5 ms·
This write up of it [0] tries to address that a little but I agree that all the scrutiny is deserved and should continue. "The previous paper has been resubmit
by m-watson 4y ago
This write up of it [0] tries to address that a little but I agree that all the scrutiny is deserved and should continue.
"The previous paper has been resubmitted to Nature with new data that validates the earlier work, Dias says. The new data was collected outside the lab, at the Argonne and Brookhaven National Laboratories in front of an audience of scientists who saw the superconducting transition live. A similar approach has been taken with the new paper. "
[0] https://phys.org/news/2023-03-viable-superconducting-material-temperature-pressure.html https://phys.org/news/2023-03-viable-superconducting-materia...
- sigmoid10 4y agoOh, I want to believe. But I will do so only when those other groups publish their own results.
- scythe 4y agoThe good news is that 1 GPa (10 kbar) is a lot easier to achieve than hundreds of GPa, which means that replication will be much easier. The previous "room temperature" claim involved around 2 Mbar or 200 GPa. For comparison, the detonation pressure of a high explosive is around 50 GPa. So, hopefully, this time, we won't have to wait as long.
- mannerheim 4y agoOnly if one can get ahold of the material. > However, outside access may fall short of the community’s hopes. Dias and Salamat have founded a startup, Unearthly Materials, which, Dias said, has already raised over $20 million in funding from investors including the CEOs of Spotify and OpenAI. They’ve also recently applied for a patent on the lutetium hydride material, which would deter them from mailing out samples. “We have clear, detailed instructions on how to make our samples,” Dias said. “We are not going to distribute this material, considering the proprietary nature of our processes and the intellectual property rights that exist.” He suggested that “certain methodologies and processes” are also off the table.
- kloch 4y agoThis is exactly the kind of thing the patent system was intended to prevent. You have to share enough details of your secret sauce so others can replicate it, even if you intend to not license it or charge outrageous licensing fees. That way the knowledge is out there today, can be expanded on by other researchers/inventors, and at a specific date in the future anyone can use it. It also helps reduce fraudulent claims of new discoveries.
- _a_a_a_ 4y agoI don't understand, and if you could illuminate it would be very helpful, how are such pressures achieved and maintained even for the shortest time without destroying the apparatus that holds it?
- jjk166 4y agoThese are generally done with diamond anvils which concentrate force on an extremely small area.
- _a_a_a_ 4y agoI understand that but it sort of dodges the issue that such enormous pressures must exceed the strength of any material, however small that pressure is contained in.
- jjk166 4y agoThe compressive strength of typical diamond is about 470 GPa, so no this is very well within the strength of the material. The current record for highest compression achieved in a lab is 770 GPa using a special form of diamond.
- _a_a_a_ 4y agoNote to silent downvoters, this is what an answer looks like. (Thanks jjk166)
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- scythe 4y agoWikipedia provides a nice overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_anvil_cell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_anvil_cell Contra the diagram, I don't believe the diamonds in a real anvil are faceted.