journals, and got them to promise to pick reviewers better. Peer review is a relatively modern approach, whose purpose was to limit discussion rather than clean up the dead wood. Its replication that sorts the wheat from the chaff.

Decades ago, I attended a lecture at the Univ. of Chicago by Dr. Samuel Goudsmit, who discussed his tenure as editor of "Physical Review".
He had interesting anecdotes about peer review.
If I remember correctly, one author complained that "the reviewer was unfamiliar with the work of Frank Yang" (the English name for Dr. Yang Chen-Ning).
The reviewer was Frank Yang.
It was often said that Dr. Goudsmit (the co-discoverer of electron spin) did not get a Nobel Prize because everyone thought he already had it.

I think it will serve us well in this discussion to think of "peer review" and "replication" (aka "repeatability") as separate processes rather than lumping them together.

Peer review assess the process and the science, where as replication attempts to repeat the experiment in the hope of getting the same results.  Replication is often done as part of the "peer review" but not always.  Unlike "dark matter" or "multiverse", in this particular case, "replication" will give definitive results.

Thus far, as Sabine's "Superconductor LK99 UPDATE" episode pointed out, none of the replication attempts by multiple groups of scientist succeeded in creating a room-temperature superconducting lump of material.  So while the method did produce substance that could be superconducting, but it isn't.

Now I suppose there would be discussion by the scientist involved -- did every other team made a mistake in their replication experiment, or is it just over optimistic exaggeration with some misguided interpretation of results in the original work.

Mean time, I filed this LK99 info in the same pile as the University of Utah's "cold fusion achievement" and go back to doing something more fruitful -- I do need to finish making my time travel machine.

[EEVblog]

I think it will serve us well in this discussion to think of "peer review" and "replication" (aka "repeatability") as separate processes rather than lumping them together.

Indeed. There is no "peer review" in this case because AFAIK the paper was never submitted for peer review, it was leaked by one of the team (the disgruntled guy?) onto some working server.

[Bud]

OK, where are we with this thing...

[EEVblog]

Thunderf00t has done a BUSTED video:

[EEVblog]

And an update from Anton:

[pickle9000]

thunderfoot and anton, totally enjoyable.

[PlainName]

The Anton video is good. I forced myself to watch thunderf00t as a comparison and lasted less than a minute.

[Psi]

The Anton video is good. I forced myself to watch thunderf00t as a comparison and lasted less than a minute.

Yeah. Thunderf00t used to do some really good videos. But then he started getting a bit too aggressive and often too one-sided. At least for me.  Entertaining sure, but not always very fair to the subject matter.
He often comes across like he's actively looking for ways to interpret things to allow them to be torn apart with the biggest impact.   Following the algorithm I guess.  But it used to be more about science.
This video of his isn't actually too but, but in general I think it stands.

That, and when he makes claims that turn out to be factually incorrect, either because the facts were not known at the time of making the video, or because he just made assumptions, he often never corrects his claims or retracts his statement.

[EEVblog]

He often comes across like he's actively looking for ways to interpret things to allow them to be torn apart with the biggest impact.   Following the algorithm I guess.  But it used to be more about science.

It wasn't actually, his channel was built on the atheism videos plus a lot of internet drama stuff. And after identity poltics destroyed the atheism community the channel focussed a lot on the gender politics stuff, gamergate etc. Busting and science type videos were always smattered in there, but certainly were not what his channel was known for.
A few years back he actually did a user poll on what they want to see on the main channel, and the vast majority wanted only busting and science videos (he was mostly known for busting videos at this point), so that's what he did. He created a 2nd channel VoiceOfThunder for random content.
I'd say science stuff is what his channel is least known for actually.

[coppice]

He often comes across like he's actively looking for ways to interpret things to allow them to be torn apart with the biggest impact.   Following the algorithm I guess.  But it used to be more about science.

It wasn't actually, his channel was built on the atheism videos plus a lot of internet drama stuff. And after identity poltics destroyed the atheism community the channel focussed a lot on the gender politics stuff, gamergate etc. Busting and science type videos were always smattered in there, but certainly were not what his channel was known for.
A few years back he actually did a user poll on what they want to see on the main channel, and the vast majority wanted only busting and science videos (he was mostly known for busting videos at this point), so that's what he did. He created a 2nd channel VoiceOfThunder for random content.
I'd say science stuff is what his channel is least known for actually.

