Unconfirmed video showing potential LK-99 sample exhibiting the Meissner effect(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Unconfirmed video showing potential LK-99 sample exhibiting the Meissner effect
https://twitter.com/zebulgar/status/1686498517227814912
182 コメント
I had to look up "high-temperature superconductor" since it read like a typo:
> High-temperature superconductors (abbreviated high-Tc or HTS) are defined as materials that behave as superconductors at temperatures above 77 K (−196.2 °C; −321.1 °F), the boiling point of liquid nitrogen. They are only "high-temperature" relative to previously known superconductors, which function at even colder temperatures, close to absolute zero.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_superconducti...
> High-temperature superconductors (abbreviated high-Tc or HTS) are defined as materials that behave as superconductors at temperatures above 77 K (−196.2 °C; −321.1 °F), the boiling point of liquid nitrogen. They are only "high-temperature" relative to previously known superconductors, which function at even colder temperatures, close to absolute zero.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_superconducti...
Despite their names suggesting otherwise, high-temperature superconductors actually require a colder environment than their room-temperature counterparts. This may seem counterintuitive, yet it's a perfect illustration of the idiosyncrasies that arise within complex systems that evolve over time. These naming conventions, like the codebases in large corporations, are the outcome of continual modifications that are so deeply ingrained, a complete overhaul would be prohibitively costly. When examining such codebases, inconsistencies and discrepancies are common, and they can appear almost ludicrous when compared side by side. However, it's crucial to understand that they are not mistakes, but rather footprints in the path of progression, mapping out the convoluted journey of technological evolution.
This is an awful lot of analysis for “it’s high-temperature relative to the superconductors that preceded it”
See very high frequency VHF and ultra high frequency UHF and super high frequency SHF.
High-Speed USB High-Temprature Superconductor
Phrasing it as if high temperature and room temperature are separate categories makes it sound more confusing than it is.
It's all relative: the "high temperature" is high compared to absolute zero (~77 K higher), but much lower than "room temperature" (which is defined as around 20° C). And of course these are separate categories, because room temperature is another ~220 K higher than "high temperature" (and also because "high temperature semiconductors" are common by now, whereas "room temperature semiconductors" remain the holy grail).
Superconductor. We have plenty of room temperature semiconductors around
Had to : https://xkcd.com/2798/
Oh, right, sorry! But unfortunately too late to edit my comment :(
It's a subset.
It's only becoming confusing as the vocabulary begins to leak from specialists into general public.
[deleted]
Sounds like a ChatGPT comment. Either way, you didn’t need to post this.
> Sounds like a ChatGPT comment.
Uh? No it does not.
> Either way, you didn’t need to post this.
Who made you the arbiter of that?
The comment made very good points. It explained how counter intuitive these particular technical terms are, explained the history behind this, and generalised this phenomenon to things some us might have more experience with.
I want to read more of that kind of comment not less.
Uh? No it does not.
> Either way, you didn’t need to post this.
Who made you the arbiter of that?
The comment made very good points. It explained how counter intuitive these particular technical terms are, explained the history behind this, and generalised this phenomenon to things some us might have more experience with.
I want to read more of that kind of comment not less.
I agree it doesn't sound like ChatGPT and the little codebase reference ChatGPT would not normally include.
The "However, ..." section at the end is a very common trope for ChatGTP to put some qualifications on what it just said and backpedal a bit. That is the only part that I feel might be confused for ChatGPT.
The "However, ..." section at the end is a very common trope for ChatGTP to put some qualifications on what it just said and backpedal a bit. That is the only part that I feel might be confused for ChatGPT.
Your penchance for scolding notwithstanding, I appreciated the parent comment's content.
In the case of high temperature superconductors, I imagine this new discovery will overturn the old terminology.
> In the case of high temperature superconductors, I imagine this new discovery will overturn the old terminology.
Nah, it'll stick around and you'll just have people talking about very high temperature superconductors.
Nah, it'll stick around and you'll just have people talking about very high temperature superconductors.
GPT-edited comment detected :(
It's funny, right?
The content and the structure of the comment are both "high-quality" and useful, but at the same time they are of a very specific type of "quality" (the school essay format) that clearly rings ChatGPT-like.
Does HN have an official stance on AI-written comments?
The content and the structure of the comment are both "high-quality" and useful, but at the same time they are of a very specific type of "quality" (the school essay format) that clearly rings ChatGPT-like.
Does HN have an official stance on AI-written comments?
The official policy is to tear the human behind them to small, bloody pieces with claws and razors.
Sounds about right for how to best treat our human overlords.
Looks like we're going to need a VHTS and UHTS. Exciting times.
WQUXGA Superconductor.
We have RTS
Ultra mega high definition superbconductor
[deleted]
It's like "High Frequency" radio waves, which are actually at the low end of the spectrum used in practice today.
