New video from SCTL Korea room temperature superconductor experimenters claimed to shows a very strong full levitation effect. Full levitation would be evidence of the Meissner effect found only in superconductors. I have shown how the levitation evidence was originally partial levitation. Critics says partial levitation can be from diamagnetics or even some iron contamination. SCTL achieved full levitation but the gap was previously very small. This was likely due to a less pure sample with a weaker superconducting effect. However, the new video shows a larger sample with a very strong levitation effect. This is strong evidence of a fairly robust Meissner effect for a room temperature and room pressure superconductor.
UPDATE: SCTL has retracted the claimed full levitation. They say it was from the Lorentz force.
SCT lab :
"I apologize for causing confusion. The last video of sample levitating turned out to be caused by Lorentz force and it was my fault that i thought it was a full levitation." pic.twitter.com/kMwNTKZWCo
— sejong (@gimjiun79102152) April 25, 2024
Critics say that this new levitation is electromagnetic levitation but electromagnetic levitation is not stable. Here are videos looking at quantum locked superconducting levitation versus electromagnetic levitation. You can use electronics and multiple magnets to stabilize electromagnetic levitation. This is not what is happening in the SCTL demonstration.
Regular stable electromagnetic levitation has four magnets below. This seems to be the key for stable regular electromagnetic levitation. The wires in this case are very thin. I get that some people says that the amount of stabilization from the two wires is enough to invalidate. If everyone says it is easy to do this with regular materials, get a stable no wires levitation which I think is not touching but others say is touching then I would like to see that replicated (even the just touching with a small piece but stable). And if two very thin wires makes it easy for a small piece then I would like to see that replicated with a video. Again, not over four magnets in a 2X2 grid but just one magnet below. This work looks novel to me but I am open to being proven wrong with data. When I look at the electromagnetic levitation evidence to dismiss it there are key differences.
Background
LK99 is the material that South Korean researchers claimed in early 2023 was a room temperature superconductor. The South Korean Researcher reported on update on their work at the March 4, 2024 APS American Physical Society conference. They have modified the chemistry to PCPOSOS which is LK99 with more sulfur and copper.
The patents and the original papers described superconducting low level electrical resistance for thin film versions of LK99. There were a lot of negative experiments from researchers who made bulk samples of LK99. The negative papers never made thin film and never wrote about trying to make thin film LK99.
There were also many positive LK99 science papers based upon computer simulation mainly using DFT (Density Function Theory).
There are two new separate experimental papers from China with strongest experimental evidence supporting the confirmation of the original korean work.
A large portion of the scientific community and public have turned against LK99. A room temperature superconductor is VERY hard work. The original cuprate superconductors had difficult replication until the YCBO formulation was discovered.
The original LK99 only had partial levitation as shown here.
The SCTL korean team had a showed full levitation (no part of the sample touching the magnet below.) The previous full levitation had a tiny gap.
The new SCTL group now shows a far larger sample with a vastly stronger full levitation effect and a far larger gap.
Here is a summary of the arguments and evidence for and against LK99 type materials as room temperature superconductors.
Case Against Cuprous Sulfide and Iron Contamination
The claims against LK99 and LK99-variants materials as a superconductor is that cuprous sulfide has some transition temperatures that match up with some of the bulk LK99 readings. They claim that the partial levitation is from metal contamination for paramagnetic partial levitation.
The against case also boils down to the Korean and Chinese researchers working on this are incompetent, have bad equipment, bad measurement and are sloppy fools.
There are disputes about the levitation and what we are seeing levitate.
Case for LK99 Variants as Room Temperature Superconductors Has Full Levitation, Microwave Absorption, Thin Film Superconducting Resistance and Meissner Effect indications
The case for LK99 Variants as Room Temperature Superconductors Has Full Levitation, Microwave Absorption, Thin Film Superconducting Resistance and Meissner Effect indications. There are now two teams experimentally replicating in Korea and multiple teams in China. There is supercomputing modeling that indicates that LK99-type materials are promising and could work.
Iron and Paramagentic Materials Cannot Stably Fully Levitate
Earnshaw’s theorem proves that using only paramagnetic materials (such as ferromagnetic iron) it is impossible for a static system to stably levitate against gravity. Static stability means that any small displacement away from a stable equilibrium causes a net force to push it back to the equilibrium point.
