Superconductivity fight

Get your science fix here: research, quackery, activism and all the rest
User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8363
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Superconductivity fight

Post by shpalman » Thu Mar 17, 2022 9:00 am

Preprint server removes ‘inflammatory’ papers in superconductor controversy

This is about that business of high-pressure room-temperature superconductors (i.e. "we got them to work at room temperature we only need a huge pressure to do it") as opposed to normal-'pressure low-temperature superconductors (i.e. "we got them to work at normal pressure we only need a low temperature to do it"). The low temperature is probably easier but yeah, room-temperature superconductors, if you believe the results, which there are obviously some who don't.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

User avatar
Grumble
Light of Blast
Posts: 4877
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: Superconductivity fight

Post by Grumble » Thu Mar 17, 2022 4:17 pm

shpalman wrote:
Thu Mar 17, 2022 9:00 am
Preprint server removes ‘inflammatory’ papers in superconductor controversy

This is about that business of high-pressure room-temperature superconductors (i.e. "we got them to work at room temperature we only need a huge pressure to do it") as opposed to normal-'pressure low-temperature superconductors (i.e. "we got them to work at normal pressure we only need a low temperature to do it"). The low temperature is probably easier but yeah, room-temperature superconductors, if you believe the results, which there are obviously some who don't.
The temperature of superconductivity was a hot topic back in the 90’s when I was learning about it. Terrible straight-line extrapolation from essentially 2 groups of data points to show how it was all but inevitable that we would get room temperature superconductivity sometime soon. Motivated reasoning in abundance.
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8363
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: Superconductivity fight

Post by shpalman » Thu Mar 17, 2022 4:21 pm

Grumble wrote:
Thu Mar 17, 2022 4:17 pm
shpalman wrote:
Thu Mar 17, 2022 9:00 am
Preprint server removes ‘inflammatory’ papers in superconductor controversy

This is about that business of high-pressure room-temperature superconductors (i.e. "we got them to work at room temperature we only need a huge pressure to do it") as opposed to normal-'pressure low-temperature superconductors (i.e. "we got them to work at normal pressure we only need a low temperature to do it"). The low temperature is probably easier but yeah, room-temperature superconductors, if you believe the results, which there are obviously some who don't.
The temperature of superconductivity was a hot topic back in the 90’s when I was learning about it. Terrible straight-line extrapolation from essentially 2 groups of data points to show how it was all but inevitable that we would get room temperature superconductivity sometime soon. Motivated reasoning in abundance.
Our lecturer had just written a textbook on superconductivity in which he wrote that he'd left the chapter on high-Tc until last in the hope that someone would have figured out how it worked by the time he got around to it. That was also back in the 90's.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7671
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Superconductivity fight

Post by dyqik » Thu Mar 17, 2022 4:57 pm

shpalman wrote:
Thu Mar 17, 2022 4:21 pm
Grumble wrote:
Thu Mar 17, 2022 4:17 pm
shpalman wrote:
Thu Mar 17, 2022 9:00 am
Preprint server removes ‘inflammatory’ papers in superconductor controversy

This is about that business of high-pressure room-temperature superconductors (i.e. "we got them to work at room temperature we only need a huge pressure to do it") as opposed to normal-'pressure low-temperature superconductors (i.e. "we got them to work at normal pressure we only need a low temperature to do it"). The low temperature is probably easier but yeah, room-temperature superconductors, if you believe the results, which there are obviously some who don't.
The temperature of superconductivity was a hot topic back in the 90’s when I was learning about it. Terrible straight-line extrapolation from essentially 2 groups of data points to show how it was all but inevitable that we would get room temperature superconductivity sometime soon. Motivated reasoning in abundance.
Our lecturer had just written a textbook on superconductivity in which he wrote that he'd left the chapter on high-Tc until last in the hope that someone would have figured out how it worked by the time he got around to it. That was also back in the 90's.
Really high temperature superconductivity would be fantastic for fusion power... ;)

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8363
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: Superconductivity fight

Post by shpalman » Thu Mar 09, 2023 9:31 pm

having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

User avatar
Grumble
Light of Blast
Posts: 4877
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: Superconductivity fight

Post by Grumble » Thu Mar 09, 2023 10:57 pm

I mean calling 10kbar “near ambient” is a very relative term. This kind of thing should be replicable so I shall reserve judgement. I hope it’s true.
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7671
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Superconductivity fight

Post by dyqik » Thu Mar 09, 2023 11:42 pm

Given that their previous paper at even higher pressures was retracted due to major issues, I'm not paying much attention to this.

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8363
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: Superconductivity fight

Post by shpalman » Sat Mar 11, 2023 11:31 am

More on those major issues from a freelance science writer based in New York who had no communication about this story with his father the Managing Editor of Phys. Rev. Lett..

I'm paying attention to this to see how it turns out to be faked/wrong this time... It's a much more accessible pressure but they can always claim that the other groups haven't made the material properly when they fail to replicate, while never letting anyone else have their "working" samples for spurious IP reasons.

It's a different kind of "pressure" but we regularly make samples with about 1 GPa of biaxial elastic stress in them.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7671
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Superconductivity fight

Post by dyqik » Sat Mar 11, 2023 1:47 pm

There's already an arxiv paper from one Chinese team showing that they failed to replicate it.

