5 ms·

The quality and depth of the analysis here far exceeds the work done by the original Korean team. It is very unlikely the Korean team has successfully manufactu

The quality and depth of the analysis here far exceeds the work done by the original Korean team. It is very unlikely the Korean team has successfully manufactured the Cu-doped phase given the thermodynamic mountain required to climb, and its clear anybody attempting to replicate their recipe was essentially producing a random assortment of garbage. The Korean team needs to disclose any alternative formulations or just accept failure and move on.

ayakang31415 3y ago
The original Korean team paper was supposedly a rushed job because of inside fight at the research center, so it is expected the quality is poor by default. We still have to wait for a more polished proper research paper from the team to judge whether it is legit or not (APL material is their choice of journal I believe). We can speculate whether the Korean team has achieved superconductivity or they are under delusion based on replication papers published on arxiv, but such papers have never come under the scrutiny of peer review process as well. So I would reserve my conclusion about this at this stage. It is just frivolous to say whether LK-99 is superconductor or not for now.
- haldujai 3y ago
  > but such papers have never come under the scrutiny of peer review process as well. Except that such pre-prints far outnumber the supportive pre-prints, are from verifiable scientists at reputable institutions, are in agreement with each other, and are not making claims of a shocking scientific breakthrough. As there is no substantial evidence to support superconductivity claims it's reasonable to dismiss them until said group decides to provide evidence. If you recall the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. > It is just frivolous to say whether LK-99 is superconductor or not for now. I don't think it's frivolous given the distraction and resource-sink this has been.
thkim 3y ago
Original authors have been working on it for 23 years since they first found the material in 1999. They are part of private institution and have no incentive to rush the disclosure so that other labs can catch on their life's work. Authors already have stated they will publish more information next year. It's pretty arrogant to draw premature conclusions on quick analysis and demand the authors to disclose more information right now, when they are clearly not obligated to anything.
- bhouston 3y ago
  I’ve seen inside of privately funded research that doesn’t have publication requirements and sometimes it is driven by a combination of belief, passion and incompetence which leads to an avoidance of accepting failure. Not saying this is the case with this but please do not elevate private research above public research. There is actually less controls over the quality of private research.
  - thkim 3y ago
    I did not say I consider private research in some sort of higher level than public research. I only said they have no incentive to do full disclosure right now. Without knowing exactly what they know, it is insulting to authors to describe, or even hint, them as avoiding to accept failture. It is simply unwarranted ad-hominem and not contributing anything to academic discussion at this point.
    - haldujai 3y ago
      > It is simply unwarranted ad-hominem When the authors/executives of a private research company are making fraudulent affiliation claims to established corporations and research universities it's actually very warranted to be dismissive of their claims in the absence of supportive evidence. Especially when there is growing evidence suggestive of failure. This is not the behavior of ethical scientists and suggests malice. Faking affiliation and refusing to provide supportive evidence both smell like a fundraising scam (i.e. running out of money and need to raise more to continue research seems like the simplest explanation for this behavior). https://web.archive.org/web/20230806081911/https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/2023/08/03/business/tech/Korea-Quantum-Energy-Research-Centre-superconductor/20230803184638075.html https://web.archive.org/web/20230806081911/https://koreajoon...
      - thkim 3y ago
        Since when is ad hominem a part of evaluating claims?

ayakang31415 3y ago

The original Korean team paper was supposedly a rushed job because of inside fight at the research center, so it is expected the quality is poor by default. We still have to wait for a more polished proper research paper from the team to judge whether it is legit or not (APL material is their choice of journal I believe). We can speculate whether the Korean team has achieved superconductivity or they are under delusion based on replication papers published on arxiv, but such papers have never come under the scrutiny of peer review process as well. So I would reserve my conclusion about this at this stage. It is just frivolous to say whether LK-99 is superconductor or not for now.

haldujai 3y ago
> but such papers have never come under the scrutiny of peer review process as well. Except that such pre-prints far outnumber the supportive pre-prints, are from verifiable scientists at reputable institutions, are in agreement with each other, and are not making claims of a shocking scientific breakthrough. As there is no substantial evidence to support superconductivity claims it's reasonable to dismiss them until said group decides to provide evidence. If you recall the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. > It is just frivolous to say whether LK-99 is superconductor or not for now. I don't think it's frivolous given the distraction and resource-sink this has been.

thkim 3y ago

Original authors have been working on it for 23 years since they first found the material in 1999. They are part of private institution and have no incentive to rush the disclosure so that other labs can catch on their life's work. Authors already have stated they will publish more information next year. It's pretty arrogant to draw premature conclusions on quick analysis and demand the authors to disclose more information right now, when they are clearly not obligated to anything.

bhouston 3y ago
I’ve seen inside of privately funded research that doesn’t have publication requirements and sometimes it is driven by a combination of belief, passion and incompetence which leads to an avoidance of accepting failure. Not saying this is the case with this but please do not elevate private research above public research. There is actually less controls over the quality of private research.
- thkim 3y ago
  I did not say I consider private research in some sort of higher level than public research. I only said they have no incentive to do full disclosure right now. Without knowing exactly what they know, it is insulting to authors to describe, or even hint, them as avoiding to accept failture. It is simply unwarranted ad-hominem and not contributing anything to academic discussion at this point.
  - haldujai 3y ago
    > It is simply unwarranted ad-hominem When the authors/executives of a private research company are making fraudulent affiliation claims to established corporations and research universities it's actually very warranted to be dismissive of their claims in the absence of supportive evidence. Especially when there is growing evidence suggestive of failure. This is not the behavior of ethical scientists and suggests malice. Faking affiliation and refusing to provide supportive evidence both smell like a fundraising scam (i.e. running out of money and need to raise more to continue research seems like the simplest explanation for this behavior). https://web.archive.org/web/20230806081911/https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/2023/08/03/business/tech/Korea-Quantum-Energy-Research-Centre-superconductor/20230803184638075.html https://web.archive.org/web/20230806081911/https://koreajoon...
    - thkim 3y ago
      Since when is ad hominem a part of evaluating claims?