> a single monolithic magnet
How can you tell though? There are magnets which look like a single thing, but the polarity switches on the same side multiple times (sorry, I don't know what they're actually called).
How can you tell though? There are magnets which look like a single thing, but the polarity switches on the same side multiple times (sorry, I don't know what they're actually called).
I've heard them called programmable magnets:
https://www.magnet-sdm.com/2019/11/21/programmable-magnetize...
That being said, I highly doubt they are using one in this video.
https://www.magnet-sdm.com/2019/11/21/programmable-magnetize...
That being said, I highly doubt they are using one in this video.
Because of prediction markets like https://polymarket.com/event/is-the-room-temp-superconductor... there is a reason to put in an effort to fake this.
This is very well done if faked (dated up the top left), so it would be another first if it was a real fake. That would also be exciting.
The strange things are...
No one else can find it yet.
It's not a phone video off a monitor, it's an actual video, time stamped and watermarked. Poster says Twitter is lowing the quality. It's also a strange aspect ratio and position for lab video (that watermarks a date).
It's watermarked with a unknown watermark.
Twitter account is brand new.
This is very well done if faked (dated up the top left), so it would be another first if it was a real fake. That would also be exciting.
The strange things are...
No one else can find it yet.
It's not a phone video off a monitor, it's an actual video, time stamped and watermarked. Poster says Twitter is lowing the quality. It's also a strange aspect ratio and position for lab video (that watermarks a date).
It's watermarked with a unknown watermark.
Twitter account is brand new.
The "LTC" watermark in blue might refer to "linear timecode" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_timecode and I guess it's possible whatever equipment they used to embed the timestamp in the video also adds this watermark.
Interesting. This market is illegal in the US yeah? Violates CFTC letter
e: Looked it up, they got fined a few million a year ago so now US users cannot bet
e: Looked it up, they got fined a few million a year ago so now US users cannot bet
Thanks so much for the link to Polymarket. I haven't seen a prediction site since Intrade.
There is not enough liquidity. The max profit you can take from that market by betting on yes at this point is around $17,000. It probably costs something like that or more to do a convincing fake at this point.
How would it possibly cost $17k to make a shit quality video like that?
If "either get your hands on high temperature superconductors or use CGI" is on the to-do list, it's not a good project for only a $17k payoff.
In case anyone missed previous videos
Two from HUST: https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV14p4y1V7kS/ https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV13k4y1G7i1/
One by USTC https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1Ex4y1X7ix/ this tiny sample can stand on its pointy side.
Another by Qufu Normal University https://www.zhihu.com/zvideo/1669820225079070720
Two from HUST: https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV14p4y1V7kS/ https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV13k4y1G7i1/
One by USTC https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1Ex4y1X7ix/ this tiny sample can stand on its pointy side.
Another by Qufu Normal University https://www.zhihu.com/zvideo/1669820225079070720
Curious, what does the text flying by on the screen say on the bilibili video? I’m always amazing at the cultural differences in design and how Chinese apps tend to always be so busy. Everything feels like a slot machine.
That thing is called "弹幕DanMu" (Barrage), which is a type of synchronized comment that appears alongside video playback. In this video, most of the comments are related to "taking a group photo" and "sending blessings". Perhaps because Chinese characters can convey more information in shorter sentences, this form of commentary is not as popular in other places, but it can actually be quite interesting. It provides an interactive experience that transcends time and space. On Bilibili, you can adjust the display area, font size, transparency, scroll speed, and intelligent prevention of blocking the main content for danmu. If you don't like it, you can turn it off.
For reference, Bilibili started as a direct clone of Acfun (which itself is a clone of Niconico).
I recall reading about this in Logic mag a while back: https://logicmag.io/china/bullet-time/
I have seen it on SoundCloud for what it’s worth.
It originated from the japanese video sharing website Niconico. It gives the users a sense of participation. Some twitch streams also have on-screen elements that can be controlled by chat. Many twitch viewers enjoy chaos and like mindlessly spamming and reposting copypastas.
They are user comments:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danmaku_subtitling
Compared to regular comments on say youtube, these kinda give a time element to the comments, when they should appear in the video playback
Compared to regular comments on say youtube, these kinda give a time element to the comments, when they should appear in the video playback
Youtube annotations (those coloured speech-bubbles that did not work on mobile) were (mis)used in a similar way - some uploaders opened them for everybody, allowing all users to leave a "comment" in form of an annotation at a certain point in the video.
Watching movies on Chinese movie sites also gives you these comments.
I think they're insanely distracting, and they only get worse the better I get at understanding them. But then again, people disagree on whether you should talk during movies, too. If it's a bad movie, sometimes the user commentary is better.
I think they're insanely distracting, and they only get worse the better I get at understanding them. But then again, people disagree on whether you should talk during movies, too. If it's a bad movie, sometimes the user commentary is better.
adding another from a person affiliated with THU https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV14z4y1s7Vo/
The original source of the video (from a telegram channel?) has the rock floating horizontally, which would make an actual superconductor much more plausible.
https://twitter.com/vasuttomas0423/status/168642344021411840...
https://twitter.com/vasuttomas0423/status/168642344021411840...
