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.
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.
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.
I swear I saw the opposite headline less than 12 hours ago.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There are lots reasons why a replication attempt might fail despite the stuff being a superconductor.
The process for producing the material isn’t reliable, so that doesn’t tell us much. They might just have been unlucky.