Original Korean LK99 Superconducting Researcher Kwon Will Publish New Papers Showing Conclusive Room Temperature Superconducting Evidence

by

Professor Young-Wan Kwon is one of the original Korean LK99 research team. A team from Korea University led by Lee Sukbae (이석배) and Kim Ji-Hoon (김지훈) began studying this material as a potential superconductor starting in 1999.  In July 2023, they published preprints claiming that it acts as a room-temperature superconductor at temperatures of up to 400 K (127 °C; 260 °F) at ambient [normal air] pressure.

Consideration for the development of room-temperature ambient-pressure superconductor (LK-99).

Journal of the Korean Crystal Growth and Crystal Technology
2023, 33(2), pp.61-70
Received : March 31, 2023 Accepted : April 18, 2023 Published : April 30, 2023
Sukbae Lee, Jihoon Kim, Sungyeon Im , Soomin An, Young -Wan Kwon , Auh Keun Ho

Young-Wan Kwon made remarks during the first lecture of the new semester at Korea University.

1. Lawrence Berkeley’s way is the way I did it
2. Only Lee Seok-bae can create Lk99
3. All simulations have come out for 20 years and [the original team] is already aware of all the rebuttal [and issues made by the other world labs]
4. Kwon and Lee have a decent relationship. It is not a bad relationship. [There were rumors that Kwon published without consent and was out of the team[
5. Due to length restrictions, I [Kwon] only wrote half the paper; there’s much more detail remaining.
6. I’ll [Kwon] will continue publishing papers later and show the real deal [room temperature super conductivity].
7. @Nature @dangaristo’s statements are nonsense.
8. If Lk99 could have been easily developed by others, it would have already been created.

NextBigFuture.com has covered the original LK99 papers and patent, which briefly mention the thin film work and measurements. The original team says that the thin film chemical vapor deposition process is the only one that has superconducting resistance. The thin film is microns thick and is nearly half superconductive material.

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

In August and September 2023, the consensus of other labs was that LK-99 is not a superconductor at any temperature but only bulk non-thin film samples have been made. None of replications have gone through the peer-review process of a journal.

19 thoughts on “Original Korean LK99 Superconducting Researcher Kwon Will Publish New Papers Showing Conclusive Room Temperature Superconducting Evidence”

  1. It’s fun to take a class where 4 weeks at a time are taken on whether the Professor’s Lab is the only one that can take the theory into experiment. Many classes would be stuck comparing theoretical methods over 5 days…

  2. And what will a room temp, uselessly brittle ceramic superconductor revolutionize that the 30 year old high temp, uselessly brittle ceramic superconductors haven’t already failed to do?

  3. If the process were reproducible, it would have already been properly described in a patent. You can’t get a patent without properly describing how to do it. It makes 0 sense to give the whole world hints about how to do it and give them the opportunity to patent the full process before you do.

  4. Just a tip. Your video is unwatchable as it is now. It breaks every 5 seconds for commercials, at least where I am (Sweden). Can you please but the video on youtube instead?

  5. Talking about the best way to create the ‘magical’ LK99 is useless until there is proof that it *IS* a (RTSC) Room Temperature SuperConductor.
    ZERO independent conformation by an internationally credible testing facility.

    All anyone has to do to become an instant billionaire is to have a sample of an RTSC that they have tested at several internationally credible testing facilities.

  6. @vboring Ashamed??! don’t be naive. The only way they could possibly protect their IP now that they have the material and the results are out in the world is by obfuscating their process. If their findings are anything like they claim then I tip my hat to them. Well played Lee and Kwon. Very well played. They have denied some western venture-capital-funded research sweat-lab/patent-mill access to their hard-won discovery. For that alone they should be proud. Once the Nobels are awarded and the patents filled and ratified globally. Perhaps then and only then will it be time to let people in on the How it was done. You see not all scientist are guillable and altruistic suckers.

  7. We’re still left to wonder if Iris got lucky via her altered sample production method to get close with her bulk samples, if her methods end up getting close to the thin film recipe.

    If LK99 pans out, people are going to owe her an apology.

  8. The real world isn’t a Marvel movie. There’s no such thing as uniquely qualified people or their unique products.

    If other labs can’t replicate the work, it is because it has been poorly described. They knowingly published misleading papers and should be ashamed.

    • It could also be that this particular substance is very hard to reproduce in the molecular configuration that would yield super conductor effects.. I am also dubious of the claims of this team, but I wouldn’t rule out the possibility altogether just yet. Great coverage Brian wang!

    • the real world does not have perfect papers. Especially pre-print papers.

      The annual rate of retractions as a share of total published (peer reviewed) papers continues to grow. In 2022, there were over 4,600 retractions, which brings the total in the Retraction Watch Database to more than 37,000. The annual rate of retractions is now about 8 in 10,000 papers published.

      There has been a replication problem with science for over a decade. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/21504366/science-replication-crisis-peer-review-statistics
      Researchers have discovered, over and over, that lots of findings in fields like psychology, sociology, medicine, and economics don’t hold up when other researchers try to replicate them.

      A 2016 survey by Nature on 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility found that more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiment results (including 87% of chemists, 77% of biologists, 69% of physicists and engineers, 67% of medical researchers, 64% of earth and environmental scientists, and 62% of all others), and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. But fewer than 20% had been contacted by another researcher unable to reproduce their work. The survey found that fewer than 31% of researchers believe that failure to reproduce results means that the original result is probably wrong, although 52% agree that a significant replication crisis exists. Most researchers said they still trust the published literature.

      • Yes, the mentality established in academia is GET PUBLISHED. Some people don’t realize getting hired in research positions, a resume is formatted completely differently. It’s not about experience, it’s about publications. Often the “get published” trumps quality or in worst case ethics. Take for example any research that involves computational modelling or custom coded models. You would think that code would be part of the publication, but it usually isn’t. Furthermore it’s often full of bugs and if anyone with interdisciplinary skills were to review the code, it’d probably call into question the results.

        No author actually cares about reproducibility. You can see that attitude in the responses from the original researchers. Oh you didn’t get the reproduction from our vague reproduction steps? We’ve been doing this for X years, we’re smart, you’re stupid. The arrogance is incredible.

        • In my professional experience, most scientists are curiosity driven and sincere in their publishing. Reputation also matters. If no one can replicate your work most of the time you have a harder and harder time publishing in decent journals. Unfortunately these days though there are a lot of crap journals.

        • Arrogance or business acumen? If they’ve worked on LK99 for 20 odd years and wish to cash in on what may turn out to be genuine, then it’s their right. Doesn’t the rest of the world do that?

    • The real world isn’t a hero movie, but there always have been uniquely qualified or profoundly intuitive people like Rickover, Einstein, wonderful authors, musicians (Mozart), politicians, present and ancient for good and for bad… two or three WW2 era dictators come to mind.

      It isn’t just the times that create the man/woman. After all, where is the man/woman of our times as we go through these trials of Coldvid19-23, continue with destructive foreign, financial, and ‘environmental’ policies. Where is the clairvoyant today? Lots of influencers and lots of regurgitators, but few leaders.

Comments are closed.