/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15637962
Why wouldn’t you try silver before gold? I say go for it

>>15637962
>Should I
Just be yourself OP

>>15637985
I'll probably do all three but silver is least promising, from the theoretical calculations the best dopants are from best to worst; gold, copper, silver then like zinc and shit, even if silver works it'll never be used because copper would be better AND cheaper

>>15637962
So far, amateurs actually seem to be having better success rates than the professional labs. It's speculated that this is because the pure lead/copper/etc used by labs are actually too pure, and impurities might be the key to lk99's properties.
I say go for it.

>>15637962
Tell me. What are you going to do with your money anon? Do you have any emergencies that you would need the money for? Maybe you are saving it for something? Actually do you even understand what having disposable income means? It means you can so whatever the fuck you want if you have enough money to do it.

>>15638003
Interesting theory. That would be pretty ironic.

9 PbO + CuO + 6 H3PO4 = Pb9Cu(PO4)6O + 9 H2O(g)

>>15638003
>So far, amateurs actually seem more willing to fake results than professional labs
no shit

>>15638003
>It's speculated that this is because the pure lead/copper/etc used by labs are actually too pure, and impurities might be the key to lk99's properties.
Lay off the copium anon

>>15638060
kek. No ones replicated it probs fake like everything else

>>15637962
>there's probably hundreds of universities replicating rn
There's not. There's probably a dozen. Academics beg for grants and then have to produce the desirable results (by effort or fraud) to get more grants. Nobody has grants to study this so they ain't doing shit. That's why you see people like McCalip involved. He's an aerospace engineer who just happened to have the necessary equipment lying around at work and did it. He has a closer approximation to a real job, and that job has nothing to do with producing the desirable result here, so he can just fuck around and see if it works.

There's a reason why every PHD shitting on this on twitter hasn't actually tried it. They have masters they need to serve right now, people have been working on this for a century and have never pulled it off so a prejudicial "lmao fake" has good odds from a Bayesian perspective, and because it's the default position, if they're wrong there will be no consequences. They will be applauded for being Skeptical Scientsists Who Don't Rush to Conclusions despite rushing to conclusions with no evidence in the first place.

If you're an academic and your job is to pull shit out of your ass, "ITS OVER" is the low risk position.

>>15638003
Lol the absolute state of this board

>>15637962
Don't bother it's fake. Anyone else feeling sleepy?

>>15638060
>>15638065
>>15638071
tourist niggers that haven't heard of FOGBANK
TL;DR impurities can make something work or not

>Fogbank (stylized as FOGBANK) is a code name given to a secret material used in the W76, W78 and W88 nuclear warheads that are part of the United States nuclear arsenal.

>In March 2007, engineers devised a manufacturing process for Fogbank. Unfortunately, the material turned out to have problems when tested, and in September 2007 the Fogbank project was upgraded to "Code Blue" status by the NNSA, making it a major priority.[2]

>In 2008, following the expenditure of a further $69 million, the NNSA finally managed to manufacture Fogbank, and 7 months later, the first refurbished warhead was provided to the US Navy, nearly a decade after the commencement of the refurbishment program.[2]

>The experience of reverse engineering Fogbank produced some improvements in scientific knowledge of the process. The new production scientists noticed that certain problems in production resembled those noted by the original team.

>These problems were traced to a particular impurity in the final product that was required to meet quality standards. A root cause investigation showed that input materials were subject to cleaning processes that had not existed during the original production run. This cleaning removed a substance that generated the required impurity. With the implicit role of this substance finally understood, the production scientists can control output quality better than during the original run.

>>15638119
I like how it's all in caps. Even better would be mandatory spaces like so:
F O G B A N K

>>15638119
Except that its extremely unlikely that impurities would somehow make a superconductor work better. Impurities in all forms of conductors are bad except for the required dopants necessary to generate current flow, impurities in a superconductor would just fuck with the lattice structure and therefore the superconductivity. Meaning that most likely amateur results are faked by people either by ignorance or confirmation bias fudging numbers.

