Room-temperature superconductor

[BBBbbb]

No, I'm afraid it's you that is talking "bullshit".

The starting premise was that the LED was great progress as a lighting solution.
You outright called it a scam and gave an argument that has nothing to do with LEDs,
What you are describing is a general trend in the industry and something (safe to say) everybody on this forum is ranting about in one way or another and trying to push against - trying to make things unrepeatable without direct involvement of the OEM, (directly and indirectly) planned obsolescence and overall pushing the consumer from a buying a product to actually buying a service - to use Doctorow's term - enshittification of tech products.

But again - this has nothing to with LEDs. The incandescent lights are the OGs of this with the planned obsolescence, and if they were viable today, you would have seen further enshittification of industrial lighting  even with them there. The industry would find a way.

[SiliconWizard]

Any news regarding this incredible groundbreaking discovery?

It's apparently become viral and is currently being relayed by almost all tech blogs/channels and on social media, and more, all based on near-void.

I'm hungry.

[Bud]

It's apparently become viral and is currently being relayed by almost all tech blogs/channels and on social media

Am i having a dejavu moment... hmmm..where did I see that happening before...

Ah, yes! That thing was called Theranos.

[thm_w]

So because something is viral or interesting it is instantly a scam? Makes no sense.
Theranos actively deceived investors to bring in millions of dollars, based on hundreds of useless patents. At no point were other scientists replicating her tech to see how it works (as is being done here). Even if LK99 is an intentional scam, the result will come out within weeks at a relatively low price, instead of after 10 years.

“Those of us that were in the legitimate diagnostic community were very puzzled by their claims without substantiating with peer reviewed publications,”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/11/16/blood-startups-theranos/

[EEVblog]

So because something is viral or interesting it is instantly a scam? Makes no sense.

Is anyone calling it an outright scam?
At worst it looks like it will be just a case of being a novel find, but nothing practical will come of it.

[EEVblog]

This is why peer review is such an important concept in legitimate scientific publication, although it tends to be conservative.
I would advise against investing money in a novelty that cannot pass peer review, but I am a very conservative investor.

As a practical rule of thumb, in general you can take half of all published research as being wrong.
Getting it "peer reviewed" adds nothing to those odds.

Obviously some things are way more certain than others based on the data and the method, but as a general rule, it's a coin flip.

When it comes to "game changing" stuff like this though, the practical odds of it being true are single digit at best.
Count the number of new battery technologies published and media hyped that will revolutionise the industry, it's endless. As such you can quite reliably give near zero odds to any new announcement in that field.

[thm_w]

Is anyone calling it an outright scam?
At worst it looks like it will be just a case of being a novel find, but nothing practical will come of it.

Theranos is primarily known for being as scam, why would someone compare to Theranos unless implying intentionally misleading results. Either they made a poor analogy or don't understand the difference.

When it comes to "game changing" stuff like this though, the practical odds of it being true are single digit at best.
Count the number of new battery technologies published and media hyped that will revolutionise the industry, it's endless. As such you can quite reliably give near zero odds to any new announcement in that field.

The published battery tech (in the scientific paper itself) is usually not "false" it just ends up not commercially viable/scalable/reliable (true reliability testing could take years). I'd still be interested to hear about research, even if the tech is never practically implemented.

Of course if media hypes the research that's their own problem, blame them, don't blame the scientist for posting a paper or a clip that wasn't fully thought through. Sure if they purposefully rigged the result, then have at it.

[deepfryed]

Obviously some things are way more certain than others based on the data and the method, but as a general rule, it's a coin flip.

What makes you say that ? I'd say peer review adds confidence and depending on who does the peer review (journal, research group / university) the level of confidence varies. This is especially true when replicating experimental results / observations. It may be a coin flip if you take the whole body of research across the world but I think that distribution is definitely not uniform.

Commercialisation of the findings / discovery is a different question altogether and I agree with you, it may not be something that's commercially viable and practical to make a difference. We'll have to wait and see, I'm cautiously optimistic.