Actually, from the earliest days he has had two strands of videos on his channel - science and whining. The subject of the whining has varied over time. The science videos were often pretty good. Now the whining and science have completely merged into one thread that does both at the same time.

[Psi]

It wasn't actually, his channel was built on the atheism videos plus a lot of internet drama stuff. And after identity poltics destroyed the atheism community the channel focussed a lot on the gender politics stuff, gamergate etc. Busting and science type videos were always smattered in there, but certainly were not what his channel was known for.

Strange,  I definitely remember his channel as being more science oriented when I used to watch/enjoy it.
 
If that's true then It's strange how you can remember things with a filter on.

[EEVblog]

Strange,  I definitely remember his channel as being more science oriented when I used to watch/enjoy it.
If that's true then It's strange how you can remember things with a filter on.

I get this literally every day in the comments "Your channel used to be about X, now it's about Y"
I've even done videos analysing my last 100 videos and the people making the claims are always wrong.
Nothing usual there, it's human nature to remember what stuff you like and put more weight on it.

[EEVblog]

Actually, from the earliest days he has had two strands of videos on his channel - science and whining. The subject of the whining has varied over time. The science videos were often pretty good. Now the whining and science have completely merged into one thread that does both at the same time.

LK99 is pretty unusual in that it combines the spectacular mainstream media hype of Hyperloop proportions, but it's purely about otherwise boring hard core physics research.

[bitwelder]

As far as I had interest to follow, it would seem that the LK-99 more than a superconductor could be classified as 'diamagnetic semiconductor'.

Well, if that is so (and anyway if it is NOT a superconductor), would it still have some practical application?

[EEVblog]

As far as I had interest to follow, it would seem that the LK-99 more than a superconductor could be classified as 'diamagnetic semiconductor'.
Well, if that is so (and anyway if it is NOT a superconductor), would it still have some practical application?

Who knows. But more importantly, who cares after all this hype 

[gnuarm]

As far as I had interest to follow, it would seem that the LK-99 more than a superconductor could be classified as 'diamagnetic semiconductor'.
Well, if that is so (and anyway if it is NOT a superconductor), would it still have some practical application?

Who knows. But more importantly, who cares after all this hype 

LOL!!!   

[Bud]

As far as I had interest to follow, it would seem that the LK-99 more than a superconductor could be classified as 'diamagnetic semiconductor'.

Well, if that is so (and anyway if it is NOT a superconductor), would it still have some practical application?

A video ftom Asianometry youtube channel on that
https://youtu.be/dBhBqOirJ4A

[TimFox]

See  https://xkcd.com/2798/

[SiliconWizard]

As far as I had interest to follow, it would seem that the LK-99 more than a superconductor could be classified as 'diamagnetic semiconductor'.
Well, if that is so (and anyway if it is NOT a superconductor), would it still have some practical application?

Who knows. But more importantly, who cares after all this hype 

Damn, I'm heartbroken.

[AndyBeez]

More frustration from the scientific community.

 Bad Science and Room Temperature Superconductors - Sixty Symbols - Professor Philip Moriarty takes issue with a paper by scientists claiming to achieve room temperature superconductivity. Yesterday.

[ixfd64]

I'm disappointed but not at all surprised. However, one can hope good things will come out of this. Perhaps further research into LK-99 will give us more insight into superconductivity. I'm sure all this news about LK-99 will also get more people interested in materials science.

[EEVblog]

"LK-99 isn’t a superconductor — how science sleuths solved the mystery"
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02585-7

[Dr. Frank]

More frustration from the scientific community.
 Bad Science and Room Temperature Superconductors - Sixty Symbols - Professor Philip Moriarty takes issue with a paper by scientists claiming to achieve room temperature superconductivity. Yesterday.

