4 ms·
They were. E.g. see here for a major, good paper announcing a novel class of superconductors: https://sci-hub.ru/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/bf01
by scarmig 3y ago
They were. E.g. see here for a major, good paper announcing a novel class of superconductors:
https://sci-hub.ru/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/bf01303701 https://sci-hub.ru/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007...
The difference now is that we're seeing a premature preprint being replicated in real time.
Even in that paper, the authors note: "The way the samples have been prepared seems
to be of crucial importance: Michel et al. [21] obtained a single-phase perovskite by mixing the oxides
of La and Cu and BaCOa in an appropriate ratio
and subsequent annealing at 1,000 ~ in air. We also
applied this annealing condition to one of our samples, obtained by the decomposition of the corresponding oxalates, and found no superconductivity." And you can see that in their resistivity/temperature graph of samples prepared using different protocols.
- pyrale 3y ago> a premature preprint Considering how that preprint has sparked interest in other research institutions and multiplied the resources allocated to the problem, I would say this publication was not premature, it's most other research results that are late.
- squeaky-clean 3y agoThe paper was leaked early. The team wanted more time to get more attempts at producing it and improving their yield. The paper also wasn't generally up to their writing standards. It's essentially an early draft that was leaked.
- gus_massa 3y agoIt looks like this worked in this material for years, perhaps the would have taken a few more years.