Derek’s original hope was since the preparation of the material was relatively simple that replication of the material might be straightforward. This. . .has not been the case. Not anywhere even near the case.
He then describes how bad the replication efforts have been and how poorly the Korean preprints described the process.
Nextbigfuture emphasizes that the disappointment and misjudgement was upon those who thought LK99 would be easy to replicate and that the description provided was sufficient.
The ignored counter evidence to trying to make a good copy of LK99 would be easy:
1. the authors said that of the thousands of samples that they made only 10% worked. The original team who are presumably the best and most experienced at this had a lot of trouble making enough to be measurable and they only had the process good enough to work one in ten times.
2. A widely followed Twitter reported step by step effort at replication had some partial levitation. It was a tiny flake that was about one part per million of the original material.
3. The original reported measurements of the LK99 bulk material never reported superconducting resistance. The only measurement that the team had with superconducting low resistance was the thin film chemical vapor deposition material.
None of the teams who have published so far have attempted to make the chemical vapor deposition version of LK99. This is likely because the description for this process was even worse with temperature ranges from 500 to 1000 degrees.
Derek observes:
At this point it seems that there are (broadly speaking) two explanations for this situation. The first, which is far more likely at this point, is that the entire initial report was bungled and that there is no superconductor therein. That’s certainly the conclusion you’d draw from all the replication attempts, many of which have been from very serious and competent labs. The second, which is less likely but still possible, is that the Korean group has indeed made a superconductor but has (perhaps deliberately) not disclosed their best mode, because they care more about establishing a patent estate instead.
That interpretation might gain some support from things like this, an updated Korean-language patent application. I neither read nor speak Korean, unfortunately, but I can see that figure on the first page, and it shows zero resistance kicking in at a temperature of just under 105 C.
Nextbigfuture thinks the second option that the Korean LK99 group is focused on patents and monetization is far more likely. Why?
A Nobel prize is worth about $1 million but VC funding for a room temperature superconductor would be $1-10 billion.
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.
Brian – I think you are reaching Brother….
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02585-7
Respectfully
Everyone loves to cite this paper, but their resultant pictures and description of the material look and sound absolutely nothing like the material described by the original researchers or the labs claiming a successful replication.
To quote one proponent of the latter theory, “I don’t know what the researchers for the nature paper made, but it certainly isn’t LK-99. From their pictures, it looks like they made some kind of glass, and then they were surprised it acted as an insulator? I’m honestly not certain how they even got this result published, but thankfully it’s taken the pressure off of us for long enough to continue to work on creating real samples.”
“A Nobel prize is worth about $1 million but VC funding for a room temperature superconductor would be $1-10 billion.”
publishing for scientific peer-review is basic science
seeking venture capital (applied science) could have been done without public notice (maybe not that efficient), until a real (industrial) product (with low resistance at surroundings (standardized, international?) conditions, T=~32°F=~0°C=~273.15K, p=~1bar(abs)=~1013,25 hPa, 0% relative humidity H2O_air, ρ0=1,225 kg/m3, air_mixture?, B(magnetic flux density)=~25(equator)-65μT(poles)(1T=kg/(A*s²) -0.07%_avg/year, H(magnetic field strength H=μ(\mu)*B[A/m]?, μ_EarthCore=1.26 x 10^-6H/m [kg*m^2/(A^2*s^2*m)] (μ_Earth sea level?), μ=0 for super conductors type I, [a0=340m/s=Mach1, g_Earth=9,80665 m/s2]) is to be advertised(?)
some of each (within LK-99 team, contextually connected laboratories, related studies (publicly/commercially/privately funded) within training on universities)
I think if it’s real they should sell it to Samsung (Apple of Korea) for 1 bln and be done, and if it’s not real do the honorable thing admit it their mistake. But if it’s neither nor, only then let it continue.
If elite academic researchers were smart they wouldn’t be academics.
Those who can, do.
Those who can’t, teach.
Those who can’t teach teach teachers.
It’s not about being smart or not, it’s about what you enjoy in life. For most scientists it’s their curiosity that drives them. Fast cars and big houses are not always the answer for a happy life.
Hi Brian, I think similar reasoning may explain the difficult synthesis and replication of Professor Dias and coworker’s of N doped Lutetium Hydride as I think details were left out of their method also. Patent issues have been noted for why the details were left out of Dias et al also. And now afterward, this LK-99 by Lee and coworkers is also difficult to replicate as details are left out and later disclosed in patent as replicators failed. It is a possibility that for both cases the superconductivity at 100,000 atmosphere of Dias et al and 1 atm by Lee and coworkers are true but the patent issues are at stake. My hope is that the missing details also involve isotopic effects that are the basis of my nonzero Nuclear Magnetic Moments (NMMs) from stable isotopic enrichments and clumping for explaining such superconductors of Lee and coworkers (July 2023) and Dias and coworkers (March 2023)! I cannot reason why all these scientists in both groups would agree to deception, I think there has to be something real that they saw! Huge discoveries are not easy, as if they were easy then they would not be rare! I therefore think scientists should be patient in replicating discovery as the discovery is not easy and secrets may surrounding them; so quick replications may not occur and such is explained! I keep hope and I keep reasoning. Reginald B. Little