4 ms·
I thought it was a poor point. The paper proposed a new mechanism for the superconductivity, which would have been a bigger deal than this specific formulation
by seiferteric 3y ago
I thought it was a poor point. The paper proposed a new mechanism for the superconductivity, which would have been a bigger deal than this specific formulation (lk-99). If it were true, it would be a new class of superconductors which I would think this would lead to development of new formulations that perhaps had better properties. Plus as others have said, superconductor material can and is deposited on tapes (see ReBCO) to make it usable.
- EvgeniyZh 3y agoThey didn't propose new class of superconductors. They conjectured that LK99 follows some 25-year-old theory from a paper written in Korean. Leaving alone the fact that the theory doesn't make much sense to me (at least the parts I managed to understand), there was no evidence in the LK-99 paper that this mechanism is indeed what makes LK99 superconductive (or more precisely that it is present in LK99).