▲ 418 ▼ Superconductor Breakthrough Findings Replicated, Twice, in Preliminary Testing - Tom's Hardware (www.tomshardware.com) submitted 3 years ago by CanadianCorhen@lemmy.ca to c/technology@lemmy.world 56 comments fedilink hide all child comments The fact that this has been replicated is amazing!
[–] Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de 36 points 3 years ago (6 children) I swear I saw the opposite headline less than 12 hours ago. permalink fedilink source hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] CanadianCorhen@lemmy.ca [S] 15 points 3 years ago (3 children) I'm very skeptical, we have seen so many claims of room temperature superconductivity that have turned out to be fake... but considering that Berkeley National Laboratory replicated it, this makes me far more hopeful. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] virr@lemmy.world 27 points 3 years ago (2 children) LBNL did not replicate, they simulated the material and found it promising. The lattice of the materials need some sort of substitution to happen in an less likely way, someone with knowledge will have to summarize better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PHLAK@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago* (1 child) This is how it starts though. Smaller labs do simulations and get promising results which gets the attention of bigger labs with the capacity for actual experimentation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] virr@lemmy.world 9 points 3 years ago We're talking about Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory doing the simulation here. That is not a small research facility. Seems to be exactly the opposite of what you describe. Actual experiment shows promise, then large lab runs simulation. permalink fedilink source parent [–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 13 points 3 years ago There are lots reasons why a replication attempt might fail despite the stuff being a superconductor. permalink fedilink source parent [–] anlumo@feddit.de 5 points 3 years ago The process for producing the material isn’t reliable, so that doesn’t tell us much. They might just have been unlucky. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CanadianCorhen@lemmy.ca [S] 15 points 3 years ago (3 children) I'm very skeptical, we have seen so many claims of room temperature superconductivity that have turned out to be fake... but considering that Berkeley National Laboratory replicated it, this makes me far more hopeful. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] virr@lemmy.world 27 points 3 years ago (2 children) LBNL did not replicate, they simulated the material and found it promising. The lattice of the materials need some sort of substitution to happen in an less likely way, someone with knowledge will have to summarize better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PHLAK@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago* (1 child) This is how it starts though. Smaller labs do simulations and get promising results which gets the attention of bigger labs with the capacity for actual experimentation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] virr@lemmy.world 9 points 3 years ago We're talking about Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory doing the simulation here. That is not a small research facility. Seems to be exactly the opposite of what you describe. Actual experiment shows promise, then large lab runs simulation. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] virr@lemmy.world 27 points 3 years ago (2 children) LBNL did not replicate, they simulated the material and found it promising. The lattice of the materials need some sort of substitution to happen in an less likely way, someone with knowledge will have to summarize better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PHLAK@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago* (1 child) This is how it starts though. Smaller labs do simulations and get promising results which gets the attention of bigger labs with the capacity for actual experimentation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] virr@lemmy.world 9 points 3 years ago We're talking about Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory doing the simulation here. That is not a small research facility. Seems to be exactly the opposite of what you describe. Actual experiment shows promise, then large lab runs simulation. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PHLAK@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago* (1 child) This is how it starts though. Smaller labs do simulations and get promising results which gets the attention of bigger labs with the capacity for actual experimentation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] virr@lemmy.world 9 points 3 years ago We're talking about Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory doing the simulation here. That is not a small research facility. Seems to be exactly the opposite of what you describe. Actual experiment shows promise, then large lab runs simulation. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] virr@lemmy.world 9 points 3 years ago We're talking about Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory doing the simulation here. That is not a small research facility. Seems to be exactly the opposite of what you describe. Actual experiment shows promise, then large lab runs simulation. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 13 points 3 years ago There are lots reasons why a replication attempt might fail despite the stuff being a superconductor. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] anlumo@feddit.de 5 points 3 years ago The process for producing the material isn’t reliable, so that doesn’t tell us much. They might just have been unlucky. permalink fedilink source parent