'The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor' (arxiv.org) 183
A team of Korean scientists claims to have created a room-temperature superconductor that also works at standard, ambient pressure. The work, however, is yet to be peer-reviewed. You can read their paper on Arxiv. Its abstract: For the first time in the world, we succeeded in synthesizing the room-temperature superconductor working at ambient pressure with a modified lead-apatite (LK-99) structure. The superconductivity of LK-99 is proved with the Critical temperature (TC), Zero-resistivity, Critical current (IC), Critical magnetic field (HC), and the Meissner effect. The superconductivity of LK-99 originates from minute structural distortion by a slight volume shrinkage (0.48 %), not by external factors such as temperature and pressure. The shrinkage is caused by Cu2+ substitution of Pb2+(2) ions in the insulating network of Pb(2)-phosphate and it generates the stress. It concurrently transfers to Pb(1) of the cylindrical column resulting in distortion of the cylindrical column interface, which creates superconducting quantum wells (SQWs) in the interface. The heat capacity results indicated that the new model is suitable for explaining the superconductivity of LK-99. The unique structure of LK-99 that allows the minute distorted structure to be maintained in the interfaces is the most important factor that LK-99 maintains and exhibits superconductivity at room temperatures and ambient pressure.
Interesting really. (Score:3)
Just maybe. This time.
Explanation may not be Valid (Score:5, Interesting)
These authors are completely different from that ongoing fiasco so there is no reason to discount their experimental claims - although they still need to pass peer review and then reproducibility - but I would be dubious about theoretical claims that the material creates pressure as a means to produce superconductivity because, after all these forced retractions, I don't think there is any evidence now that pressure induces superconductivity.
Re:Explanation may not be Valid (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That is what I'm thinking. Call me when it has been replicated.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd at least wait until it has passed peer review.
Hey. If using unverified documents is good enough for Congress, it's good enough for us. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
High pressure, high temperature superconductors are real and reproducible. The specific retracted claim is a *room temperature*, high pressure super conductor. IIRC the current verified record is -23 degrees Celsius, and that's at the end of a long chain of discoveries of higher and higher temperature materials. A room temperature, high pressure superconductor discovered today or in the next couple years would be just another in a long line of incremental improvements.
An SATP superconductor like this would
Re: (Score:2)
The other somewhat red flag for me is that they made thin films of this material from a "thermal vapor deposition" technique (evaporation?) with no additional details given. If the superconductivi
Re: (Score:2)
p'shaw
folks responded the same way to the cold fusion breakthrough!
[*whispering sounds*]
oh, never mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobel Prize if True (Score:4, Interesting)
The paper is very cool in that they go into their theoretical model of what's going on subatomically, not just reporting a material result.
I'm hoping they're right and this helps solve many of the world's energy problems.
Even more interestingly:
so perhaps transportation benefits as well.
Curious that this is out just before the UAP hearings in Congress, given what people have speculated about Ross Coulthart's "too big to move" location being in Korea, but however we got this information the benefits are potentially so massive it's impossible to predict all the implications.
Re: (Score:3)
Depends on the specific energy problem. No loss of power on long-haul transmission lines would certainly change some things. It's already quite low for HVDC lines, but we still can't make lines that go around the whole planet without losses that we consider unacceptable. I have not heard suggestions about it lately, but I know that superconducting coils have been suggested as a power storage system in the past. Possibly one that would be superior to batteries. However, something like that would probably be
Re: Nobel Prize if True (Score:3)
Resistance isnâ(TM)t the problem with tokamaks, magnetic field strength is. New superconductors can solve that problem. It looks like this one canâ(TM)t deal with as high a field strength as REBCO, so this is not the one for fusion, but this will knock 10% of the entire worldâ(TM)s electricity consumption out instantly just with use in the grid.
Extraordinary Claims (Score:5, Insightful)
So, on the one hand: "Holy Shit!" On the other hand: "we'll see."
Re: Extraordinary Claims (Score:2)
Was the evidence for contintents drifting hiding in plain sight on every map of South America and Africa coastlines, yet geologists found ways of dismissing this data anyway for decades?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it was more that fresh geologists had to wait for tenured geologists who had certain fixed ideas about the way things were to die off. Also simply observing that it was happening was not enough for them. They needed a proposed mechanism for why it was happening. It doesn't seem reasonable today because there was overwhelming evidence that it had happened, regardless of how, but hindsight is easy.
Re: (Score:2)
Science is peer reviewed.
