this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
203 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37727 readers
527 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
yea interesting! It's definitely the arc I'm hoping for here ...
that either the material is tougher to make than the papers suggest, or,
to get into my fantasy land, the material they made is a superconductor but they don't really know why or how to make it the way they did as it was kinda some accident they weren't in control of. If true, it would make whatever is left of the material rather valuable and subject to some drama I'd imagine.
That tracks. Superconductor physics isn't my field (shock, gasp) but I do recall reading Chu's 1-2-3 paper way back when, in which the purpose of physical compression during synthesis of the samples was laid out in some detail.