5 ms·

What are the practical implications of this?

by wayvey 3y ago

tareqak 3y ago
Perhaps scientists will create a checklist for performing experiments on potential superconductive materials with caveats and gotchas. A team going down the checklist would either demonstrate one of 1. They performed the step in the checklist and provide the corresponding sufficient/exhaustive evidence of having done so. 2. An explanation as to why that step is not applicable allowing them to skip said step. An afterthought: 3. The following will not always be possible for any given experiment. However, the LK-99 experiment used cheap materials and a relatively straightforward process to create the material (from my readings of what others have said), I think the scientists in question should have attempted to reproduce the results of their experiment and document the number of successful attempts versus total attempts.
- EvgeniyZh 3y ago
  1. Check that it actually superconducts
  - OJFord 3y ago
    That's not trivial, because if it's known to be impure then you expect some resistance in your measurement, you already know it won't be 0R. And if you think it is pure and superconducting then how low does your test equipment go anyway? I'm not an expert in the field at all, but aiui that's why they would have been looking at what seem like roundabout tests etc. that don't seem like they're actually addressing what's interesting.
    - EvgeniyZh 3y ago
      Impurities shouldn't increase resistance unless you have no supercondting path between your probes. If you don't, other tests will be hardly conclusive either. And yeah, you want the equipment sensitive enough to see that it is better than good metal like copper, which may be nontrivial in case your critical current is low. After that, you can move on to other measurements
- CharlieDigital 3y ago
  This is basic software/systems validation that's required in many industries (my experience being in life sciences, but have also seen this in aerospace). Is there no analogue in the physical sciences?
neolefty 3y ago
We know why it fooled everybody, but AFAIK the material doesn't have any outstanding properties. With certain impurities and under certain conditions, it: - has a striking drop in resistivity during a temperature change — a property published in 1951 as a property of copper sulfide - has some ferromagnetic properties — enough to be tipped up in a magnetic field but not to levitate
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  some ferromagnetic properties I'm still interested int hat, as it seems like it could be quite useful and the LK-99 material is not especially hard to produce.

What are the practical implications of this?

by wayvey 3y ago

What are the practical implications of this?

Perhaps scientists will create a checklist for performing experiments on potential superconductive materials with caveats and gotchas. A team going down the checklist would either demonstrate one of 1. They performed the step in the checklist and provide the corresponding sufficient/exhaustive evidence of having done so. 2. An explanation as to why that step is not applicable allowing them to skip said step. An afterthought: 3. The following will not always be possible for any given experiment. However, the LK-99 experiment used cheap materials and a relatively straightforward process to create the material (from my readings of what others have said), I think the scientists in question should have attempted to reproduce the results of their experiment and document the number of successful attempts versus total attempts.

EvgeniyZh 3y ago
1. Check that it actually superconducts
- OJFord 3y ago
  That's not trivial, because if it's known to be impure then you expect some resistance in your measurement, you already know it won't be 0R. And if you think it is pure and superconducting then how low does your test equipment go anyway? I'm not an expert in the field at all, but aiui that's why they would have been looking at what seem like roundabout tests etc. that don't seem like they're actually addressing what's interesting.
  - EvgeniyZh 3y ago
    Impurities shouldn't increase resistance unless you have no supercondting path between your probes. If you don't, other tests will be hardly conclusive either. And yeah, you want the equipment sensitive enough to see that it is better than good metal like copper, which may be nontrivial in case your critical current is low. After that, you can move on to other measurements
CharlieDigital 3y ago
This is basic software/systems validation that's required in many industries (my experience being in life sciences, but have also seen this in aerospace). Is there no analogue in the physical sciences?

neolefty 3y ago

We know why it fooled everybody, but AFAIK the material doesn't have any outstanding properties. With certain impurities and under certain conditions, it: - has a striking drop in resistivity during a temperature change — a property published in 1951 as a property of copper sulfide - has some ferromagnetic properties — enough to be tipped up in a magnetic field but not to levitate

anigbrowl 3y ago
some ferromagnetic properties I'm still interested int hat, as it seems like it could be quite useful and the LK-99 material is not especially hard to produce.