|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Aug 10, 2023 22:43:03 GMT
I found this interesting little explanation of superconductivity in Wikipedia that might shed some light on why this voodoo works as it does.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 11, 2023 15:45:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Aug 11, 2023 17:34:00 GMT
I think he is an arrogant arsehole myself. He's got proof of a negative, yet he really does not. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Aug 12, 2023 1:03:13 GMT
OK I have now checked with a more reliable source and it turns out some top universities tried it and got nothing in terms of a result, and in fact one of those was Manchester. They have now published their results so it leans towards a negative. The Koreans are rather anxious the original guy sorts it out since it is a poor reflection on Korean science, but he wants his paper published in a peer reviewed journal before providing a sample, which to me seems the wrong way around. You get your peer review when it is tested by peers! There was one paper that came out saying they have a theoretical set of conditions under which they believe superconductivity would arise via a similar idea of a particular crystalline structure giving the electrons certain energy levels. So oddly it has inspired some to think differently. After all graphene has been shown to exhibit an unconventional superconductivity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 12, 2023 8:15:42 GMT
I think he is an arrogant arsehole myself. He's got proof of a negative, yet he really does not. His verdict on the claim itself is 'probably bullshit' not 'proved false' This isn't really a technical issue - once it was evident there was peculiar lack of support available for 'the most important claim since late forties', you should have set your expectations low. Also - his point about ceramics is very valid. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 12, 2023 8:26:18 GMT
OK I have now checked with a more reliable source and it turns out some top universities tried it and got nothing in terms of a result, and in fact one of those was Manchester. They have now published their results so it leans towards a negative. The Koreans are rather anxious the original guy sorts it out since it is a poor reflection on Korean science, but he wants his paper published in a peer reviewed journal before providing a sample, which to me seems the wrong way around. You get your peer review when it is tested by peers! There was one paper that came out saying they have a theoretical set of conditions under which they believe superconductivity would arise via a similar idea of a particular crystalline structure giving the electrons certain energy levels. So oddly it has inspired some to think differently. After all graphene has been shown to exhibit an unconventional superconductivity. There is nothing in their paper that substantially supports their claim and they don't want to provide a sample. Sometimes you have to read between the lines. It might well be something odd - it might even be odd and useful, but even that really is an outside chance. At least you have the spine to fess up...cheers. This reminds me somewhat of the cold fusion flap. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Aug 12, 2023 10:11:31 GMT
OK I have now checked with a more reliable source and it turns out some top universities tried it and got nothing in terms of a result, and in fact one of those was Manchester. They have now published their results so it leans towards a negative. The Koreans are rather anxious the original guy sorts it out since it is a poor reflection on Korean science, but he wants his paper published in a peer reviewed journal before providing a sample, which to me seems the wrong way around. You get your peer review when it is tested by peers! There was one paper that came out saying they have a theoretical set of conditions under which they believe superconductivity would arise via a similar idea of a particular crystalline structure giving the electrons certain energy levels. So oddly it has inspired some to think differently. After all graphene has been shown to exhibit an unconventional superconductivity. There is nothing in their paper that substantially supports their claim and they don't want to provide a sample. Sometimes you have to read between the lines. It might well be something odd - it might even be odd and useful, but even that really is an outside chance. At least you have the spine to fess up...cheers. This reminds me somewhat of the cold fusion flap. There was nothing I got wrong. I said a Nobel Prize would be on its way pending verification. I'm only persuaded with scientific tests which have now been published in peer reviewed journals. It still does not rule it out, so the next step is for the chap to prove it, because no one else can and if he can't come back with a result then it is going to be bad news for the institution he belongs to. The only one who got it wrong apart from these researchers who won't cooperate is that video you linked to. I just gotta say what a jerk. Some people need their PhD taking away from them for it turning them into such a jerk. He can no more claim he is definitely wrong than anyone say they are definitely right. It's only the experimentation that means anything in science. Officially it is unverifiable according to several top institutions so we can say it is probably wrong. No one can say a room temperature superconductor is impossible. We keep trying. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 12, 2023 10:16:37 GMT
