Technology

59696 readers

5278 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

335

First claimed successful replication of LK-99 (twitter.com)

submitted 1 year ago by realherald to c/technology

57 comments fedilink hide all child comments

"Accomplished by a team at the Huazhong University of Science and Technology and posted 30 minutes ago.

Why this is evidence: The LK-99 flake slightly levitates for both orientations of the magnetic field, meaning it is not simply a magnetized piece of iron or similar 'magnetic material'. A simple magnetic flake would be attracted to one polarity of the strong magnet, and repelled by the other. A diamagnet would be repelled under either orientation, since it resists and expels all fields regardless of the polarity.

Caveats There is no way to verify the orientation of the strong magnet in this video, also, there are yet to be published experimental measured values of this sample. Diamagnetism is a property of superconductors but without measured and verified data, this is just suggestive of a result.

Take-away If this synthesis was indeed successful, then this material is easy enough to be made by labs other than the original research team. I would watch carefully for results out of Argonne National Lab, who are reported to be working on their own synthesis of a sample.

This overall corroborates two independent simulation studies that investigated the original Korean authors claim about material and crystal structure, and both studies supported the claims.

Lawrence Berkeley National Lab: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.16892.pdf Shenyang National Lab: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.16040.pdf "

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Khanzarate 8 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Better batteries, yeah. That's down the line. We will also generate heat during the actual use of any devices. But, less.

It also could become the most efficient commercial batteries, but I expect the cost will be prohibitive. Sending electricity always has a loss, but it doesn't through a superconductor, so these will have a lot of uses at power generation sites, both reducing heat and losslessly storing it (until it enters the traditional grid).

It won't directly transfer to faster tech or anything like that, but it helping quantum computing could do so indirectly.

Definitely it's more of a facilitating research kinda thing. You can't play with superconductors in a lab in a cost efficient way, but this could let you.

Also maglevs and MRI's directly use superconductors currently, so that's a direct use, lower cost MRI's and incredibly fast trains.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Heat is a huge barrier to increasing clock speeds, so a room temperature and pressure superconductor would actually fairly directly translate to major performance gains in computing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is where my mind went. Wondered if the reduction in heat would allow further overclocking/defaults on both CPU and GPUs. I don't know that much about the actual hardware and how it works though.

[–] woefkardoes 2 points 1 year ago

Managing heat is a large part of circuit design. Superconductors can fundamentally change everything about it meaning far smaller much faster and more capable in every way. As an example 95%+ of modern CPU's and GPUs are cooling related. The actual chips are tiny in comparison to the whole component.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)