4 ms·
What's different here is that this sample is exhibiting some of the properties that a successful sample would, indicating that this is not an outright dud. They
by nisegami 3y ago
What's different here is that this sample is exhibiting some of the properties that a successful sample would, indicating that this is not an outright dud. They also seem to have an explanation for why/how they might observe those properties but not superconductivity.
This is in contrast to someone claiming their sample did not exhibit any of the properties of LK-99 at all.
- lifthrasiir 3y agoBut that's not enough, because this sample alone doesn't explain the extreme variability of other samples. This conclusion is only possible under the assumption that all other samples are bad or incorrectly measured---a highly unlikely event. In particular they were needlessly critical of Southeast University before [1], which reported the increasing resistance up to ~230 K, then a sudden drop til ~255 K, then back to the normalish curve. I previously criticised that the purported "zero resistance" below ~110 K is misleading, while I was unsure about the drop, but at least it does show the completely opposite trend to the PKU result and CMTC should have explained (or refuted) this as well. [1] https://twitter.com/condensed_the/status/1686895266329174016 https://twitter.com/condensed_the/status/1686895266329174016