Original Team Says LK99 Superconductivity Is Real and Next Published Paper Will Provide Answers and Evidence

by

The original LK99 team reassures the world that LK99 superconductivity is real and was demonstrated. They will provide evidence and answers in the next published paper. They recommend other researchers need to have patience and try harder (and implied is to work with the original Korean team) because the others will also make it superconduct. They give example that it took 2 years to prove his metal insulator transition work, which also ended up being proven correct.

Professor Kim Hyun-tak was interviewed by the Korean SBS channel.

Professor Kim Hyun-tak’s answer (Korean time, August 19 night)

The review report of the journal paper will come soon, and we are preparing the expected answer [The team will respond to criticism and negative papers.].

Regarding question 1, the Nature article is a compilation of the experiences of researchers who have not seen superconductivity. don’t listen. Our paper demonstrates superconductivity.

Same for question 2. Haven’t you said that you haven’t seen the properties of superconductivity yet? We have to work harder.

Researchers are in too much of a hurry. Go through a little bit.

For example, it took me about 2 years to validate my MIT (Metal-Insulator Transition) research.And during the doctoral program, the crystals were made according to the recipe published in the journal paper, and it took a year and a half for the two to succeed even though they made samples every day. You’ll have to watch some more. It’s not even a month yet.

There is a room temperature superconducting phase in LK99.

Currently, LK-99 is undergoing international journal thesis review, and in Korea, the Superconductivity and Low Temperature Society level verification committee continues to reproduce experiments.

Questions being responded to :
Question 1: A research team at the Max Planck Institute for Solids in Stuttgart, Germany, found out why ‘LK-99’, found that LK-99 is not a superconductor. Science The journal ‘Nature’ reported on the 16th (local time).

Question 2. The LK-99 Verification Committee of the Korean Superconducting and Low-Temperature Society, is also saying LK99 is not a superconductor.

Nextbigfuture Has Articles and Videos Explaining Why LK99 is Very Difficult Science that Requires Patience

People on the internet want instant gratification on the LK99 room temperature superconductor science. We can hope for this and want this but this science is difficult.

The positive partial results only happen in about 10% of the experiments where the exact recipe is successful followed. This is not a simple process and it is new. It is like amateur cooks trying to follow a soufle recipe for the first time. What is success? It is partial levitation and low purity in about 1 in a million pieces of the starting material. You get one milligram or micron flake after starting with 400 grams of starting material. It is a hard and unreliable process.

The original peer reviewed LK99 superconductor paper only briefly mentions the thin film work and measurements but this is the most important part as only the chemical vapor deposited thin film has the zero resistance superconducting measurement.

The original team has said they will produce a new peer reviewed by the end of August or September, 2023. This is the part which needs super detailed replicable description and measurements. The bulk material never had the near zero superconducting resistance claim.

It is very bad that the bulk material and the bulk partial levitation are meaningless but the important part is whether the thin film material has the claimed superconducting near zero resistance.

An online comicstrip, tries to make it more graphic and simple what has to happen with a likely one dimensional superconductivity process in LK99.

Accepted Superconducting Science of Magic Angle Graphene

For years, MIT researchers have worked no magic angle graphene where superconductivity switches on and off.

MIT : Superconductivity switches on and off in “magic-angle” graphene. A quick electric pulse completely flips the material’s electronic properties, opening a route to ultrafast, brain-inspired, superconducting electronics.

In 2018, Pablo Jarillo-Herrero and his group at MIT were the first to demonstrate magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene. They showed that the new bilayer structure could behave as an insulator, much like wood, when they applied a certain continuous electric field. When they upped the field, the insulator suddenly morphed into a superconductor, allowing electrons to flow, friction-free.

That discovery was a watershed in the field of “twistronics,” which explores how certain electronic properties emerge from the twisting and layering of two-dimensional materials. Researchers including Jarillo-Herrero have continued to reveal surprising properties in magic-angle graphene, including various ways to switch the material between different electronic states. So far, such “switches” have acted more like dimmers, in that researchers must continuously apply an electric or magnetic field to turn on superconductivity, and keep it on.

In 2018 they verified that superconductivity existed in bilayer graphene where one layer was rotated by an angle of 1.1° relative to the other, forming a moiré pattern, at a temperature of 1.7 K (−271.45 °C; −456.61 °F). They created two bilayer devices that acted as an insulator instead of a conductor under a magnetic field. Increasing the field strength turned the second device into a superconductor.