I think this is basically "leaking" things that are intended to be published later in papers and journals.
Could be a horizontal video that was rotated
It is, the same author posted a rotated version in the replies: https://nitter.net/667keos/status/1686490898480173056#m
That's not the same author, is it?
I’m extremely confused why people claiming to make (or corroborate) a massive scientific discovery are using potatoes to film their evidence.
Perhaps an effect from how small the pieces are? Even a "non-potato" camera will have problems with tiny things at close ranges unless you have additional lenses/equipment.
Yeah. To film a small sample properly you want a camera with manual focus such as a mirrorless and a proper macro lens. Not a setup you’d find sitting around a lab unless you were making videos like this regularly.
Yeah I have a feeling university labs aren't exactly well funded enough to just have a DSLR on hand. All of these videos are probably taken with the researcher's phone.
It's not that they aren't well enough funded to have a DSLR on hand. They'll often have very much more expensive cameras in the lab, but they'll be purpose-built into other very expensive equipment such as microscopes. It's more that a requirement to take DSLR-type photos in a lab is so very rare and unusual that they don't bother getting one, and then when there is a sudden need to take a photo of something startling, the nearest camera (the phone in the pocket) is reached for. Clearly if there were a requirement to take a quality photo for a journal, then the correct piece of equipment would be obtained, but these images that we're seeing aren't intended for that.
On the other hand, nerds and photography kind of go hand in hand. I find it doubtful none of the researchers have a nice camera kit.
Well, that's the kind of equipment you usually have around in laboratories.
You fight wars with the army you have, not the army you want.
In this day and age, practically everyone has a potato in their pocket. Almost noone has a professional video camera with requisite lens assembly costing at least several grand total in their pocket (not that one would fit in there).
In this day and age, practically everyone has a potato in their pocket. Almost noone has a professional video camera with requisite lens assembly costing at least several grand total in their pocket (not that one would fit in there).
Would the iPhone 15 with Macro lens work?
Unless you have a way to manually control the focus, I doubt it. Tracking a tiny target like that above a magnet would confuse the auto focus on just about any camera. With manual focus and very steady hands, maybe?
The best results I've had with small things are using the super zoom telephoto lenses like on samsung s22. I haven't seen a smartphone macro lens that takes decent photos of things yet (unless the subject is perfectly still). Perhaps the latest gen has found a way but in smartphone land you're mostly relying on software post processing since they capture so little light.
The best results I've had with small things are using the super zoom telephoto lenses like on samsung s22. I haven't seen a smartphone macro lens that takes decent photos of things yet (unless the subject is perfectly still). Perhaps the latest gen has found a way but in smartphone land you're mostly relying on software post processing since they capture so little light.
If just taking pictures, it is doable with an iPhone, but you probably have to fire a series of snaps to get a decent one. I tried taking a picture of a ordinary garden ant at some point, and it came out surprisingly well. That's rather difficult because the little critters refuse to chill still.
The iPhone 15 doesn’t launch until September.
Sorry, 14
My phone couldn't make this video, and I picked the model based on the camera.
Every single thing bought in the lab has to be justified. If there had not been a need to take videos of hovering mm-scale superconducting fragments before, a good videography setup may not be present in the lab. And don’t get me started on what it would take to GET one…
From the same guy who posted the video:
>The videos I have are undoubtedly clearer than this one. It seems that the video quality is getting compromised when uploading it to Twitter.
https://twitter.com/VasutTomas0423/status/168658616920589926...
>The videos I have are undoubtedly clearer than this one. It seems that the video quality is getting compromised when uploading it to Twitter.
https://twitter.com/VasutTomas0423/status/168658616920589926...
Even given that this work should get cut a lot of slack, that seems pretty weak. YouTube, vimeo?
Welcome to the future where convenience is king, regardless of context.
This whole saga is so exciting to watch. Maybe someone with a background in material science and/or engineering can help me out with a question: _If_ LK-99 turns out to be a room temperature superconductor how likely do you think it will be that we figure out how to to mass produce it in sufficient quality and quantity so that it can in fact be used for all the exciting applications we have for rtscs?
I mean it's one thing to create a lab sample at 10% yield the size of a thumbnail but another thing entirely to create super long cables or massive amounts of motor parts or large sheets of it for MRTs.
Is it a matter of time? Or could some applications remain elusive because of other potentially undesirable properties of the material (brittleness, heterogeneity, you name it)?
If its real, it's going to excite a metric fuckton of funding in hightc superconductors research.
It doesn't have to be LK99. It'll be one of the other variants that we discover.
Others with more knowledge materials production please add more to this... but it's certainly encouraging there's no rare earth metals or anything radioactive as a component!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/Ti...
