4 ms·

There's a simple way to find out the truth of these claims, wait a decade, and see if a product comes from it, or if it is replicated. All else is sound and fur

There's a simple way to find out the truth of these claims, wait a decade, and see if a product comes from it, or if it is replicated. All else is sound and fury, signifying nothing. From the patent application[1], the method used is First, obtaining a material at a first higher pressure that superconducts at that first higher pressure and at a desirable practical operating temperature (e.g., room temperature). Next, while maintaining the material at the first higher pressure, cooling it to a very low temperature. Next, releasing the pressure to a second, lower pressure (e.g., room pressure) and then slowly raising the temperature (e.g., at about 1 K per minute) to a higher temperature such as the desirable practical operating temperature (e.g., room temperature). Does it work? I don't know, none of us does. It's plausible. Let's just wait and see. [1] https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2023064019 https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO20...

wslh 3y ago
Your comment reminds me of the chapter 6 of the book "Only the Paranoid Survive" about Signal or Noise. One story is about the X-ray technology from Japan to produce better chips. IBM decided to invest in that technology while Intel didn't. The rest is business history.
- refulgentis 3y ago
  After 13 years here, that's one of the biggest issues with the HN-expertee-comment-ism that is so widely remarked upon. One person asserts a brutalist simplification about technology far outside their education and expertise. Another, given the brutalist simplification, ties it to something within our common field. Then, we have 1000s of people reading who are conditioned to spew optimism about "take room temperature superconductor[1] and cool it and lower the pressure and raise the temperature, tada!" and a false analogy like "doubting this would be like IBM failing to adopt [a commonplace technique] in semiconductor manufacturing" [1] from where?
  - wslh 3y ago
    It seems you need to reread my comment and the well known book I referred to. Based on your answer It seems you don't have idea about what I am talking about.
    - refulgentis 3y ago
      This is the funniest aggro answer I've gotten on any site in many years. Reading a book on IBM/Japan will not make the analogy built on sand become built on concrete. I'm not complaining about IBM/Japan, I'm complaining about room temperature superconductors. Also no one will read a book to make sense of a short comment
btilly 3y ago
If it works, I would wonder how sensitive the result is to temperature and pressure shocks. If it is very sensitive, this may be a significant limitation on practical applications. For example virtually all portable devices wind up going through much faster temperature shifts than that. And raising it above the temperature that it was designed to work at, even for a short time, might result in no superconductivity. That isn't to say that it wouldn't be a very useful substance to have. But again, we need to wait and see.
heywhatupboys 3y ago
could someone help me understand why patents like these (https://patents.google.com/patent/US11663824B1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US11663824B1/en) get granted? Do patents even work anymore?
- refulgentis 3y ago
  Patents are certification that a science-educated federal employee in northern Virginia reviewed a patent application and found it generally plausible that its novel and all the right boxes were ticked. It's explicitly not their role to go beyond "generally plausible" From there, maybe the company awarded the patent try, idk, litigating a FAANG over this (note I didn't read it). That's when you really start digging in.
- btrettel 3y ago
  I worked as a patent examiner twice in the past. I've written on Hacker News before about how patents are granted in the US: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33506062 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33506062 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31197809 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31197809 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31883765 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31883765 Why was any particular patent granted? First, keep in mind that the claims are the legally enforceable part of a patent. The drawings, title, abstract, and specification aren't as important. The title and abstract could be really vague and sound like they cover far more than the patent actually does as described in the claims. That's often intentionally done by attorneys because they want as broad coverage as possible. Usually only the claims are amended to be more narrow, so the broad sounding abstract/etc. stays. Second, you need to check that it was indeed granted. Many times when someone's complaining about a dumb patent, it turns out that they are referring to a patent application which the patent office rejected. Give the USPTO credit where it's due. They did their job properly there. Third, you can actually read the examiner's logic about why they granted a particular patent in many countries. In the US, you can look up the application on Patent Center and click on "Documents & Transaction" on the left. For the patent you mentioned, that'll take you here: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/applications/17873839/ifw/docs https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/applications/17873839/ifw/doc... Now look for the "Notice of Allowance and Fees Due (PTOL-85)". This document will describe why the application was allowed. Usually it'll highlight the difference between the patent claim and the prior art. In this case the "Reasons for Allowance" section of the document seems pretty clear about why the examiner allowed this application. Fourth, even if the examiner was in error, don't be too harsh on them. Being a patent examiner is a really hard job. They have a quota system and the quota is simply unreasonable. It's impossible in my opinion to do consistently high quality work for most patent examiners with the current quotas. If they can't find prior art in the allowed time, right or wrong, they'll probably have to allow it even if they don't feel that's right.
akiselev 3y ago
This is one of those very rare "build it and they will come" technologies. All he has to do is make some material samples and send them to the right people making supercolliders at CERN, MRIs and turbines at GE, etc. Those people can trivially characterize the materials for their use case and if he's truly made room temperature superconductors, he'll have an entire horde of customers trying to throw money at him. Even if he can only effectively manufacture the geometries that 1% of those potential clients need, it'd still be a multi-billion dollar a year business. Unless someone here is planning on investing, it's a complete nonstory. Let's see the goods!
- p1esk 3y ago
  A typical response to this is "I need 20M to make those samples. Gimme." And a response to that is often "Hmm, there's 95% chance this guy is full of shit, but also a 5% chance it's gonna be big." To investors, it's all about estimating whether the ratio is 95:5 (good enough), or worse.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

wslh 3y ago

Your comment reminds me of the chapter 6 of the book "Only the Paranoid Survive" about Signal or Noise. One story is about the X-ray technology from Japan to produce better chips. IBM decided to invest in that technology while Intel didn't. The rest is business history.

