[-] [email protected] 15 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

So is your comment. And mine. What do you think our brains do? Magic?

edit: This may sound inflammatory but I mean no offense

[-] [email protected] 17 points 10 months ago

This one I can really get behind

[-] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago
[-] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

You’ve misunderstood me. None of those things are what that commenter is referring to. It’s not about improving another energy storage technology by using superconductors, it’s about having a room temperature, ambient pressure version of an existing technology that we already use superconductors for.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I think what they’re referring to is the idea that superconductors can trap current effectively indefinitely; more like replacing a battery with a capacitor than enhancing existing battery chemistry.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Got a source? When I first read about this people were cautiously optimistic partly because the head researcher was well-respected.

[-] [email protected] 52 points 11 months ago

our compound shows greatly consistent x-ray diffraction spectrum with the previously reported structure data

Uhh, doesn’t look like it to me. This paper’s X-ray diffraction spectrum looks pretty noisy compared to the one from the original paper, with some clear additional/different peaks in certain regions. That could potentially affect the result. I was under the impression from the original paper that a subtle compression of the lattice structure was pretty important to formation of quantum wells for superconductivity, so if the X-ray diff isn’t spot on I’ll wait for some more failures before calling it busted.

keegomatic

joined 1 year ago