It doesn't have to be LK99. It'll be one of the other variants that we discover.
Others with more knowledge materials production please add more to this... but it's certainly encouraging there's no rare earth metals or anything radioactive as a component!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/Ti...
I would much rather have rare earth metals involved than lead.
(Rare earths are neither particularly rare nor particularly toxic. They do seem to have the annoying property that there aren’t that many large rare earth mines.)
(Rare earths are neither particularly rare nor particularly toxic. They do seem to have the annoying property that there aren’t that many large rare earth mines.)
Similar ceramic or crystalline superconductors took a long time to convert into useful cables. One technique is to fill a hollow silver(!) tube with powder, and then press it flat to compress the grains so that they touch. It may be possible to re-use similar techniques as-is, but that's hard to predict.
One theoretical paper suggests that the copper doping has two ways of occurring in the crystal structure, and that the more energetically favoured one is not the desired configuration. It may be very challenging to produce the desired crystal structure in bulk, and then it might not be stable over long time periods.
With most superconductors, they start to lose their benefits close to their critical temperature. So this material may not be able to support strong magnetic fields or high currents.
I expect thin-film applications to happen first. It's easy to control, easy to make large contiguous surfaces, and very useful for all sorts of things. Thin motherboards, LCD/OLED display panels, flat antennas, etc, etc...
One theoretical paper suggests that the copper doping has two ways of occurring in the crystal structure, and that the more energetically favoured one is not the desired configuration. It may be very challenging to produce the desired crystal structure in bulk, and then it might not be stable over long time periods.
With most superconductors, they start to lose their benefits close to their critical temperature. So this material may not be able to support strong magnetic fields or high currents.
I expect thin-film applications to happen first. It's easy to control, easy to make large contiguous surfaces, and very useful for all sorts of things. Thin motherboards, LCD/OLED display panels, flat antennas, etc, etc...
If this room-temperature superconductivity result is real, I have high hopes on the improvements they can possibly bring to the field of electrical metrology. Many precision measurement instruments require superconductive Josephson junctions, such as reproducing the definition of the SI volt [0], or magnetic field measurements with SQUID. But these exotic devices only exist in top research labs due to extremely high maintenance cost, including cooling requirement.
Imagine a day when every medium-sized research lab has direct access to the quantum-accurate SI volt and nobody needs to send their voltmeters out for calibration anymore (although I don't know how hard would it take to make a microchip with 10,000+ Josephson junctions out of it...)
[0] https://www.nist.gov/programs-projects/quantum-voltage-proje...
Imagine a day when every medium-sized research lab has direct access to the quantum-accurate SI volt and nobody needs to send their voltmeters out for calibration anymore (although I don't know how hard would it take to make a microchip with 10,000+ Josephson junctions out of it...)
[0] https://www.nist.gov/programs-projects/quantum-voltage-proje...
The 2V Josephson junction array chip (without the needed cryocoolers or support machinery) is $28,600 [1]. Full system is a bit under $300,000, without including installation, calibration, or training costs. They do still need calibration to ensure they're measuring the output voltage properly.
[1] https://www.nist.gov/sri/standard-reference-instruments/sri-...
[1] https://www.nist.gov/sri/standard-reference-instruments/sri-...
Have you got a source to read more about this? Why the choice of silver - because of its reduced reactivity vs other conductors?
Isn't it true we've only tested superconducting materials at very low temps? Perhaps their robustness falls tremendously when not hundreds of degrees in the negative
Just make a standardized toner and allow printing it with a dryable liquid in a usefull Config?
i think i need to buy more silver
Rather than this particular "magic" material, LK99, in the original paper(s), authors propose their theory on why this material is behaving the way it is. This is a totally new way for achieving superconductivity in room conditions. If it is confirmed to be true, scientist can try to create similar materials with similar lattice structures focusing on what's needed, rather than focusing on LK99.
Even if LK99 may not, one of the materials with similar properties they will create may be easy to produce and robust to use.
Even if LK99 may not, one of the materials with similar properties they will create may be easy to produce and robust to use.
It's a great question. I don't think anyone has a certain answer but it's definitely a real risk. The quick example is graphene which has all kinds of interesting properties, but, as far as I can tell, no practical applications primarily due to production issues
the original poster said that this video was sent to him by a fellow researcher who received it on telegram from 'a colleague'. no further details given. if this is truly lk99 showing flux pinning, then that would be very strong evidence that it's also a superconductor. (physics bsc here, my only experience with condensed matter is 1 course and nothing more)
You can observe the Meissner effect using an ordinary pencil lead, so I wouldn't call it "very strong evidence":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeIizmhzPQc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeIizmhzPQc
No, thats just diamagnetism not the meissner effect
Is there anything in these videos that is unique to meissner effect? in others words why can’t it be diamagnetism?
