Re:First claimed successful replication of LK-99 superconduc...
by littlestymaar on Tuesday August 01, 2023 @08:01AM
(#36954924)
Maybe, but the same was already said when cuprate SC appeared in the late eighties with their relatively high critical T°, but they haven't really fulfilled their promise…
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:First claimed successful replication of LK-99 superconduc...
by RyEgswuCsn on Tuesday August 01, 2023 @08:37AM
(#36955189)
Are they really the same though? I mean we are talking about room temperature, not the"(relatively) high temperature", a term that is arguably misleading to a layperson.
I'd imagine most people who are informed of the difference would recognize that cuprate SC is nowhere near as useful.
Re:First claimed successful replication of LK-99 superconduc...
by Firmwarrior on Tuesday August 01, 2023 @12:09PM
(#36957944)
Every article older than a couple weeks talking about superconductors goes on and on about how useful they are, except for the logistics of keeping them cold
Example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_magnetic_ene...
Re:First claimed successful replication of LK-99 superconduc...
by littlestymaar on Tuesday August 01, 2023 @05:58PM
(#36963738)
Superconductors suporting high current are incredibly useful, but that's a big caveat. There's a reason MRI scans still use the super tedious helium-cooling instead of a much simpler nitrogen cooking allowed by cuprates: the cuprates SC aren't good enough for MRI.