4 ms·

As I learned from the Dave's EEVBlog video [1], their demonstration video [2] says in the description that the material was deposited onto a copper plate which

As I learned from the Dave's EEVBlog video [1], their demonstration video [2] says in the description that the material was deposited onto a copper plate which could probably explain the interaction with the magnet. And as I just noticed, the description has since been changed and now says »The sample was thermally deposited on a enriched uranium 235 plate.« EDIT: Correction, I got the link to the video saying deposited onto uranium [2] from [1] but that is not the actual link from their web page which is [3] and still says deposited onto copper. So someone on eevblog.com was having some fun. [1] https://www.eevblog.com/2023/07/31/eevblog-1555-korean-lk-99-ambient-temperature-superconductor-demo-video-busted/ https://www.eevblog.com/2023/07/31/eevblog-1555-korean-lk-99... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w2qc_BoEiU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w2qc_BoEiU [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtVjGWpbE7k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtVjGWpbE7k

andersa 3y ago
That's highly suspicious. I guess they're banking on nobody having an enriched uranium 235 plate at hand to verify what happens if you do this without any LK99...
- 7373737373 3y ago
  For me, this, and the combination with the name ("Quantum Energy Research Center") is another push in the direction of ignoring everything named "quantum" too often quacksalver territory Is this really their channel? Why do they only have 1 video, 8 subscribers, and why is the video unlisted?
  - n2d4 3y ago
    >ignoring everything named "quantum" This heuristic is probably a good one for non-scientific stuff but I'm not sure how accurate it is when we're looking at a group researching quantum effects
  - knodi123 3y ago
    you wouldn't expect a lot of subscribers to a channel with only unlisted videos, right? Some people use youtube solely for video publishing, and have zero or less interest in the social aspects of the site.
- bawolff 3y ago
  Its not like nobody has ever investigated the magnetic properties of uranium. You could just look it up.
godelski 3y ago
Can someone explain why you'd use the 235 isotope? I know there are different magnetic properties but it still seems an odd choice to use something that is highly controlled, difficult to produce, and rather dangerous. It seems like there would be far better choices unless you absolutely need that mass or they very weak valance electrons. And those videos being identical is also suspicious. [2] Uploaded 2 days ago, claims 235U substrate, is from @q-center, and created their youtube account in 2012. [3] is from @qcentre, uploaded 5 months ago, claims Cu substrate, and created their account in February. If it was the newer account posting the new video it would be easy to believe lost password or something but this reversing feels weird. It makes it feel like they changed the video description (but didn't edit the original to prevent history checking? But could have just uploaded a different video?) to combat the induced magnetic field as claim? But it feels like it gets even worse. [3] (older) is a 4k video while [2] is 720p. Just hiding detail? The material looks neither like copper nor uranium ceramic (very distinctive orange color), but that can just be the material which is claimed to be thin film deposited and that's believable. Maybe they're hiding the sample identification etching on the front? I'm not sure what those mean and it's very possibly arbitrary. But adds a level of suspicion.
- danbruc 3y ago
  I just assumed the uranium one is a joke created after this story started by some third party and made to look like the original one, so I also did not look any deeper. But the channel being created in 2012 then makes no sense. Someone just sitting on that channel name? Or can you rename a YouTube channel?
  - euazOn 3y ago
    Yes you can rename, probably just trolling.
    - danbruc 3y ago
      In this EEVBlog [1] thread they also conclude this after some confusion. [1] https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-1555-lk99-ambient-temperature-superconductor-busted!/?all https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-1555-lk99-ambient...
willis936 3y ago
"Their demonstration video" makes it sound like there is only one. No smug takedowns of the video that made the rounds first: https://sciencecast.org/casts/suc384jly50n https://sciencecast.org/casts/suc384jly50n The most people have been able to say is "it might be the most diamagnetic material anyone has ever seen by a remarkable amount".

andersa 3y ago

That's highly suspicious. I guess they're banking on nobody having an enriched uranium 235 plate at hand to verify what happens if you do this without any LK99...

7373737373 3y ago
For me, this, and the combination with the name ("Quantum Energy Research Center") is another push in the direction of ignoring everything named "quantum" too often quacksalver territory Is this really their channel? Why do they only have 1 video, 8 subscribers, and why is the video unlisted?
- n2d4 3y ago
  >ignoring everything named "quantum" This heuristic is probably a good one for non-scientific stuff but I'm not sure how accurate it is when we're looking at a group researching quantum effects
- knodi123 3y ago
  you wouldn't expect a lot of subscribers to a channel with only unlisted videos, right? Some people use youtube solely for video publishing, and have zero or less interest in the social aspects of the site.
bawolff 3y ago
Its not like nobody has ever investigated the magnetic properties of uranium. You could just look it up.

godelski 3y ago

Can someone explain why you'd use the 235 isotope? I know there are different magnetic properties but it still seems an odd choice to use something that is highly controlled, difficult to produce, and rather dangerous. It seems like there would be far better choices unless you absolutely need that mass or they very weak valance electrons. And those videos being identical is also suspicious. [2] Uploaded 2 days ago, claims 235U substrate, is from @q-center, and created their youtube account in 2012. [3] is from @qcentre, uploaded 5 months ago, claims Cu substrate, and created their account in February. If it was the newer account posting the new video it would be easy to believe lost password or something but this reversing feels weird. It makes it feel like they changed the video description (but didn't edit the original to prevent history checking? But could have just uploaded a different video?) to combat the induced magnetic field as claim? But it feels like it gets even worse. [3] (older) is a 4k video while [2] is 720p. Just hiding detail? The material looks neither like copper nor uranium ceramic (very distinctive orange color), but that can just be the material which is claimed to be thin film deposited and that's believable. Maybe they're hiding the sample identification etching on the front? I'm not sure what those mean and it's very possibly arbitrary. But adds a level of suspicion.

danbruc 3y ago
I just assumed the uranium one is a joke created after this story started by some third party and made to look like the original one, so I also did not look any deeper. But the channel being created in 2012 then makes no sense. Someone just sitting on that channel name? Or can you rename a YouTube channel?
- euazOn 3y ago
  Yes you can rename, probably just trolling.
  - danbruc 3y ago
    In this EEVBlog [1] thread they also conclude this after some confusion. [1] https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-1555-lk99-ambient-temperature-superconductor-busted!/?all https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-1555-lk99-ambient...

willis936 3y ago

"Their demonstration video" makes it sound like there is only one. No smug takedowns of the video that made the rounds first: https://sciencecast.org/casts/suc384jly50n https://sciencecast.org/casts/suc384jly50n The most people have been able to say is "it might be the most diamagnetic material anyone has ever seen by a remarkable amount".