Still, they published completely fake papers on human cloning - by a highly respected Korean scientist [wikipedia.org] using a very special and very Korean method. [wired.com]
But there is more... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Science is peer reviewed.
So, if we dumped you on a desert island by yourself, science wouldn’t exist? Nonsense.
Nowhere in the scientific method does anything resembling “peer review” appear as a step, but peer review is nonetheless a great filter for assessing the quality—or lack thereof—of the scientific work that was done.
Re: (Score:2)
Science as in Science Magazine.
As in academic journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Cool demo (Score:5, Interesting)
Here is a video of sample on top of a fixed magnet:
https://twitter.com/AiBreakfast/status/1684020175215927296 [twitter.com]
It's not repelled by the magnet, it's not attracted to magnet, it's locked in position, a property of superconducting materials [wikipedia.org].
The publication may still be pre-print but this is one of those wonderful cases where you can pretty much just use your eyes - it doesn't come down to someone with an advanced degree making sure the math was done right. I guess you could still speculate that it is all an elaborate hoax including the demo but that's also pretty unlikely given the credentials of the people involved and how long they have been working on this.
Someone pointed out that the submitted two papers one with six authors and one with only three - the maximum for splitting the Nobel prize - so they may be feeling pretty good about this.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Diamagnetic materials also show similar behavior, i.e. pyrolytic graphite:
https://youtu.be/VC3r9-OaWes?t... [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
There's a significant difference .. the magnet configuration.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To levitate pyrolitic graphite you have to place the graphite at 1. the center of four square magnets arranged such that the poles of the squares are alternating (north-south-north-south), or 2. inside a cylinder, or 3. with an overhead magnet. Note: these guys could have done that and hidden it.
Re:Cool demo (Score:5, Interesting)
To me, this video looks more like two magnets repelling each other than the Meissner effect. The part where the chip swings around and settles to a lower energy state is nothing like the Meissner effect videos I've seen, which show a superconductor maintaining its distance and orientation to a magnet. The entirety of the video failing to show full levitation looks suspiciously like a small, weakly magnetic chip is having one end repelled upwards by the magnet it rests on. A superconductor wouldn't flip itself around like this chip does.
Re: (Score:2)
Video would also need to be made at 126.85 C - and while neodymium magnets won't demagnetize [kjmagnetics.com] at that temperature, those human fingers holding the magnet at the start of the video might have some issues.
So maybe a preheated sample is cooling faster on the thicker, heavier, end which is touching the magnetic surface, losing the superconductivity unevenly?
Re: (Score:3)
Why at that temperature? The claim is that it is superconducting below 124.85, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Paper [arxiv.org] says it's >= 400 K, 127 C.
Re: (Score:3)
It says Tc >= 400K .. Tc is the temperature at which superconductivity is non-existent, meaning all temperatures below that would be superconducting (unless there is some weird shit going on.)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait I retract my comment entirely .. I see they used a circular magnet .. that's very different!
Re: (Score:3)
I don't believe they are using pyrolytic graphite though .. that would be willfull and deliberate fraud.
That’s why it’s so important CEOs remain ignorant of any technical aspects whatsoever, you can’t be guilty if you obviously don’t know what’s going on.
Re: (Score:2)
It could have been faked, but it's slightly too elaborate for a hoax .. it seems like they would easily get caught doing this kind of BS.
Re:Cool demo (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Cool demo (Score:4, Informative)
How easy was it to fool the Geological Society of London about Piltdown Man?
Re: (Score:3)
Or it wasn't homogenous. Or the necessary field strength to levitate could not be maintained at the same time as superconductivity for the thicker part.
It never flipped upside down, the thin part just moved to the edge, but for most disc magnets that's still the same magnetic polarity.
And now we can finally hope (Score:3)
to see the year of the Linux desktop!
Re: (Score:2)
Suspicious Juxtaposition (Score:4, Funny)
Preceding this story about a room-temperature, standard pressure superconductors:
- UFO's and aliens are real and we have wreckage and corpses
- Artificial intelligence is so real that companies and legislators are nervous
Did someone drop LSD in the slashdot punchbowl? Or maybe my ham sandwhich?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Room-temerature? (Score:2)
Is the 'room' a woodshed on the south-pole?
Re: (Score:2)
Even if that were the case, that would still be amazingly fantastic. -40 or so is so much warmer than existing ambient pressure superconductors.
Re: (Score:2)
From TFA: "Tc 400 K, 127 C". Unless your room is a furnace, it's a very practical room temperature.
