• keegomatic@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    1 year ago

    > > > our compound shows greatly consistent x-ray diffraction spectrum with the previously reported structure data > >

    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.

    • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • The Doctor@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.