Hacker News Reader

Comment by vhiremath4 | Hacker News Reader

It’s interesting to notice all unofficial institutions (bottom table) have a higher outcome of partial success. Unless the more legitimate labs are less capable, you have to wonder whether anything outside of an accredited institution can be trusted at all at this point. My guess is the allure of hype (more followers / engagement) is too strong for personal gain.

View on HN

One interesting theory here is contamination. "Legitimate" labs have a higher standard of cleanness and material purity, more stable equipment etc.

If the results are to be believed the crystaline structure is hard to achieve as replacing the right parts with Cu seems borderline random.

less perfect synthesis materials (some of the unofficial institutions have even admitted to using subsitutes for some of the synthesis) so perhaps worse ovens that cannot sustain perfect temps, or substitute materials in some way help the right crystals to show up.

The original Korean lab said they only had a 10% success rate and admit the ppublished synthesis is incomplete because it is waiting full journal approval for the paper to come out.

So we should wait until we have better data, better replication and tbh a working theory of how it even works because it shows odd magnetic behaviour, whether its superconducting or not

Or the simpler explanation: "legit" labs are more cautious about confirming successful synthesis and any test results, to protect the reputation of the lab and parent institution.

I'm not a chemist so this may be a dumb question, but is it possible that polymorphs are coming into play here, and the less official labs are better at contaminating the sample with the correct polymorph?

> and admit the ppublished synthesis is incomplete because it is waiting full journal approval for the paper to come out.

Why would they have to wait for the paper to come out? Couldn't they just publish the steps in a blog post or something before the journal has approved the paper?

Because they don't want to be scooped, essentially. They want the first accepted, peer reviewed, published paper in a high profile journal about RTAPS to be their paper. I have a lot of issues with literal currency being involved in academia, industry domination and patenting and the like, but the real currency of academia is reputation. I'm not going to begrudge them that.

Iris was talking about how she used construction grade phosphorous which apparently is often contaminated with Sulfur.

Unofficial institutions may have a lower institutional barrier for just dumping an "It works!" message on social networks.

Big institutions have a reputation to protect, which in this case means being extra careful before making any revolutionary claims.

I don't really think that either is bad, but I would expect confirmations from the stratosphere to come in quite a bit later. Also, it is vacation time in the Northern Hemisphere, so many bigger institutions will be staffed by minimal crews only - mostly by younger people, who don't have kids yet, but don't have much decision authority either.

In the Dept. of Algebra where I studied, it was uncommon to meet a professor in summer, much less several of them at the same time. The postdocs were present, but not the big wigs.

It may be the opposite.

If you are at a national lab and replicate this you would have to do so with a very high level of detail and diligence before disclosing to the press. I am pretty sure that every PI of every lab will be demanding that all process and material is submitted to them and then going over it with a fine tooth comb before putting their name to it.

The private folks have much less to lose, as well as (possibly) more to gain.

This could possibly be attributed to survival bias. I.e. the individuals are more prone to post their results only after a successful attempt.

At least two entries from the "Private" table (HUST and SSMRL-SEU) have already moved to the "Official/Institutional" table after the connection between the private individual and their institutional affiliation was made.

Indeed, it's quite intriguing to observe the apparent trend of unofficial institutions showing a higher rate of partial success. It raises questions about the factors influencing these outcomes. While it's important not to jump to conclusions about the legitimacy or capability of accredited labs versus unofficial ones, your skepticism is understandable.

Accredited institutions often have established protocols, rigorous peer review processes, and accountability mechanisms that contribute to their credibility. However, it's worth considering that unofficial institutions might have some advantages too, such as more freedom to explore unconventional approaches and potentially quicker adaptation to emerging trends.

I believe it is just self-selecting. An unofficial institution that fails to display anything interesting likely won’t be added to the list.

Possibly also a base-rate effect going on. There are presumably far more unaccredited groups having a go than official institutions, so even with a worse chance of success they could be over-represented.

Reads like a substance-less ChatGPT comment. Probably is one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com