There is nothing in their paper that substantially supports their claim and they don't want to provide a sample. Sometimes you have to read between the lines. It might well be something odd - it might even be odd and useful, but even that really is an outside chance. At least you have the spine to fess up...cheers. This reminds me somewhat of the cold fusion flap. There was nothing I got wrong. I said a Nobel Prize would be on its way pending verification. I'm only persuaded with scientific tests which have now been published in peer reviewed journals. It still does not rule it out, so the next step is for the chap to prove it, because no one else can and if he can't come back with a result then it is going to be bad news for the institution he belongs to. The only one who got it wrong apart from these researchers who won't cooperate is that video you linked to. I just gotta say what a jerk. Some people need their PhD taking away from them for it turning them into such a jerk. He can no more claim he is definitely wrong than anyone say they are definitely right. It's only the experimentation that means anything in science. Officially it is unverifiable according to several top institutions so we can say it is probably wrong. No one can say a room temperature superconductor is impossible. We keep trying. This isn't a technical matter imho, this is about how to evaluate information efficiently and not get manipulated. You seem to be pressing the notion that someone is suggesting that the claim has been demonstrated false. Nobody made that suggestion. However, there are often more efficient ways than proof of negative to make a 99.999% evaluation of an extraordinary claim. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Aug 12, 2023 11:19:45 GMT
There was nothing I got wrong. I said a Nobel Prize would be on its way pending verification. I'm only persuaded with scientific tests which have now been published in peer reviewed journals. It still does not rule it out, so the next step is for the chap to prove it, because no one else can and if he can't come back with a result then it is going to be bad news for the institution he belongs to. The only one who got it wrong apart from these researchers who won't cooperate is that video you linked to. I just gotta say what a jerk. Some people need their PhD taking away from them for it turning them into such a jerk. He can no more claim he is definitely wrong than anyone say they are definitely right. It's only the experimentation that means anything in science. Officially it is unverifiable according to several top institutions so we can say it is probably wrong. No one can say a room temperature superconductor is impossible. We keep trying. This isn't a technical matter imho, this is about how to evaluate information efficiently and not get manipulated. You seem to be pressing the notion that someone is suggesting that the claim has been demonstrated false. Nobody made that suggestion. However, there are often more efficient ways than proof of negative to make a 99.999% evaluation of an extraordinary claim. The video you posted was like that. He was such a distracting manipulating twat that I had to switch it off. So many people in the UK are like that person though. The arrogance induced by these qualifications is vile. I've had them attack me as well on occasions for daring to disagree with them. They think cos they have PhD they rule absolutely and everyone should believe everything they say, but the irony is his basic approach is unscientific. For all I know the Korean chap might come back months later and say here it is, we have it all finished and polished now. It could happen even, since if you recall he did say the paper was published without his permission and was not finished, so there could be a step in the process undescribed in the paper the institutions followed to the letter. The ball is back in his court and we aught to have the courtesy of letting him have his say. If he does not follow it up then we can have greater belief it is a nothing burger. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 12, 2023 11:44:58 GMT
This isn't a technical matter imho, this is about how to evaluate information efficiently and not get manipulated. You seem to be pressing the notion that someone is suggesting that the claim has been demonstrated false. Nobody made that suggestion. However, there are often more efficient ways than proof of negative to make a 99.999% evaluation of an extraordinary claim. The video you posted was like that. He was such a distracting manipulating twat that I had to switch it off. So many people in the UK are like that person though. The arrogance induced by these qualifications is vile. I've had them attack me as well on occasions for daring to disagree with them. They think cos they have PhD they rule absolutely and everyone should believe everything they say, but the irony is his basic approach is unscientific. I think you are misunderstanding two things. 1) The video I posted suggested that the claim was very likely false, not that it had been proved false.
2) Science is not withdrawing all judgment unless negative proof is provided. If someone makes an extra-ordinary claim, the scientific approach is to be skeptical until you are cornered. The claim was missing important points that made it credible - and that's a red flag considering the magnitude of the claim. (this is a matter of efficient judgment rather than pure logic) |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Aug 12, 2023 12:20:58 GMT
The video you posted was like that. He was such a distracting manipulating twat that I had to switch it off. So many people in the UK are like that person though. The arrogance induced by these qualifications is vile. I've had them attack me as well on occasions for daring to disagree with them. They think cos they have PhD they rule absolutely and everyone should believe everything they say, but the irony is his basic approach is unscientific. I think you are misunderstanding two things. 1) The video I posted suggested that the claim was very likely false, not that it had been proved false.
