Floatyrocks.fm :LK99 sample indepeinday confirmed

Well, welcome to Floaty Rocks FM. A podcast that gives you, LK 99 news, updates, conversations with experts. And, me, Alex Volkov, was not a scientist, asking real scientists questions in a way that I could understand them. And hopefully you too.

So I want to just recap a little bit how we got to have in the podcast. and, space. LP 99 news exploded on Twitter. and quickly following that, I noticed that people just want to converse and talk and have a, reliable stream of information. So I started collecting a Twitter list of the folks that I found credible and, excited talking about this new potential for Humanity, material science, superconductivity, and more.

And for some reason, this list also exploded to like 3K followers. And following that, we did a space, it put a space, with a few folks who are talking about this, Andrew McAllop, who tried to reproduce and then eventually reproduce this and some other folks. Then we had 4 more spaces during the same week, which made me very tired. However, many people told me, Hey, Toyota Spaces is nice and all, and they're live, but we cannot make it.

And, we're not sure how to play them on Twitter. Why didn't you post them somewhere? And this is how floating rocks a fan was born. thanks to my friends at Zealous, who literally I found about a couple of weeks ago in the coincidence, who made it very easy to record to the spaces, transcribe them, and then put them up as a podcast. And so this is Floroxifen, If you're listening to this live in our spaces, you're welcome to review the previous episodes.

If you're listening to this on a podcast, You're welcome to join our next spaces live. but also, please keep in mind that this is not like a standard podcast. you, you will need to As much as I will try to moderate, you'll need to assume who's talking a little bit without seeing their face However, a floating rocks FM, the website will have all the transcripts as well. So you're open to join there and see who was staying what, and see some see some examples.

This podcast is hosted by me, Alex Volkow, who I will repeat is not a scientist. I'm not a scientist. I'm just a guy who likes new stuff. And, I just happen to be okay at moderating spaces and collecting information. And so I'm literally sitting here with, iTunes and holding the volume button and, and trying to be the producer as well. Alright.

So, with this intro behind us, I wanna talk about today's space. And, I have an outline that I wanna cover. We have some updates for you, and we have some new friends that I wanna bring up, which I will invite to speak and introduce in a second. and, we have some, how should I say, existing friends who, who will maybe wanna join and, and speak as well. And we have a bunch of news, just a lot of news because everybody's timeline, at least the folks who are following this as close as as me, has been up and down, up and down for a long time.

And I think it's worth discussing what actually is happening. And, yeah, and this is this is why this is why we're here, and I wanna say hi to 8 to 5 Hey, man. How are you?

I'm good, Alex. how are you?

I'm good. I just need I just need to, to, to put myself on, on do not disturb because I'm getting a bunch of, bunch of DMs. I will say just one thing, Atypay, you probably as well. We have so many people DM ing us with information, and I really appreciate all of you trying to bring us kind of the news, definitely. I, we started with a Twitter list, and quickly people told me that Twitter lists are not that good for this purpose. specifically because Twitter list is a list of people, not topics. Right? So I landed a bunch of people, but they went on to their normal lives and their normal tweeting And they just read about some stuff, and they read to it.

And, that's not very relevant in the Twitter list. So that purpose, we open the community. we call it, I guess, Flow Deerocks. and I wanna explain what community is real quick, and I wanna invite everybody not there yet to join us. It's called Florax. Okay. 99 updates. And I will, I will share this in the post. and then open this part of the space. but definitely if you go to floory floory Rockfem, the link will be there for you as well. community. And I'm pinning this to the top of the space folks in the audience who haven't yet joined. Please Please feel free.

We already did 700 members, and I will say this. The folks with the MS, please continue the MS. If you want to bring in anonymous, definitely feel free. However, please participate there as well. The benefit of a community, I I don't wanna be an ex shield. Okay? I I really, I really don't. but communities are nice just from the perspective of if you want your main timeline to be kind of clean of the obsession, with LK99 that, someone seemed to be having. communities are a great way to still be on Twitter.

or x still tweet, still cross post and, you know, boost etcetera still have your the same social graph as as we have here. However, not to overflow your main timeline with just, like, reactions, etcetera. and so I welcome you to gender community. It's not been to the Tableau space, enterprise there. And other folks. anyway, let's let's start with maybe, just maybe a brief introduction of who you are and, and how how are we connected to all of this? for folks who are listening to several spaces, this may sound repetitive a little bit. However, for folks who are new to the podcast, this may be a good recap for them as well. So my friend ate the pie, and I, we've been kind of tracking this close.

And, feel free to introduce yourself for folks kinda learn what your voice sounds like and and what's your take on all this or position on all this?

Sure, Alex. so. hi, everyone. so I think, I am I think I'm also like Alex. I'm a start founder, I'm in artificial intelligence. And, one of my, themes was that, oh, you know, the Twitter, algo can be not quite hacked, but you can you can kinda chase the algo. And I was looking for some way to do it, and Alex Kaplin came along, and he tweeted this thing about, oh, you know, I think this is gonna be big, and he tweeted this thing about room temperature superconductors.

So I went and I took a look at it, and I started off like, okay. You know, I I usually do this kind of like scientific reading and summarization where I kinda, like, understand it for myself, and then I kinda write notes. And I started putting the notes up on Twitter because people it seems like a lot of people, like, prefer to read, like, the summary than the the natural paper. So I don't have any specific, knowledge of sort of conductors, I have a broad scientific background. So I read through the paper, and I was like, okay. You know, this is like a field with lots of folks. Looks kind of interesting. Maybe it's true. And, you know, we'll see. So I put that out. And I just started seeing a lot response.

Like, you know, I was a, like, a 2000 follower account at that point. I started seeing, like, 40,000, 50,000, interviews in, like, a few hours. So I was like, this thing this thing has some has some. So then I did a closer reading of the paper. Right? I did a closer reading of the paper, and, I went through the exact way to synthesize it. And this thing is so easy to synthesize in in what is said in the paper. Right? In the paper, they're like, you add, you know, the precursors together, you burn you put it in a in a in a capsule. You burn it in the furnace. You take it out. You take them out. You grind them up.

You add the precursors again together. You'd put it in another quartz capsule in a in a vacuum, put it in the oven. in the furnace, burn it, take it out, and, you know, that's it. And I was like, well, you know, someone like a 1000 years ago could have done that. So I put out another tweet saying, like, this is caveman technology. And that kinda, like, started like this. So and I started to see, like, the interest graph kinda, like, grow. Like, each each tweet started to see, like, you know, 100,000 or 100,000 views, or it started to go up. So I was like, alright. Let's continue tweeting about this. So I so I chased down the story, basically. The next the next thing that happened was there was 2 papers.

Like, Kaplan came along, and he said, oh, well, there's 2 papers that, you know, with similar authors around the same time. So what's going on? Like, why are the two papers? And you know, people are starting to analyze, like, you know, the magnetic susceptibility and stuff like that. So at that point, I was like, okay. Let's take a look at both papers. So I tracked down both papers, and I typed on the timestamps. Right? So I tracked on timestamps, and then I tracked on papers. And then someone online was saying like, oh, you know, Nobel Prize can only have, like, 3 winners So I put that together, and that was the next one. The next year they ran out with, which is that the papers were not ready. And that was kind of obvious because, you know, was, like, formatting errors and stuff, like, where someone had, like, cut and paste wrongly.

And, like, it's very obvious that, you know, the paper was not ready for it to be published, and they pushed it So I just stated that. And I just really stated that papers are not ready. these are the timestamps. This is what the timestamps would have looked like if the guy had one guy had been sitting in Korea and the other guy had been sitting in Virginia, And, you know, if one paper had been pushed out with, you know, you know, at at, like, 5 PM close a day, you know, in Korea, you would, you know, for the other guy to up at 2 AM in Virginia in order to, you know, in order to push a paper out, he that's gonna that's the emergency phone call. So someone made an emergency phone call from Korea and Virginia. And I put that all together with, like, their bios because they're, you know, the guy in Virginia was in College of William and Mary's in Virginia, blah blah blah.

So I put that together as kind of like a narrative. and I pushed it out. And that was the thing that I think, started to get everything rolling.

Yeah. So if I I just wanna kinda, probably just briefly because the interesting thing about, your way through this is also kind of a summary of the events as well. And I think the summary is somewhat important, specifically around the paper release, because even, yesterday, there was a VOX, news release, right, and they they quoted out and some other folks, Shanae, Connor, I believe, who did the, the, the, the simulation analysis and also released very respected scientists. And even VOXX article got kind of the paper release wrong and pointed to the fact that, like, oh, it was so messy. So scientists don't believe this. Right?

