3 ms·
Yes this is LK-99 derived. (See the paper's reference 4 and 5.) Eh, of course it is unlikely LK-99 is bogus and this one is not, but then the correct conclusion
by sanxiyn 3y ago
Yes this is LK-99 derived. (See the paper's reference 4 and 5.) Eh, of course it is unlikely LK-99 is bogus and this one is not, but then the correct conclusion to draw is that LK-99 is not bogus?
- gus_massa 3y agoPerhaps LK-99 is bogus, and they were triying to reproduce the result, they failed succesfully and they got another similar compound that is not bogus.
- gfodor 3y agoThat’s possible but far less likely than the alternative explanation that either this is bunk too or LK-99 contained signal that people dismissed due to a hole in our methodology.
- mort96 3y agoWait how are all the flaws in the paper and all the failed reproductions of LK-99 and all the signs that LK-99 is just diamagnetism compatible with LK-99 being a proper superconductor?
- Accujack 3y agoThe thing is.... all the failed reproductions of LK-99 were based on the leaked version of the paper, which according to the authors is missing some information/steps for production. They said they would publish the complete/final version of the paper in 2024, waiting to see that.