4 ms·

So exciting! Just FYI, the wikipedia page for LK-99 has a very useful tracking grid of replication attempts with sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK-99 h

So exciting! Just FYI, the wikipedia page for LK-99 has a very useful tracking grid of replication attempts with sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK-99 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK-99

swagmoney1606 3y ago
We'll probably know for sure within the month!
- generalizations 3y ago
  Somewhat disappointed the russian twitter anon isn't included, since they seem to have made the first replication attempt that might have panned out.
  - lost_tourist 3y ago
    I suspect that account is just a troll who knows a bit about material science. They spend more time arguing and promoting the Soviet Union than sciencing. I gathered that after just 5 minutes of scrolling through their twitter. I suspect a retired and bored Soviet scientist maybe?
  - yreg 3y ago
    Ah this again. No offense to you, but yes, the obnoxious anonymous Russian troll who's only proof is a photo of a spec of dust (glued?) in a syringe, who refuses to take a video, who says she didnt follow the paper beause she immediately invented a better way to make a different room temp superconductor, who says she doesnt care about superconductors and who keeps tweeting bizzare USSR propaganda? I wonder why she's not included in the Wikipedia article. /s
  - sashank_1509 3y ago
    Anon is fine, I’m inclined to promote anons who do credible replications. Russian anon is not one of them, she really should take a video at the very least, even then her speck is so small until she released detailed measurements one can’t in good faith trust her. I won’t be surprised if at the end of all this, she just claims she was trolling in good fun and we’re the fools for taking anything she says seriously.
    - Workaccount2 3y ago
      >I won’t be surprised if at the end of all this, she just claims she was trolling in good fun and we’re the fools for taking anything she says seriously. Ahhh, you gotta love the internet
  - dclowd9901 3y ago
    Iris? That person comes off as completely unhinged. If their result is genuine, I’ll eat my curtain.
silisili 3y ago
I'm curious why every tracker lists Argonne, though no status or progress listed. I'm sure there are a hundred other labs who've either done nothing, or are doing something without fanfare, so why Argonne?
- psychphysic 3y ago
  Anyone can edit Wikipedia.
  - mycologos 3y ago
    Yes, in particular, anyone can add citations that you can check if you're skeptical. In this case, the citation is an article from science.org [1], which includes the following quote: > “They come off as real amateurs,” says Michael Norman, a theorist at Argonne National Laboratory. “They don't know much about superconductivity and the way they’ve presented some of the data is fishy.” On the other hand, he says, researchers at Argonne and elsewhere are already trying to replicate the experiment. “People here are taking it seriously and trying to grow this stuff.” [1] https://www.science.org/content/article/spectacular-superconductor-claim-making-news-here-s-why-experts-are-doubtful https://www.science.org/content/article/spectacular-supercon...
    - dmarchand90 3y ago
      What makes me excited is there is very good theoretical work, using 'standard techniques ' that shows it either is a superconductor or will have very good properties in designing one. Cold fusion, the EM drive, time traveling neutrinos, and all the other false excitement never had a theoretical backing. So 'guarded optimism' seems warranted
- JustARandomGuy 3y ago
  Argonne is a highly regarded national lab; results from there would be highly credible. Also an Argonne staffer has gone on record[0] saying that they're attempting to replicate, while other labs have not said whether they're trying or not. Personally I'm waiting for the Argonne results which should be done by the end of the week. [0] https://www.science.org/content/article/spectacular-superconductor-claim-making-news-here-s-why-experts-are-doubtful https://www.science.org/content/article/spectacular-supercon...
Filligree 3y ago
That grid is a direct copy of this one here: https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/claims-of-room-temperature-and-ambient-pressure-superconductor.1106083/unread https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/claims-of-room-tempe... …but isn’t sourced, presumably because they don’t consider SB to be professional enough.
- capableweb 3y ago
  Does not seem to be a direct copy (the Wikipedia missing things like Progress/Status, Reliability of Claim) and also, the Wikipedia page can be collaboratively kept up to date, while the other is a random forum post "owned" by one user and the owners of the platform.
awb 3y ago
The Response and Replication sections on Wikipedia seem far more skeptical and pessimistic about LK-99 than the average HN comment or news article.