User avatar
Grumble
Light of Blast
Posts: 4877
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: Superconductivity fight

Post by Grumble » Sat Mar 11, 2023 1:58 pm

Side note from this, I wonder if there’s a region of Jupiter where temperatures and pressures are in the right region to have superconducting hydrogen, and if so would we be able to detect it?
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8363
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: Superconductivity fight

Post by shpalman » Sat Mar 11, 2023 1:59 pm

dyqik wrote:
Sat Mar 11, 2023 1:47 pm
There's already an arxiv paper from one Chinese team showing that they failed to replicate it.
This? Superconductivity above 70 K experimentally discovered in lutetium polyhydride
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7671
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Superconductivity fight

Post by dyqik » Sat Mar 11, 2023 2:04 pm

shpalman wrote:
Sat Mar 11, 2023 1:59 pm
dyqik wrote:
Sat Mar 11, 2023 1:47 pm
There's already an arxiv paper from one Chinese team showing that they failed to replicate it.
This? Superconductivity above 70 K experimentally discovered in lutetium polyhydride
Yeah, I think so. In that they couldn't get above 71K or below 161 GPa

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5390
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Superconductivity fight

Post by jimbob » Mon Mar 13, 2023 11:23 pm

I'm now imagining using this to carry the electricity from my cold fusion rig
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8363
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: Superconductivity fight

Post by shpalman » Tue Apr 04, 2023 8:17 am

having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7671
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Superconductivity fight

Post by dyqik » Tue Apr 04, 2023 11:32 am

I've never really trusted Nature. It only takes the most surprising and potentially significant results in any particular field, and passes them through an non field-expert editorial team, who have to find good reviewers for that paper. That makes the likelihood of any particular paper being shown to be wrong much higher than a boring paper in a boring field specific journal, whether that's due to malfeasance, researcher or reviewer incompetence or just bad luck.

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8363
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: Superconductivity fight

Post by shpalman » Fri Apr 21, 2023 4:51 am

having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8363
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: Superconductivity fight

Post by shpalman » Wed May 10, 2023 12:47 pm

having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8363
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: Superconductivity fight

Post by shpalman » Wed Jul 26, 2023 6:12 am

The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor

Of course nobody actually believes it.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

User avatar
Brightonian
Dorkwood
Posts: 1464
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:16 pm
Location: Usually UK, often France and Ireland

Re: Superconductivity fight

Post by Brightonian » Wed Jul 26, 2023 10:23 am

shpalman wrote:
Wed Jul 26, 2023 6:12 am
The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor

Of course nobody actually believes it.
room-temperature superconductor (Tc≥400 K, 127∘C)
I think even my father would find a room temperature of > 127° a tad high. (Obviously, there's a specialist meaning of room temperature in fizziks.)

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7671
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Superconductivity fight

Post by dyqik » Wed Jul 26, 2023 10:26 am

Brightonian wrote:
Wed Jul 26, 2023 10:23 am
shpalman wrote:
Wed Jul 26, 2023 6:12 am
The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor

Of course nobody actually believes it.
room-temperature superconductor (Tc≥400 K, 127∘C)
I think even my father would find a room temperature of > 127° a tad high. (Obviously, there's a specialist meaning of room temperature in fizziks.)
The paper claims to show superconductivity at temperatures below 400K, including ambient. Tc is the upper temperature limit for superconducting effects.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7671
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Superconductivity fight

Post by dyqik » Wed Jul 26, 2023 10:29 am

The paper does include most, if not all, of the direct measurements of superconducting effects that I would expect to see in a proper discovery of a new superconducting material.

The claimed material is also the right kind of structure that might possibly show higher temperature superconductivity.

But obviously, any claim like this needs replication, either in measurements on additional samples produced by the group, or made independently.

User avatar
Brightonian
Dorkwood
Posts: 1464
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:16 pm
Location: Usually UK, often France and Ireland

Re: Superconductivity fight

Post by Brightonian » Wed Jul 26, 2023 10:38 am

dyqik wrote:
Wed Jul 26, 2023 10:26 am
Brightonian wrote:
Wed Jul 26, 2023 10:23 am
shpalman wrote:
Wed Jul 26, 2023 6:12 am
The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor

Of course nobody actually believes it.
room-temperature superconductor (Tc≥400 K, 127∘C)
I think even my father would find a room temperature of > 127° a tad high. (Obviously, there's a specialist meaning of room temperature in fizziks.)
The paper claims to show superconductivity at temperatures below 400K, including ambient. Tc is the upper temperature limit for superconducting effects.
I see, thanks.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7671
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Superconductivity fight

Post by dyqik » Wed Jul 26, 2023 10:51 am

dyqik wrote:
Wed Jul 26, 2023 10:29 am
The paper does include most, if not all, of the direct measurements of superconducting effects that I would expect to see in a proper discovery of a new superconducting material.

The claimed material is also the right kind of structure that might possibly show higher temperature superconductivity.

But obviously, any claim like this needs replication, either in measurements on additional samples produced by the group, or made independently.
But as an ambient environment superconductor, replicating measurements should be easy. That makes it difficult to imagine getting away with a grift on this, while high pressure measurements are harder to replicate.

ETA: which means it's either very interesting or a very stupid grift.

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8363
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: Superconductivity fight

Post by shpalman » Wed Jul 26, 2023 11:06 am

Brightonian wrote:
Wed Jul 26, 2023 10:23 am
shpalman wrote:
Wed Jul 26, 2023 6:12 am
The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor

Of course nobody actually believes it.
room-temperature superconductor (Tc≥400 K, 127°C)
I think even my father would find a room temperature of > 127° a tad high. (Obviously, there's a specialist meaning of room temperature in fizziks.)
What I think they mean is that they went up to 400 K and still hadn't seen the transition out of "superconductivity" which does strongly suggest to me that they're never in superconductivity in the first place.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8363
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: Superconductivity fight

Post by shpalman » Wed Jul 26, 2023 11:12 am

LK-99 is a gray-black color, as shown in Figure 3(b). It is the superconductor with the same color as typical superconductors.
Oh well if it's the same colour it must be a superconductor.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

Post Reply