4 ms·

I don’t know enough about this but shouldn’t the entire superconductor be floating above the magnet? Why is one part still attached (or maybe attracted) to the

I don’t know enough about this but shouldn’t the entire superconductor be floating above the magnet? Why is one part still attached (or maybe attracted) to the magnet?

NegativeLatency 3y ago
Contamination/impurities or something else in it that's not superconducting?
- soligern 3y ago
  A strange exposition video then, I would try to remove the part that wasn’t superconducting (the part touching the magnet) before I released this. A completely floating piece of this superconductor would remove literally all doubt.
  - xeonmc 3y ago
    You say to do WHAT to the best piece of sample they synthesized?
    - XorNot 3y ago
      Scope of the claim. This is world changing. Shoot the first video, then get the dremel/pliers and cut that large bit off. It would be worth it, because if this works at all, then it's vital to prove it. We'd be having a very different discussion if that small piece was umabiguously floating and remaining locked in place.
      - yreg 3y ago
        > it's vital to prove it [asap] Is it? What do they care if it takes other labs a week to reproduce?
        Filligree 3y ago
        But you don’t understand, people are being skeptics on the internet.
        XorNot 3y ago
        For one thing, because if you're throwing out a world-changing claim, you yourself would like to be sure it is what you think it is. It's an obvious test to do, so it's quite surprising they didn't do it. Maybe they did and didn't film it, I don't know - but for the trouble of a couple of minutes of time, it's weird not to have it - especially if your method is reproducible.
petsfed 3y ago
Based on what I'm hearing, it sounds like they weren't able to produce a macroscopic ingot of the stuff, so it seems likely to me that the superconducting part is up at the end there. However, without further explanation, I'm disinclined to take that video (fantastic as it seems) to be conclusive evidence of anything.
- rsfern 3y ago
  The original preprint mentions bulk samples, but I’m not sure what size they were. I would guess at least a few millimeters scale, but really bulk just mostly means “not a thin film”
  - petsfed 3y ago
    As an undergrad I helped with research on quasars, where reasonable precision was solar mass orders of magnitude and tens of parsecs, and the periodic table was Hydrogen, Helium, and "metals". Then I switched to condensed matter physics for grad school, where "bulk" meant "a scale visible to the naked eye under very good conditions". The dichotomy makes me laugh.

I don’t know enough about this but shouldn’t the entire superconductor be floating above the magnet? Why is one part still attached (or maybe attracted) to the magnet?

NegativeLatency 3y ago

Contamination/impurities or something else in it that's not superconducting?

soligern 3y ago
A strange exposition video then, I would try to remove the part that wasn’t superconducting (the part touching the magnet) before I released this. A completely floating piece of this superconductor would remove literally all doubt.
- xeonmc 3y ago
  You say to do WHAT to the best piece of sample they synthesized?
  - XorNot 3y ago
    Scope of the claim. This is world changing. Shoot the first video, then get the dremel/pliers and cut that large bit off. It would be worth it, because if this works at all, then it's vital to prove it. We'd be having a very different discussion if that small piece was umabiguously floating and remaining locked in place.
    - yreg 3y ago
      > it's vital to prove it [asap] Is it? What do they care if it takes other labs a week to reproduce?
      - Filligree 3y ago
        But you don’t understand, people are being skeptics on the internet.
      - XorNot 3y ago
        For one thing, because if you're throwing out a world-changing claim, you yourself would like to be sure it is what you think it is. It's an obvious test to do, so it's quite surprising they didn't do it. Maybe they did and didn't film it, I don't know - but for the trouble of a couple of minutes of time, it's weird not to have it - especially if your method is reproducible.

petsfed 3y ago

Based on what I'm hearing, it sounds like they weren't able to produce a macroscopic ingot of the stuff, so it seems likely to me that the superconducting part is up at the end there. However, without further explanation, I'm disinclined to take that video (fantastic as it seems) to be conclusive evidence of anything.

rsfern 3y ago
The original preprint mentions bulk samples, but I’m not sure what size they were. I would guess at least a few millimeters scale, but really bulk just mostly means “not a thin film”
- petsfed 3y ago
  As an undergrad I helped with research on quasars, where reasonable precision was solar mass orders of magnitude and tens of parsecs, and the periodic table was Hydrogen, Helium, and "metals". Then I switched to condensed matter physics for grad school, where "bulk" meant "a scale visible to the naked eye under very good conditions". The dichotomy makes me laugh.