But I don't believe that anybody besides kind of our group, and we'll talk about the group in a second focused on kind of why and what happened you know, with this kind of weird paper release. Right? and specifically, I just wanna highlight this point, and I'm trying to highlight this point as much as possible because really, even though we're talking about this, this is the 6th consecutive space, I believe. Even though we're all tweeting, it doesn't seem like it's getting picked up as much. the first paper, the first lk99 paper that we've kind of started with, not the actual first paper. The there was a paper inquiry and published before that did not get remotely close to this level of attention.

The first paper we called is the 3 after paper, was released by, Quan, Young Nguyen, and Juan, specifically, at this point, after we found out, was not working for Q Center. Can you can you take this from me a little bit and talk about the second paper and then him back, etcetera?

Right. So so now we have these 2 papers. one was the 3 one we call the 3 author paper, which is Lee Kim and Quan. and one which I which you call the 6 author paper, which has Lee and Kim, and, Hintech Kim, and 3 other author So just just just confirm, there's 2 Kims on this.

Kim is a fairly common last name, and there's, like, 2 different folks that are named Kim. 1 of them is Juntar. who's in Virginia, and this guy is a very, very much cited, scientist with William and Mary correct? So it's like a respectful person who's brought to this team potentially to kinda help them, etcetera.

Right. So at that point, so we have these 2, basically, the original Leon Kim, and then the 3rd author Quan. Then you have Lee and Kim and Jun tuck, right, and the these are the 33 of the minor authors, I guess. So you have these 2 competing papers, and everyone's wondering what happened. And then, you know, you have my tweak going out. The papers weren't ready. You know, this is the time stamp. This is what happened. This is what would have happened. And, and and that kind of started blowing up. That then the interest graph, like, really off. Like, that's hard to get millions of views. and so the interest rate really started to take off. and then after that, we were chasing it down the story, and then we just lucked out, basically.

We just lucked out because there seems there was a minerals, minerals, and, multi multi metallic minerals conference in Korea, on that Friday. Right? so, and Quan actually shows up to this conference. and, Kwan, who is the 3rd author and the 3rd author be on the 3rd author paper, and he kind of just gives a presentation which is kind of like the presentation of his paper. He says he has a a sample. he doesn't show the sample. I mean, he doesn't show the sample. He asked for, like, some other, like, you know, instruments to be brought in, but they don't have it. He doesn't demonstrate the sample in front of them, and then he walks off. Right?

And then the the at this point, like, there's just this explosion of interest like what's going on. Right? And then the Korean press gets involved, Yonhap interviews Lee and Kim, and they basically say that, you know, Kuan has left the team 4 months ago, and he's no longer part of the team anymore. And the the the three author people would be withdrawn, and it's gonna be retraction.

So I think -- And they're gonna -- I think there's also an additional confusion about that interview that I've seen list and worth clarifying. So we have, Sandehan on our team, on our code and code room team, is a person in Korea who's very in in this, who's just quickly started, like, researching, giving us notes. I think at some point, he went to the library in Korea and found some stuff about this team that weren't published online, so it's really hard to find. really good at, like, finding out the small inconsistencies in words and, and, and meanings and translation errors. And, we'll talk about some here and his, findings soon. I think he's probably busy right now or asleep.

However, the the thing that Sangean specifically point out is that while the translation for some, kind of western places about this interview said that, the original authors said that both papers are not ready and they disagree with both. What actually was said, I think, is that they said that both papers were not ready. but they wanted to retract the first paper from archive. And but this got translated into, you know, Twitter speak. We're like, hey, the original authors don't agree with, like, both papers. So it added to the Matinas, and I just wanna make sure that, like, we're clarifying this.

the 2 offers, Liam Kim, the the people behind whom, like, the name LK is, they're standing behind the kind of what they found. And, they are asking the first paper to get, withdrawn from our time, the, the, the, the place where these papers were uploaded. And I don't think that it happened. I still think the paper is up there. and I think worth mentioning yet again that 3 authors on the paper, I think, is the maximum limit for a a potential for Nobel Prize. Enterprise, is that correct? I think you, you were among the first who started noticing or at least talking about this?

No. A a Nobel Prize can be given to three people at at at at most, but they don't have to be your paper authors. Right? Like, seen split nobles before. It doesn't matter, but it was just an interesting fact. Right?

Yeah. Makes sense. And, so so we've done a little recap and the world exploded since then. At least, not in the, hopefully, hopefully in the figurative way. But definitely our, you know, social graph and our interest in this started, started growing, growing, and growing. And, there's just so much information after this. There's information about the authors and the messines of the papers. There is a scientist who kind of scoff at the idea even believing something that's, 1st of all, this impactful. And, I, I encourage you folks to listen to the previous episode.

We had, Andrew, coat on here who talked about kind of the potentials of a room temperature superconductor. so we're not gonna go deep into there again. Maybe we'll spring some, some, excitement around this. However, a lot of information is coming out. And what's notable about all of this at least to the stock, the, the folks we've talked about this, that, ruling out the, kind of, the feeling about fraud I think is the number one thing. Right? Nobody potentially knows these people. UNTAC is the the most respected scientist here.

everybody else is fairly obscure from the a very small kind of research center. And, there was already a history in San world of potentially fraudulent and retracted papers by Rangadis about also, like, room temperature superconductors. And everybody's kind of apprehensive.

However, what's notable is that the process that's released with with those 2 papers, is a fairly quick process to replicate, which, which kind of, starts to, show that maybe maybe the, the, The surprising release of this by Kwan, maybe this is what triggered kind of the release and not the fact that, okay, they actually wanna make a splash make a name for yourselves, etcetera. And the surprising kind of ease of replication here just shows that have this been completely fabricated, have this been you know, and attempted anything else. This, like, like, fame. I don't know.

The this probably would not have released with this ease of replication and and quickness. And so we see a lot of labs and a lot of people starting to replicate around the world. I wanna invite, Eli Ravani to the stage as well. Eli is a co host, for a floating rocks FM. and I will let Eli introduce himself in just a second he connects. you are welcome to the stage. Let me just turn you into a cohost here. So, Eli, we're just doing a a brief recap, and then we're gonna start talking about kind of the summary. However, in the in the recap that I'm trying to say, menu application intense happening.

And during all this, I will just, like, add our point. I've I've created a space and then I created a room just for folks to talk about, hey. What are we gonna talk about next in the Twitter space? Right? So some communication behind the scenes is happening folks to bring this all to you and to make this kind of enjoyable. And so we don't talk over each other, etcetera. And so this room started having for folks, from from different places, replication, the fans, etcetera. And, and I think we're at around twenty five people at this point.

And I wanna say we have the, the person who first replicated this, in her living room, living room Iris, And we have Andrew McAllen, the guy from BARDA Space, who, who is, like, the the first what what I call a 4 k replicator. Right? The first person in the United States to start, look at these papers and just go at it and start, like, being open with the science and replication attempts. And then, how should I say? Is the first one that says, hey, enough with these low resolutions you know, a cell phone, not yet 32 100 videos. We need the 4 k resolution like this, of what it happens.

And, Andrew is also famous in saying, Hey, I'm not a scientist in this. I'm an engineer. I just have the materials and I, like, know how to read the paper. I am not looking to replicate any of superconductivity claims. I am looking to see, I think he named it Meissner effect or bust. So, Andrew, specifically, saw that the replication process is fairly simple or fairly quick. Not simple to me. It is way above my head. Right? but but instead of replicating in open, you know, in open world and saw an incredible outpour of support of people suggesting different things.

and so when Andrew joined our our our Chad, I call it the green room because this is the conversation behind the spaces. then there was a lot of very, incredible kind of collaboration that happened, in iris and Andrew. And we have some folks here in the audience as well, that I wanna call out, that that are also kind of participated. So before I introduce Eli, I wanna say hi to Daniel. Then you're welcome to say hi and, tell the folks kind of how you got their arms LK and how you got to our room as well.

Hi, Alex. can you hear me?

Yes. Loud and clear.

Oh, great. Well, thanks for inviting me. I think I joined this whole wave a bit late. But, at first, I, I heard about this an additional attempt or an additional, claim for room temperature superconductivity. And as you said, there have been roads in this space in the past. but once, it was communicated about the intrigue and the conflict inside the publishing group, I think this creates some space for belief because the paper as it's published is pretty bad. I would categorize as as fraud.

But, but once there is this narrative that it was a conflict that for some reason, there was a, there was a reason for a hasty publication This creates a space of doubt that, maybe they really have something, but they haven't figured it out all the way. And that got me very interested. And the first, thread I published was not about this specifically. It was about the, the possibilities that a room temperature, superconductor, would open up. So I have some knowledge on this. I I got a PhD in physics, myself. now I'm working as a research engineer in 3 d printing.

So I'm very, very enthusiastic about what application, what this could change in today's energy ecosystem and, and then every other way. So I got really into it, and, and I tried to help out with, the things I learned about superconductivity and materials in my PhD, which is on surface science, which is, let's say, a tangential topic. We're not used to working with rocks. We're used to working with only thin films or or with the surface of rocks. And that's my academic background.

