Laughing
Well-known member
This is not cheap nor easy. It remains to be seen if it can be reproduced, of couse.
It is being peer reviewed as we speak.
Superconductor Breakthrough?
- Thread starter Andy_W
- Start date
It is being peer reviewed as we speak.
swordtrombonefish
Well-known member
"the authors claimed material could be made in just 34 hours with simple equipment, and that such a superconductor would have revolutionary uses in everything from nuclear fusion reactors to batteries and quantum computers."
That sounds both cheap and easy to me, your evidence otherwise?
dooderooni
Well-known member
One man's simple is another man's complex you might say.
I'm sure "simple" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here and it'll be amazing engineering still.
swordtrombonefish
Well-known member
Indeed, but wrestling with magnetic fields and materials for tens of years and then a number like 34 hours seems incredible - but I'd be awed if it proves to be true
Laughing
Well-known member
It requires manipulation of the atomic structure of the materrial. It may be simple and cheap, I don't see how. It requires a very specific lead ring replacing by copper at the atomic level. This, of course, assumes I have understood the paper. I suspect that they are comparing the ceation of LK-99 with conventional superconductors which are expensive and complex to do for real-world tasks. That doesn't make it cheap or easy. It's the equivelant of saying graphene is easy to produce, which can be done with tape and a pencil, but not if you want to make enough to use for anything. Or indeed of dropping some metal discs into liquid nitrogen and claiming you have a working supeconducter, which of course you do, until it warms a couple of degrees.
That sounds quite complex to me.
R
rbmfc1985
Guest
Simple and cheap are relative terms. In this context, they're talking about simple compared to what has been required for existing superconductors. Not something anyone could pick up and put together at home.
And, yeah, his evidence otherwise is the paper. Which describes a complex process which is only simpler compared to what has came before.
We'll know in a few weeks if it can be replicated. I would be more sceptical if they weren't rushing everything out to get credit. I certainly hope it's true, although they are absolutely making extraordinary claims.
swordtrombonefish
Well-known member
All fair points - I'm an evidence and proof person - show me the money!
Laughing
Well-known member
I am skeptical too as is most of the science community. We can hope.
Scrote
Well-known member
I've read elsewhere that there's been a spat between the two main guys and the first paper (with the wilder claims) was rushed out by the one being pushed out.
The second paper apparently makes fewer claims and is far more cautious.
Might be something. Might be nothing.
Hopefully the former.
Laughing
Well-known member
On a different science topic has anyone read the scientific press around the discovery of well developed early galaxies found by JWT. It has now been suggested that we have the age of the univers wrong and it is 27 billion years old rather than 14?
It doesn't have a lot of traction as yet because there is an issue with how red shifted light is from the early universe. There is a supporting theory that the light has had energy shaved from it as it travels through the universe, red shifting it. All sounds very speculative to me.
It doesn't have a lot of traction as yet because there is an issue with how red shifted light is from the early universe. There is a supporting theory that the light has had energy shaved from it as it travels through the universe, red shifting it. All sounds very speculative to me.
