On 05/08/2023 06:21, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> On a sunny day (Thu, 3 Aug 2023 16:24:51 +0100) it happened Martin Brown
> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <uaggs6$qekn$1@dont-email.me>:

>>> We will see where it goes.
>>
>> Indeed. Experiment always trumps theory when the chips are down.
>
> There is some about it today here:
> https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/08/whats-going-on-with-the-reports-of-a-room-temperature-superconductor/

Thanks for that. Feedback from my friends in the semiconductor business
one of whom did his PhD on high temperature (LN2) superconductors is
that until another group confirms they can make it and observe confirmed
characteristics of true superconductivity the claims are highly dubious.

Possible theoretical support (above) is interesting. It is just possible
for some x and some exact topological configurations it really does
work. I'd expect some of the better superconductor research groups to
get samples to test if the recipe is genuine within a couple of weeks.

One former colleague basically said:
"At times like this a look at Irving Langmuir’s talk on pathological
science is always a good idea. There seem to be a few of the signs he
mentions here."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science

IOW pretty much like Blondiot's N-rays.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-ray

Or more recently LENR.

--
Martin Brown

On a sunny day (Wed, 2 Aug 2023 09:33:03 +0100) it happened Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <uad4c0$5qh$1@dont-email.me>:

>This is the URL of the paper I found (there are others). I could only be
>bothered reading one of them since they are tedious in the extreme.
>
>https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12037
>
>This makes me a bit suspicious (although it could be an innocent
>mistake). All but one of the listed authors do *not* own the paper.
>
>https://arxiv.org/auth/show-endorsers/2307.12037

Levitation, as in the picture in figure 4c,
does not mean superconduction is present.
Here my levitation experiment with a simple drawing pen carbon rod:
panteltje.nl/pub/levitation_cut_img_3051.jpg

Theirs does not even come free 100%, could just be some opposite magnetic poles
in the middle, held down by gravity on the big heavy end.

Superconductor LK-99 Breakthrough Disproven? New Studies Refute Claims
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/studies-may-disprove-lk-99-superconductor-claims

On 10/08/2023 15:21, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> Superconductor LK-99 Breakthrough Disproven? New Studies Refute Claims
> https://www.tomshardware.com/news/studies-may-disprove-lk-99-superconductor-claims

Unfortunately Korean scientific research groups have form for making
dubious claims so it doesn't surprise me that it has failed.

OTOH there is still hope that a material made with exactly the right
doping might have at least some interesting properties at STP even if it
isn't actually a proper superconductor.

I found the graph of resistivity vs temperature very odd indeed YMMV.
Although I fail to see how a 4 point measurement scheme can work on a
polycrystalline material with 1D superconductor characteristics.

For now I will give it the benefit of the doubt but still with my very
sceptical hat on I expect one of the bigger superconductor research
groups to either verify it or refute the claimed properties within the
next couple of weeks. Pathological science seems an apt description.

If the Korean research team wants to be taken seriously now they will
have to hand over one of their samples to an external independent
testing lab with the right kit to determine its actual properties.

--
Martin Brown

Is LK-99 a Superconductor After All? New Research and Updated Patent Say So:
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/lk-99-patent-update-suggest-it-could-work

?
I want one... when in the shops ;-)?

Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> wrote:
> Is LK-99 a Superconductor After All? New Research and Updated Patent Say So:
> https://www.tomshardware.com/news/lk-99-patent-update-suggest-it-could-work
>
> ?
> I want one... when in the shops ;-)?
>

Nah, your Eurocrats will never let you have it— it isn’t ROHS.

But have a nice day. ;)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Aug 2023 11:10:17 -0000 (UTC)) it happened Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
<uccmio$i3oh$1@dont-email.me>:

>Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> wrote:
>> Is LK-99 a Superconductor After All? New Research and Updated Patent Say So:
>> https://www.tomshardware.com/news/lk-99-patent-update-suggest-it-could-work
>>
>> ?
>> I want one... when in the shops ;-)?
>>
>
>Nah, your Eurocrats will never let you have it— it isn’t ROHS.

Why? I bought an YCBO disk from can-superconductors.com some time ago
is in Europe!
https://www.can-superconductors.com/contact/

Quick shipping.

On 26/08/2023 10:41, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> Is LK-99 a Superconductor After All? New Research and Updated Patent Say So:
> https://www.tomshardware.com/news/lk-99-patent-update-suggest-it-could-work
>
> ?
> I want one... when in the shops ;-)?

I think you will find that Hell freezes over before that happens.