2) Science is not withdrawing all judgment unless negative proof is provided. If someone makes an extra-ordinary claim, the scientific approach is to be skeptical until you are cornered. The claim was missing important points that made it credible - and that's a red flag considering the magnitude of the claim. (this is a matter of efficient judgment rather than pure logic) Bullshit means bullshit and that was the word he tried to drum into the people stupid enough to listen to him. He reminds me of a Daily Mail reporter. It's just not the state of mind one has when doing science, and to flick things on the screen like that without proper explanation is more of the same arrogance. It was hey look prole, we know what we are talking about.
If you want a good recommendation for a science reporter try Anton Petrov. He is consistently good and easy to listen to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 12, 2023 12:33:05 GMT
I think you are misunderstanding two things. 1) The video I posted suggested that the claim was very likely false, not that it had been proved false.
2) Science is not withdrawing all judgment unless negative proof is provided. If someone makes an extra-ordinary claim, the scientific approach is to be skeptical until you are cornered. The claim was missing important points that made it credible - and that's a red flag considering the magnitude of the claim. (this is a matter of efficient judgment rather than pure logic) Bullshit means bullshit and that was the word he tried to drum into the people stupid enough to listen to him. He reminds me of a Daily Mail reporter. It's just not the state of mind one has when doing science, and to flick things on the screen like that without proper explanation is more of the same arrogance. It was hey look prole, we know what we are talking about.
If you want a good recommendation for a science reporter try Anton Petrov. He is consistently good and easy to listen to.
The 'bullshit' was a reference to the hyped claims he highlighted. These claims were bullshit - ie unwarranted I have no strong objection to Anton regarding his coverage, but i find his presentations off-putting. He uses a presentation formula that (deliberately?) wastes the viewer's time and at some point the speech impediment started to irritate me a bit too much. He is usually fine on the science front - by fine, i mean 'okay'. Him and Thunderfoot are not really comparable - Thuinderfoot being a lot clearer and more technical (ie doing proper deep dives into obscure things). Btw - I do agree that Thunderfoot has 'asshole personality disorder' |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Aug 12, 2023 14:36:18 GMT
Bullshit means bullshit and that was the word he tried to drum into the people stupid enough to listen to him. He reminds me of a Daily Mail reporter. It's just not the state of mind one has when doing science, and to flick things on the screen like that without proper explanation is more of the same arrogance. It was hey look prole, we know what we are talking about.
If you want a good recommendation for a science reporter try Anton Petrov. He is consistently good and easy to listen to.
The 'bullshit' was a reference to the hyped claims he highlighted. These claims were bullshit - ie unwarranted I have no strong objection to Anton regarding his coverage, but i find his presentations off-putting. He uses a presentation formula that (deliberately?) wastes the viewer's time and at some point the speech impediment started to irritate me a bit too much. He is usually fine on the science front - by fine, i mean 'okay'. Him and Thunderfoot are not really comparable - Thuinderfoot being a lot clearer and more technical (ie doing proper deep dives into obscure things). Btw - I do agree that Thunderfoot has 'asshole personality disorder' Ah good, I'm glad we agree here. That was really my main point. You see I'm not as stupid as he thinks i am, being someone who watched his video. The reason he presents in the way he does is to brainwash us, and if anyone tries to brainwash me alarm bells go off immediately. I must have skipped that video in about ten places I caught brainwashing tactics and finally realised it was like eating a plate of maggots. You might say, oh but there is meat on that plate as well.
I think British industry is full of people like him. I would not be surprised if he has worked for the British defence industry, cos they employ cretins like that, and over pay them too.
