Re:Ongoing compilation table of LK-99 reproduction claims
by lonelyasacloud on Monday August 07, 2023 @06:31AM
(#37032615)
Which is why one simple way to clear up a lot of the ambiguity would be to make the "working" sample available for a few other trusted 3rd parties to run some quick tests on.
Re:Ongoing compilation table of LK-99 reproduction claims
by bluGill on Monday August 07, 2023 @06:44AM
(#37032714)
That isn't simple. The sample needs to be shipped. You have to ensure it doesn't get damaged in shipment. If some lab has a an unknown evil intent they can destory the sample and claim it was shipping damage.
They say they are willing to let other labs examine their sample. If nothing has happened in two months i'll get worried, but for now I don't expect any lab to have seen it
Re:Ongoing compilation table of LK-99 reproduction claims
by redox99 on Monday August 07, 2023 @08:21AM
(#37033427)
Obviously they wouldn't just slap it in a box and send it through FedEx. The authors would personally deliver it.
Re:Ongoing compilation table of LK-99 reproduction claims
by jjk166 on Monday August 07, 2023 @10:19AM
(#37034796)
The authors might damage it in transit, either accidentally or for nefarious purpose. No one knows enough to confidently say "this method of handling won't affect future measurements" because no one knows for certain what is going on here.
A clear no would be multiple sources synthesizing a material that is clearly the same as LK-99 (e.g. by showing most or all of the behavior shown in the videos or described in one of the papers), and then showing experimentally that it isn't actually a superconductor but that some other effect is at play.