Suggested name for the new material (Score:2)
$20 million per kilo
Re: (Score:2)
The proposed material is composed of common elements. It's apatite [wikipedia.org], sub lead for calcium, and dope with copper. So that's lead, copper, phosphorus, oxygen, and hydrogen and/or fluorine and/or chlorine. If it's unobtanium it's only because it's difficult to arrange the atoms; and I don't think that's the case either.
an unknown mechanism? (Score:2)
They seem to be postulating a new mechanism:
"Humankind has long learned that the properties of matter stem from its structure. However, so
far, the correlation between superconductivity and the structural change of material has hardly
been properly clarified. In fact, the two main factors affecting the generation of superconductivity
of superconductors discovered so far are temperature and pressure [refs suppressed]. And both temperature
and pressure affect its volume. It seems that the stress generated by the
Re: (Score:2)
a material that superconducts does that independently of the reasons the experimenters give for it.
a room temperature ambient pressure superconductor is civilization changing milestone, the theorists can argue about what it's doing for eternity and that won't change the impact on humankind which would be more immense than most here could imagine.
Hmmm... (Score:2)
And here's me thinking that a superconductor was Clarke Kent punching tickets on a train. Damn, times have changed!
Wait 'till its on the market (Score:2)
Don't get your hopes up (Score:4, Informative)
At last! (Score:3)
I can finally achieve my dream of having the ultimate air hockey table! No more mucking about with liquid nitrogen, that was getting a bit expensive, and the pucks kept cracking on hard shots.
Seriously though, even the "seconds" are probably going to find use for some of their more toy-like attributes, like being able to make air hockey tables out of them.
Cool! (Score:2)
Helium shortage (Score:2)
Re:Not only is this silly... (Score:5, Interesting)
Different teams, different claims. This is a team that apparently has been working on isolating this material since they saw a signal in 1999 (yes 24 years ago) indicating a room temperature SC, and have been refining the process for making it and explaining how it works in secrecy. They have a patent and trademark already, and have instructions that are easy enough that we should see reproduction (or not) inside of a week.
Re:Not only is this silly... (Score:4, Interesting)
They have a patent and trademark already, and have instructions that are easy enough that we should see reproduction (or not) inside of a week.
Do we have to reproduce it to see if it works? Can't they just give away a few samples at a press conference?
This doesn't pass even the most basic sniff test. I can't believe the Internet is going mental over this.
(shrug)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not only is this silly... (Score:4, Insightful)
Handing out samples means nothing.
Huh? If somebody hands you something that superconducts at room temperature then that means nothing?
Worse: You'd prefer to spend time/money reproducing it yourself (and likely failing) even thought it's 99.99999% likely to be a scam?
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: Not only is this silly... (Score:3)
How could it be a fake if it works? If they hand you a RT SC and you confirm that's what it is, the only thing that could be fake is their description of how to make it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would conducting heat with no resistance be "the real test"? Most (all?) superconductors are terrible conductors of heat.
Re:Not only is this silly... (Score:5, Informative)
None of the proposed materials are stable, they only exist for a few moments during the experiment, and then they're gone.
There is nothing to hand out and place near a magnet.
Re:Not only is this silly... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the important part of the claim is that the material exists, then providing a sample is sufficient. Providing the procedure to produced more is better.
Giving away the process rather than working samples is a huge red flag that it doesn't work.
This way they can string it out for weeks/months/years by claiming everybody else is making it wrong. It definitely works in their lab, honestly it does! Didn't you see the Youtube video of it working??
Re:Not only is this silly... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
If the important part of the claim is that the material exists, then providing a sample is sufficient. Providing the procedure to produced more is better.
Giving away the process rather than working samples is a huge red flag that it doesn't work.
This way they can string it out for weeks/months/years by claiming everybody else is making it wrong. It definitely works in their lab, honestly it does! Didn't you see the Youtube video of it working??
WTF?
You really think researchers are in the process of handing out samples at press conferences when they publish???
And who are they giving these samples to? Some science reporter? Or you expect other researchers are going to fly out for their shindig? And I haven't read the paper but what makes you even think they produced enough to have samples to give away, or that the samples at this stage are stable/durable enough to easily ship? My expectation is they produced the absolute minimum number they needed t
Re: (Score:3)
It's not that I don't want to believe it. It would be easily the most important breakthrough since the transistor, if it's real. But it's also pretty much the holy grail of materials science, so... we'll see.
