you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -21 points 3 years ago (1 child)

I would be very skeptical of this paper's claims.

  1. It hasnt been peer reviewed

  2. The data hasn't been replicated

  3. The clains being made are extraordinary. i.e a cheap material that has a superconduction transition temperature 200 degrees kelvin above the cuprates at standard pressure

  4. The fragility of this superconductive state makes me wonder if what theyre claiming to observe is an artifact (pathological science) rather than a real effect

  5. The paper is "rough around the edges" i.e multiple proofreading mistakes and has undergone little apparent editing for quality

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

    There is always room for pathological science. Especially when something like room temperature superconductors are the subject in question. A good researcher will try to find and test all the alternative hypotheses that they can. i.e contrast the cisplatin paper with fleischmann and pons' paper about cold fusion. This paper reminds me a lot more of the cold fusion paper than it does the cisplatin paper. Another example of a bad paper would be NASA's announcement of a microbe that used an Arsenic containing analog of DNA.

  • source
  • parent