>>15637962
You can't trust the east because they're naturally liars and you can't trust the west because they're gender spectrum non-academic bureaucracy-mired pretenders.
You have the rare opportunity to meddle with world-changing technology yourself. You NEED to do it.

>>15637962
It will severely upset establishment "physicists" so start today

>>15638152
>MOOOOOODS

>>15638142
fucking midwit

>>15637962
DO IT
IT

>>15638050
You need Cu2S for it to work anon

>>15638177
>what is BCS theory of superconductivity

>>15638336
>the midwit double down

>>15638177
>"midwit"
The perfect cope when the person you're conversing with is clearly more knowledgeable about a topic than you, so you can't comfortably call them a moron, but you still want to feed your bloated sense of self esteem.
You're not "smart but lazy", "street smart" etc, you're just a narcissist with an IQ below 90.

>>15638368
Projection: the post

>>15638383
I'm not calling you a midwit though. You haven't said anything remotely intelligent or insightful, I'm comfortable just calling you a full-on retard.

>>15638556
(You)

>>15638142
>impurities in a superconductor would just fuck with the lattice structure and therefore the superconductivity
This is literally the explanation that has been given by the original papers and simulations. The unique structure of the lattice due to the effects of the dopants and impurities cause the super conductivity. You must have not read a single paper about this fucking thing, please do or leave

>>15637992
>even if silver works it'll never be used because copper would be better AND cheaper
Why would silver not work as well?
Is it's high(er) conductivity working against it?

>>15638336
>>15638368
If you literally refuse to read the dozens of papers that have been published analyzing and simulating the proposed structure for LK99, why post? I don't get it, you claim he is retarded and then do quite possibly the stupidest thing imaginable. They potential effects of LK99 aren't consistent with BCS theory because it uses other theoretical means to achieve super conductivity. This has been the consensus for like a week now ffs.

>>15638631
Except that adding more impurities doesnt make it somehow more conductive. There is a reason that semi conductors are carefully doped in ultra clean rooms, because they need a very very small amount to maintain the lattice structure whilst also allowing for holes in the electron bands. If you dump a bunch of random atoms into a lattice its not fucking go faster stripes for conductors, it makes them behave worse, so its not likely that the likely poor quality of construction created by amateurs with its increased amount of impurities somehow makes superconductivity better.

>>15638643
Upon further inspection how the fuck are people saying LK99 is a superconductor? It doesnt give zero resistance of display the Meissner effect. Thats like THE things that superconductors do.

>>15638646
>they need a very very small amount to maintain the lattice structure
The idea is that it isn't maintaining the original lattice structure, and the new very unique structure that is formed from the doping is what causes these effects. It exhibts a volume contraction. https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.00676
Please just read the simulation/analysis papers. There a ton of them that explain the exact same idea. The main research in the original Korean group knew about the proposed obscure theory that is being used to explain what is causing the super conductivity.

>>15638707
send a porker at you. Bit of old knowledge

>>15638142
Claiming that something can't possibly be true because it doesn't match their current understanding is actually the most midwit response.

>>15638666
Superconducts float above single magnets.

Diamagnets can't do that because the field is strongest in the center. You need a dimple in the field.

Also this stuff is much denser than pyrolytic carbon (the strongest known diamagnet as of last month) and therefore if LK-99 is a diamagnet it must now be the record holder even though theory says it should not be, which would be interesting in itself.

I, for one, welcome our amateur scientist overlords.
I might try to make some myself if there is a better process. This >>15638050 plus a bit of Cu2S?

>>15638751
>This >>15638050 plus a bit of Cu2S?
might be, yeah

It's really just a matter of time until an anon does it and makes a thread with "Trips decides what message goes on top of my magnet while I play with my LK-99 on video". I am guessing it will happen in two weeks. Probably will be a /Pol/ack who does it first, just from sheer numbers.

Imagine the seethe from science onionsfags at places like Harvard where they probably haven't even decided on the appropriate number of black trans-lesbian Muslim trannies to put on the paper.