Re:Not only is this silly... (Score:5, Informative)
Note that this is a totally independent publication/research. The timing is very close and confusing, but not the same. From another article:
"However, healthy skepticism is warranted, as the effect hasn't been independently verified, and all previous claims of room-temperature superconductors have been debunked. In fact, just yesterday, Physical Review Letters retracted a paper by Ranga Dias, a physicist at the University of Rochester in New York who claimed to have discovered a room-temperature superconductor."
So this is not the paper to be retracted. This paper probably has at least a few days before it's found to be in need of retraction.
Re: (Score:3)
So this is not the paper to be retracted. This paper probably has at least a few days before it's found to be in need of retraction.
That’s perfect because slashdot probably has at least a few days between when something drops and it’s posted.
Re: (Score:2)
So this is not the paper to be retracted. This paper probably has at least a few days before it's found to be in need of retraction.
That’s perfect because slashdot probably has at least a few days between when something drops and it’s posted.
But it only takes slashdot a couple of hours before the story is duped!!
Re: (Score:2)
It's also funny that you think that the University of Rochester is in Korea; or that only one team on the planet might be looking at how to solve one of the biggest challenges in electrical engineering - one that if solved would pave the way for the next 50+ years of technology advancement the way that silicon semiconductors paved the way for the last 50 years.
Re:Lead!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
They have already demonstrated using vapor deposited thin films, meaning a trivial amount of lead is needed for this. In a superconductor, the surface is where the electricity flows, so even a thin film should be enough for most products. Lead may be toxic, but it is also cheap, and if this IS legit (we will hopefully find out soon), it the benefits likely will justify this. It also provides a possibly jumping off point in understanding of the physics so that other less toxic formulations can be used.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
4 digit Slashdot ID - checks out.
Carry on......
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
IN SOVIET RUSSIA, damn kids get off of YOU!
(or the lawn gets off damn kids, hmm, no, nevermind)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm suddenly feeling not (quite) so old anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
Then try this for size - Slashdot user accounts were introduced in the summer of '98 - twenty-five years ago.
I'm feeling incredibly old this morning...
Re: (Score:3)
i know there would be no danger of the Pb in this material, but i have some knowledge of the industrial uses of Pb.
The article has some issues, this is just what happens when you bury the lead.
Re: (Score:2)
The article has some issues, this is just what happens when you bury the lead.
Just ask AT&T.
(and yes, I did get the pun)
Re: (Score:2)
Lead may be toxic, ...
I'll be sure not to eat or grind up and snort the electronic components... :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Or burn them or dump them.
Re: (Score:3)
> using vapor deposited thin films,
ah-hah!
on top of it, you're pumping lead into vapor and making us breathe it, too?
now where did I put that pitchfork?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Lead!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's real, that is. Considering that it's pretty much the holy grail of materials science, I'll be wanting to see reports of additional labs independently reproducing the experiment, before I assume that the initial report is entirely trustworthy.
Re: (Score:3)
I read your comment below that this is sarcasm .. but fuck it, I still want say the following: So what? A lot of thing we deal with in consumer products are toxic. I mean, it can't possibly be healthy to eat a lithium ion battery or tide pod. The issue with lead was that it was in pipes and paint, which means it has a path to be ingested. Also, tiny amounts of lead is present everywhere (below 400ppm).
Re: (Score:3)
Also, tiny amounts of lead is present everywhere (below 400ppm).
That's not a natural occurrence ;)
The issue with lead is that we burnt it in our fucking gasoline and spread it across every fucking square millimeter of this planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and under the asbestos
Re: (Score:2)
Everything is in context. This will be too. Breathing lead as fumes from gas engines wasn't said to be harmful, even though it was known to be.
The petroleum industry of the last few decades (or more) should be a cautionary tale told with gravitas. But we'd need to actually PUNISH them for that to matter.
People will learn if this new thing needs gloves or a mask or whatever when you replace it. Hopefully that's not too often (haven't RTA yet).
Re: (Score:2)
It's already been mentioned in a different post, but automobiles use lead-acid batteries worldwide. There are relatively safe and responsible ways to use lead in both industrial and consumer applications.
Re: (Score:3)
RoHs provides loopholes and exemptions. For example for: large-scale fixed installations and means of transport for persons or goods, excluding electric two-wheel vehicles which are not type-approved.
So.. hoverboards will be allowed, and so will electric cars.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Yeah, because there are absolutely no lead-acid batteries in use among the millions of passenger vehicles on the road in Europe, right?
What a profoundly stupid assertion to make.
Re: (Score:2)
What a profoundly stupid TROLL.
FTFY ...
Re: (Score:2)
Woohoo!