LK99 -- A new room temperature superconductor?

  • German Scientists say not a Super Conductor


    https://media.nature.com/lw767/magazine-assets/d41586-023-02585-7/d41586-023-02585-7_25924888.jpg


    German scientists also say that they prepared clean monocrystals of the LK-99 - but the shards pictured are neither homogeneous, neither crystalline for me. They look merely like fragments of ruby glass. Worse then, they're not even black but merely transparent slightly coloured with copper(?) ions. I.e. the level of doping can not be too high there. And the copper appears to be in zero-valent state there - not oxidized one


    IMO if LK-99 superconductor works then because long chain of copper (3+) ions embedded within apatite channels attract electrons from outside like hungry hens to a long feeder, which would then create a superconductive phase there. But such a mechanism requires rather high concentration of copper ions in highly oxidized state. The apatite sample presented may have its value in jewellery business, but definitely not in superconductor applications. And similar problem follow all attempts for replication presented so far. This is merely Cargo-cult science - not superconductor one.

  • IMO copper sulphide shouldn't be present in material at all: in my theory superconductivity would require presence of highly oxidized lead/copper atoms (which attract and concentrate electrons along their lines) - and sulphide ions would reduce them. So that once you have copper sulphide presented in the sample, it just means that it can not be a superconductor. Cuprate superconductors require long time annealing in oxygen atmosphere during last stage of their preparation. Under such a conditions all traces of sulphide anions would be destroyed.

    Not sure of your point. Is your point that the LK-99 is a superconductor according to your theory, or is it not?

  • Science prevails! Doesn't mean that a mistake can't lead to new understandings about materials.
    Plus, it kind of invigorated the material science space for a bit hopefully.

  • Science prevails! Doesn't mean that a mistake can't lead to new understandings about materials.
    Plus, it kind of invigorated the material science space for a bit hopefully.

    Encouraging how the experts in the field handled this. Unlike the CF fiasco, they have been more professional, and now that they concluded the authors were in error, have been rather understanding about it all...so far.


    Maybe the difference between then and now is because the superconductor field does not have their sacred $ cow to defend, like the hot fusion scientist's had back in 1989.

  • Quote

    Is your point that the LK-99 is a superconductor according to your theory, or is it not?


    Considering that the whole effect observed is weak paramagnetism/semilevitation and temperature of conductivity onset coincides with CuS transition - which is just a bummer - I don't think that synthesis route based on copper phosphide is fertile one.


    But I guess there is still more on the bottom. My point is, the "official" synthesis published in 2nd more representative article isn't equivalent to synthesis described roughly in 1st one and which wasn't attempted to replicate yet. IMO there is apparent competition and rivalry between two groups similarly to cold fusion finding in 1986. The first small group is more close to actual know-how of room temperature superconductor which still wants to keep secret. But at the same moment it's forced to publish something for not to lose priority, when 2nd group (containing the boss who is looking after grants and publicity) decides to publish what he (thinks it) already knows.

  • Quote

    Maybe the difference between then and now is because the superconductor field does not have their sacred $ cow to defend, like the hot fusion scientist's had back in 1989.

    Yes, the financial pressure is lower than at the case of CF, hence more open and intensive replication effort. But other than that the situation is similar. Which of previous room temperature SC findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 was officially attempted to replicate? There is apparent tendency to bury the findings until they don't fit criteria, like the USA origin and inaccessibility of technology for laymen.

  • Yes, the financial pressure is lower than at the case of CF, hence more open and intensive replication effort. But other than that the situation is similar. Which of previous room temperature SC findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 was officially attempted to replicate? There is apparent tendency to bury the findings until they don't fit criteria, like the USA origin and inaccessibility of technology for laymen.

    Maybe so. Hopefully the authors will respond and do a better job backing their claims. At first blush, it appears the sc replicators have a simpler task than those who tried to replicate FP's. Just mix some stuff up, bake it, and voila...a room temp sc.


    But then again, those who rushed to the lab in 1989 thought the same thing. It was those who took the time to do it right, that were more likely to be successful back then, and maybe that will turn out to be the case with LK99. Sure do hope so.


    At least with LK99, everyone can see with their own eyes if a replication is successful. If it fully levitates, it's a sc, or at least that is how I understand it.

  • LK-99 Q-Centre Company Updates RT Superconducting Patent and Claims Half of Thin Film is Superconducting


    LK-99 hype faded nearly as fast as it started but I was always under suspicion, there is more under the hood. The LH-99 structure fits well my theory of RT superconductivity and it apparently many scientists already have similar idea too. The only question is, why they're ignored previous RTS announcements 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, which were based on similar structure?


    The memo of the LK-99 story is, early replication attempts don't tell much about validity of finding, until they can not replicated by itself. Which is the same story as with premature dismissal of cold fusion finding at MIT and Utah university in 1989. See also:

    Is LK-99 a Superconductor After All? New Research and Updated Patent Say So

    Three Chinese Universities LK99 Samples Could Have One-Dimensional Superconducting Chains


    The question is, how they're doing their thin films, because synthesis route of LK-99 published is inconsistent with thin film technology.

    It might seem that the recent Chinese scientists discovery of how to make large single molecule thick perovskite 30cm wafers, could be adapted to vacuum deposit LK 99 on to in order to test this in a larger scale. They should also consider doing the deposition in a strong magnetic field to get the molecules to line up correctly. As the latest theories seem to indicate two possible alignments.


    Also other studies indicate that oxygen is a preferred doping agent so they might flood the deposition chamber with pure oxygen prior to pumping down to the required vacuum so that only a few stray O2 molecules might remain to contaminate the sample.

  • This isn't LK-99, but LuNH - a different claim of superconductivity that was discussed in the "Playground" thread, earlier this year.


    I guessed it might be better in this thread. Please move it, if you feel it shouldn't be here.


    https://www.science.org/content/article/another-retraction-looms-embattled-physicist-behind-blockbuster-superconductivity


    "The most misleading assumptions are the ones you don't even know you're making" - Douglas Adams

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Want To Advertise or Sponsor Us?
CLICK HERE to contact us.