The lesson here is that superconductivity can be a very fragile state and it can appear and disappear based upon minute differences.

17 thoughts on “Original Team Says LK99 Superconductivity Is Real and Next Published Paper Will Provide Answers and Evidence”

  1. Until it’s independently replicated, view this claim with skepticism. People want the credit for making this discovery so badly that the intrinsic conflict of interest between good science and human nature renders the statements of this lab questionable. Right now, the entire argument looks like shifting goalposts; beware.

  2. I see now, per the article, they are evaporating the LK-99 thermally in a high vacuum and the thin film is thus deposited on a glass plate.

    Should have read.

  3. Does anybody have any mental model of how a molecule as complex as LK-99 would lend itself to development of thin films using the reactants like PbO and CuSx in CVD or PVD?

    Could you really build a thin film of LK-99 by sputtering a target from an ingot (i.e. e-beam on the ingot in a vacuum)?

    If you could build that thin film via PVD (sputtering), why would achieve better than random copper ion placement in the lattice in a thin film?

    • Off the top of my head, I can imagine a few factors that might be helpful in general:
      – Better mixing of the components in the gas phase than in the solid phase.
      – The thin film is also easier to diffuse (very small thickness + things can migrate along the surface), so again better mixing.
      – Epitaxial effects? Though that usually requires a crystalline substrate. Not sure how this would work on an amorphous glass substrate.
      – The surface O and OH of the glass (silicate) substrate maybe acting as anchor points? There are a lot of oxygens in LK-99. Or they may be acting as dopants?
      – Better alignment of the phases and grains maybe, since one of the dimensions is restricted?
      – Maybe easier to control the grain boundaries?

      OTOH, if the desired copper positions are not energetically favorable, then I’d imagine them even less likely to happen in a thin film. Since the easier diffusion etc should tend to make things migrate to more energetically favorable positions. But maybe being in a thin film and some of the above factors shifts the energetic balance?

      • [ What could be advantageous with possibly liquid superconductors?
        With near absolute zero temperature cooled superconducting-capable (e.g.) metals, is it Cooper pairs or lattice having mostly reduced bouncing for electrons transporting charge through a conducting structure with zero resistance?
        We don’t know about superconducting on plasma (phase)? ]

  4. As Mulder used to say, “I want to believe.” If they can reproduce the samples and get them to superconduct, then great. The only people getting paid are the lab technicians who are charged with trying to replicate this, so we can afford to let things proceed naturally.

    • “Professor Kim Hyun-tak was still convinced of the superconductivity of LK-99, saying ‘don’t listen to these negative results’ and ‘it’s too hasty’. It’s too early to draw conclusions, as it’s only been a month.”

      (while relying on automated translation,) it’s not only about a single exposure for one scientific topic of research, but also about a science community that is very educated for expertise in each subject area, that cannot verify, nor falsify if there’s plausibility and possibility for room temperature superconducting.
      Background for/within scientific research and social structures are (or seems being) a major influence on creation of knowledge (within capitalistic funding and ‘success-related’ systems). Are we (or do we need to be) informed about that (every country’s peculiarities/characteristics for to obey)?
      If it’s plainly about discussing peer review, what’s a use of scientific ‘falsifying’ reports/studies (within basic and applied science)? astonishing new idea(?)

  5. Since the start, this one gave me strong Pons and Fleischmann vibes.

    The vibes haven’t got any weaker.

    But… in this case they just need a few room temperature-stable samples that can be Fedex-ed elsewhere, and then seen floating in a locked magnetic flux mode to beat the cold fusion hex.

  6. At this point I’m just waiting for the larger scientific community to come out and admit that we have a room temperature superconductor. But, whether or not industry will try and cause push-back is up in the air. The status quo exists because it makes people a lot of money, and they won’t react well to that money being threatened.

    • within a context of society’s progress on public welfare
      At what share/proportion are democracies ‘too hasty’ within ‘their’ decisions and too passive or inactive towards corrections?
      Do we measure/sort (these) parameters (e.g. ‘political responsibility’?) on some of our most fundamental organizing principles for society/social/cultural progress?

      within conditions, superconductivity is a threat to conductivity (within limits on real world usability/availability/cost), like a lot of money could be to wealth&values(?)

Comments are closed.