3 ms·

Could someone explain why this is important? What is the consequence of the existence of Superconductors like that?

kvandy 3y ago
My understanding is that this unlocks future-tech... Post quantum computing, hyper efficient rail tech, fast charging batteries, etc. Pretty neat stuff, and even cooler to be able to follow this as it develops.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
n2d4 3y ago
In the most ELI5 way possible, a superconductor is a material that doesn't lose any energy or produce heat when used as a cable/wire, and at the same time also a very strong magnet. MRIs and powerlines are more obvious applications, but theoretically you can do a lot of cool stuff (batteries with zero energy loss, heat-efficient computers, etc [1]). If true, LK-99 would allow these things to happen at room temperature instead of negative whatever degrees, making them much more useful. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_applications_of_superconductivity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_applications_o...
booleandilemma 3y ago
I like this HN comment explaining it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36978704 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36978704
dgoldstein0 3y ago
The biggest near future tech for superconductors: fusion power. One huge area of exploration for fusion power is tokamok reactor design, which requires a very strong magnetic field to confine plasma within a round shape - typically a torus, though I think I read of one spherical shell. I suppose these don't necessarily need room temperature super conductors, but cheaper and easier to manufacture superconducting materials to use as the magnets could make a huge difference. And I do wonder if allowing higher temperatures could aid in the operability of these future devices. https://spectrum.ieee.org/fusion-2662267312 https://spectrum.ieee.org/fusion-2662267312 is one I read about recently, using YBaCuO as the superconducting electromagnet. Definitely sounds bottlenecked on production of it. Fusion power, as any energy source that massively increases the amount of energy humans can harness, could be planet changing.
- coderenegade 3y ago
  I think energy storage, motors / accelerators and weapons would come first. A superconducting linear motor would probably also make for a great cannon.
  - ssijak 3y ago
    shooting satellites to orbit with cannons
    - dgoldstein0 3y ago
      Can this even work? Seems like air resistance would make applying all the force at ground level problematic - you'll have higher max Q and higher energy losses to air than if a conventional ticket delivered the same push over a longer period
  - DoingIsLearning 3y ago
    If we are talking DARPA money, I think working out how to build IC sensors using this stuff would be much quicker to reach manufacturing then a large scale motor winding. I am sure defense folks would have a field day with new sensors with virtually no thermal noise.
  - dgoldstein0 3y ago
    Yeah, you're probably right - fusion has a lot of hard problems to solve. But for it, cheaper superconductors could be the game changer we need. For these other things... We already have energy storage, motors, weapons etc. It's certainly reasonable to think we could build better ones but I'm more excited for fusion, as it has the ability to solve climate change and provide cheap electricity to the billions who don't yet have it at the same time, probably resulting in double digit economic growth in many places.
    - coderenegade 3y ago
      I think that's reasonable, though I'm skeptical that fusion would solve climate change even if we perfected it tomorrow. It still has the issue of radioactive waste at end-of-plant-life since all of the critical parts are irradiated. It also doesn't solve the issue of chemical processes that release a good chunk of total CO2 emissions, and are largely independent of energy production. I think the thing solves our environmental issues is actually industrial electrolysis, because then it doesn't really matter what your power source is, you have a means of decarbonizing chemical processes, and an incentive to commoditize carbon. Essentially, waste would have value, because it's a cheap source of carbon that can be used with hydrogen to create methanol, dme, etc. Not to mention, hydrogen salt cavern storage is proven at scale for 4 decades now to the tune of 350GWhs or so, and it lets us decarbonize agriculture and cement production. I guess fusion might help make energy cheaper for these processes, but I don't really see that it matters if they're powered by fission or wind and solar. But if we can't get electrolysis cheap enough, then I don't see these processes being decarbonized until we're almost out of fossil fuels. My 2c, anyway.

My understanding is that this unlocks future-tech... Post quantum computing, hyper efficient rail tech, fast charging batteries, etc. Pretty neat stuff, and even cooler to be able to follow this as it develops.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

n2d4 3y ago

In the most ELI5 way possible, a superconductor is a material that doesn't lose any energy or produce heat when used as a cable/wire, and at the same time also a very strong magnet. MRIs and powerlines are more obvious applications, but theoretically you can do a lot of cool stuff (batteries with zero energy loss, heat-efficient computers, etc [1]). If true, LK-99 would allow these things to happen at room temperature instead of negative whatever degrees, making them much more useful. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_applications_of_superconductivity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_applications_o...

booleandilemma 3y ago

I like this HN comment explaining it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36978704 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36978704

dgoldstein0 3y ago

The biggest near future tech for superconductors: fusion power. One huge area of exploration for fusion power is tokamok reactor design, which requires a very strong magnetic field to confine plasma within a round shape - typically a torus, though I think I read of one spherical shell. I suppose these don't necessarily need room temperature super conductors, but cheaper and easier to manufacture superconducting materials to use as the magnets could make a huge difference. And I do wonder if allowing higher temperatures could aid in the operability of these future devices. https://spectrum.ieee.org/fusion-2662267312 https://spectrum.ieee.org/fusion-2662267312 is one I read about recently, using YBaCuO as the superconducting electromagnet. Definitely sounds bottlenecked on production of it. Fusion power, as any energy source that massively increases the amount of energy humans can harness, could be planet changing.

coderenegade 3y ago
I think energy storage, motors / accelerators and weapons would come first. A superconducting linear motor would probably also make for a great cannon.
- ssijak 3y ago
  shooting satellites to orbit with cannons
  - dgoldstein0 3y ago
    Can this even work? Seems like air resistance would make applying all the force at ground level problematic - you'll have higher max Q and higher energy losses to air than if a conventional ticket delivered the same push over a longer period
- DoingIsLearning 3y ago
  If we are talking DARPA money, I think working out how to build IC sensors using this stuff would be much quicker to reach manufacturing then a large scale motor winding. I am sure defense folks would have a field day with new sensors with virtually no thermal noise.
- dgoldstein0 3y ago
  Yeah, you're probably right - fusion has a lot of hard problems to solve. But for it, cheaper superconductors could be the game changer we need. For these other things... We already have energy storage, motors, weapons etc. It's certainly reasonable to think we could build better ones but I'm more excited for fusion, as it has the ability to solve climate change and provide cheap electricity to the billions who don't yet have it at the same time, probably resulting in double digit economic growth in many places.
  - coderenegade 3y ago
    I think that's reasonable, though I'm skeptical that fusion would solve climate change even if we perfected it tomorrow. It still has the issue of radioactive waste at end-of-plant-life since all of the critical parts are irradiated. It also doesn't solve the issue of chemical processes that release a good chunk of total CO2 emissions, and are largely independent of energy production. I think the thing solves our environmental issues is actually industrial electrolysis, because then it doesn't really matter what your power source is, you have a means of decarbonizing chemical processes, and an incentive to commoditize carbon. Essentially, waste would have value, because it's a cheap source of carbon that can be used with hydrogen to create methanol, dme, etc. Not to mention, hydrogen salt cavern storage is proven at scale for 4 decades now to the tune of 350GWhs or so, and it lets us decarbonize agriculture and cement production. I guess fusion might help make energy cheaper for these processes, but I don't really see that it matters if they're powered by fission or wind and solar. But if we can't get electrolysis cheap enough, then I don't see these processes being decarbonized until we're almost out of fossil fuels. My 2c, anyway.