It looks like that permanent magnet it's hovering over is a simple dipole magnet, rather than an array. A diamagnet would be unstable in that position. Look at any video of floating graphite and you'll see it hovering on top of a 2x2 array of magnets.
Of course, you could fake it for a video by buying a special disc magnet with a multipolar magnetization pattern, but magnets like that are pretty hard to find.
Of course, you could fake it for a video by buying a special disc magnet with a multipolar magnetization pattern, but magnets like that are pretty hard to find.
If you already had a multipolar magnet for some reason, on the other hand, this wouldn't be too far fetched. You've got to think that with all the interest in this right now, the confluence of having access to a handy collection of peculiar magnets, knowing what to do with a bit of graphite, and being enough of a troll to publish a video, all in a single individual, isn't going to be that unlikely.
Putting a conspiracy cap on, is relatively easy to find a cover for an array that looks like a magnet
> but magnets like that are pretty hard to find.
Though, so far, room temperature superconductors have been even harder.
Though, so far, room temperature superconductors have been even harder.
It looks (could be faked) like flux pinning is happening. Essentially, it's not moving but staying in place. Imagine trying to balance a magnet on another. It would not inherently stay in place.
Yes - Meissner effect is also called Flux Pinning. Superconductor will remain pinned to the magnet in any orientation. Diamagnet will only repel. The video shows horizontal hover - that confirms Meissner effect.
Flux Pinning is separate from the Meissner effect. Flux pinning only happens in Type II superconductors, where the Meissner effect of expelling external magnetic fields happens with both Type I and Type II superconductors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux_pinning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meissner_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux_pinning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meissner_effect
Meissner and flux pinning have to be mutually-exclusive, so so do we know the transition condition in LK99?
NB: This may be painfully obvious from the figures.
NB: This may be painfully obvious from the figures.
[deleted]
I've got to imagine this is fake (not LK-99, but this video specifically) because there's already other partial levitation videos out, and anyone that synthesized this material well enough to get full meissner effect levitation would post about it with their name (or lab name) attached ASAP.
edit: also the origin story sounds strange, unless translated badly "A fellow researcher of mine said he received this video from another colleague on Telegram."
edit: also the origin story sounds strange, unless translated badly "A fellow researcher of mine said he received this video from another colleague on Telegram."
> would post about it with their name (or lab name) attached ASAP
You underestimate how many people simply don't feel the need (or explicitly don't want) to have their name attached to their work.
You underestimate how many people simply don't feel the need (or explicitly don't want) to have their name attached to their work.
Such people are commonplace when the stakes are low, but when the stakes are high, they are few. How many world-historical contributions can you think of which were made by people who intentionally remained anonymous? Satoshi is the only one who comes to mind.
One possible view on this topic is that you're experiencing a form of confirmation bias here.
You aren't aware of the numerous people who have stayed under the radar in the process of every stage of development that has ever happened.
You aren't aware of the numerous people who have stayed under the radar in the process of every stage of development that has ever happened.
Satoshi Nakamoto for sure
Was I the only one that tried to clean my screen to get the piece of dirt off it?
And now you know why, even if real, we won't build power lines from Alaska to New York with it
What is with the large number of commentators who have a bizarre "static world" hypothesis of technology?
Like, roll back to 90s and tell me that Lithium-Ion batteries would be powering all my power tools today and be on-par or better then corded counterparts?
Like, roll back to 90s and tell me that Lithium-Ion batteries would be powering all my power tools today and be on-par or better then corded counterparts?
Every new tech gets bashed on HN, to the point where you'd think you're on AmishNews instead of HackerNews. There's a bizarre lack of ability to project into the future - if a piece of tech isn't 100% perfect right at launch, it's apparently useless.
Seen that for everything from 3D printing and AI to fusion and superconductors.
Seen that for everything from 3D printing and AI to fusion and superconductors.
Some of us are just old. We have seen countless hype cycles. Many hyped up things do not pan out. So we all have a “show me” kind of attitude now.
Also for things that do pan out, they sometimes comes with unforeseen negative consequences.*
As a result, it’s hard to get excited about ”great new thing” these days.
* e.g. the internet; there was so much optimism over it in the 90s … no one foresaw its use to track and manipulate the public on a massive scale, the damage to mental health social media has afflicted, … etc.
Also for things that do pan out, they sometimes comes with unforeseen negative consequences.*
As a result, it’s hard to get excited about ”great new thing” these days.
* e.g. the internet; there was so much optimism over it in the 90s … no one foresaw its use to track and manipulate the public on a massive scale, the damage to mental health social media has afflicted, … etc.
you lose nothing being enthusiastic for new tech that doesn't pan out
you gain nothing bashing new tech that doesn't pan out
If it doesn't matter either way, why be pessimistic - especially if you're a tech enthusiast - as most people on HackerNews ought to be.
you gain nothing bashing new tech that doesn't pan out
If it doesn't matter either way, why be pessimistic - especially if you're a tech enthusiast - as most people on HackerNews ought to be.
