Chinese researchers are making variations of LK99 room temperature superconductor materials with more sulfur and copper in the chemistry. They are publishing results with stronger magnetic indications of a Meissner effect.
The chinese researchers have been online discussing their room temperature superconducting research and the challenges of the materials.
Here are the issues discussed.
* the current of their material is too small, it is almost impossible to stabilize it.
* what kind of sample this is? It’s just a pile of powder, simply pressed into pieces with a mold, and broken into pieces with just a light break. Mr. Guan didn’t even dare to touch the silver glue, so he simply pressed a few pieces of indium wire and started testing. Under these experimental conditions, the conductivity is close to that of ordinary graphite, which is shocking in itself.
To make a good conductive film in industry, it has to be repeatedly purified, polished and flattened. Mr Dai now soaks it in water, takes it out and presses it and then measures it. There is not even a tempering and sintering process. They designed this specifically for a one-dimensional system but the my one-dimensional theory is almost ruined.
Nextbigfuture thinks they are saying that the material is not a one-dimensional superconductor as previously believed.
* And they now estimate the resistivity based on the thickness of the entire block. He also tried to point electrodes between the top and bottom of the block, but the effect was not satisfactory. It is very likely that the actual conductive channels are only concentrated near the surface of the sample, which means that the actual resistivity is much smaller than what we currently estimate.
They have to eliminate the other explanations one by one. The three main alternatives are bomplex magnetism, transparent single crystal, and cuprous sulfide.
* He considered all the possible points that everyone said last time. A critic said the magnetic measurement was wrong. The chinese researcher thought the accuser was really stupid. The researcher can distinguish between what data is ferromagnetic misleading and what data is true. The ferromagnetic sample is not mine and cannot be disclosed casually at the moment. Magnetism was also measured twice. So Talk is Cheap.
There are also ferromagnetic plus diamagnetic, ferromagnetic plus paramagnetic, which can be simulated. Especially when he re-tested it with a quartz pole. Note that it is a paramagnetic background.
Regarding the resistance, it is not completely straight line because it is too difficult for this material to absorb and release heat. There is a difference between the actual temperature and the test set temperature. Therefore, RT is not completely straight. The value given in the text is 3K/min. He found a third party to test it at 5K/min, and provides it in the supplementary information here.
Then there is a straight one that cools at 1K/min, which is very straight. Also in the supplementary materials.
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.
You’re still flogging this dead horse Brian? We all want this to be true but general consensus is this is bunk.
I’ll say it clear and simple. This sounds like crâhp.
People jumping on the bandwagon, very Rossi style, with in the end, nothing reproducible nor even very able to withstand close inquiry ta play.
This is 2024, everyone! The metrology of chipmaking alone has advanced to where we can measure attoamperes and picovolts. There is a fundamental expectation that demanding metrology underpins the extraordinary advances in materials science that are required to substantiate and validate this purported tech.
Not fragile piles of powder.
Which at the very least, obscure any dimensional effects the purported substance might have.
Sheesh.
⋅-⋅-⋅ Just saying, ⋅-⋅-⋅
⋅-=≡ GoatGuy ✓ ≡=-⋅
The facilities with better equipment are not trying to really help figure things out. They try to do drive by falsifications. They are looking for quick kill shots.
If this is a wild goose chase, then I want to see the proper effort put in systematically try to make it work before declaring it dead. Lend the better equipment and facilities. Otherwise, I will have patience for those who are trying to work on improving materials and results. I do not care if tens of millions are spent. There are billions being spent on other science that has had no useful results. There are trillions wasted on useless wars and military gear.
Imagine if Science had the US defence budget to play with.
We’d be on Mars and cancer would be cured.
We’re a stupid retrograde species more often than not.
Regardless science and abundance is our way out of their criminal stupidity.
Sorry, I touched a nerve it seems.
You are absolutely right: these folks aren’t very well funded or outfitted. Much more money needs to go into actually trying the hundreds-to-thousands of “magic sauce” combinations of elements that might well underly the effect seen.
I guess the write up had snippets that were — to me — nerve wracking. We both must wait, it seems.
⋅-=≡ GoatGuy ✓ ≡=-⋅
It does annoy me when random accusations of scam and fraud motivations are tossed around. I get it for Rossi. He was a scammer and there are scammers in energy. Accusations of scam, I would classify as an extraordinary claim, there needs to be evidence to back the claim. I like to see the level of work Steven Krivit does with his claims against ITER and others. If people say they doubt and just don’t believe, and they think nothing will come of it, then that is fine. People can use judgement and intuition.
However, this situation. I don’t see the scam. The Chinese joined in when people were already around screaming that LK99 was all over. They did not win prestige or easy money. They clearly have to be sincere in their belief that it works. They are professors at major Chinese universities. I think they have secured, tenured jobs. I fail to see their trying to push this if they did not truly believe they have real results. In a timeline thing, the accusation that they or Koreans are doing this as a trick to get a better life… does not add up. Their lives are now harder and they are getting attacked constantly for it. I get attacks for writing about it. Fortunately, I have decades of thick skin from 30,000+ articles online. I will write what I want and to H*** with those who don’t like my editorial choices. The Chinese professors are not monetizing traffic. People can make mistakes, fool themselves, fail to execute, or just be wrong. Plenty of science, projects and startups fail or are wrong.
— I respect everything you write Goatguy and I understand your opinion. The Chinese and Koreans have lots of work to do to make a truly convincing case. I think they will get there. I think full levitation means something. They have so little money that I don’t believe they faked the full levitation. I think the thin film reading is worth hard investigation with more money. I don’t buy the copper sulphide reasoning and the claim that it is all nothing. The Berkeley Labs and many other DFT simulations all look good. Berkeley Labs experimenters say the chinese work looks competently done. I see no need to rush to judgement.
Dude, most people don’t think it’s a scam, just that it’s not true. Genuine people are wrong all the time and researchers are no less susceptible to confirmation bias than anyone else.
This interview doesn’t help their case, though. Calling your critics “very stupid” and saying you can’t explain details of why because that is some else’s secret… not a good look. The lack of self-skepticism one excepts from a scientist is also concerning in this vein.
The burden of proof is on the discover, not the scientific community. If they want to be believed, they should focus on refining the process for creating the material to the point where others can reproduce their results. The only questions that matter should be how do we make this stuff and why can no else do it?
I am saying sustained efforts with enough resources have not been made to try to solve the problem. There has been anywhere near the right amount of resources, If you hit the beaches on D-day with 100 people and they get slaughtered. And you say see that was impossible. No I think it is possible but hard. Hit the beaches with better trained crews, more equipment and support and go with about 150,000. The prize is worth it. In this case worth it for science learning and worth it if the product can be made.