refulgentis 3y ago
After 13 years here, that's one of the biggest issues with the HN-expertee-comment-ism that is so widely remarked upon. One person asserts a brutalist simplification about technology far outside their education and expertise. Another, given the brutalist simplification, ties it to something within our common field. Then, we have 1000s of people reading who are conditioned to spew optimism about "take room temperature superconductor[1] and cool it and lower the pressure and raise the temperature, tada!" and a false analogy like "doubting this would be like IBM failing to adopt [a commonplace technique] in semiconductor manufacturing" [1] from where?
- wslh 3y ago
  It seems you need to reread my comment and the well known book I referred to. Based on your answer It seems you don't have idea about what I am talking about.
  - refulgentis 3y ago
    This is the funniest aggro answer I've gotten on any site in many years. Reading a book on IBM/Japan will not make the analogy built on sand become built on concrete. I'm not complaining about IBM/Japan, I'm complaining about room temperature superconductors. Also no one will read a book to make sense of a short comment

btilly 3y ago

If it works, I would wonder how sensitive the result is to temperature and pressure shocks. If it is very sensitive, this may be a significant limitation on practical applications. For example virtually all portable devices wind up going through much faster temperature shifts than that. And raising it above the temperature that it was designed to work at, even for a short time, might result in no superconductivity. That isn't to say that it wouldn't be a very useful substance to have. But again, we need to wait and see.

heywhatupboys 3y ago

could someone help me understand why patents like these (https://patents.google.com/patent/US11663824B1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US11663824B1/en) get granted? Do patents even work anymore?

refulgentis 3y ago
Patents are certification that a science-educated federal employee in northern Virginia reviewed a patent application and found it generally plausible that its novel and all the right boxes were ticked. It's explicitly not their role to go beyond "generally plausible" From there, maybe the company awarded the patent try, idk, litigating a FAANG over this (note I didn't read it). That's when you really start digging in.
btrettel 3y ago
I worked as a patent examiner twice in the past. I've written on Hacker News before about how patents are granted in the US: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33506062 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33506062 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31197809 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31197809 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31883765 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31883765 Why was any particular patent granted? First, keep in mind that the claims are the legally enforceable part of a patent. The drawings, title, abstract, and specification aren't as important. The title and abstract could be really vague and sound like they cover far more than the patent actually does as described in the claims. That's often intentionally done by attorneys because they want as broad coverage as possible. Usually only the claims are amended to be more narrow, so the broad sounding abstract/etc. stays. Second, you need to check that it was indeed granted. Many times when someone's complaining about a dumb patent, it turns out that they are referring to a patent application which the patent office rejected. Give the USPTO credit where it's due. They did their job properly there. Third, you can actually read the examiner's logic about why they granted a particular patent in many countries. In the US, you can look up the application on Patent Center and click on "Documents & Transaction" on the left. For the patent you mentioned, that'll take you here: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/applications/17873839/ifw/docs https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/applications/17873839/ifw/doc... Now look for the "Notice of Allowance and Fees Due (PTOL-85)". This document will describe why the application was allowed. Usually it'll highlight the difference between the patent claim and the prior art. In this case the "Reasons for Allowance" section of the document seems pretty clear about why the examiner allowed this application. Fourth, even if the examiner was in error, don't be too harsh on them. Being a patent examiner is a really hard job. They have a quota system and the quota is simply unreasonable. It's impossible in my opinion to do consistently high quality work for most patent examiners with the current quotas. If they can't find prior art in the allowed time, right or wrong, they'll probably have to allow it even if they don't feel that's right.

akiselev 3y ago

This is one of those very rare "build it and they will come" technologies. All he has to do is make some material samples and send them to the right people making supercolliders at CERN, MRIs and turbines at GE, etc. Those people can trivially characterize the materials for their use case and if he's truly made room temperature superconductors, he'll have an entire horde of customers trying to throw money at him. Even if he can only effectively manufacture the geometries that 1% of those potential clients need, it'd still be a multi-billion dollar a year business. Unless someone here is planning on investing, it's a complete nonstory. Let's see the goods!

p1esk 3y ago
A typical response to this is "I need 20M to make those samples. Gimme." And a response to that is often "Hmm, there's 95% chance this guy is full of shit, but also a 5% chance it's gonna be big." To investors, it's all about estimating whether the ratio is 95:5 (good enough), or worse.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]