Earnshaw’s theorem proved conclusively that it is not possible to levitate stably using only static, macroscopic, paramagnetic fields.
The recent videos of full levitation with PCPOSOS (LK99 sulfur variant) seems to counter claims of partial paramagnetic levitation.
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab researchers have employed computational methods to outline an approach for optimizing the LK99 material as a superconductor. The modeling work runs counter to the contamination claims.
Here are nextbigfuture LK99 and PCPOSOS articles with those topic tags.
The patent information about the thin film is key. This is the main form of the material that has superconducting levels of resistance. The patent indicates that it was created with chemically vapor deposition.
US Air force research is funding thin film LK99 research.
b>Patent on the LK99 Thin Film Superconductivity
The matching international LK99 patent is here. WO2023027536 and WO2023027537
In the patent, they show and state there is superconducting levels of low resistance. The resistivity of LK-99 was 1/10,000 to 1/100,000 of copper.
For Example 4, the grains of the solid phase reaction were processed into a square shape and the resistance change according to the temperature change (304K ~ 382K) was measured using equipment (Power (voltage/current) Source KEITHLEY 228A, Sensitive Digital Voltmeter KEITHLEY 182, Probe Method: Measured using the 4-probe method) and the results are shown in FIG. 29. Referring to this, it can be seen that the ceramic compound according to the present invention exhibits superconductive properties.
In addition, FIG. 42 is a photograph of an experiment in which resistance was measured in real time for Example 4, and the measured resistance was approximately 10^-12 Ohms per centimeter. Very low resistance in Ohmcm.
Microwave Absorption
Chinese universities and research labs have published experimental evidence in support of LK99 as a room temperature superconductor. The amount of superconducting material that is made in pile of LK99 powder is small. The LK99 needs to have precisely located copper and phosphorous. This leaves one dimensional molecular chains of superconducting material.
All previous superconductors have been found to absorb microwaves. It is the nature of superconducting material that they exclude magnetic fields and thus the electronic and magnetic behavior is observed based on interaction with microwaves.
Meissner Effect Experimental Evidence
China researchers are also detecting weak readings that are consistent with a meissner effect. Meissner effect is one of the main properties of superconductors.
Supercomputer Modeling Support
The Berkeley National Lab supercomputer simulations and other supercomputer modelers support the LK99 variants.
The critics who claim sulfur contamination do not explain the thin film results and they just dismiss the modeling and they have not shown sulfur contamination that achieves partial or full levitation.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
Matthews 7:7-8 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.”
We seek room-temperature ambient-pressure superconductor materials.
Aren’t they supposed to be Phd’s, doctors and similar? I find it odd they don’t understand what is Lorentz force before publishing. Lk-99 is a hoax. Total hoax.
Even bigger than Andrea Rossi and his cold fusion claims.
Everyone who doubted was correct. The SCTL team has retracted and said it was a screwup. It was the lorentz force.
The whole LK99 thing is a scam. We will have room temperature superconductor in the 2040s, not now.
I can make it “levitate” with only 1 tiny wire and not 2 in the back as they had used!!! It is a hoax.
This is just an example of Lorentz force, nothing to see here
you, Brett and everyone else were correct. It was Lorentz force. SCTL has retracted
Replication, verification and peer review are essential so we’ll wait and see the complete outcome.
Hubris seems to be the main reason for all the hate. Dont lock yourselves into theorems and laws as they also can be disproved/changed.
Sadly the wires attached to this demo negate its validity. Permanent magnets cannot be stably levitated without active control (Earnshaw’s theorem), but AC electromagnets can, as can weak diamagnets like graphite. Wire tethers could stabilise a permanent magnet levitation.
an example of diamagnetic levitation:
https://www.imagesco.com/magnetism/graphite-levitation-kit.html
this video shows electromagnetic levitation. It looks very stable to me:
https://youtu.be/AU0q4wVohF8?si=_GO-QDOnu-ZL1Vax
Yes it is multiple coils and fields using electronic controls to stabilize the levitation. The setup does not look anything like the raw setup of the PCPOSOS. Show me one magnet and not four coils below and show no electronic controls. Maybe that exists but having electronics control it is different from superconductor locking levitation.