"LK-99 isn’t a superconductor — how science sleuths solved the mystery"
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02585-7

Have I mentioned, that the "Dr." in my nickname originates from my 1994 PhD thesis:
"Measurement of the AC-Susceptibility and its Higher Harmonics on High Temperature Superconductors"   

So that outcome is highly satisfying, because other than Prof. Moriarty, I'm obviously a 'Senior Expert'    on this science area, and I finally found an application for my unused expertise.   

I found these documents fishy for the exact same arguments like him, i.e. bad scientific style (an aggressive claim) and mediocre / incomplete measurements.
 
In this Nature article the decisive magnetic measurements are not well appreciated, which would outscore the meaningless levitation videos.

In the paper from Max-Planck Institute, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2308.06256, they substract the diamagnetic effect of copper from their DC-SQUID measurements.

What's left over is naught superconductivity, but a weak ferromagnetic behavior, maybe with a diamagnetic background, which both can explain the levitation effect.

Frank

PS: As we're still @ eevblog, I'd like to share a picture of my Hartshorn Bridge coils from way back when.. for those AC-Susceptibility measurements.
The leftmost coil has two secondary windings of 523 turns of 40 or 50µm wires in the small chambers, and a long primary wound over them, consisting of 1685 windings of 80µm wire.

An example of a complete coil assembly is on the right side. The Hartshorn Bridge (on an epoxy bobbin) is attached to a non-magnetic steel cylinder.
A calibrated temperature diode is attached at the lengthwise location of the sample, which is fixed inside the borehole of the bobbin.

[TimFox]

Decades ago, there was a legitimate surge in interest for a substance that might evolve into high-temperature superconductivity, and did, indeed, have interesting electronic properties (including one-dimensional conductivity).
The publication rules for Physical Review required the full name of the substance in the title of papers, which was
"tetrathiofulvlene-7,7,8,8-tetracyanoquinodimethane", better known as TTF-TCNQ.
Following good publication guidelines, the first time something was mentioned it had to be spelled out, but later references could use the abbreviation.

[Bud]

Have I mentioned, that the "Dr." in my nickname originates from my 1994 PhD thesis:
"Measurement of the AC-Susceptibility and its Higher Harmonics on High Temperature Superconductors"   

Harmonics of AC or harmonics of Susceptibility? 

[Dr. Frank]

Have I mentioned, that the "Dr." in my nickname originates from my 1994 PhD thesis:
"Measurement of the AC-Susceptibility and its Higher Harmonics on High Temperature Superconductors"   

Harmonics of AC or harmonics of Susceptibility? 

I guess, both. In fact, I did an FFT analysis on the ac signal by means of a hp3458A, one of the first available on the market in 1989.
The graphs of these Higher Harmonics were so harmonically symmetric, that my wife always wanted to colorize them. 

[Psi]

More 'evidence' just come out, now with video of fully levitating sample, albeit only just.

https://bnnbreaking.com/world/southkorea/breakthrough-in-superconductivity-china-reproduces-meissner-effect-south-korea-to-present-evidence

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2024/03/room-temperature-superconductor-pcposos-talk-with-full-levitation-video.html

[Dr. Frank]

They are still arguing and experimenting with the levitation effect, which is no proof at all.

As already explained, a very simple, proper magnetic measurement of the susceptibility is required, AC and DC susceptibility.
Complex AC measurements can be done very easily by means of a Hartshorn bridge and a Lock-In. That's the easiest way to show the diamagnetic effect plus the electrical superconductivity.

The presentation shown on 'X' does not reveal any striking new information.

Frank 

[SiliconWizard]

Well, to be fair, Dua Lipa is also levitating, and for some reason I find this more exciting.

[Marco]

As already explained, a very simple, proper magnetic measurement of the susceptibility is required, AC and DC susceptibility.

In a localized domain superconductor the bulk material could have a combination of superconduction and semiconductor junctions. That's going to be tricky to measure magnetically.

[Psi]

As already explained, a very simple, proper magnetic measurement of the susceptibility is required, AC and DC susceptibility.

In a localized domain superconductor the bulk material could have a combination of superconduction and semiconductor junctions. That's going to be tricky to measure magnetically.

Yeah, that's pretty what I suspect. 
There may very well be a superconducting compound in the sample but it's so heavily mixed up with other things that measuring it and getting results to conclusively identify superconductivity is extremely hard.