Awesome, Daniel. And I I wanna, like, say a huge thanks for for joining, because specifically, I wanted some folks who The way I got into this, maybe, maybe this is what I'm highlighting is that, again, not a scientist, but I have some amount of intuition about people who are talking about this. without attempting to kinda, get a fat check from x after, like, the twits are blowing up. And some people who are actually kind of interested in science, And also, Daniel, you called me out multiple times, I think, you know, WhatsApp group as well before, of the stuff that I wasn't, like, saying properly, and I deeply respected this because then this is how I learned as well.

But also, I started noticing some conversation between you and Iris, I think, in the open as well. and then in our grim green room and kind of, from these conversations, I also was able to kind of discern who's, you know, who who's talking about science and who's talking about some other stuff. And I think, we're gonna get into some some more of this, but I, I appreciate your your joining us, Daniel here and in the green room and the WhatsApp. So we're we're now, in multiple, multiple places together, and thank you for joining us on spaces for the first time as well. Eli, welcome to the stage. How are you, man? This is, I don't know, I lost count how many of these we did.

but Eli is the co host for Lori Docs for multiples of them. And I think the first person who explained to me even kind of what superconductors are way back, maybe I'll post this. So Eli welcome. Please introduce yourself. This recorded for the podcast as well.

Hi. So, Eli Rabani, founder of nanotechnology, international ocean restoration International. I've been I've done work in a whole bunch of different areas that are kind of adjacent to superconductors. a couple of years ago, I did some computational chemistry compounds on a different, room temperature superconductor candidate, which, at at various points I of dismissed as garbage just because I wasn't agreeing what was in the literature, but, I've, I've since found that there's more in literature.

So I may actually revisit that as a consequence of all of this. And and so, hope is not dead for, room temperature superconductors at all. even if LK99 itself doesn't pan out. and I've also done, surface some surface sciences well. So so we've got 22 surface scientists in the house.

but, one of the things that, I, I wanna stress to people is that we don't really have a clear idea of what was actually in the quantum energy research center samples. it's possible that even though, you know, they they put in certain story geometries that things segregated in in in their reactions in the annealing.

They presented, some data in their patent on, energy dispersive spectroscopy, which tells you about the elemental composition of the surface, which can be different from what's in, you know, deeper towards the bulk And really the best method to use to get to the root of all of this would be atomic pro tomography, which basically fires ions at a sample and knocks the atoms off one at a time and to serves, data related to to what's coming off of the sample, and you can basically reconstruct 3 of the, and until we have that, a, that from, b, an actual superconducting sample, there won't be any about anything.

Now -- So, like, I I, I agree about the the burden. I think it's very important for us to talk about how do we eventually know whether or not we're we're back or it's over? I wanna get to a to pay who who who has to comment on this. And I will also try to kind of please definitely feel to to to to use the hand raise, button. So We'll not talk over each other, and we'll let you just speak. And if I you had a comment about something that Eli said?

yeah, Eli. So I I actually had a question for you. when you say tomography, are you talking about a transmission electron microscope?

Is that is that what you mean? It's it's it's a totally different, in tremendous. It it involves, firing, ions at a sample knocking off the the atoms in it and then recording what atoms are coming off of it. somewhere I I I'm gonna dig up the tweet and put it in the the chat here. So give me a minute and and and go on with the discussion.

Okay. So so maybe just to give you some context, I think, on, the Korea, Institute of Technology Research Or Energy Research, Kentech, has put out a statement today that they received a LK99 sample from, you know, quantum about a month ago, I think it it depends on it depends on who, yeah, just give me a second, Alex.

it depends on who, you know, what translation you use and that they've been working on it and that they're one of the only 3, you know, entities in the world with this, transmission electron microscope. 1 of the other 3 is Argonne, Jorg Mason at Argonne. Go ahead, Alex.

Yeah. Thanks. I I just wanted to kind of, maybe summarize the the events of the past few days before we get to the, to, to the new new to the, to the independent sample verification. and he'd like to kinda highlight what you said and, and maybe tell folks about, the ways for us to know, for what's positive and what's negative. Right? So we previously have multiple, like, folks on stage who talked about this is really to conclusively prove that, there's nothing there. with a 100% certainty. This is difficult because of multiple reasons, all of them is material science is is really hard.

There's a thousands of ways of of doing the sample and some of them can result in the sample. Some of them in that resulting sample. I think at this point in our grim room, I just wanna go out, in the audience, we have, the Alchemist Gillette, his name, nickname is the Alchemist, even before this whole thing. Gillette is a part of the group. He's a a student in material science engineering BGU in Israel. And, so we at this point have, like, 3 folks who are independently trying to replicate. And it's still not as easy. Right? So we didn't get, like, the whole way, the whole recipe, and there's missing pieces, and there's the different kind of approaches.

when I think it was Berkeley and, either by, when you have, factual fact checks on me, please, like, I'll mute and tell me, but I think it was Berkeley who first, released the the simulation, of of some of these materials. Right?

Really? What what we found out was from Sined, Griffith, but it seems the Chinese had, also because, you know, Aksif, archive has a has a 2 day embargo kind of you you post in on, Saturday or over the weekend, and it gets released on Tuesday. So, Senator Griffith and both the Chinese university had both posted archive over the weekend, and it had been released on the same time, basically on Tuesday.

And and we had, when this was, I think, 1st race, we have a space and, some colleagues of OceanAid Briefin came up, from Berkeley and some people who who know her and spoke to her kind of, you know, being, very respected scientist. I think she recited in multiple media articles afterwards. and they definitely said several things. well, I think it's PG And Physics as well. Some of them said that, hey, this is I was really surprised to hear this from, like, a PhD in Physics and a respectable thing. He he said, like, hey, This is, a very, like, basic metaphor for this. If you, like, bake something and then you, you swerve twice to the right, and then once to the left, you may get a different result.

and I pause for a second. hey, you know, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm not the scientist. You're the scientist, but you're telling me that, like, whatever I learned from Professor Snape, in the dungeon of Harry Potter also applies to how you bake these things. He said, basically, yeah, this is a metaphor, but, like, it's it's highlighting how, difficult it is to get the samples.

And then digging into the patterns, digging into some of the the the different material that comes out of this group, the queue center group, there is reports that we've seen from, I will say the, Ministry of Education that Kwon reported that we saw yesterday, everything highlights and everything point, and the multiple replication attempts around the world in China, in our group, in in in many places, it just highlights how of it is to kind of get some of these, kind of samples to replicate.

And, the reason why I'm kind of slowly crawling up the street is to highlight that negative results don't necessarily mean debunking the whole LK99, kind of claim by default. Right? So, like, we saw a negative result from VP Sawanna in in India was a negative, like, an immediate result and then folks told them, hey, you know, smash the rock. They got a big chunky rock, and then they tried to, like, see if it's superconductor. They said, no, it's not a superconductor with a very conclusive way. And then people was like, Hey, smash the rock to bits and try to find the little pieces in there.

And, Andrew McAllen from Marga, the the guy who, you know, who we're now a exceptionally named space cowboy because he works in space industries. And then the cowboy like fashion start replicating this at the back of the of the office, you know, just like stream doing this to everyone. He also kind of said, okay. Once we got this, like, piece out of the the quartz tube or several quartz tube, we need to then smash this. And then we need to out of this, try to find the little pieces that that show some sort of magnetism, diamagnetism, whatever.

And, again, to highlight that it's really hard to replicate And even folks at Q Center, they've talked about how much of this, process generates very small samples, and, potentially speaks to why they're not having a lot of samples to share for independent research. So, Eli, you you found our our tweet and you're you're ready to talk about this, I think. So, I will post this here and feel free to to then pick up?

Yeah. So so that just the I did a screen cap of the the most pertinent figure in that, that shows how you can see, like, in inclusions in appetite inclusions in another mineral, and you're seeing those dots, the the dots that you see there are individual items so you know, you know, what element is where and, that kind of information would really shed a lot of light in this because when when you make, you know, material through through solid phase, synthesis, and then you anneal it.

you're depending on, you know, whatever, phase chemistry, there is what the phase diagram is like. And and until you really know what's going on, it's all as good as Al meat or voodoo. Right? the, you know, assuming that, the the people at that, quantum energy research center, you know, weren't making anything up. You know, they might have been struggling to do things. They might not have been experts in all of the things that they were doing, but that's different from making things up or, you know, committing fraud, I should say.

then, you know, they they seem pretty confident to put their reputations on the line, you know, to advance this this claim of room temperature superconductivity, which anybody knows would be greeted with a lot of skepticism.