This is my philosophy too. It’s fun to be excited! Way more fun than being pessimistic. I think the naysayers just handle disappointment differently than I do.
> you lose nothing being enthusiastic for new tech that doesn't pan out
I would be wasting attention on it. I kind of wish that the front page isn’t flooded with so much speculative news - when it reaches a certain level it becomes noise drowning out the signal. Tell me when you have definitive results.
I would be wasting attention on it. I kind of wish that the front page isn’t flooded with so much speculative news - when it reaches a certain level it becomes noise drowning out the signal. Tell me when you have definitive results.
It's stronger than that, I think. Cynicism has the cost that you don't get to spot where the truly valuable applications of a technology are. Yes, you don't waste time on applications that don't pan out, but you want to spend your brain cycles filtering those out quickly.
The internet is still an amazing piece of technology. You just got used to the benefits.
From another conversation: "I remember the web being hailed as the next big thing in the 90's, like it was going to change everything..." "It did."
(neither of those was me, for clarity)
(neither of those was me, for clarity)
In my experience old people welcome innovation because they saw a lot of great things happening in their life. When you say old, are you more in the 40s or the 80s?
40s.
I just approach “next big thing” with caution these days. It will either go nowhere or actually work but will have unforeseen fallout that we have to deal with / live with.
I just approach “next big thing” with caution these days. It will either go nowhere or actually work but will have unforeseen fallout that we have to deal with / live with.
> Every new tech gets bashed on HN, to the point where you'd think you're on AmishNews instead of HackerNews.
That's extremely funny, thank you :)
It also makes a very valid point about human nature: we are resistant to acceptance of news that will change our worldview to the point that when presented with evidence of something new our first reaction seems to be to go into denial.
That's extremely funny, thank you :)
It also makes a very valid point about human nature: we are resistant to acceptance of news that will change our worldview to the point that when presented with evidence of something new our first reaction seems to be to go into denial.
Well, denial is a good first bet. Most things that surface like this are bullshit. But not all. And the ones that aren't change the world.
I went from feeling this had a 5% probability of being true to 35% or so in the past few days. In the end that belief is going to reach 0.00001% or 99.99999%; but until it settles in one of those places it's going to drift like it's being blown by the wind.
And when it's real-- do we get something useful from it in 5 years or never? It's taken us decades to get significant high temperature superconductor applications.
In the end, there's so much uncertainty, and until it all settles out we can either be ambivalent or cheer for a side.
I went from feeling this had a 5% probability of being true to 35% or so in the past few days. In the end that belief is going to reach 0.00001% or 99.99999%; but until it settles in one of those places it's going to drift like it's being blown by the wind.
And when it's real-- do we get something useful from it in 5 years or never? It's taken us decades to get significant high temperature superconductor applications.
In the end, there's so much uncertainty, and until it all settles out we can either be ambivalent or cheer for a side.
If it is real you can expect an influx of funding into improving the material, similar to how the discovery of the first practical superconductor led to finding a bunch of others with a steady increase in working temperature. But this time the funding will be much larger because the market for a room temperature superconductor are far, far larger than for one that requires a large cooling installation. I figure a few years at most for improvements on the yield to the point that you can start thinking about commercialization. The first party to complete this will make bank in an obscene way.
> I figure a few years at most for improvements on the yield to the point that you can start thinking about commercialization.
There is no guarantee that "if this is real" that there's a workable path to current densities and manufacturing ease that leads to commercialization-- ever.
And if there's a path, it's difficult to predict how long following that path will take.
YBCO dates to 1986 and requires much less of a cooling installation than the superconductors that are in use today. We are just reaching commercial use in the past few years...
There is no guarantee that "if this is real" that there's a workable path to current densities and manufacturing ease that leads to commercialization-- ever.
And if there's a path, it's difficult to predict how long following that path will take.
YBCO dates to 1986 and requires much less of a cooling installation than the superconductors that are in use today. We are just reaching commercial use in the past few years...
Yes, but that's also because the commercial applications of something that needs to be cooled to −180.2°C are also extremely limited.
Indeed, there is no guarantee. But typically, once something is invented there is improvement over time.
Lazy cynicism is easy, and an easy way to be "obviously correct" in response to anything that's getting any amount of hype.
And 3D TV, Google Glass and cryptocurrency.
Lion batteries have no doubt done amazing things but aside from the connivance they absolutely suck for power tools. I’m not even that old and nearly all my lion power tools original batteries are dead. Knock off replacements are available but as batteries improved companies stopped selling branded batteries. It’s a constant exercise keeping everything even just usable much less usable for any lengths of time.
Meanwhile my 50+ year old inherited drills and saws work flawlessly.
None of this battery shit is sustainable in any sort of way when the batteries last 3-5 years. You can be sure you won’t be handing any of those tools down.
