Physics World reports that LK99 produced by the descriptions in the original papers are not superconducting and not room temperature superconducting. A deep investigation of the original samples is needed to confirm any hints of superconducting observations and then to find any very specific impurity that is unique to the Korean samples.
The original LK99 Korean samples need detailed analysis. We do not know the specifics of the original samples.
The replications fail because they do not know enough about what is happening to correctly describe what it is and what they did.
Above – A mystery in three colors: A photo of the final product in the Princeton team’s synthesis. The pinkish shards are a combination of a translucent orange phase mixed with a white transparent phase. The metallic pieces are a third phase, and likely what gives other reported samples the overall grey color when ground together. (Courtesy: Scott Lee)
Bernevig and his Princeton colleague Leslie Schoop, together with collaborators in Spain, Germany and the University of Oregon, US, focused on a different question. Rather than investigating whether LK-99 exhibited signs of superconductivity, they began by asking: just what is LK-99, anyway?
After synthesizing their own sample, the team performed X-ray diffraction measurements on the best crystal in the batch. This crystal turned out to contain at least three different components. “The recipe is simple, but it does not result in a single-phase material,” explains Schoop, a materials chemist. “When a sample consists of multiple materials, as LK-99 seems to, it is difficult to get the exact same results in different labs.”
Calculations by the same team showed that copper atoms are unlikely to enter the structure of LK-99’s precursors in concentrations high enough to affect its properties. This suggests that the Korean team’s explanation for superconductivity is incorrect. It also casts doubt on the material’s proposed structure, with consequences for theorists as well as experimentalists. “If the structure of ‘LK-99’ is different from the assumed ones, then we currently cannot make any reliable claims about the superconductivity,” Yu says.
Ross Colman is slightly more optimistic. “There remains a spark of hope that the observations of superconductivity are still real, if related to a very specific impurity in the Korean samples,” he says, “but tracking down the truth of the observations may be a very difficult process. Experimental reproduction of the properties is impossible if only a single grain in a multigram batch shows the properties that you are interested in.”
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
Even if it was real it would not be a revolutionary change because, like all similar superconducting material, it’s too brittle.
Encasing it in nonreactive substances could act as a support structure. If it is real, and reproducible, I don’t think you see the full potential.
So grind the samples into a fine powder and use Magnetic Chromatography to separate out the diamagnetic bits. That’s the crack in the door. Personally I feel like best case we get a ferromagnet but if someone can show a no-contact levitation I would change my mind.
Commenters seem to ignore the fact that, if the source material is real and indeed exhibits claimed properties then this is huge. Might as well have come from Area 51 for all I care.
It’s precisely BECAUSE such a material would revolutionise the operation of so much of our technological infrastructure, that we need to be careful, diligent and rigorous with respect to claims that such a material has indeed been found. Commenters, far from ignoring this, want to make absolutely sure that the claims are backed by reliable hard evidence, before falling victim to unsustainable hype, such as the “cold fusion” fiasco of the 1980s.
The big problem being that if it’s impossible to make the material with a reliable composition in the first place, all other claims are rendered null and void until that problem is overcome. Only when we can make this material repeatably, with a reliable chemical composition and a reliable internal structure, can those other claims be addressed properly. Without proper, diligent and rigorous attention to such detail, we have no solid basis to accept any claims on the matter.
Which is why we have to take some of the time and resources of top level material research facilities to examine to figure out at the molecular level what is happening. The magic bond angles for better superconducting graphene was a less than 2 degrees off from what did not work well. The supercomputer simulations and some theory work supports the case that there is something very interesting that could be produced. The claims of amateurs is mostly irrelevant. but it took three tries for the Indian researcher to get a partial levitation. Even if the levitation is not superconducting it shows that getting the interesting magnetic properties takes careful work. We need to get the chemical vapor deposition work done and analyzed. The samples made by the original korean team need verification. If they are close then they need to get some help. It seems like there is enough confirmation of good faith efforts that they should get help understanding what is happening. This is worth a lot more investigation by the national labs. The populist hype should wait for the work to be done.
