Discovering a new material is a whole other ball game from turning it into a useful, economically viable material. Tons of promising research gets crapped because the discoveries cannot be applied in a practical or cost-effective manner. At least not until something gets discovered later that solves some of the problems and prompts researchers to check whether it is enough to attempt reviving dropped projects with.Hopefully this fleshes out and we do end up with a superconductor in the normal temperature and pressure ranges of human existence and our lives can be greatly improved.
Agreed. At least here it didn't.The speed at which this story moved originally was way too fast, and the period of time between start to declaring failure was far too short.
There is quite a bit of competition out there for research dollars and researcher hours each of which is limited in supply while being nearly infinitely in demand.
So there are reasons to give up on dead end research and move on to the next idea quickly. Of course, if you write something off as a dead end before it is proven to be a dead end, that likely cuts that research out of any opportunity to be discovered ever.
Hopefully this fleshes out and we do end up with a superconductor in the normal temperature and pressure ranges of human existence and our lives can be greatly improved.
Well I know beyond a shadow of a doubt this is real. And it's not new.
Absolutely. Once you tell the world, you're racing against everyone else, and a material discovery like this isn't going to be ignored. If/when someone else properly figures it out, it doesn't have to be much different for them to get credit. Your product and procedure either works or it doesn't, otherwise it's just a "suggestion".When you declare you have found a functioning superconductor to the scientific community and the press, you should already have your ducks in a row and be ready to publish, it's called 'd o c u m e n t a t i o n'. LK 99's handling has been one long murky ball of attention gathering nothing, much like Pons-fleischmann. The scientists should have themselves reproduced their work before proceeding with their finding.
You don't get to change your story, or your secret formula over and over again and claim discovery.Here's the kicker, if someone else looks at your method, and tried something else that actually works, and then they properly document their method correctly and then publish, and the work can actually be reproduced, then they should be the ones to get credit.
If they want to prove their material's properties without giving their full process away, they can always send some of their own samples out for others to independently pick apart and test. They said they would send some samples out, don't remember reading about anyone receiving those yet.Claiming that "the magic is in there somewhere, our process/sample is just too dirty" isn't Nobel prize worthy IMO
Fly the Korean cooks to Argonne. Share a lab and make it happen.This alleged scientific breakthrough has some new evidence to support its discoverers claims.
Is LK-99 a Superconductor After All? New Research and Updated Patent Say So : Read more
No need to fly anyone anywhere. Just have the Koreans ship one of the golden samples they supposedly have to a reputable independent lab and see whether they reach similar results. If they do, the stuff is real regardless of how many unknowns there may be in its exact chemical composition, atomic structure and cooking process.Fly the Korean cooks to Argonne. Share a lab and make it happen.
Supposedly, they haven't been able to produce much of the material, and that's the reason no samples have been sent out. But looking at the yield percentage from their own patent, this shouldn't be an issue from a well-understood chemical process.No need to fly anyone anywhere. Just have the Koreans ship one of the golden samples they supposedly have to a reputable independent lab and see whether they reach similar results. If they do, the stuff is real regardless of how many unknowns there may be in its exact chemical composition, atomic structure and cooking process.
The difficulty of producing more samples shouldn't prevent them from lending some of their existing good ones just to prove once and for all whether they made stuff up, screwed up their measurements or there really is something there.The problem, it seems, is that it Isn't a well-understood process. Not even by them.