4 ms·
Which is a useful data point. But the wide variety of samples indicates that there isn't convergence yet on what the intended process is. Until that happens an
by threeseed 3y ago
Which is a useful data point.
But the wide variety of samples indicates that there isn't convergence yet on what the intended process is. Until that happens any conclusions are just data points - nothing more, nothing less.
- whimsicalism 3y agoThe fact that they were able to replicate the original effect (what people thought was flux pinning) that made everyone think it is superconductivity and then conclusively show that it is not superconductivity is pretty strong evidence.
- versteegen 3y agoThat's exactly what I thought at first. And then I realised that the 'ferromagnetism+diamagnetism' article does not actually provide a mundane explanation of the "half levitation": They estimated that their sample had very strong diamagnetism -- at least the 2nd strongest of any known (non-SC) substance, assuming their sample was pure (but we can assumeit isn't, considering that they just had one tiny flake levitate), so quite possibly the strongest. And superconductivity is a possible cause of diamagnetism. It still hugely weakens the levitation effect as evidence for SC, but "conclusively show that it is not superconductivity" is not quite true.
- whimsicalism 3y agoThere is no meissner effect, so it is not superconductive. I worked in this field, the paper as described is pretty damning. I think your reasoning is motivated.