Dont buy it
I agree. The existence of a material and a reliable method of synthesis are two different things. More effort should be made to verify the properties of the existing samples
Such a material may exist, but unfortunately I will not believe it until it is proven in multiple labs.
This is about the 5th time of of some foreign lab claiming room temp super conductors only to be a hoax. As far as I am concerned, if they can’t prove it, then they are nothing but con-artists.
Interesting, you are saying it is criminal to publish a non-peer reviewed scientific paper on Arxiv (where preprints go) to get feedback and to have any mistakes in measurement and interpretation? It is ok for US labs to make mistakes but foreign labs must be hounded as hoaxers.
There have been over tens of thousands of peer reviewed paper retractions. You want to have some other standard for preprints?
Also, you seem to want people to have liability if something they post that goes globally viral for the “time wasted” by people being misled by the content of something viral.
David Copperfield has a net worth of $1 billion and a large part of this was because he could inexplicably make things float and disappear. A lot of viral and time wasting deception and clear monetary gain. You could throw him in prison but he is an escape artist as well.
The method used in the LK-99 paper to replace one of the PB atoms with a Cu atom in the PB crystal lattice could likely be refined by introduction of a high frequency vibration when the sample is in the liquidus state. The vibration imparts mechanical stresses which slow the Pb crystal lattice from forming allowing for easier migration of Cu atom into PB lattice during liquidus state.
Heard teleportation of atoms is in prototype :o)
“The replications fail because they do not know enough about what is happening to correctly describe what it is and what they did.”
Oh, is that what the problem is? Maybe it’s something else, having to do with the nonviability of any of their research to produce a room-temperature, atmospheric-pressure supercondunctor?
I lost a torx driver, which came with a box of exterior screws, in the grass this spring. Not finding it meant I’d be unable to finish repairing the fence. I got my biggest neodymium magnet and found it. The magnet was in the dirt for about 10 seconds and maybe 2 linear feet of travel before I found the tool. The magnet still has a bunch of ferromagnetic dirt stuck to it. Maybe it is hematite, but that should be but I think I’ll write a paper about unitentified magnetic dirt and publish it to researchgate.
My understanding is that the paper was released by someone who had been fired and was being excluded from the research.
That’s the exact opposite of the truth. There are no reports of any of the Korean scientists being fired… Also, the Korean Society of Superconductivity and Cryogenics set up a committee to verify the claims.
I revised the archive { https://vixra.org/abs/2303.0157 } to { https://vixra.org/abs/2303.0135 }. Please use this archive { https://vixra.org/abs/2303.0135 } in place of { https://vixra.org/abs/2303.0157 }. RBL
Hi Brian, For over 17 years I have proposed and advocated a theory of superconductivity based on specific stable isotopes of certain elements and their enrichment in materials for both positive and negative nuclear magnetic moments. I have considered various known superconductors and see evidence of my theory: Hg, Nb, Sn, MgB2, Cuprates, Arsenides, H2S, nanosilver in nano Au films; Carbonaceous HS, N doped LuH2; and now Cu(x)Pb(10-x) (PO4)6 {called LK 99}. Among these superconductors, I discover a pattern of positive and negative NMMs, but in trace amounts. I reasoned enriching the stable isotopes of positive and negative NMMs may raise critical temperature for superconductivity at room temperature and pressure. In various archives, I have argued my theory; (but) as I am unknown, most scientists automatically reject when they see my name. See { Hi Brian, For over 17 years I have proposed and advocated a theory of superconductivity based on specific stable isotopes of certain elements and their enrichment in materials for both positive and negative nuclear magnetic moments. I have considered various known superconductors and see evidence of my theory: Hg, Nb, Sn, MgB2, Cuprates, Arsenides, H2S, nanosilver in nano Au films; Carbonaceous HS, N doped LuH2; and now Cu(x)Pb(10-x) (PO4)6 {called LK 99}. Among these superconductors, I discover a pattern of positive and negative NMMs, but in trace amounts. I reasoned enriching the stable isotopes of positive and negative NMMs may raise critical temperature for superconductivity at room temperature and pressure. In various archives, I have argued my theory; (but) as I am