Argonne National Lab is attempting to replicate LK-99

Re:Argonne National Lab is attempting to replicate LK-99 by cryptonector on Saturday July 29, 2023 @02:02PM (#36922819)

1000 / 24y ~= 41/y, which after vacation and other things is probably closer to 1/wk. If all their experiments involve easy-to-synthesize substances (where easy == no more than 3 or 4 days) then it's not that intense, no. But you really have to be quite confident that this approach will pay off to put 2+ decades into it.

I suspect if they really did 1,000 experiments then they often did 2/wk because I don't think they ran all of them continuously over 20+yrs.

Speaking of which, can we see their notes on the other 999 experiments that didn't work out? That would be very useful, especially if LK-99 turns out not to be awesome but is good enough to hint that this approach is worthy of more research -- there's 999 compounds not worth testing, right? (Well, maybe maybe. If the physics of LK-99 come to be understood, then maybe some of the other 999 experiments might need to be re-examined.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Argonne National Lab is attempting to replicate LK-99 by xorbax on Sunday July 30, 2023 @02:26PM (#36934368)

This is part of my...curiosity.

They didn't have a theory to drive them to doggedly pursue this system as an SC. Was it just the blip 20 years ago? Why wouldn't you wonder if your machine was shitty?

If I was them, its decades past believing this might be an empty rabbit hole. You're committed. If it's real, it's heroic. If not? It's a failure of rationality. But it's both simultaneously.

If they're right, I'm sure every notebook will be published. If not? We'll never see their fury or process.

[ Parent | on HN ]