[Psi]

The discovery is currently not looking good at all, but I don't think we can call it just yet.

[Psi]

For the people discussing LED lighting and planned obsolescence I have created a new thread for it.
Since it doesn't really belong here.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/led-lighting-and-planned-obsolescence-intentional-or-not/

[gnuarm]

The discovery is currently not looking good at all, but I don't think we can call it just yet.

LOL  I didn't realize that we had anything to do with "calling it". 

[Psi]

The discovery is currently not looking good at all, but I don't think we can call it just yet.

LOL  I didn't realize that we had anything to do with "calling it".

How do you know what 'We' I was refereeing too.
The engineering/scientific community.

[deepfryed]

It's a bit of like the Tulip craze, every material scientist and his dog's on the replication train. 

Someone associated with University of S. California's claimed to have replicated it  https://twitter.com/floates0x/status/1687461340607311872

and Argonne has apparently synthesised the sample, so we'll hear about it from some of the best material scientists in the next week or so.

[gnuarm]

The discovery is currently not looking good at all, but I don't think we can call it just yet.

LOL  I didn't realize that we had anything to do with "calling it".

How do you know what 'We' I was refereeing too.
The engineering/scientific community.

Which "engineering/scientific community"

There is a relatively small set of professionals who are qualified to evaluate these claims.  I don't think the use of the term "we" is remotely appropriate.  It has nothing to do with "we". 

[Psi]

You don't need to be a professional or qualified to evaluate the claims.
Anyone can test and evaluate the claims. And everyone else gets to personally decide if they want to accept that persons evaluation or not.
Just because someone is qualified in the superconductor industry doesn't make their evaluation legitimate, or worthy of consideration. That comes from their reputation of accuracy/integrity/honesty etc. which isn't limited to people who are qualified.

[gnuarm]

You don't need to be a professional or qualified to evaluate the claims.

Sure, everyone has an opinion.  Mostly no one cares. 

Anyone can test and evaluate the claims.

Are you planning to do that?

And everyone else gets to personally decide if they want to accept that persons evaluation or not.
Just because someone is qualified in the superconductor industry doesn't make their evaluation legitimate, or worthy of consideration. That comes from their reputation of accuracy/integrity/honesty etc. which isn't limited to people who are qualified.

Ok, I get it.  You reject anyone and everyone, other that who you want to consider.   

Whatever.   Bye

[EEVblog]

Of course if media hypes the research that's their own problem, blame them, don't blame the scientist for posting a paper or a clip that wasn't fully thought through. Sure if they purposefully rigged the result, then have at it.

WAY too often I've seen the researchers themselves fueling the media hype. And there are countless commercialisation arms of universities that talk things up until the cows come how, that's their job.
Example of one I busted:

[AVGresponding]

<much pointless rambling trimmed>

Context trimmed, in preparation for your straw-man arguments.

I was commenting on the false statements you appeared to be making.

Ok, fair enough, I should have said "most" instead of "all". I know there are some LED lighting manufactures that sell good products.
I was not suggesting that manufacturers are having design meetings on how to get their devices to fail just outside of the warranty in order to sell more. Or they're testing them to ensure they do fail soon after warranty.
I'm saying they are choosing their product design requirements based on their chosen product lifespan and they are doing that process wrong. Lifespan requirements in the design process should be determined by a cost/benefit analysis from the users perspective, not the sellers perspective. If you can add $0.05 of extra parts to a product with $2 BOM cost and that will make it last twice as long then you should do that. Not doing that means you are designing it to fail prematurely.

I hate reading stuff like this.  You essentially claim that "most" manufacturers actually go to the trouble of designing the product to be a time bomb, rather than simply minimizing the product cost, which sets the minimum selling price.   Yet, You offer zero evidence of anything you say.  What $0.05 worth of parts will make an LED bulb last twice as long?

