Re:Ongoing compilation table of LK-99 reproduction claims
by XorNot on Monday August 07, 2023 @06:41AM
(#37032689)
Yes, but keep in mind that showing superconductivity on very small samples is hard. You never actually measure 0 resistance - you measure a resistance at the limit of your equipment sensitivity.
The smaller the sample, the smaller the resistance is even if it's not superconducting, and all sorts of other effects come into play - i.e. your wires and leads have a resistance you need to account for, parasitic inductance and capacitance climbs etc.
Re:Ongoing compilation table of LK-99 reproduction claims
by anymouse123456 on Monday August 07, 2023 @06:55AM
(#37032795)
I'm sure I'm misunderstanding something, but couldn't one measure the extraordinarily large magnetic field that should appear when applying a voltage to (even a tiny sample of) such a material?
Re:Ongoing compilation table of LK-99 reproduction claims
by bazodedo on Monday August 07, 2023 @07:37AM
(#37033089)
A magnetic field is the result of moving an electric charge (in this case electrons). Applying the voltage will move the electrons. The only thing the material being a superconductor changes is that the electrons will lose less energy to resistance while traversing the sample.
Re:Ongoing compilation table of LK-99 reproduction claims
by consilient on Monday August 07, 2023 @07:37AM
(#37033090)
No, superconducting states break down in the presence of sufficiently strong magnetic fields.
The only thing we need is solid evidence that it's superconducting. If anyone has a stone that's superconducting at room temperature, then we know it's out there, it's possible to make it. It doesn't matter so much how it was made. If it exists, that's a great step in itself, isn't it?