this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
595 points (95.1% liked)

News

23014 readers
3 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 305 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just a word of caution: Non-peer reviewed, non-replicated, rushed-looking preprint, on a topic with a long history of controversy and retractions. So don't get too excited yet.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Okay so I agree that it needs to be peer reviewed and independently verified before we can trust it. But how exactly does the preprint look rushed?

[–] [email protected] 84 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's visibly made in word. That's enough to be rushed.

[–] [email protected] 55 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Exactly. Most papers I’ve seen out there use LaTeX. This is clearly Microsoft Word.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Depends on the discipline, but yeah, engineering would usually be LaTeX

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

And it definitely looks it. That is, shitty.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I would also like to know. Apparently there were some proofreading errors etc. Someone in reddit explained that rushing the publish might be explained by wanting to stake the claim and get the ball rolling on reproducing the results as fast as possible.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Honestly as someone who is also in research, that is pretty understandable. Preprint papers are all subject to peer review and editing after the fact, but are a good opportunity to stake your claim on a big discovery before someone else can. Preprints are inherently not final versions and I guarantee that the mistakes will be caught before publication.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Have you.. seen the.. figures?!! Also, the Arxiv listing had a spelling mistake. "First" was spelled as "firs".

[–] [email protected] 137 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (12 children)

Reposting my comment from another thread to add a bit of context in case anyone’s curious.

So I read the paper, and here’s a tldr about how their material apparently gains its properties.

It is hypothesized that superconductivity properties emerge from very specific strains induced in the material. Hence why most of the discovered superconductors require either to be cooled down to very low temperatures, or to be under high pressures. Both shrink the material.

What this paper claims is that they have achieved a similar effect chemically by replacing some lead ions with copper ions, which are a bit smaller (87 pm for Cu vs 133 pm for Pb). This shrinks the material by 0.48%, and that added strain induces superconductivity. This is why it apparently works at room temperature — you no longer need high pressures or extreme cold to create the needed deformation.

Can’t really comment on how actually feasible or long-lasting this effect is, but it looks surprisingly promising. At least as a starting point for future experiments. Can’t wait for other labs’ reproduction attempts. If it turns out to be true, this is an extremely important and world-changing discovery.

Fingers crossed :)

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Interesting and it wouldn't be a ceramic. Downside is that it is lead based. Not exactly good for the environment or very flexible without breaking. Lead doesn't make good wire.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 102 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I would be very skeptical of this paper's claims.

  1. It hasnt been peer reviewed

  2. The data hasn't been replicated

  3. The clains being made are extraordinary. i.e a cheap material that has a superconduction transition temperature 200 degrees kelvin above the cuprates at standard pressure

  4. The fragility of this superconductive state makes me wonder if what theyre claiming to observe is an artifact (pathological science) rather than a real effect

  5. The paper is "rough around the edges" i.e multiple proofreading mistakes and has undergone little apparent editing for quality

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

There's no room for pathological science

https://sciencecast.org/casts/suc384jly50n

The only way to do something like that with diamagnetism or ferromagnetism is to deliberately fake the arrangement of magnets.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 year ago

Sceptical because "revolutionary" discoveries like this always end up either being bogus or have some massive caveat that makes them effectively useless outside of very specific scenarios.

Thought I will be pleasantly surprised if proven wrong

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (3 children)

This is huge, is it not? No loss in potential energy means that I could have an infinitely floating coffee cup without the use of power, no?

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It is absolutely huge

It means that you can make supercapacitors which have larger energy storage density than our current batteries by who knows how many times

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago

If it were real maybe. But having read the paper, I am very skeptical that it is.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago (3 children)

What's the purpose of posting these results before they have been peer reviewed and reproduced?

[–] [email protected] 51 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Because this is how they get peer reviewed and reproduced? Publishing is how science works?

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago

No you should put the paper in a filing cabinet somewhere and see what happens

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think the question was "what's the purpose of posting this on Lemmy?" (not arXiv) because that does nothing for peer review but a lot for stirring laypeople's wild imagination.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that until this is peer-reviewed and replicated, this is worthless.

I'll also gladly eat my shorts if it turns out they actually did it but ATM I'm very skeptical.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago

Incidentally, here's the same research with more co-authors.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12037

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If they take too long the room temperature won't be enough due the increase in temperatures 😅 /s

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

Tc is allegedly 120C, so we,ve got a couple of years if it's not a scam.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

anyone with a better understanding able to articulate potential trade-offs/complications to using this in practical applications?

*edited:
more discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36864624

the critical field and critical current seem very low … This means you can't actually push big current through this thing (yet). You can't make a powerful magnet, and you can't make viable power lines

The method to produce this material as described in the related paper [1] is fairly simple and could be done at home with a $200 home metal melting furnace from amazon and the precursors (which also seem to be fairly standard easy to obtain metals)

Read this comment thread from SC researchers: <reddit link removed>
Lots of problems with the paper, they claim. It is not up to the standards of current SC research. One of them says Dias's work shows more merit than this.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Insane capacity batteries

Lossless power transmission via wires

Better magnetically levitating trains

Much more power efficient computers, electronics

The list is huge

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The only drawback is that LK-99 is polycristalline... Levitating trains and computers, electronics, are a stretch as long as the material is not monocristalline.

It is huge nethertheless.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

That "levitation" video is worthless: One edge of it is still resting on the magnet, and plain old steel screws will do that if you put them on a plain old speaker magnet. If they can't even manage to show actual levitation after claiming it, then I highly suspect the rest of the claims are just as invalid.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

To be honest, this seems very sus to me. A big paper with only three authors?! I went down the rabbit hole of trying to find the lab from which it has been published. It's almost there is no online presence. In another paper they put out along with it, they say that they show Meissner effect (levitating effect of a superconductor) and that a video is attached. I looked for the video but I wasn't able to find it. :/

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Maybe it's me misunderstanding, but 127 is considered room temp?

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago (2 children)

127c is the maximum operating temperature. If it goes above that, it looses superconductivity.

This material below 127c (which is insanely hot for superconductors) will be superconductive.

Operating range is -273c to 127c

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

Here we go again...

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This... this is literally revolutionary if true. Has it been corroborated by other experiments? How certain are the results? How hard is it to mass produce this? This could literally be the breakthrough of the century in materials science here.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›