unknown, most scientists automatically reject when they see my name. See { https://vixra.org/abs/2303.0135 } and { https://vixra.org/abs/2308.0015 }. But sometimes wild ideas work, and my idea is not too far from the current paradigm. After hearing about Cu(x)Pb(10-x) (PO4)6 I attempted to apply my theory to it and I reasoned that during the synthesis isotopes of 63Cu, 65Cu, 207Pb, 17O and 31P of positive and negative NMMs may clump for impurity that manifest unusual high temperature superconductivity. In considering the original syntheses and recent IRIS (controversy) with Silicate, I (RBL) see possible inherent enrichment of 17O in the chemistry as 17O is my ‘Needle in the Haystack’! As among these NMMs, 17O is the crucial one as it is the only stable isotope among these said 5 isotopes ( 63Cu, 65Cu, 207Pb, 17O and 31P ) with negative NMM. So I see in the original Lee et al synthesis and their suggested chemical vapor deposition, the inherent enrichment of 17O in deposit by my theory; and my theory of NMMs’ chemistry suggests the inherent enrichment of 17O, as the (SO4)2- synthesis from sulfuric acid is inherently enriched in 17O from vanadium catalysts used to industrial produce sulfuric acid. And my theory of NMM chemistry further suggests enrichment during ball milling and the ball milling has recently been shown to enrich 17O in metal oxides like PbO and SiO. The recent enrichment of 17O in silicates by water may give credence to recent IRIS reported observation superconductivity when using Pb(SO4) reactant.
After reading your article here of hope for some trace impurity with superconductivity at ambient and the mixture with difficulty of identifying and therefore reproducing such impurity, I think my model is relevant and may explain an impurity as one clumped and enriched with these isotopes ( 63Cu, 65Cu, 207Pb, 17O and 31P ). I know some will attack me on this site for suggesting my theory. But I am honest and just thinking. Should I be a villain because I try to think? The attacks mostly hide in comments like:’he does not write well’. I beg you to consider my fresh, original ideas and have integrity. But as open mind scientist, I wonder if you would consider my theory. I suggesting mass spectroscopy of the mix formed by the Korean team and Princeton Team. As some impurities with unusual isotopic distributions may be observed to substantiate my theory { https://vixra.org/abs/2308.0015 }. With Gratitude, Reginald B. Little
Hi Brian, For over 17 years I have proposed and advocated a theory of superconductivity based on specific stable isotopes of certain elements and their enrichment in materials for both positive and negative nuclear magnetic moments. I have considered various known superconductors and see evidence of my theory: Hg, Nb, Sn, MgB2, Cuprates, Arsenides, H2S, nanosilver in nano Au films; Carbonaceous HS, N doped LuH2; and now Cu(x)Pb(10-x) (PO4)6 {called LK 99}. Among these superconductors, I discover a pattern of positive and negative NMMs, but in trace amounts. I reasoned enriching the stable isotopes of positive and negative NMMs may raise critical temperature for superconductivity at room temperature and pressure. In various archives, I have argued my theory; (but) as I am unknown, most scientists automatically reject when they see my name. See { https://vixra.org/abs/2303.0157 } and { https://vixra.org/abs/2308.0015 }. But sometimes wild ideas work, and my idea is not too far from the current paradigm. After hearing about Cu(x)Pb(10-x) (PO4)6 I attempted to apply my theory to it and I reasoned that during the synthesis isotopes of 63Cu, 65Cu, 207Pb, 17O and 31P of positive and negative NMMs may clump for impurity that manifest unusual high temperature superconductivity. In considering the original syntheses and recent IRIS (controversy) with Silicate, I (RBL) see possible inherent enrichment of 17O in the chemistry as 17O is my ‘Needle in the Haystack’! As among these NMMs, 17O is the crucial one as it is the only stable isotope among these said 5 isotopes ( 63Cu, 65Cu, 207Pb, 17O and 31P ) with negative NMM. So I see in the original Lee et al synthesis and their suggested chemical vapor deposition, the inherent enrichment of 17O in deposit by my theory; and my theory of NMMs’ chemistry suggests the inherent enrichment of 17O, as the (SO4)2- synthesis from sulfuric acid is inherently enriched in 17O from vanadium catalysts used to industrial produce sulfuric acid. And my theory of NMM chemistry further suggests enrichment during ball milling and the ball milling has recently been shown to enrich 17O in metal oxides like PbO and SiO. The recent enrichment of 17O in silicates by water may give credence to recent IRIS reported observation superconductivity when using Pb(SO4) reactant.
