4 ms·

This is so reminiscent of what happened after Fleischmann & Pons. Labs attempting to replicate saw this property, or that property, but never the whole, unequiv

by gandik 3y ago

This is so reminiscent of what happened after Fleischmann & Pons. Labs attempting to replicate saw this property, or that property, but never the whole, unequivocal picture. Here we have a room temperature superconductor that isn't a superconductor at room temperature. A sample that has no measured Meissner Effect at any temperature. And the authors admit that some (many?) of the samples tested out as semiconductors. Also, they don't happen to mention how they measured resistance. 1mA current, yes, but what equipment? And what setup? Micro-measurement of resistance is hard. We really need to know more about that.

rsfern 3y ago
I agree with your first points, but the methods section states (somewhat unclearly) that they used this 4 point probe setup https://www.qdusa.com/products/ppms.html https://www.qdusa.com/products/ppms.html I have more questions about that, like why not calculate sheet resistivity instead of just showing that the resistance hits the noise floor?
segfaultbuserr 3y ago
I agree that the setup is not satisfactorily documented. > but what equipment? But at least this individual question is actually included in the paper. It was the Physical Property Measurement System (PPMS), manufactured by Quantum Design Inc. From the photo, one can clearly see that the DC resistance test fixture was used. https://www.qdusa.com/products/ppms.html https://www.qdusa.com/products/ppms.html
highwaylights 3y ago
I see. So what you’re saying is that if we replace the palladium with LK-99 then cold fusion is back on? You know, because hype. This is, as the kids say, very bullish.
- hindsightbias 3y ago
  I’d be happy if it just makes UFOs in focus.
carabiner 3y ago
I read more about F&P and wow, there are striking similarities. The duo probably weren't fraudsters. No intentional deception in their work was ever found, so not like Hendrik Schon. They were basically forced to make their results public by their university, but it was very premature and they should have waited ten years. They were 100% legit, top researchers in the field before all this, and well after the scandal many scientists continued research in avenues initiated by F&P's original experiments (with little success). I can totally see LK-99, once it fails replication in a month, leading to more research but probably not yielding the holy grail.
crote 3y ago
To me the biggest difference is the three theoretical papers, including from very reputable sources, all showing that a) there is indeed something weird going on with this material and b) due to the unusual configuration it is going to be tricky to manufacture. Fleischmann & Pons was never supported by theory and was essentially a "we measured something and have no idea what is going on". LK-99 is more of a "the theory says something interesting will probably happen, and we believe we measured it in some samples but can't reliably reproduce it".

by gandik 3y ago

rsfern 3y ago

I agree with your first points, but the methods section states (somewhat unclearly) that they used this 4 point probe setup https://www.qdusa.com/products/ppms.html https://www.qdusa.com/products/ppms.html I have more questions about that, like why not calculate sheet resistivity instead of just showing that the resistance hits the noise floor?

segfaultbuserr 3y ago

I agree that the setup is not satisfactorily documented. > but what equipment? But at least this individual question is actually included in the paper. It was the Physical Property Measurement System (PPMS), manufactured by Quantum Design Inc. From the photo, one can clearly see that the DC resistance test fixture was used. https://www.qdusa.com/products/ppms.html https://www.qdusa.com/products/ppms.html

highwaylights 3y ago

I see. So what you’re saying is that if we replace the palladium with LK-99 then cold fusion is back on? You know, because hype. This is, as the kids say, very bullish.

hindsightbias 3y ago
I’d be happy if it just makes UFOs in focus.

carabiner 3y ago

I read more about F&P and wow, there are striking similarities. The duo probably weren't fraudsters. No intentional deception in their work was ever found, so not like Hendrik Schon. They were basically forced to make their results public by their university, but it was very premature and they should have waited ten years. They were 100% legit, top researchers in the field before all this, and well after the scandal many scientists continued research in avenues initiated by F&P's original experiments (with little success). I can totally see LK-99, once it fails replication in a month, leading to more research but probably not yielding the holy grail.

crote 3y ago

To me the biggest difference is the three theoretical papers, including from very reputable sources, all showing that a) there is indeed something weird going on with this material and b) due to the unusual configuration it is going to be tricky to manufacture. Fleischmann & Pons was never supported by theory and was essentially a "we measured something and have no idea what is going on". LK-99 is more of a "the theory says something interesting will probably happen, and we believe we measured it in some samples but can't reliably reproduce it".