No other laboratory has been able to replicate the material or see
anything that looks remotely like superconductivity. Even the graphs
that they published show some finite resistance when the stuff was still
supposed to be superconducting. Diamagnetism != superconducting

A lot of fuss about some impure messy diamagnetic copper sulphide and
questionable experimental techniques that should be consigned forever to
The Journal or Irreproducible Results.

Pity- it would have been very nice to have a superconductor that worked
at STP even if it could only tolerate low currents and magnetic fields.

For comparison with the Korean "publication" on arXiv here is an example
of a real superconducting experiment on iron sulphides with graphs.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5436553/

--
Martin Brown

Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> wrote:
> On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Aug 2023 11:10:17 -0000 (UTC)) it happened Phil Hobbs
> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
> <uccmio$i3oh$1@dont-email.me>:
>
>> Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> wrote:
>>> Is LK-99 a Superconductor After All? New Research and Updated Patent Say So:
>>> https://www.tomshardware.com/news/lk-99-patent-update-suggest-it-could-work
>>>
>>> ?
>>> I want one... when in the shops ;-)?
>>>
>>
>> Nah, your Eurocrats will never let you have itΓÇö it isnΓÇÖt ROHS.
>
> Why? I bought an YCBO disk from can-superconductors.com some time ago
> is in Europe!
> https://www.can-superconductors.com/contact/
>
> Quick shipping.
>

YBCu isn’t full of lead.

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics,
Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Aug 2023 14:21:19 +0100) it happened Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <uccu8g$ja66$1@dont-email.me>:

>On 26/08/2023 10:41, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> Is LK-99 a Superconductor After All? New Research and Updated Patent Say So:
>> https://www.tomshardware.com/news/lk-99-patent-update-suggest-it-could-work
>>
>> ?
>> I want one... when in the shops ;-)?
>
>I think you will find that Hell freezes over before that happens.
>
>No other laboratory has been able to replicate the material or see
>anything that looks remotely like superconductivity. Even the graphs
>that they published show some finite resistance when the stuff was still
>supposed to be superconducting. Diamagnetism != superconducting
>
>A lot of fuss about some impure messy diamagnetic copper sulphide and
>questionable experimental techniques that should be consigned forever to
>The Journal or Irreproducible Results.
>
>Pity- it would have been very nice to have a superconductor that worked
>at STP even if it could only tolerate low currents and magnetic fields.
>
>For comparison with the Korean "publication" on arXiv here is an example
>of a real superconducting experiment on iron sulphides with graphs.
>
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5436553/

Nice done article
1 degree K is ..well a bit low....

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 11:13:42 AM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> Jan Panteltje <al...@comet.invalid> wrote:
> > On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Aug 2023 11:10:17 -0000 (UTC)) it happened Phil Hobbs
> > <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote in
> > <uccmio$i3oh$1...@dont-email.me>:
> >
> >> Jan Panteltje <al...@comet.invalid> wrote:
> >>> Is LK-99 a Superconductor After All? New Research and Updated Patent Say So:
> >>> https://www.tomshardware.com/news/lk-99-patent-update-suggest-it-could-work
> >>>
> >>> ?
> >>> I want one... when in the shops ;-)?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Nah, your Eurocrats will never let you have itΓÇö it isnΓÇÖt ROHS.
> >
> > Why? I bought an YCBO disk from can-superconductors.com some time ago
> > is in Europe!
> > https://www.can-superconductors.com/contact/
> >
> > Quick shipping.
> >
> YBCu isn’t full of lead.

RoHS doesn't ban the use of lead outright. There are exceptions.

--

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:13:35 -0000 (UTC)) it happened Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
<ucd4qu$kglh$1@dont-email.me>:

>Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> wrote:
>> On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Aug 2023 11:10:17 -0000 (UTC)) it happened Phil Hobbs
>> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
>> <uccmio$i3oh$1@dont-email.me>:
>>
>>> Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Is LK-99 a Superconductor After All? New Research and Updated Patent Say So:
>>>> https://www.tomshardware.com/news/lk-99-patent-update-suggest-it-could-work
>>>>
>>>> ?
>>>> I want one... when in the shops ;-)?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nah, your Eurocrats will never let you have itΓÇö it isnΓÇÖt ROHS.
>>
>> Why? I bought an YCBO disk from can-superconductors.com some time ago
>> is in Europe!
>> https://www.can-superconductors.com/contact/
>>
>> Quick shipping.
>>
>
>YBCu isn’t full of lead.

I was just soldering a satellite cable with (hush hush) 60/40.
Available from many places in Europe, for example:
https://eleshop.eu/premium-soldering-tin-60-40-lead-containing.html