Superconductivity at room temperature and pressure, at last?

[sunday]

Quote

The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor

Sukbae Lee, Ji-Hoon Kim, Young-Wan Kwon

For the first time in the world, we succeeded in synthesizing the room-temperature superconductor (Tc≥400 K, 127∘C) 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.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12008

Published in arxiv.org, not peer reviewed yet. But seems the process to obtain the substance is simple enough there should be no problem reproducing the results.

Anyway, we should wait for confirmation.

[Ssnake]

Last I heard, attempts to reproduce failed - again (they claimed a similar breakthrough years ago) - and certain reported properties are strangely absent from what's notmally associated with superconductivity. All in all, I'm rather skeptical about it. Would be nice if it was true, but doesn't look likely.

 

[sunday]

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

Last I heard, attempts to reproduce failed - again (they claimed a similar breakthrough years ago) - and certain reported properties are strangely absent from what's notmally associated with superconductivity. All in all, I'm rather skeptical about it. Would be nice if it was true, but doesn't look likely.

 

This was from another research group, using a different material, and they needed to apply pressure for the material to turn superconductor.

Edited July 29 by sunday

[sunday]

Another disappointment

 

 

[lucklucky]

So malfeasance?

[Ssnake]

The original paper was already dubious, showing the resistance-over-temperature graph in 10^-2 Ohm range when they should have plotted it in 10^-8 ... basically, silver wire would have traveled along the "0" line just as well.

I don't belive it was malfeasance. There were at least two competing papers with (partially) different authors listed, which points to some in-fighting inside the team itself. Title, opening and closing remarks were written in a very bold statement (basically, "Insert Noble Prize here"), which makes even trolling more likely than malfeasance. But, most likely, it was just very bad science. A paper unbecoming even an undergraduate student.

Let this be another warning against uncritical reposting of headlines.

[sunday]

7 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Let this be another warning against uncritical reposting of headlines.

Quote

Published in arxiv.org, not peer reviewed yet. But seems the process to obtain the substance is simple enough there should be no problem reproducing the results.

Anyway, we should wait for confirmation.

 

[Ssnake]

It wasn't a dig at you, Sunday, but "the rest of the internet" who couldn't contain themselves.

[sunday]

ok, thanks.

Knowing the ways of some of your fellow nationals, better safe than sorry.