Could you could you please tell us why would it be great with the large skepticism specifically to the, the gravity of the, the potential here, the gravity of the, of what it means for science. Could you speak a little bit about this?

Well, okay. So, there are theoretical reasons to to think that the the higher the temperature, the hard theoretical and, you know, just the history. The higher the temperature, the harder it is to maintain the the states that are ideal super conductivity. And, just in in the history of it, there have been a lot of claims advanced, of room temperatures, superconductors that have, you know, there there's turned out to be something wrong with them. Right?

and also, you know, e even if if you didn't have that about a field, whenever whenever you, you bring forward anything momentous, and, and a room temperature superconductor would, you know, have profound implications both, you know, sign well, scientifically, technologically, and also soci economically and societally. Right? and, we want we we want to understand that as well as we can. So lots of people very and we we saw this.

Lots of people very quickly tried to replicate their results, to analyze, the system that that they that they described, right, theoretically. And, you know, the more exciting your result, the more the more this kind of attention you're gonna attract. So if if you're fibbing, right, it's not gonna work. Right? And it's it's more than a fib fib is kind of, you know, minimizing it. It's it's it would be very bad to be making stuff up, like this.

So, I'm I'm still working under the assumption that, you know, they may have made mistakes, but they're they're not lying.

And, I think some of the recent events that we've seen also highlighted this, and I wanna talk about some of them. Right? So Hiltakim, the author of the second paper, this very well cited scientist is now essentially kind of the, the spokesperson as well. William Mary College, I believe, he's not speaking in English. I haven't heard him speak in English at any point. And also for my Korean friends, some of his Korean does not translate well by translators. I happen to be also the the way I got into this is the founder of the room video, which is the video translation service.

My video automated does not pick up human words at all. Like, like, literally, it skips. I don't know why. It just skips over everything he says and then, you know, translates the other people who's, interviewing him However, this very well, like, signed very well renowned scientist. who's in the space. Right? Like, he's a scientist in superconductor space, even before, specifically, Q center. Before he joined Q center a year ago, he he was working on the space for a long time. He's very well cited.

So we know that this is a person with a reputation in the field that potentially kind of saw the claims, from this group and then also kind of joined them. And now he's not only kind of saying yes is true. And, like, this is my paper. He also the spokesperson for this, and they're not hiding. They're not shying away from what they're saying. They understand the gravity of the claim and they they have been saying that we will help with some research. And we also saw some correspondence from folks around the world that actually emailed them back and forth I think Andrew McAllen, the, and Eli, I think you as well, he, he added you on LinkedIn. I don't know if the responses happen, but he's not, like, shying away from this.

He's not, you know, it does, it does not feel fraudulent. And I think the human element to this, we've covered enough, but it, it does not feel that the process is also fraudulent given all we know about Kwan, about him not working there anymore. potentially releasing this and then speaking at the MML conference without being announced and then, and then kind of, and and kind of disappearing, but, the the folks behind us are stake in the reputation. It does not seem like fraud. So this, I just wanna remove this explanation from the table for a second, as far as we've seen.

So I wanna I mean, there there there are nonideality to to a lot of things, connection with Key Center, but, I don't think that really sheds a lot of light on on on the scientific truth of the matter.

Yep. and, I think we had an update from Kwan, but, honestly, kind of, slipped my mind. So once I find this, I'm gonna be bringing this. so next, I wanna talk about the replication attempts coming in from everywhere and the the amount of kind of videos we start to see really quickly. So we've seen, iris, IGB and we've been the the suite. look at this. She's not a, a, a chemist or a biologist. Right? No. Sorry. She she says she's in biology or microbiology. but definitely there's a lot of, maybe, Daniel, maybe you can ask a question about iris just real quick because you you did your your studies in physics.

she claims she's not a physicist. What's your take on on Iris specific kind of approach and, and kind of science understanding?

well, I the her level of understanding is actually above me, but from from what I take that, there there was, an opinion of, buggolio go that, superconductivity could be have additional mechanisms to the ones that, we, we know today. And so, for limiting the, the mechanisms of, superconductivity in one dimension.

So specifically, you know, it's it's theoretically forbidden by current understanding on superconductivity, doesn't mean that it's entirely impossible if there are mechanisms that we still don't know about that permit superconductivity.

So maybe, I'll try to summarize this, just for folks maybe that don't understand, the things that I didn't understand just a few a few moments ago. we have currently ex yeah, experimental notice or discovered several types of superconductivity in materials. many of these properties start appearing in very low temperatures. And there was, like, a, a long time superconductor from the, I don't know, 60s or even earlier.

then around eighties, there was a, 3 IBM researchers that also, I think, received, This is widely known as, like, the type 2 super connector and, why why BCOs, maybe folks on the stage feel free to tell me if I'm not not talking about the same thing.

The material is called YBCO.

The material is called YBCO. And, those superconductors, they kind of how should I say? They talk about the same type, and the potential here is we're looking maybe for a different type or different, like, way of of achieving this this super conductivity, material. I started to ask. I don't think this was good. Eli, please, please, please take this.

So so once so so yBCO, Itrium, bear am a copper oxide. one of the things about that is that the crystal structure is such that there are, 2 to the super connection occurs in. And, actually, in in that interview that you mentioned, Kim, was making an interesting point that, they believe and other others now believe that LK99 has, one dimensional superconductive channels.

So this really is a different class of superconductors if it's a superconductor. And, that would go a long way to explaining why the attempts at levitation have only yielded mag magnetic torque rather than than, you know, lifting off in 3 mentions. And, we've, we've seen a couple of, replications of that torque at room Britcher now, Iris and Alex.

And, Yeah.

I think you mean Andrew. Andrew, both of your videos.

Right? Andrew. Yes. Sorry. Sorry. There are 2 Andrews and 2 Alexs. Andrew McCallott, And, it Iris, you know, had a good explanation for why there's magnetic torque in that is that if you have superconducting channels well, okay. Let me back up. The principle of, levitation has to do with a superconductor expelling, the field from its three-dimensional volume.

So it's actually the magnet minimizing its energy, that causes the force that that that levitates the the superconductor. but in the case of, a material with 1 dimensional superconducting channels, if that's the case, there's reason to expect that the field would just penetrate the spaces between the the medic field lines.

And what was seen both by by, Iris and by by Andrew, was that as you rotate the magnet, the sample also rotates with Right.

And, independently, those are independent events, even though they kind of maybe talked about how how to get there. And, I, to this, to this space, I wanted to give, Andrew McAlopach out as well and, well, point folks to his, like, last statement that while he's not a scientist, he definitely in the in our last space and asked multiple folks to register to, like, a Google form, whatever, so that, we, we, they would be able to do the test that needed on the on the samples that he did get.

And so, Andrew, at this point, wants to, some will take a a little step back because, you know, Twitter picks people up sometimes for the better sometimes for divorce. ends, we luckily, this was a little better. Everybody's, like, cheering him on. there's a lot of, like, positive potential here, and I haven't seen many, many things happen you know, since I'm on the internet that are as positive and are as, like, universally, accepted as, like, a good thing that we're all should tier for. And Andrew definitely kind of took the banner.

One of the first people who took the banner, Iris got Iris got a lot of hate, but then hopefully now, like, I think things are starting to, to round up for Iris and, and, her account and her availability, especially after connecting to the Moscow Institute that she does work with and, posting some more you know, conversations out there. Andrew took the banner. Now Andrew wants to take a little step back and maybe, you know, return to his day job. So I will point you guys to Andrew's, I'm not gonna speak for Andrew. He didn't ask me to say this, but we'll do to his kind of last tweet that's been on top where he's like, okay, what I wanted to achieve here was achieved as far as I'm concerned.

And now there's a multiple scientist. I think he mentioned u USC that that will get samples. USC material consortium. Right? So so, USC is University of South California, I wanna say. yeah. University of Southern California.

Folks.

Yeah. Yeah. Folks reached out to Andrew. Andrew has provided samples. and Andrew wants to take a little step back. I I will wanna ask for folks who are in this community and folks who are, like, answering Andrew, hey, post more videos, please relax it. Okay? Andrew, Andrew wants to, like, yeah, keep doing his day job, but also wants to listen in because he's very, very interested to this as well. So this is an update about Andrew. He's still participated in the green room. he's still kind of we'll talk about what he sees, but, yeah, please stop measuring Andrew, and this is kind of an update there.

So -- Well, I mean, honestly, no, nobody should be badgered. Right? People, people are sharing information. Right? And, it's it's not like anybody is is like, making building their career on this. Iris did not come onto Twitter to, to gain a following. Right? she's just communicating with people and, you know, it's been it's been 2 way communication. We've learned things from her. She's learned things from us.

