Re:Ongoing compilation table of LK-99 reproduction claims
by fnands on Monday August 07, 2023 @06:10AM
(#37032486)
True, but what I meant was that the labs that couldn't replicate even diamagnetism clearly haven't created the same material, as the original LK-99 was shown to be diamagnetic.
If someone can show that it is diamagnetic and not superconducting then that could be evidence that they recreated the same material, but that it doesn't show superconductivity.
Re:Ongoing compilation table of LK-99 reproduction claims
by stavros on Monday August 07, 2023 @06:23AM
(#37032570)
That makes sense, thanks. So if the replication is not diamagnetic, it means that it's not LK-99, rather than that LK-99 is not diamagnetic itself, thanks.
If someone can show that it is diamagnetic and not superconducting then that could be evidence that they recreated the same material, but that it doesn't show superconductivity.