Meanwhile my 50+ year old inherited drills and saws work flawlessly.
None of this battery shit is sustainable in any sort of way when the batteries last 3-5 years. You can be sure you won’t be handing any of those tools down.
How can a company stop selling branded batteries for tools they're still selling, without losing tons of business?
But it sounds like standardization of the battery packs would fix a lot of your issues.
But it sounds like standardization of the battery packs would fix a lot of your issues.
They are not selling the tools anymore. They have new versions with new batteries. In most cases higher voltage so at least there is some technical reasoning behind it but not always.
There already is standardisation, of a sort. A lot of these things will just be a bunch of 18650's in a fancy box. As long as you can get into the box, you can replace the cells.
Rather than standardised boxes, I'd settle for manufacturers just using accessible screws to hold the battery together.
Rather than standardised boxes, I'd settle for manufacturers just using accessible screws to hold the battery together.
How long does your avg heavy use 18650 last? 9 months?
18650s are the absolute perfect example of this. Great little batteries.. for a few months.
18650s are the absolute perfect example of this. Great little batteries.. for a few months.
The 90s? It depends on where you worked and what you read. Li-ion wasn't exactly a bolt from the blue.
Material properties are an issue to consider. If they've been working for 25 years "knowing" this product is there, I'd be a little conservative about how much of the sky I'd let my pie consume.
Even if synthesis is perfected, it's a ceramic. It may end up being a superconductor along only one axis. That's not a recipe for ductile feedstock.
Material properties are an issue to consider. If they've been working for 25 years "knowing" this product is there, I'd be a little conservative about how much of the sky I'd let my pie consume.
Even if synthesis is perfected, it's a ceramic. It may end up being a superconductor along only one axis. That's not a recipe for ductile feedstock.
People think it's cool to be dismissive.
It's more in fashion to hype things beyond their capabilities and ignore important details you're not fluent in
I bet it's fatigue from the endless <new shiny thing> hype. It's easy to fall into a routine of dismissing everything that claims to be new and interesting.
[deleted]
To be fair, this is a laboratory sample to test the materials not a means of mass manufacturing. Same could of been said of Carbon nano tubes back in the mid 90's.
Yes, it could be a very long path to mass manufacturing, if it ever happens, but it is far to early to dismiss the potential of this straight up.
Yes, it could be a very long path to mass manufacturing, if it ever happens, but it is far to early to dismiss the potential of this straight up.
Wait, carbon nanotubes are being mass manufactured?
Yeah, carbon nanotubes are pretty simple to produce. You can buy them online for a few dollars per gram. It's combining them together into large structures that retain their strength that is still in the research stage.
At least in the few-hundred tons a year range. It depends on the exact type though, the multi-walled kind are a lot cheaper than the single-walled ones which have the most interesting properties.
This is also why my cell phone requires six semi trucks following me around to provide computing power and radio equipment.
And that's why they'll keep getting smaller and faster until I can fit a half dozen cell phones in a blood cell by 2050, right?
Everything has limits.
The idea that you can determine those limits from a short video of an unrefined specimen of the first-ever synthesized bit of a brand-new material is just silly.
It's not possible for anyone to know yet whether this advancement, if real, will result in "power lines from Alaska to New York" at this time, in either direction.
The idea that you can determine those limits from a short video of an unrefined specimen of the first-ever synthesized bit of a brand-new material is just silly.
It's not possible for anyone to know yet whether this advancement, if real, will result in "power lines from Alaska to New York" at this time, in either direction.
Can anyone with better twitter experience figure out who posted this first?
This is the source: https://twitter.com/vasuttomas0423/status/168642344021411840...
@dang might be a good idea to replace the link
@dang might be a good idea to replace the link
Auto-translated > This is the first time I've been joining Twitter to this question. Looking for the source of this video. My fellow researcher said he received this video from another colleague on Telegram.
So the "source" is someone asking if anyone knows the source. This video could easily be a hoax.
So the "source" is someone asking if anyone knows the source. This video could easily be a hoax.
As a non physicist here, why not showing a video of a ohmmeter showing zero's when measuring the resistance of this material instead of its levitation?
A Meissner effect demo is usually seen as an easier and stronger proof of superconductivity than a resistance measurement, which is a delicate task and susceptible to experimental errors.
First, one cannot measure superconductivity with an ordinary ohmmeter. Electrodes, wires and the ohmmeter itself are resistive, the meter can never show zero ohms. So you can't just look at the screen read-out and say there's superconductivity, you need to set an experiment up to do it manually, with a current source and a voltmeter to measure the IV curve across the material [1]. Even then, the voltmeter will never show "zero" volt because of noise, such as thermocouple effect, triboelectric effect, or electromagnetic interference - which need to be minimized during the experiment and removed during post-processing. There are also the problems of sample preparation and purity as others have noted.
