An nameless reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: On Monday, the journal Nature launched a report from Nanjing College researchers that had tried to duplicate an earlier paper that described a compound that superconducted at room temperature and comparatively reasonable pressures. Regardless of persuasive proof that they’ve produced the identical chemical, the crew signifies they see no signal of superconductivity, even right down to extraordinarily low temperatures. The failure will undoubtedly elevate additional questions in regards to the unique analysis, which got here from a lab that had an earlier paper on superconductivity retracted.
In 2020, the lab run by Ranga Dias on the College of Rochester reported a carbon-hydrogen-sulfur compound fashioned at excessive pressures might superconduct at room temperature. However the outcomes had been controversial, partly as a result of it wasn’t clear that the paper included sufficient data for anybody else to provide the identical circumstances and since Dias was uncooperative when requested to share experiment information. Ultimately, it grew to become obvious that the crew had used undocumented strategies of acquiring a few of the information underlying the paper, and it was retracted. However Dias continued to assert that the superconductivity was current. (There is a good overview of the controversy on the American Bodily Society web site.)
Regardless of Nature retracting one in every of Dias’ papers, the journal printed one other paper on superconductivity from his group. On this case, a lutetium-hydrogen chemical doped with nitrogen was reported to superconduct at room temperature however at a lot decrease pressures, which might enable it to be examined with considerably much less specialised tools. Given the historical past, the declare was greeted with an excellent increased diploma of skepticism than the sooner paper.