Maybe it’s a bit late at this point…
Ernshaw’s theorem is invalid in the presence of diamagnetism, which has been known for some time. See this: https://www.physics.ucla.edu/marty/diamag/ajp601.pdf
But, in the immediate instance, Ernshaw’s theorem doesn’t apply to systems with mechanical connections, such as those wires, either. They can supply a restoring force that prevents one of the magnets from flipping, which is the usual instability between opposing magnets
Well previously they had a sample levitating without the wires, y’all seem to forget that here! Seems theyve upgraded the material now and did other tests – they did it!
Im curious how strong the material is to breaking & temperature change!
Previously they had a sample partially levitating without the wires. It was contacting the magnet.
This would be a type II superconductor, and should exhibit flux pinning, which is something you never see in non-superconductors.
What I really want to see is a flux pinning demonstration, where the sample is locked in space relative to the magnet. I’m not seeing evidence of flux pinning here. Honestly? Read the text: They’re running 5 amps through the sample to get it to levitate. At five amps you could levitate almost anything conductive that size!
This is a demonstration of electromagnet levitation, not superconducting levitation, apparently.
Can you provide links to videos showing electromagnet levitation where it is stable without electronics and multiple coils? I have not seen electromagnetic leviation where someone just attaches wires to a raw sample and it levitates in a stable position over an ordinary magnet. When I see regular levitation on a hunk of metal or just an electromagnet over another magnet, the objects repell and the lifted object falls off. Only with superconductors, does the levitation stabilize without electronic sensors and control. But I have not done an exhaustive search and I have not personally tested magnetism to the level needed to unambiguously tell these things apart. Which also seems to be a problem for all sources online. There seems to be a lot of nuance to full, partial levitation and what is good enough full levitation. I did not see magnet contact on the prior claim of full levitation but it was close enough that I understand the claim that it did contact.
four magnets below. this seems to be the key for stable regular electromagnetic levitation. The wires in this case are very thin. I get that everyone says that the amount of stabilization from the two wires is enough to invalidate. If everyone says it is easy to do this with regular materials, get a stable no wires levitation which I think is not touching but others say is touching then I would like to see that replicated. And if two wires makes it easy for a small piece then I would like to see that replicated with a video. Again, not over four magnets in a 2X2 grid but just one magnet below. This looks novel to me but I am open to being proven wrong with data. When I look at the electromagnetic levitation evidence to dismiss it there are key differences.
Some clueless comments here…
The “Tether” are wires passing 5A to the sample.
Now there is a very valid concern the wires might have created the levitation and were rigid enough to stop it from flipping. A straight wire running across the middle of the face of a magnet won’t tend to push up or down but sideways, but the current path is more U-shaped. and this forms either an attractive or repulsive north or south pole facing the other magnet, so that test, UNLESS it is AC being passed, or DC but reversed and still working is meaningless.
But worse there is no viable explanation for why putting current into a superconductor would enhance it’s diamagnetic levitating flux pinning tendencies.
Now the fully levitating (if only just) PCPOSOS is far more compelling and indicates they must have levitation, while yes a thin layer of Pyrolytic graphite is diamagnetic enough to levitate that’s not a big chunk like that, and it only works because Carbon is rather light.
That is not superconductivity. The levitation is clearly electromagnetic “stabilized” by two wires which hold the sample in place. Is this some kind of a joke?
I can do it with only 1 wire instead of 2.
A real control experiment would be to just run a wire along the path of the leads+sample. Does that level of current make the wire “levitate”? Current-carrying wires experience forces in magnetic fields. That’s the basis for electric motors. I don’t see Meissner-like response here.
“Earnshaw’s theorem proves that using only paramagnetic materials (such as ferromagnetic iron) it is impossible for a static system to stably levitate against gravity. Static stability means that any small displacement away from a stable equilibrium causes a net force to push it back to the equilibrium point.
Earnshaw’s theorem proved conclusively that it is not possible to levitate stably using only static, macroscopic, paramagnetic fields.
The recent videos of full levitation with PCPOSOS (LK99 sulfur variant) seems to counter claims of partial paramagnetic levitation.”
That tether you see in the full levitation video would be all that was needed to stabilize paramagnetic levitation, by adding a non-magnetic restoring force. I’m not saying that it’s absolutely paramagnetic levitation, but the tether invalidates this particular test.