[1] It's basically the same 4-wire Kelvin sensing used by all milli-ohmmeters. But to characterize superconductivity, you need to do even better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-terminal_sensing
First, one cannot measure superconductivity with an ordinary ohmmeter. Electrodes, wires and the ohmmeter itself are resistive, the meter can never show zero ohms. So you can't just look at the screen read-out and say there's superconductivity, you need to set an experiment up to do it manually, with a current source and a voltmeter to measure the IV curve across the material [1]. Even then, the voltmeter will never show "zero" volt because of noise, such as thermocouple effect, triboelectric effect, or electromagnetic interference - which need to be minimized during the experiment and removed during post-processing. There are also the problems of sample preparation and purity as others have noted.
[1] It's basically the same 4-wire Kelvin sensing used by all milli-ohmmeters. But to characterize superconductivity, you need to do even better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-terminal_sensing
Look at how tiny the spec is. What would be the most convincing evidence? A resistence meter that basacally touches itself or a spec clearly floating on a magnet without cooling.
My guess is that it needs to be very pure to have zero resistance. But levitation requires less purity.
Way too easy to fake. Too many places to modify, including non-obvious like ohmmeter mode or firmware
Why is everything surrounding this discovery seem so amateur? From the initial paper being so flimsy to all the "leaked" videos looking like it was taken by a monkey trying to learn how to video tape for the first time.
Like, is it that difficult to try to get a decent video of something that is life changing?
Like, is it that difficult to try to get a decent video of something that is life changing?
Yes. The intersection of people who have been lucky enough to make a working sample and people who have decent video equipment has no reason to be other than an empty set.
Everybody has a smartphone these days. I’m not asking for a professional production.
Yeah it’s hard for me to take any of this at face value given how absolutely janky the evidence is thus far. I’m waiting for some non-potato cam footage with a human saying “hey watch this superconductor footage, this is what we did to make the material”
Gonna need a banana for scale, boys.
Edit: Is it possible to replicate the structure of this material using carbon nano-tubing? Someone mentioned packing ceramic like materials into silver tubes as a means of making cables; can that be done with carbon nano-tubing?
Edit: Is it possible to replicate the structure of this material using carbon nano-tubing? Someone mentioned packing ceramic like materials into silver tubes as a means of making cables; can that be done with carbon nano-tubing?
I believe it was tried, carbon nanotubes don't work. I can't cite the reason why.
What's stopping us from using superconductors to link power grids together? Does this technology enable more solar energy use without overloading the disconnected power grids?
Same thing that stops us from
building long distance HVDC lines with off the shelf tech: money and time.
Thank you
I wonder if there is a way to make a profit by buying quantum computing stocks right now..
so how expensive would this material be to make? i’ve seen everyone say potential uses but i just wanna know if it’s economically feasible
The bulk cost of this material is not going to be the problem with commercialization. The ingredients and labor aren't very expensive. The problem is that no one has found a process to consistently make chunks bigger than like a rice grain of this stuff.
If you can grow it in a constrainted geometry a grain of rice is a very large footprint for IC design.
The real revolution with something like this is in IC design (computers & Sensors) and maybe Transformer/Inductor/Coil design. Nobody is realistically expecting to roll out hoverboards or HVDC cables with this crystal.
The real revolution with something like this is in IC design (computers & Sensors) and maybe Transformer/Inductor/Coil design. Nobody is realistically expecting to roll out hoverboards or HVDC cables with this crystal.
Wouldn't we need it to be a semiconductor to be useful for ICs? Also what kind of ICs are we talking here? The handful of nanometer cutting edge stuff for compute or power ICs for charging circuits and similar stuff?
I think they're talking about using it for all of the connections between the gates.
[deleted]
People aren’t even certain it’s real. Why would anyone have a clue about the mass production or creation of larger chunks yet?
People aren't certain it's real because they're having so much difficulty producing chunks of it. You can't measure superconductivity in a powder.
idk they’re talking like if it’s real then we’ll have all these breakthroughs. so wanted to know if even if it’s real if it may be in feasible economically
The lead content may well be a barrier to commercialization. There are plenty of use cases for which a material that is likely brittle and contains a large fraction of lead is a problem.
(If this is real, I would expect other related materials that don’t contain lead to be found.)
(If this is real, I would expect other related materials that don’t contain lead to be found.)
Bullshit. I believe it when prediction markets say so.
The levitation with ordinary diamagnets such as pyrolytic carbon requires an array of magnets to create a concave pocket in the field, otherwise the floating sample will "slide off" and fall. Monolithic magnets produce convex fields.
Some people elsewhere also commented that this could be a video of an ordinary high-temperature superconductor, but I doubt it. Such a tiny spec would warm up to room temperature very quickly. I've experimented with broken and shattered fragments of YBCO and it wasn't possible to make small pieces hover like this, they'd warm up too quickly. Also, they were always frosty looking. To make them look black you'd have to do it in a perfectly dry atmosphere, which is a non-trivial setup.