Absolutely. and I think this is partly the reason for many people scuffing at the idea of somebody who's, like, No followers, no, you know, confirmation independent of, of credentials. and, and definitely, definitely nobody should be budgeted. nobody owes anybody anything. People are collaborating. And, I think, I think the amount of collaboration in the open was comparable to me. So we have We have folks who replicated. Kinda wanna take a little step back. Maybe we have, labs that are trying to, to do Eli, some of the, the stuff that you said, or other, ways to figure out the super conductivity park.

Right? So we start like, all of us in Twitter started, like, seeing whether or not this piece will float. The floating came from Maizner effect, Maizner effect is, an effect attributed to type 2. So conductors. Right? and now we're seeing maybe a partial flooring, maybe this points to, hey, this could be a different type of super superconductor that's not previously discussed. and then, at the point, maybe you wanna add some of the bhagalub of, a kind of discussion here because I think maybe it's relevant to whether or not this is a you know, the type 1, type 2, or or is is potentially something else, and this is why we don't see, like, a full invitation.

I I don't know if I can I've if anyone can really talk about with authority on that. I think I think, you know, what I can sense from just the process of, like, how people figure out what truth. Right? I think I think, like, the way that this happens in all scientific communities is that you need a process that truth to kind of, like, propagate. Right? And, I think in this case, you're going to see it propagate. I mean, it is propagating very fast for any science.

like, this is an internet speed here, but I think, you know, you you need, like, certain things to happen, in order for people to get convinced And remember, the baseline baseline is just skepticism. Right? The baseline is that it's not true because until something is something, you know, happens you have enough evidence to prove to disprove the existing hypothesis, you know, it's not true. So the baseline is skepticism. Right? So all of us here who are even a little bit, you know, thinking that it's it's there is a room temperature superconductor. We obviously on the other side of the baseline already, we have crossed. We have crossed the baseline.

We are on, you know, unevidenced, you know, area, unproven area, unproven ground. So on this unproven ground that we are standing on, we are all looking at, like, various forms of lesser proofs right, of not the full proof that you would need in order to say that this thing is true. We're all looking at various forms of lesser proofs. And there is where things break down because the less approved which are available are number 1, the papers themselves, which are terribly written.

and number 2, these validation attempts by various people, replication attempts, which are also kind of like you know, you don't really know because the papers were for badly written, you don't really know the processes which are being followed are the same processes. So you don't really know if there's any real LK99 out there in the world at all. Right? And then you have this product, really, where you've had, you know, at least 20 years of these guys, like working with it. And until 2017, they couldn't even get a a proper sample.

So in 2017, they don't have enough of a sample that they can actually provide to an external party to test. And they only kind of, like, get enough of a sample for other people to start testing earlier this year. So their performance their their their production process has improved. Right? So at this point, this is where this is where, like, people need to place their bets based on the lesser evidence, I think. And I think, I have come out. You know, I came out, like, you know, 9, 10 days ago where I was placing my bets on, yes, it's happening. Right? It's actually happening.

And that was more of a social proof where I said that, look, you know, you've had this kind of you can have a cult behavior where, you know, scientists are in a little silo, and they believe something, but it doesn't get transmitted outside. And I felt that it had left that silo, when it went to Hyun Tak, and then when it went to Cassel Bosch, and I was expecting it to go to Argon National Labs next. Right? So it seems argon hasn't received the sample yet. So that that's process still has yet to occur. But on the other hand, the sample has been received by these guys at Kentech, which will have a TM.

So, we are at this place where you know, the the the guys with the, you know, transmission electron microscope, they say that they've had the sample for a while now. They say that they're not gonna comment the superconductivity, and that should be left to other people who are testing the, you know, electrical, characteristics that say that they have tested the, you know, crystalline structure. They've they've put it under the TM and that it matches what is there in the in the 6th autopay Right? That's all the all all the Korean paper. I'm not I'm not sure which which ones are which ones they're referring to. So that's where we stand today. And I'm taking, I'm I'm basically taking a fact and saying, like, right?

You know, I think that these guys don't speak English that well, and they don't things that well, but I think they're I think they're they're they're putting their reputation on the line, and that means something. And I think they're true.

Go ahead. I'll try. I just wanted to let Eli, I saw you on mute, like, go ahead.

Yeah. So I just wanted to to to get clarification. Did they confirmed the appetite structure?

Good. Okay. So it's it's it's in the so what they have said, I'm gonna have to read it. just give me a second. Let me let me pull it out. Okay.

Meanwhile, He he pulls it up. I wanted to continue my kind of, train us out here. So, we are starting to see a lot of frenzy and a lot of kind of independent replication attempts and evidence coming out. And, many folks trying to look for signs of super conductivity based on the previous superconductor science that we know exist, which is like the type 2 superconductor or the the b BSC Eli. Correct? the or or Daniel, BSC or BCS. I'm sorry. I'm I think I'm dyslexic a little bit.

and that type of conductor, what kind of levitating we've seen those chilled samples that are, dipped in liquid nitrogen to to get chilled to very low temperature to achieve superconductivity, and then kind of put on top of a magnet And then they kind of float in there, almost like flux bin to 2 point. Some of them even have these nice visual videos of, like, a puck that's very, you know, exuming, obviously, fumes, not fumes, but, condensation. It's very chilled. and it's it's kinda stuck in there. And maybe we're looking for that in applications. Right?

However -- There there there was a video of a skateboard or a a a floating superconductor board that was chilled, of course.

Oh, yeah. I saw that. That was so cool. Right? So so somebody just, like, created the magnetic, escape park. And then they, they, they added, like, a bunch of super chill superconductor of the previous type material to, like, a liter of, like, hoverboard, and then they actually did the hoverboard thing. very exciting given, you know, potentially what we're looking at right now. And, everybody was looking for kind of this as evidence for whether or not we're seeing a superconductor.

And then we've we've talked with multiple folks on stage that say, hey, if this in fact, a different approach that also achieves superconductivity, which is, like, not in that area of type 2 superconductor, but in, in fact, in a different area, then we may not kind of get the signals we want. So so it may not float and still be a superconductor. and we've seen a lot of videos fake and not fake from China and and and other places, also focusing on the one piece. We saw a bunch of pics, and I fell for a few of them as well. And I, I think, folks in our community to, like, calling out specific things. And, We're not looking for floating anymore.

Is that correct? You know, is that a fair assessment? We're, like, we're looking for data, and it looks like we have at least some of it, to to talk about here. Eli, is that correct, or are we still looking for for, floating float? Oh, Daniel, please go ahead.

Sorry.

I I had a question. Daniel, please go ahead and then, Eli. I'll I'll ask you again.

Yes. Well, I think it's becoming clear that It's not the superconductor we were hoping for. We were hoping for strong field ex expulsion, robot, temperature, a large volume of super conductivity. We're seeing that it's low yield. So if it's super conductive, it's super connected on maybe small parts of the volume of the samples, small flakes out of the big rocks. if it's won the superconductivity, we should recalibrate all of our expectations because this would, behave very differently. maybe not all the things we were hoping to achieve with the superconductor will be possible with the superconductor.

And so we're seeing over time a recalibration of, of expectation based on on the data. and so we're no longer expecting, you know, full flotation and flux spinning. and then, therefore, it gets harder to get the evidence. So if this super connectivity is really on small, tiny chips, then we need different measurement methods. Do you need to use the finer measurement methods that are not as easy as putting it on a magnet?

if if we're looking for super kind of 0 resistivity on really small parts of it, so we're gonna need to put the probes very close to each other, or maybe we're gonna need to use a microscopic method that that is capable of measuring locally if you have a superconducting phase. And so we're seeing that, let's say, the the the synthesis isn't delivering what we were hoping for from a room temperature superconductor, but it possibly delivering, something less easy to detect.

And so we're narrowing down the search space, and now it's in a place that is harder to access experimentally. So we're gonna have to, use, more, let's say expensive or more difficult experimental techniques. And I think if we show that it's there, nevertheless, that will put, put f a big effort behind improving the synthesis so we we can get big chunks so we can get big domains, see how we can optimize it.

But I think a lot of people who who can fine tune the synthesis on a large scale would like to see stronger evidence that there is a case for them to do that. And I've seen, comments of that style from from professors on the internet. I think disappointed, first of all, of the process. They doesn't seem much to them like it's a scientifically, a science sciency process where you you expect large amounts of data to be shared lots of samples to be shared, process to be shared in detail. I think there's no risk now to attribution.

Whoever whoever should get the the the the the Nobel Prize. well, they will have their and based on the first two papers. But now the what what a lot of people expect in terms of reproduction isn't isn't happening through the official channels by the the inventors themselves. And and a lot of people are are waiting for someone to produce that strong signal that there's a case here.

so just just, so just let me, let me let me go on 2 things. so firstly, I think the, on the on the Korean on the Korean paper, the Kentech, basically said, as a result of analyzing the X-ray diffraction structure of the sample, it was confirmed that the fine crystal structure of the sample is the same as presented in the area.