The comparison test is just to take a length of their wire and see if it levitates above the magnet when that much current is driven through it. Current carrying wires experience forces in magnetic fields. That’s the basis for the definition of the ampere, and the basis for electric motors. I don’t see anything Meissner-like about this.
Even if it’s a long shot, it’s worth looking at a little closer. Breakthroughs aren’t normally made in a day, but after years of observation. I would call for more intentionality from both sides. If it is false let us not labor under false assumptions. If it is true, let us not disregard the idea completely after preliminary results. What is most exciting is the theoretical feasibility of the substance. Physics doesn’t prohibit a positive outcome. The simulations say it could work. As the method of synthesis improves, so to will the evidence, for or against. I see this as a worthwhile endeavor.
Let’s assume it works. How hard will it be to manufacture at scale?
Is it similar to LEDs, solar panels, microchips, or any other high volume industry?
If they can scale production, does that make fusion cheap and easy?
The tested sample looks pretty big when compared to an experimenter’s hand, fingers, thumb, as well as the disc magnet stack so scaling up production may be fairly easy if they’re still using the pyro synthesis method with the pure elements in their earlier work.
Whether it can be of use for fusion plasma confinement may require checking the magnetic susceptibility to see whether its superconductivity can survive sufficient-for-fusion-control magnetic fields.
The video’s English subtitle still says that it’s a bulk sample so they don’t seem to have narrowed down exactly what material is exhibiting this interesting behavior as a PURE compound.
For actual applications, what exactly it is may not be particularly important but for research into superconductivity further, it’ll be helpful. What really matters is how long the full levitation can persist WITHOUT any current input and whether it isn’t easily pierced by magnetic fields or not.
Why the tether? That by itself would be enough to stabilize ordinary levitation against flipping.
The English caption of the video says that they applied current for creating more Cooper pairs. It also says 0.2mm silver wires which should be rather flimsy. When the sample hopped up, the up and down rebounds have characteristics of a decaying harmonic oscillation.
If they weigh and determine the mass of the sample levitating and we time the period of the oscillation, we can determine the spring constant of the silver wires returning the sample to the full-levitating stationary position.
I wonder whether they can find some fuse-like conducting material to severe the current and freeing the sample for no-tether full levitation. They should put a transparent dome over the fuse and sample because the sample seems to get rather hot.
Maybe something like gallium can work as the detachable fuse wires to free the sample once the current has been injected.
There’s a eutectic mixture of gallium, indium, and tin which is liquid at room temperature — something like Galinstan(R) Gal+in+stan for the three metals in it.
The video’s English subtitle still says that it’s a bulk sample so they don’t seem to have narrowed down exactly what material is exhibiting this interesting behavior as a PURE compound.
For actual applications, what exactly it is may not be particularly important but for research into superconductivity further, it’ll be helpful. What really matters is how long the full levitation can persist WITHOUT any current input and whether it isn’t easily pierced by magnetic fields or not.
The tested sample’s hopping up motion from a platform made of glass slide attached to a magnet may be used for disconnecting it from two small containers holding the room-temperature metallic liquid Galinstan(R) which have the electrical current source connected to them.
There is vapor coming off showing so it appears as though it isn’t room temperature. Still interesting.
In cooling, the condensation mist tends to float downwards. The video’s ‘vapor’ floated upwards and seems to be smoke. It seems to be fried !
If it’s legit, they heated it, and then waited for it to cool through its transition temperature.
Why do there need to be 2 tiny wires holding the material off the ground?
They explain that in the video: They’re running five amps through it “to increase Cooper pair production”.
Which, frankly, strikes me as nonsensical.
Well, props for China, more and more scientific breaktrough coming from there, I feel US et all lagging behind more and more, lately the fusion duration record and now this, what is happening?
Very pleased to see this video, I always was hoping to ever see this happen since my teenager years, 20 years have passed!
Seems the rate of succes is increasing rapidly now, I hope we see usable products in 5-10 years! This could be huge for fusion as well given more improvements!
This us NOT China. Get your facts straight. This is South Korea.
Matthews 7:7-8 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.”
We seek room-temperature ambient-pressure superconductor materials.