5 ms·

What happened to the original LK-99 samples that (allegedly) displayed SC properties? Were they just thrown in the dustbin, or what? I haven't seen that quest

What happened to the original LK-99 samples that (allegedly) displayed SC properties? Were they just thrown in the dustbin, or what? I haven't seen that question answered or even asked anywhere, but I'm just a layman so maybe I'm not looking in the right places.

Jweb_Guru 3y ago
They were refusing to share them with anyone reputable until today. Today, they said they would share them, so hopefully this will all be over soon (but IMO it's already resolved).
- canadiantim 3y ago
  Resolved in which way?
  - Jweb_Guru 3y ago
    It's not a room temperature ambient pressure superconductor. I should probably bet on it while there's still some value left here, I guess.
    - faraggi 3y ago
      Seeing how sure you are of this, you should go all in.
- carabiner 3y ago
  Link to where they said that today?
- lifthrasiir 3y ago
  > They were refusing to share them with anyone reputable until today. This is incorrect (under some definition of "reputable"), because KENTECH [1] has reportedly received samples from Q-Center for the analysis, which started on July (following the MOU on May) and is estimated to finish within 6 months. Whether KENTECH is reputable or not, and whether it should be considered affiliated with Q-Center is of course debatable. [1] https://www.kentech.ac.kr/ https://www.kentech.ac.kr/
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Jweb_Guru 3y ago
    I don't consider a replication attempt with a lab in a commercial relationship with another lab, that has essentially embargoed the results for six months, credible.
    - lifthrasiir 3y ago
      Of course, but you don't waste your lab time with useless samples. KENTECH must have seen something to actually allocate resources for the analysis. The recent interview with the vice president of KENTECH said that the initial request was in 2017, when samples were not really reproducible and too impure for analysis, but it was only this year when samples are good enough and can be actually analyzed---if it's just a fake they could have done so in 2017 instead.
lifthrasiir 3y ago
There are at least 2 samples definitely produced: one in the original videos and another in the video released by Hyun-Tak Kim via nytimes which definitely look different. It is unclear if the sample sent to KENTECH for the analysis is the first sample or a fresh one. Young-Wan Kwon is also known to have his own sample (confirmed in MML 2023 sightings), but it is unclear whether it's distinct from other samples too. Interviews with Q-Center folks suggest that the yield is high enough to produce a handful but not large number of samples at once, so there are probably much less than 100 samples available, which might be one of the reasons they were initially hesitant to share samples to others. (There are tons of groups want to get samples, if it's unclear.)
- rurban 3y ago
  If you cite Korean (or Chinese or Japanese) names, please write them correct. There is no Hyun-Tak Kim, he is called Kim Hyun-Tak. Likewise Kwon Young-Wan. In Korean it's trivial to detect, in Chinese not so, in Japanese very hard.
  - lifthrasiir 3y ago
    These are just how they wrote their own names in arXiv papers [1]. I don't know about Young-Wan Kwon, but Hyun-Tak Kim is a research professor in US university and should have settled on that matter. After all I'm also Korean and I prefer my name to be written as "Kang Seonghoon" (i.e. the surname first), but I often go pragmatic and use "Seonghoon Kang" instead in order to be consistent with others. I'm very much aware of this issue. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12008 https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12008 and https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12037 https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12037
  - throw-7462637 3y ago
    Ouch. This comment backfired quite badly. Turns out the person being replied to is Korean, the commenter is likely not, and in addition this is how the authors wrote their names themselves. Yet I do not wish this comment to be snarky. I’m interested in the broader perspective (and I apologize in advance to the parent for using this as an hook). The comment seems common of the present era in which polarization (leading to prejudice against anyone we believe is outside our in-group), and short attention span (leading to drive by/poorly researched comments), combine to low empathy among us. And just to be clear, I’m not putting myself above this, on a bad day this kind of comment could have come from me. Am I right and things were better on the past on the empathy axis? Or am I exaggerating and getting old?

Jweb_Guru 3y ago

They were refusing to share them with anyone reputable until today. Today, they said they would share them, so hopefully this will all be over soon (but IMO it's already resolved).

canadiantim 3y ago
Resolved in which way?
- Jweb_Guru 3y ago
  It's not a room temperature ambient pressure superconductor. I should probably bet on it while there's still some value left here, I guess.
  - faraggi 3y ago
    Seeing how sure you are of this, you should go all in.
carabiner 3y ago
Link to where they said that today?
lifthrasiir 3y ago
> They were refusing to share them with anyone reputable until today. This is incorrect (under some definition of "reputable"), because KENTECH [1] has reportedly received samples from Q-Center for the analysis, which started on July (following the MOU on May) and is estimated to finish within 6 months. Whether KENTECH is reputable or not, and whether it should be considered affiliated with Q-Center is of course debatable. [1] https://www.kentech.ac.kr/ https://www.kentech.ac.kr/
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Jweb_Guru 3y ago
  I don't consider a replication attempt with a lab in a commercial relationship with another lab, that has essentially embargoed the results for six months, credible.
  - lifthrasiir 3y ago
    Of course, but you don't waste your lab time with useless samples. KENTECH must have seen something to actually allocate resources for the analysis. The recent interview with the vice president of KENTECH said that the initial request was in 2017, when samples were not really reproducible and too impure for analysis, but it was only this year when samples are good enough and can be actually analyzed---if it's just a fake they could have done so in 2017 instead.

lifthrasiir 3y ago

There are at least 2 samples definitely produced: one in the original videos and another in the video released by Hyun-Tak Kim via nytimes which definitely look different. It is unclear if the sample sent to KENTECH for the analysis is the first sample or a fresh one. Young-Wan Kwon is also known to have his own sample (confirmed in MML 2023 sightings), but it is unclear whether it's distinct from other samples too. Interviews with Q-Center folks suggest that the yield is high enough to produce a handful but not large number of samples at once, so there are probably much less than 100 samples available, which might be one of the reasons they were initially hesitant to share samples to others. (There are tons of groups want to get samples, if it's unclear.)

rurban 3y ago
If you cite Korean (or Chinese or Japanese) names, please write them correct. There is no Hyun-Tak Kim, he is called Kim Hyun-Tak. Likewise Kwon Young-Wan. In Korean it's trivial to detect, in Chinese not so, in Japanese very hard.
- lifthrasiir 3y ago
  These are just how they wrote their own names in arXiv papers [1]. I don't know about Young-Wan Kwon, but Hyun-Tak Kim is a research professor in US university and should have settled on that matter. After all I'm also Korean and I prefer my name to be written as "Kang Seonghoon" (i.e. the surname first), but I often go pragmatic and use "Seonghoon Kang" instead in order to be consistent with others. I'm very much aware of this issue. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12008 https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12008 and https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12037 https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12037
- throw-7462637 3y ago
  Ouch. This comment backfired quite badly. Turns out the person being replied to is Korean, the commenter is likely not, and in addition this is how the authors wrote their names themselves. Yet I do not wish this comment to be snarky. I’m interested in the broader perspective (and I apologize in advance to the parent for using this as an hook). The comment seems common of the present era in which polarization (leading to prejudice against anyone we believe is outside our in-group), and short attention span (leading to drive by/poorly researched comments), combine to low empathy among us. And just to be clear, I’m not putting myself above this, on a bad day this kind of comment could have come from me. Am I right and things were better on the past on the empathy axis? Or am I exaggerating and getting old?