Could could you please, maybe present what we're talking about here?

So so we will infer that that's appetite.

And, okay, it's excellent. Wait, guys. We just just one second because this is recorded. I wanna make sure that the audience is following along. So we've seen, and I know I keep, like, moving this backwards 8 to 5. And -- So, so, yeah, that's -- Can you hear me?

I mean, that that is -- is fairly encouraging because, you know, all of the theoretical, couch.

I think, Eli couldn't hear me. You can somebody DMulate and and ask him to rejoin sometimes through the spaces. disconnects multiple people from the host, and then we're talking about each other. so yesterday, we've seen Pecan University saying that what they've been able to replicate with their samples does not show super, conductivity it shows Ferromagnetism. Daniel, I wanted, first to talk about this because I saw that this was released, and many people talked about, peaking university and docket ability, etcetera.

And, I started seeing, like, the the manifolds market crash and people are saying, oh, it's over. It's over. until we get to the use of today, 8 to 5. I know I know you're guiding for this. I really wanna talk about this too as well. but Daniel, could you could you please maybe explain to us, a fair magazine. Is that is that a fair ask of you?

Yeah. Yeah. Well, it's it's very easy. everything that, you, you call a magnet. That's a ferro magnet. Every material that maintains a large scale magnetic alignment, like fridge magnets, like those horseshoe magnets and cartoons, these are the technical where term is ferromagnetic. And we've been talking about about diamagnetism. These are materials that when they are exposed to a magnetic field, their internal magnetism aligns in opposition to the external field.

And then there are more common materials that are paramagnetic, like your fridge, when it's exposed to a magnetic field, it aligns in the same direction. as the external field. And that's why paramagnets attract fair magnets, and that's why magnets stick to your fridge. or to your car, etcetera, and and diamagnets repel.

And that's basically And, so we have a very respectable research from beginning university. saying that this from the examples they were able to replicate, this is a fair amount. and so yesterday, I saw just a lot of people using this as concrete evidence that that's it. We're over and, and, and that's it. So so so, by the time now we're getting towards today. And today, we're seeing an article from Can can you can you talk about this? I only did the translation.

I also wanna get Eli back to it. Right. So so so, basically, today, we see, KentTech, Korea Energy Engineering University, you know, they have received a sample. So this is interesting because we only know before this of only one other sample, which is requested by William and Mary. So we don't know of any other original LP99's So this the first interesting thing is this is an original LK99 sample from quantum. it's been given to Kentec. so this is the first confirmation we've ever received that there is actually one sample outside of quan and, you know, quantum.

And so Kentech says that they have received a sample. They have done X-ray diffraction on it. The X-ray diffraction confirms it's the same fine crystal structure as that presented the paper. And then, the researcher says, if you look at the micro crystal structure, you can estimate the possibility. Even if you cannot confirm the physical properties of the material. As a result of confirming the microcrystal structure with X Rays for the analysis of LP 99, quantum energy research institute has a crystal structure, and the crystal structure confirmed in the sample was the same.

So At this point, we now have the first kind of proof that we have a sample which was you know, mentioned in the paper, which has now been proven outside of the original, you know, group of the original quantum group and the that you have a sample outside, basically. And that's where we are right now.

and, you know, it it's very I think it's very telling that, you know, they said that they don't wanna confirm the electrical properties because I'm sure that the first thing that any scientist getting that thing in the lab would do is hook up, you know, some, impedance meters and, like, you know, figure out whether it's actually superconduct or not. And that they don't wanna confirm it, and they say that they're just gonna confirm the, x-ray structure. means that they they that they are confident enough that they're like, okay. You know, let this story break over time. Let's do the step by step.

So so, again, a first kind of outside of the queue center sample, and we've heard stories and, hopefully, Jesus will join us, with her stories about the MAT professors that potentially got the night sample, and then we figured out that, hey, nobody was denied or just there. for the conference, the MML conference, and they, I think, asked to see or asked to to to look at, or even test the samples.

And apparently, and, again, based on some evidence from Kwan and some from other folks, even though OK99, they claimed that they have what they have, weren't ready with the papers, and this, like, the the paper release cut them by surprise as well, which also means that, potentially, they don't have a good process than selves to replicate kind of what they had. Daniel, please go ahead.

Yeah. What I'm feeling is like there's this this 2 narratives and they don't meet the One is the narrative that the papers were rushed out. It also from the data from the patents, they also seem to have been rushed out, and and this is what why we gave them the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, from their public statements, they don't they don't seem to to agree with that there is a doubt. They seem to completely convince that the evidence that has been put forward is enough, and we can move on. so I might move it. Yes.

I'm a bit worried about this that they won't they're not doing an effort to disprove the doubts that still remain given the quality of the papers they have published so far.

So I I can I can speak to that. which is that they are not scientists. Right? they the quantum guys are business people, and the science is, you know, they they've done as much science as they think that they need to, basically. And at this point, they need to make money. Right? And, you know, at this point, they're basically saying that that, hey. You know, I've done the work that I need to do in order to get this out in the world. The paper can be absolute trash.

And, you know, I'm still gonna get an old prize because I've I've, you know, I have actual, room temperature superconductors which I'm gonna make into a product and which you're gonna use, right, which is a very, very powerful statement, right, which is like, look, dude. Like, yeah. Yeah. You guys go ahead. You guys find out where you guys figure out the science. You guys figure out, like, how do how do all this stuff. and what also is evident from the Kent next statement is Kentech in 2017 was contacted by these guys. And, the sample it was not high quality enough.

And now they say that the yield has been improved, and now the sample is good enough. Go ahead, Alex.

So to, to, to kind of add to what you said previously about Cure Center being a commercial, you know, a company that is, is here to make money. they have filed multiple patents. And actually, some of the information that we do see, including some of the fairer magnetism kind of results that we've seen from from the McKinsey University, from yesterday, people I feel, maybe over indexed on and said, oh, it's all over, it's all over just a fair magnetism as Daniel explained to us. both patterns, I think, it was, it was shared on manifold. They probably should go and find this to, to add to show notes.

Both patterns also talk about Some results are ferro magnetic at least some, some of the samples, some of the examples are ferro magnetic as well. however, to speak to the to to whether or not they're working on replicating this at queue center or trying to go to patterns, there was an interview and, forget me. This is all happening. forgive me. It's all happening so fast. I don't remember.

It was a team that came that said that many labs around the world or quan that said many labs around the world working shifts in trying to replicate and doing some of these things, to actually get outpatents out the door based on new processes to, to get bigger yield, new processes to maybe do some of the stuff that Daniel said that, like, show a better process or better way to, to, to, to, synthesize this material to to then kinda capture patterns. And, to this effect, I wanna, I wanna talk about a little bit about what happened in China and what happens with videos from China. And we have, I wanna ping, tweet from Elsa. Drew, Elsa is, I wanna say called about our Chinese reporter.

Elsa, is now, I think, in China before she was, participating from elsewhere, and she is tuned into the Chinese kind of the internet, which also got So if you if you think that your, Twitter or X timeline is full of LK99, there's videos in China. They're, like, the 4th 5 most popular videos on Bilibili and have, like, upwards of 300, 400,000,000 views in, like, 24 hours, right? you you remember, guys, that we were all cheering for, by the way, Korea, for for for gangnam style to pass billion views. and this took like a while.

They have videos again of of of some of the samples for Air Canada 99 and some verification attempts that passed 303 50,000,000 views in, in, like, 24 hour period. It it's incredible how much of this is taking over the Chinese Internet. And so Elsa is, like, I reported it over there. And what we've noticed is, first of all, we started seeing a bunch of information coming out on this Chinese, websites, Jio, which is kind of like a core website with my question and answers and algorithms put in kind of the best of all the answers to the top. and then, Bilibili, which is like the change, at least part of the Chinese YouTube. And and, we've seen a lot of these evidence, and then we start seeing a lot of fakes. Right?

So our communities, me personally, I apologize. I was responsible or at least posting at least one potentially fake video. Or if not fake fully, I think a video that shows something that's not, LK99 as an example, but maybe shows, seems like it is. And, there's definite evidence of people trying to tamper with kind of the markets that this, we know, you know, there's speculation markets and prediction markets in the US. I assume there's some from China as well. We've seen evidence of folks releasing some videos and, you know, quote, you know, debatable of those videos are full faked, or if they're showing something else.

But those videos definitely kinda sway the public opinion, and there's, you know, a lot of money writing on this much of population. And so what else is trying to show, and, again, the top 2 is is posted here. We'll add to show that as well is Chinese state security is getting involved in some of these sample releases, including retraction of some of the videos that are popular, including, asking folks to post statements that says, Hey, we're sorry. You know, this was a fake, etcetera. I think it was confirmed that we saw a person who posted, like a viral video that went really viral.

