schroedingershat @ schroedingershat @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

375

Joined

2 yr. ago

I'm not excluding the possibility of fraud, but the fraud would have to be deliberate, not self delusion.

There's no room for pathological science

https://sciencecast.org/casts/suc384jly50n

The only way to do something like that with diamagnetism or ferromagnetism is to deliberately fake the arrangement of magnets.

Just click through the links on the names. A decent number of them were actually published in reputable journals (the ones with doi links). On second glance there's a decent amount of superconductor stuff there too.

If it is fraud, it's very deliberate fraud (the website is sketchy as hell so could easily be).

https://sciencecast.org/casts/suc384jly50n

There is no way that is diamagnetic or ferromagnetic levitation unless the "magnet" under it is actually several magnets in different orientations or there are other magnets deliberately hidden out of frame. The sketchy website and lack of any public facing claims actually bodes well in my book. Fraudsters generally don't limit the video to an obscure link.

Given how simple the reproduction is, we should see a reproduction or some debunking within a few weeks.

Tc is allegedly 120C, so we,ve got a couple of years if it's not a scam.

There is no room for a mistake or massaging data here. The authors have photos and video of magnetic levitation. It is either outright fraud, or true. You are claiming without evidence that these people intentionally faked the paper and it is entirely made up (which could well be true, but is a much stronger claim than shoddy statistical analysis, and much easier to prove).

As to prior work. All three authors have previous publications on perovskites. If the trick for room temperature superconductivity turns out to be putting a low temperature superconducting material in a crystal lattice where it doesn't have enough room (which is a concept consistent with existing literature), then it seems reasonable that a perovskite researcher would discover it first as there is not really any special knowledge of superconductivity beyond the basics required (ie. The what is exceedingly simple if it turns out it works, the how is hard and is not the domain of a superconductivity expert).

Extraordinary claims and all that, but none of your criticisms are valid.

Mass famines and heat that kills without AC coming summer of 2024 or 2025. Won't kill the global north too much yet, but it will be one of the biggest deadly events in history for the rest of the world.

You've now swapped from molten salt reactors to sodium cooled ones while pretending they're the same thing.

CFR has also never run without using U235 as its main fuel source.

Mind-boggling stupidity as always.

Remember kids! Fascism starts in the home! If we work together and stop empathy early we can keep punishing the poor and disadvantaged!

MSRs and LFRs are horribly unreliable and don't last. There hasn't even been a successful demo reactor and the technical issues for running one safely at full power long term don't even have proposed half-solutions.

Inkai uranium mine produces about 40W/m^2 in fuel for the actively leeched land where everything is killed by the sulfuric acid and vehicle movement.

If you include the 15km buffer where you can't live or eat anything it's about 20W/m^2

Solar averages 20-50W/m^2 with current tech.

Rooftop solar uses no land. Agrivoltaics can have negative land use (adding the solar reduces the amount of land needed for the crops under it). Roughly 30m^{2 of roof + 30m}s of facade or wall is sufficient for the average high income country european's final energy use.

Solar uses a strict subset of the materials needed for a nuclear plant, so land use from the uranium mining is in addition to construction.

Like every pro-nuke lie, your land use pearl clutching is the oppksite of the truth.

Where?

Show the data.

What place on earth is nuclear more viable than renewables?

No vague gesturing. Hard numbers.

The best time to ignore the nuclear industry scammers and spend the money on renewables instead for 10x the return in clean energy was 1942.

The second best time is now.

Switching >50% of the power to wind could have happened any time in the last 80 years for far less than any one of the various failed nuclear transitions.

Hell, the first commercial solar thermal installation was over a century ago and the first attempt to bring PV to market was george cove in 1906. One abandoned nuclear reactor worth of investment could have moved either down the economic learning curve to replace coal.

Exxon is working on it. Give it another decade.

Storage water heaters can also capture off peak or curtailed energy (acting as 6-12kWh of diurnal storage), so they are more than 3x better in terms of emissions.

Smugly attempting to mock people who care about animal welfare doesn't justify all of the other harms you are doing.

Bifaciality isn't new or limited to perovskite based PV. Ground reflection is also not the only source of indirect light.

This article is very bad, but bifacial panels are starting to dominate the industry for good reason. The backside gives a 5-20% boost in total annual yield (which is worth it on its own), but more importantly that boost is skewed towards times with low direct irradiance (such as cloudy days). This reduces the amount of storage required.

It also allows other orientations. Vertical installations have huge advantages including better compatibility with agrivoltaics, generation skewed towards times where low tilt panels don't produce (morning-evening for east-west and winter for north-south), better dual use, and lower racking cost. Glass-glass encapsulisation is also more durable and this alone pays for most of the added cost.

Real meat from animals is good for you

It's objectively bad for you in the quantities eaten by the west. Cutting out red meat, milk and most of the other animal products from your diet is measurably better for your health.

Stop giving billions to giant multinational cattle farming companies. It's just as large an emissions source as oil (which you can also stop funding directly by avoiding driving where possible and going solar-powered electric for the rest)

So stop giving money to giant agribusiness corporations to subsidize the most polluting food source. Got it.