So exciting! Just FYI, the wikipedia page for LK-99 has a very useful tracking grid of replication attempts with sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK-99 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK-99

swagmoney1606 3y ago

We'll probably know for sure within the month!

generalizations 3y ago
Somewhat disappointed the russian twitter anon isn't included, since they seem to have made the first replication attempt that might have panned out.
- lost_tourist 3y ago
  I suspect that account is just a troll who knows a bit about material science. They spend more time arguing and promoting the Soviet Union than sciencing. I gathered that after just 5 minutes of scrolling through their twitter. I suspect a retired and bored Soviet scientist maybe?
- yreg 3y ago
  Ah this again. No offense to you, but yes, the obnoxious anonymous Russian troll who's only proof is a photo of a spec of dust (glued?) in a syringe, who refuses to take a video, who says she didnt follow the paper beause she immediately invented a better way to make a different room temp superconductor, who says she doesnt care about superconductors and who keeps tweeting bizzare USSR propaganda? I wonder why she's not included in the Wikipedia article. /s
- sashank_1509 3y ago
  Anon is fine, I’m inclined to promote anons who do credible replications. Russian anon is not one of them, she really should take a video at the very least, even then her speck is so small until she released detailed measurements one can’t in good faith trust her. I won’t be surprised if at the end of all this, she just claims she was trolling in good fun and we’re the fools for taking anything she says seriously.
  - Workaccount2 3y ago
    >I won’t be surprised if at the end of all this, she just claims she was trolling in good fun and we’re the fools for taking anything she says seriously. Ahhh, you gotta love the internet
- dclowd9901 3y ago
  Iris? That person comes off as completely unhinged. If their result is genuine, I’ll eat my curtain.

silisili 3y ago

I'm curious why every tracker lists Argonne, though no status or progress listed. I'm sure there are a hundred other labs who've either done nothing, or are doing something without fanfare, so why Argonne?

psychphysic 3y ago
Anyone can edit Wikipedia.
- mycologos 3y ago
  Yes, in particular, anyone can add citations that you can check if you're skeptical. In this case, the citation is an article from science.org [1], which includes the following quote: > “They come off as real amateurs,” says Michael Norman, a theorist at Argonne National Laboratory. “They don't know much about superconductivity and the way they’ve presented some of the data is fishy.” On the other hand, he says, researchers at Argonne and elsewhere are already trying to replicate the experiment. “People here are taking it seriously and trying to grow this stuff.” [1] https://www.science.org/content/article/spectacular-superconductor-claim-making-news-here-s-why-experts-are-doubtful https://www.science.org/content/article/spectacular-supercon...
  - dmarchand90 3y ago
    What makes me excited is there is very good theoretical work, using 'standard techniques ' that shows it either is a superconductor or will have very good properties in designing one. Cold fusion, the EM drive, time traveling neutrinos, and all the other false excitement never had a theoretical backing. So 'guarded optimism' seems warranted
JustARandomGuy 3y ago
Argonne is a highly regarded national lab; results from there would be highly credible. Also an Argonne staffer has gone on record[0] saying that they're attempting to replicate, while other labs have not said whether they're trying or not. Personally I'm waiting for the Argonne results which should be done by the end of the week. [0] https://www.science.org/content/article/spectacular-superconductor-claim-making-news-here-s-why-experts-are-doubtful https://www.science.org/content/article/spectacular-supercon...

Filligree 3y ago

That grid is a direct copy of this one here: https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/claims-of-room-temperature-and-ambient-pressure-superconductor.1106083/unread https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/claims-of-room-tempe... …but isn’t sourced, presumably because they don’t consider SB to be professional enough.

capableweb 3y ago
Does not seem to be a direct copy (the Wikipedia missing things like Progress/Status, Reliability of Claim) and also, the Wikipedia page can be collaboratively kept up to date, while the other is a random forum post "owned" by one user and the owners of the platform.

awb 3y ago

The Response and Replication sections on Wikipedia seem far more skeptical and pessimistic about LK-99 than the average HN comment or news article.