And then took down, then they posted, like, in some obscure gaming forum that they posted the in order to make some money and what's wrong with making some money. And then they took down the, the original video. And so we are now seeing potentially evidence from the Q Center folks that's saying, Hey, we're commercial, you know, endeavor here. There's the link that we got cut by surprise with phone releasing this. So we, at at some point, we wanna also protect our scientific integrity and say, hey, we're not boosting anyone. This is what the what think this is this is the process, etcetera. We're gonna stand behind this. We're gonna help maybe with correspondence. However, we, you know, there's patterns involved.

They also want more patents and some of the folks in queue center said labs around the world are trying to, like, replicate this and maybe the the there's going to be starting a patent board And, we definitely see a lot of excitement and a lot of work from different Chinese, labs from all around Chandra, from who's from McKinney University, from from different places, and also a lot of noisy signal coming out from there as well. And to that effect, yesterday's paper, could contribute to some of the noise as well. And I, I really wanna just briefly talk about the yesterday's paper, the the fact that they found fair fair mechanism and many people just took this as Okay. This is done.

again, the two patterns that Q center has released, they both talk about some of the samples, showing evidence of fair criticism, and some evidence showing, evidence of superconductivity. And, I don't think that based on what I've heard from Daniel from Eli from different folks in a green room from scouring the internet and processing this information that this is enough evidence to conclude we say LP 99 does not reproduce and is not like a superconductor.

even though many, many people took the begin university and said it's over, I also don't think that, like, I just said, what we just had from, from the Korean Institute that actually got the sample is enough to say the claim is true and we're so so backed. Like, you know, this is a real superconductor. I wanted to ask folks about, maybe Eli, now that you're back on stage, and then, do we think about the Purkin University kind of, quote, unquote, conclusive, I wanna say state now or people using it as statement, and then what do we think about today's, verification. Actually, we're talking about today. So about the Pikin's from yesterday.

So so, the same uncertainties apply to to disconfirmatory, results at this stage just because, you know, for example, although we know that some have seen the appetite structure you know, we we don't know what else may be in a given sample that, you know, somebody finds, ferromagnetic properties in or I mean, Ferro Electric properties in, for example.

so, again, like, the the morphology is is a big unknown. And it was clear actually that morphology would be an issue from the very first preprint where they talk about of their non zero, resistance measurements, they explain they they advance an explanation for them as being grain agrees, which is a very, a reasonable thing from from the perspective of material science.

so so, we need more data about, you know, any results that, that more details about any results that would, be taken as confirmatory. And we also need, lots of details about any results that would be, considered disconfirmatory.

Hey, Dubai. Go ahead.

Yeah. So I think, you know, my my take on this from the beginning has been, yes, it is, well, not from the beginning, from, like, 10 days ago when I called it, that, yes, it is a a room temperature ambient pressure superconductor, but it's a finicky material. it's hot produce, yield is low. you're gonna see the production specialist coming. You're gonna see people from Kyra you know, corning all the guys who work with ceramics, all the guys who figure out production. you're gonna have to figure out, like, you know, it's also led. Right? So it's not it may not be suitable for all uses.

So you're gonna come to a small set of use cases and a production process and a yield and a price. And all of those things are gonna match on some kind of product. that's gonna happen, you know, in the next, you know, 18 months or so. I I'm guessing. And then you'll see, like, something real come out of that process. In the meantime, I think, like, there isn't because these guys are not really scientists, they're gonna push ahead on the commercial front and they, you know, they have the material and they know how to produce it. I'm guessing that they know how to produce it better than any any of us.

So I'm guessing that they they because In several interviews they've given, they've said that they want to, that they're working on mass production or, you know, scaling the process. And I'm guessing that they are they have some level of scaling now. and now they have the money. Right? You you can you can look at you can look at this archive paper drop as kind of a chat GPT drop, right, before do the chat GPT drop and raise 10 bill from Microsoft. So this was their chat GPT drop. The archive paper. and then they've had, like, enough stuff going on now. I suspect that they have funding, and they're using that funding to do stuff.

Go ahead, Alex. So just on a point of funding, I think it's worth telling folks, like, what we've seen already. Maybe this hasn't, like, crossed the the, the threshold of news where you're at. Consent Center, has struggled with funding at, at least as far as we know, the, the lab there was a one Chinese youtuber that went to just, like, knock on their door. I don't know how to find them. it's it's a, like, a small basement in, in a very, niche neighborhood. Like, it's not, like, half a building even. It's like a tiny basement somewhere, the actually, they said near Gangam in Korea with, like, good schools around. I think this was this was the discussion.

I don't remember exactly who this was to set this. And then we saw the Chinese kind of YouTube or go in there and cutting up in the door, is definitely not a huge funded lab that's working on this. And, but now, essentially, there are there's taking the claim that this is possible. They're also showing that potentially they are, like, one of the first people or, like, the only people who are able to actually use the process that they you know, surprisingly got released without planning, by Kwan who no longer affiliated that, you know, the, the process does lead to some of things. They stand behind this.

we're, at this point, I think that the human element and the, the sleuthing around how it came to be and how these papers came out, at least in some, in our minds, gonna remove the possibility of fraud outright. And now They're definitely are able to get funding given that they are the only people who can actually replicate this very well and have examples of this. Go ahead, Dave. Bye.

And I I'll also note that, patents are defense, patent patents are not offense. Like, pat patents you don't use a typically use a patent to go and, like, if you're a producer, if you're not a troll, you typically don't use a patent to go and sue someone, that is doing something. the patent is there so that when you're doing something, some troll doesn't come and sue you. That's that's typically how patents have been used in the last, like, decades. So so I I think the filing of the patent is just kind of a one step. Like, they're just putting it out there. I don't think they're gonna sue anyone for this. Like, they have to produce a product.

They have to produce products that are, that people wanna use, right, compelling compelling use cases, compelling products. And if they can do that, and if they're the first to do that, they will scale that. Right? And and they're in a place. They're in a very good place to do that. They they're in Korea. They have the industrial base. they have the potential users right next door. So they can they can do this. They can definitely, like, scale this quickly.

And, it's going to be interesting to keep seeing how this kind of exploded in popularity and everybody's replicating kind of in the open. whether or not this will continue now that, you know, the more credibility is given to the team and kind of their claims, the more obscureness and and, bog of wars removed from whether or not they're fraudulent or not. we we will keep seeing, I don't know, maybe less and less being stop being replicating the open.

I wanna ask Daniel, like, what's your what's your take on the openness of how this was, like, released and and talked about versus potentially the more it becomes, you know, real or replicable how how how much of this we'll see in the open given the patents and the, you know, countries stepping into this.

Yeah. Well, I think you've you've described it very well. any institutions, universities, or research institutes who are who will enter this with the intent of making money are better off doing it, silently. until they can, you know, find their own production processes, their own file their own patents, find their own applications, that would be the way to approach it.

and then since the, you know, the the noble prices of the table, also, then actually there's, you know, I I'm sure there's a lot of professors who are curious about it and would want to pursue the physics of it, but the motivation is no longer that strong. And the process they would follow is apply for grants. And so I guess we're gonna see the wave of science coming much later.

It feels to me that given the popularity this government, given the potentially incredibly, strong outputs here the the grants will be given easier and and and money, will all start flowing, definitely for Q Centers, folks, I think we've been at this for an hour a half. I do wanna, based on Eli's, and other folks previous, kind of comments. I wanna have these spaces more type. And I think we've covered most of what we wanna cover. There's no sew back and sew over, like, we're gonna see kind of the timelines, and we're gonna see folks who are trying to encapsulate on the excitement of this, to take different stands.

We're gonna see the prediction markets tank and then go up and and go up. I wanna go around kind of the the the folks on stage currently. And some folks in the audience who are parts of the green room, I see Daniel there see some DAC, some, some other folks feel free to also raise your hand. I would just like to to maybe finalize it. And I think the more we learn about the more I will ask this question at the end, like, what else do we need to see to, like, start drinking champagne? what else do we need to, like, clearly see videos or not enough at this point, I believe? nor do, you know, the amount of fakes out there starts to kind of muddy the water in terms like video evidence.

Now, what do we need to see or hear or kind of get the confirmation about that, you know, we're actually stepping on, on a path towards, like, a world changing material here that will give us all the benefits that we already talked about. And I think it's worth having a separate, episode on kind of just the effects of room temperature superconductors once we have them. So I'd like to give the, maybe, 8 to 5 first and then, Daniel, then Eli, closes out.

Okay. So I expect a few things. I expect, 2 to 3 months from now. Argon will put out its report. Right? So I think I think that's gonna be huge for everyone, to really have a confirmatory support from a Western source. So I think I think that's gonna be important.