Whatever.   People believe what they want to believe and there is little in the way of facts or evidence, that will change their minds. 

Yes, they do.

Not sure who "they" are in your reply.

Of course you are, you're just being facetious imo, but just on the off-chance that you are clinically thick, "they" are the LED lighting manufacturers.

This is not a secret, nor is it difficult to understand; if lights lasted as long as they could be made to, the manufacturers would go out of business from lack of sales, once everyone had all the ones they needed. Replacement sales through non-wear breakage wouldn't be enough to sustain them.

I believe you are in the UK.  From this comment, I have to assume this means your economy has zero growth.  Sounds like the comments I hear from many people in the UK.  Improvement is not possible.  They have to continue doing things the way they've done them for a hundred years.

Aaand, here we have it. I never said any of these things. Nobody who understands anything says these things. Obvious troll is obvious.

The $0.05 worth of parts that could make them last twice as long is actually much much cheaper; a simple change of resistor value in the current sense of the driver would do the job, and indeed, to mention Big Clive again, he regularly posts videos of him doing exactly that.[/color][/b]

I've never seen Big Clive test anything I can buy in a store in the US.  The tests I've seen are of junk he buys from Aliexpress and such.  The original claim was that all devices were designed to be crap.  Psi had to step back from that.   The reality is there's no proof of any of this.  It's just like I've said, people believe what they want to believe.  You would seem to be a perfect example.  You can only offer your personal experience as "proof" of the quality of industrial equipment.  The problem is, you don't realize that your argument is not valid.

I've seen plenty of LED lamp teardowns from big manufacturers on Big Clive's channel; just because you haven't doesn't mean he doesn't do them, it just means you are unaware of them. My original claim is that the cost of lighting in large installations has moved from electricity to installation and maintenance, and I have provided examples of this. You on the other hand have only provided examples of straw-man arguments and faulty logic. The problem is, you don't realise you don't have an argument at all.

No, I'm afraid it's you that is talking "bullshit".

The starting premise was that the LED was great progress as a lighting solution.
You outright called it a scam and gave an argument that has nothing to do with LEDs,
What you are describing is a general trend in the industry and something (safe to say) everybody on this forum is ranting about in one way or another and trying to push against - trying to make things unrepeatable without direct involvement of the OEM, (directly and indirectly) planned obsolescence and overall pushing the consumer from a buying a product to actually buying a service - to use Doctorow's term - enshittification of tech products.

But again - this has nothing to with LEDs. The incandescent lights are the OGs of this with the planned obsolescence, and if they were viable today, you would have seen further enshittification of industrial lighting  even with them there. The industry would find a way.

You are both correct, and also missing the point. That planned obsolescence is not new, is not new. The point I'm making is that modern LED fittings give manufacturers a unique opportunity to enhance their profit margins by making them completely integrated, so that it is impossible (technically simply economically impractical) to replace a lamp, and the whole fitting must be replaced.

[Psi]

Move the lighting discussion to the new thread I created.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/led-lighting-and-planned-obsolescence-intentional-or-not/?topicseen

[Psi]

New video supposedly showing full levitation / flux pinning.
Obviously video could be fake, but if not it looks like flux pinning to me.

[deepfryed]

New video supposedly showing full levitation / flux pinning.
Obviously video could be fake, but if not it looks like flux pinning to me.

Yeah, saw that on Twitter with some added context https://twitter.com/andercot/status/1687740396691185664

There was also some discussion on that thread about the possibility of islands of superconductivity, beyond my basic physics comprehension.

[EEVblog]

There was also some discussion on that thread about the possibility of islands of superconductivity, beyond my basic physics comprehension.

I heard something similar. Sounds kinda-sorta not very practical superconductory? 

[Psi]

Even if it turns out to be of no use for power transmission the new physics is cool.

[iMo]

When not a fake below - I do not understand why those researches are unable to shoot a better video..

[gnuarm]

@iMo, what is it you think this video is showing?