News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A Room-Temperature Superconductor? New Developments by zootreeves on Tuesday August 01, 2023 @01:22PM (#36959182)
I haven’t been this excited since the EmDrive
Re:A Room-Temperature Superconductor? New Developments by MPSimmons on Tuesday August 01, 2023 @01:44PM (#36959543)
Which should honestly be a warning sign.
Re:A Room-Temperature Superconductor? New Developments by marcusverus on Tuesday August 01, 2023 @03:51PM (#36961688)
Why is that?
Re:A Room-Temperature Superconductor? New Developments by suby on Tuesday August 01, 2023 @04:26PM (#36962249)
The EMDrive didn't pan out.
Re:A Room-Temperature Superconductor? New Developments by declan_roberts on Tuesday August 01, 2023 @01:53PM (#36959682)
Does LK-99 defy the laws of physics like the EmDrive did?
Re:A Room-Temperature Superconductor? New Developments by zamadatix on Tuesday August 01, 2023 @02:08PM (#36959945)
A room temperature and pressure semiconductor is more an astoundingly large jump forward in the space than something that defies known physics.
Re:A Room-Temperature Superconductor? New Developments by distortionfield on Tuesday August 01, 2023 @04:12PM (#36962013)
That doesn’t track. The EmDrive was legitimately pushing a premise that we had some fundamental law of physics wrong. Superconductors are pretty well understood, they’ve been around for a while. Finding a room temperature one isn’t that big of a jump, it’s just a really hard one to make.
Re:A Room-Temperature Superconductor? New Developments by mitthrowaway2 on Tuesday August 01, 2023 @05:37PM (#36963425)
You're in agreement with the GP, their comment was just hard to parse.
Re:A Room-Temperature Superconductor? New Developments by zamadatix on Tuesday August 01, 2023 @11:48PM (#36966741)
Perhaps it would have been clearer to say "than it is something..." . Too late to edit at this point unfortunately.