As for Anton, I like him. I like his humility.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 12, 2023 15:23:21 GMT
The 'bullshit' was a reference to the hyped claims he highlighted. These claims were bullshit - ie unwarranted I have no strong objection to Anton regarding his coverage, but i find his presentations off-putting. He uses a presentation formula that (deliberately?) wastes the viewer's time and at some point the speech impediment started to irritate me a bit too much. He is usually fine on the science front - by fine, i mean 'okay'. Him and Thunderfoot are not really comparable - Thuinderfoot being a lot clearer and more technical (ie doing proper deep dives into obscure things). Btw - I do agree that Thunderfoot has 'asshole personality disorder' Ah good, I'm glad we agree here. That was really my main point. You see I'm not as stupid as he thinks i am, being someone who watched his video. The reason he presents in the way he does is to brainwash us, and if anyone tries to brainwash me alarm bells go off immediately. I must have skipped that video in about ten places I caught brainwashing tactics and finally realised it was like eating a plate of maggots. You might say, oh but there is meat on that plate as well.
I think British industry is full of people like him. I would not be surprised if he has worked for the British defence industry, cos they employ cretins like that, and over pay them too.
As for Anton, I like him. I like his humility.
We will have to agree to disagree. Anton is fine (speech impediment aside) but his channel simply doesn't go anywhere near Thunderfoot's better material. Thundefoot isn't just sharing (re-reading) what has read in a popular science publication, he is providing instruction on how to de-clutter and evaluate stuff independently. There is a lot of nonsense flying around the technical sphere presently and lot of it gains currency because people don't have a proper grasp of basics and are unable to confidently apply simple reasoning to those basics - because they have never been shown how to. If you catch Thunderfoot out of his domain - ie talking about anything other than engineering, chemistry, physics etc, he can be a bit of an idiot. He has, for instance, the political opinions he is told to have, |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Aug 12, 2023 16:32:00 GMT
Ah good, I'm glad we agree here. That was really my main point. You see I'm not as stupid as he thinks i am, being someone who watched his video. The reason he presents in the way he does is to brainwash us, and if anyone tries to brainwash me alarm bells go off immediately. I must have skipped that video in about ten places I caught brainwashing tactics and finally realised it was like eating a plate of maggots. You might say, oh but there is meat on that plate as well.
I think British industry is full of people like him. I would not be surprised if he has worked for the British defence industry, cos they employ cretins like that, and over pay them too.
As for Anton, I like him. I like his humility.
We will have to agree to disagree. Anton is fine (speech impediment aside) but his channel simply doesn't go anywhere near Thunderfoot's better material. Thundefoot isn't just sharing (re-reading) what has read in a popular science publication, he is providing instruction on how to de-clutter and evaluate stuff independently. There is a lot of nonsense flying around the technical sphere presently and lot of it gains currency because people don't have a proper grasp of basics and are unable to confidently apply simple reasoning to those basics - because they have never been shown how to. If you catch Thunderfoot out of his domain - ie talking about anything other than engineering, chemistry, physics etc, he can be a bit of an idiot. He has, for instance, the political opinions he is told to have, The way he presents is disruptive to thinking. I can not say what he does aside from that as i found it unlistenable. I value my sanity and balanced approach. It feels like a drunken man in a China shop.
Anton is good for what he does, which is a casual overview of what has come out in the scientific journals and he covers a lot of different topics, and is often associated with space and cosmology, as per a good all-rounder. He's accurate as well. I never find any errors in his work.
Regarding this topic though, if you want to get down to business it is bloody complicated. The mathematics of phase change is a subject in itself. Wikipedia I find is the most comprehensive short of a full lecture or textbook on it. I did a thread on an aspect of this a while back relating to the Ising model. Not even the basic quantum mechanics is settled in places. If you want to understand it properly you would have to get into quantum field theory and all manner of complicated QM. We're talking post 1930s physics. You do get it on Youtube, but I don't think it will come up in many people's searches. That's why I posted that piece on spontaneous symmetry breaking.
The thing is you never know what you might find as a scientist. Who's to say there is not a trick maybe where we could improve say 10x on copper. The commercial implications would be enormous. Even if we got the copper to save 1% of energy, then over the entire world it is still mega bucks, so we really do not need to be fixated on whether it resembles a type 1 or 2 superconductor.
|
|
