Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="lovethebomb" data-source="post: 28676105" data-attributes="member: 531830">Not only the Carbonaceous SH one, Ranga's Europium RTSC study also faced serious data manipulation and plagiarism accusations, literally a cut-and-paste incident, which ultimately had to be retracted. The metallic hydrogen claim that came when they were at Harvard has yet to be reproduced either by a third party or by the publishers themselves. So that's 3 studies that are treated with high amount of distrust, 2 of which already retracted (Nature is to be blamed here too, their peer-review conduct through the past decade or so is becoming somewhat problematic).The incredulity displayed towards these aren't general wariness either. So far, mostly simulation and some theoretical work seem to suggest that RTSCs should not be possible for most structures- and this is particulary true for CSH, which is partly why people were so scandalized when it was first published in 2020-ish, I think.This is not my field per se so I hesistate to judge too harshly. But the baseline subtraction of one of the R vs T curves in this paper is weird, definitely nonchalant for a study that claims RT superconductivity (although one of my colleagues says it could sometimes be warranted for 4 probe measurements).I don't know man, these guys are either playing amateur hour (very unlikely) or on a career suicide mission. Dangerous game at the expense of their and the institute's reputation.I cannot stress this enough though, if an honest to god room T superconductivity is recorded by anyone, it will be the scientific breakthrough of the 21st century so far. It's such an incredible, almost too-good-to-be-true scenario. A Nobel would only just be a consolation prize.</blockquote>

Verification: Nawa warak dahaya keeyada? (Namaya wadi kireema dahaya)

Top Bottom