4 ms·
So they saw a large change in resistivity at 104C but what's not clear from this excerpt is why the Cu2S was a confounding factor, or isnt interesting. Is it t
by djtango 3y ago
So they saw a large change in resistivity at 104C but what's not clear from this excerpt is why the Cu2S was a confounding factor, or isnt interesting.
Is it that LK99 had impurities of Cu2S and the properties of Cu2S dominated but we already know things about Cu2S?
- masklinn 3y agoPer the article, CU2S was well-characterised in the 50s. The CU2S was a confounding factor because 104C is where it undergoes phase changes, which drastically change its resistivity. So the change in resistivity was from the CU2S impurities, not the LK99 itself. As the tail end of the article notes, when researchers grew a completely pure crystal of LK99 they got a strong insulator (in the mega-ohms). And as a nearby commenter notes, neither 0.02 ohm-cm nor 0.002 ohm-cm is even a good conductor: typical conductor metals (gold, copper, silver, aluminum) are under 3e-6.