After reading your article here of hope for some trace impurity with superconductivity at ambient and the mixture with difficulty of identifying and therefore reproducing such impurity, I think my model is relevant and may explain an impurity as one clumped and enriched with these isotopes ( 63Cu, 65Cu, 207Pb, 17O and 31P ). I know some will attack me on this site for suggesting my theory. But I am honest and just thinking. Should I be a villain because I try to think? The attacks mostly hide in comments like:’he does not write well’. I beg you to consider my fresh, original ideas and have integrity. But as open mind scientist, I wonder if you would consider my theory. I suggesting mass spectroscopy of the mix formed by the Korean team and Princeton Team. As some impurities with unusual isotopic distributions may be observed to substantiate my theory { https://vixra.org/abs/2308.0015 }. With Gratitude, Reginald B. Little
Something tells me this impurity was left out as an excuse so they could race ahead of everyone….
If they wanted to race ahead of everyone, they wouldn’t have published a paper. Now that it was released, it’s in the authors’ best interests to have it reproducible, as they’ve staked their scientific reputations on it.
Ok if they wanted to race ahead of everyone then why release two papers telling the world about LK99?
Because if everyone races to test their idea, they aren’t making their own attempts at superconducting, and if they have a general process down that’s getting them there they might only need some more time to finish, even better if their lk-99 paper is an entire red herring in the wrong direction so people after testing start doing stuff like this playing around with it wasting time on a bad method, I’m not saying that’s what happened, but it’s easy to think of reasons they might
As I understood, the 1st one was released by a disgruntled employee, and the 2nd one was in response to the 1st. They were both rushed.
The problem with this narrative is that they had already submitted the paper to a journal a few years ago. And had it rejected. They’ve been trying to polish it up ever since.
Maybe the guy was disgruntled, but the general issue is that the quality of the paper is abysmal.
Even if you stumble onto the discovery of the century today and you want to publish it tomorrow for fear that someone is going to scoop you, 1) you should know how to set the scale of your charts, 2) you should know the basics of what your peers in the field expect to see (because it is assumed that you at least a little bit you understand your field of research) 3) you should know which measures to do to be sure that what you are claiming is really the discovery of the century. Posting a speckle of material that wiggles on a magnet (it is not levitation because it is clearly in contact!) is not a good scientific standard.
One silly question besides the goddam paper, aren’t there any video/samples/demonstrations or the room temp superconductivity? Why do we spent so much energy and money if this is the 21st century I don’t give a damn about replicability… At this stage I’m more interested in feasibility… Showing a working room temp super conductor is enough to warrant all those efforts for replicability, before that, what spent money on it?
I know people who gave s damm crap about impurities in their samples and reproducibility due to the pressure and publication race. I would not be surprised if the data was massaged to that extent.
R. L. Stevenson, Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde:
“Eventually, the supply of salt used in the serum ran low, and subsequent batches prepared from new stocks failed to work. Jekyll speculated that the orhiginal ingredient had some impurity that made it work.” (Synopsis from Wikipedia)