I I'm guessing, like, 6 to 9 months from now, you're gonna see a marketing guy from Q center show up in every, like, you know, nuclear fusion, you know, startup in the world offering a superconductive, lead copper appetite, tape, which is gonna be, you know, a fraction of the cost of the existing, you know, nitrogen nitrogen cool tape. And I think, I think it's very clear that that's that's my first product.

I think this is important and some people may have missed some of the fusion stuff as it relates to superconductivity today. Could you please talk about just briefly about what the super connective take mean in super connective world and and and how it, like, relates to whether or not they are able to produce energy.

Right. So superconductors are interesting because they give you a lot more fine control over magnetism. And, magnetism is pretty important in nuclear fusion in order to kind of hold the the plasma process in place. At least as a non scientist, that is what I understand, but feel free to correct me.

So so, as far as I know, there's, like, 2 approaches to fusion energy and both need superconductors and and strengths very strong magnets as well. 1, I'm gonna shielding, I think, in Tokamak reactors, folks on stage talked about previously. It's shielding the internal processes that, like, super extremely, like, a 100,000,000 degrees, whatever, hot plasma, that's that's doing the reaction in fusion to give us energy. so the, the tape in Tokamak reactors is shielding the actual reactor walls from, you know, getting exposed to this, with very strong magnetic fields. It's really expensive to to, to, to hold these, superconductors in the superconductive state, like we said, right?

Because those are type 2 superconductors. They need to be super chill. you need to actually, like, spend a lot of time on on, I hope I'm saying this, right, on nitrogen and some other stuff. That's the Tokamak reactor. And I think this previous version of superconductors, the, the, of, of, sorry, of fusion reactors and missing weights stuff here. The, the helium type, superconductor. again, sorry. Let me take a breath one second. helium, energy is one of the recent more fusion their kind of startups, I think backed by Sam Altman, who's who's chair there, their process of using, big magnets.

It's actually moving the plasma along, including shielding, of course, moving the plasma along using kind of kind of like rails, etcetera. I, I strongly recommend folks to look at healing energy and their approach to, to, fusion reactors. specifically because, again, both those super reactors around the world kind of, fusion reactors, I'm missing all all the all the statements. both those previous fusion reactors and current fusion reactors use superconductors.

And they spend a lot of energy to hold those sup superconductors in place and hold to to hold those magnetic fields in place and the expense on that energy kinda makes them not worthy. And by not worthy, I mean, we know in, infusion, reactors exist. We know how to replicate this. There's the plasma heated to, super, super high temperatures, and we can extract energy from there. However, it takes way more energy to sustain this process than to produce the energy, which makes them not very necessarily affecting you like?

So so we're we're we're not even we're not even there. the the, just getting, a sustained, reaction even if even if chilling the the super sectors was was consuming more energy would still be an achievement at this point.

but, what we would hope for from a superconductor to, make fusion more workable would be, being able to generate high magnetic fields in order to confine the con confine and compress the plasma. they have in a smaller volume to bounce into each other and a fraction of the times they bounce into each other, they fuse.

So so or collide with each other. They fuse. And so so that's that's the the key point for high magnetic old's, facilitating nuclear fusion.

which which doesn't necessarily mean that LP 99 is gonna be like a drop in replacement because we don't know the magnetic effects of this yet. Right? We don't know the conductivity parts. We don't know a lot of things. And, kind of, I think when they started, everybody said, like, room superconductor, everybody was kinda assuming that this is, like, the type 2, but at room temperature. Now we're seeing that maybe like, a different beast entirely that could have its own applications, but no magnetic fields, strength, no no resistivity is yet even to be, to be proven. This is what we're still waiting for. Is that is that a fair summary you like?

That's yeah. I mean, we you know, we've we've seen, you know, a couple of plots from from Quantum Energy Research Center. but, you know, it when when somebody else either, you know, produces their own sample, and shows inventory. That would be a breakthrough if at at room temperature and ambient pressure.

but then, or, you know, or, you know, measuring it sam samples from from the original, research team that would at least, you know, confirm that there's something real here, right, but then there's the second, issue that that, we're just going into how does this behave in terms of of magnetism both terms of what are the critical fields.

And if it is a different class of superconductor, you know, the we we can't necessarily just extrapolate from type 1 or type 2 sir superconductors and, you know, thi things need to be, determined to fresh and then new new new theoretical analyses need to be built around actual, you know, results.

And, potentially applications as well. And, I just wanna go out, one of the green room, met scientists, Danielle, was talking about specifically tape applications and using this kind of on tape and then and using this in in different applications as well. I wanna get to Daniel, then your wasn't wasn't last, and then your Vista was kind of your what you're looking at, what you're looking forward, and, kind of Yeah. Just just take us away in in kind of the last statements and, and I think we'll conclude.

I'm really bad at, predictions, but I, I think the queue center is definitely working hard. Maybe they're working hard to decide what's the application they should pursue because the it depends on the properties and how how well they can optimize them if it's, they can hold a lot of current or if they can produce a lot of field or if they can expel a lot of field. It's different properties that make your material optimal for different applications. So I'm no idea which one they're gonna go for first.

and, and and I think a lot of countries will not want to be caught behind the curve on this. So I think we're gonna see government funding, especially in defense, because some of the possible applications are military. And this also, I think it's not gonna happen in the open. so the the the fast pursuit is not gonna happen in the open, and we're not gonna see a whole lot. in the next few months.

Okay. Taken. Taken. And I will just save this one thing before I get to 8 to buy we'll actually close. We'll be trying. folks, having these spaces has, like, you know, expanded my worldview, like, having folks like Eli, and then you'll and other folks on stage kind of talking to me, like, five years old and explaining to me the science has helped me. And, hopefully, based on the feedback that we've gotten help folks in the audience as well.

And you can follow all of this in floating rocks.fm, which is like a podcast that we're now kind of trying to, to add all of this to, including transcription, which is if you if you wanted to go back to a previous point and see if if we made, a statement that's worthy kinda to follow-up on, or if you wanna see kind of the show notes as well. I think all of this will be added there as well. Florida, we also have a community, and we welcome you to join and give us, news and have folks react to this as well. And, all of this is to the point that Daniel just raised that we may not see a lot happening in the open going forward.

However, my gut feeling about this being out there and this being as easily replicated is that at least some folks will wanna make the name for themselves not via the standard scientific process of, like, peer reviewed paper in Nature Magazine, etcetera. And even not via the patent kinda, hey, we got the patent first, etcetera. I think I think Twitter has a I think Twitter has a I posted this tweet. I apologize for the for the joke. think tutors, the information superconductor. And I think, at least, the internet is definitely that in, you know, the Chinese as well.

And I think we will see folks doing different interesting things like we saw iris, on in the open whether even if they are not affiliated, there will be a lot of fix. We will we won't know for sure it's gonna be hard to corroborate, but I do think that we may continue seeing some interesting things. if this dies down, it's not interesting anymore. I promise you to, like, we'll conclude this in the last episode. I don't feel like it is. And so I welcome you to follow Florida Roxafem and kinda follow along with us and join the community and bring on different things to us as well. take the bite. Please take us away, and then I think we'll close on this.

ator by? Yeah. So so I think I think, you know, I'm I'm pretty confident at this point that the first application is tape. they have a deposition process already. they deposited on a copper, basically. And, so it's gonna be a copper tape with a thin film, of lead appetite on top of it. they've already kind of like you know, tested it, and they've actually shown it in several presentations.

And, I think you know, from the reports from Kentech, they have upscaled their production process So they're producing enough of it now. I don't know how much more they've upskill, but they're in process. and finally, the one person who you don't who you've never heard from is the experiment list who has to do all the work. So JH Kim is sitting in a lab somewhere working while everyone else is giving press conferences. So I I think I think we'll see a product before we see a confirmation.

I also think that what might end up happening is we will redefine superconductivity in total, because I think the lay the lay understanding of super conductivity is that it's super conductive. And not all of this other, you know, stuff which comes along And I think that that that process might take, like, 10 years to happen. Right? So we're gonna be in this kind of like, we might be in this gray zone for a long Okay, folks.

I take it back. I promise that we're gonna conclude. However, thank you, just join us. he who is a a dear member of the green room, the Korean researcher on the ground, a whole research team and friends behind in the discord, and has noticed multiple translation things and multiple kind of, I I wanna say a real time historian of of this whole thing. And, I consider something. I consider you my current friend. told my wife, hey, my current friend just texted me. Wait. I can speak. feel free. If you wanna in or tell us something, feel free. And if you want to say hi, that's also okay.

Okay. Everyone, hi. Alex. Thank you for introduction. And, I haven't followed the space yet. So I don't know what's going on here.

We haven't we haven't talked about Bogaluba almost at all. If you wanna maybe give a brief introduction and then kind of maybe, present this to you. not necessarily in full detail, just like maybe give us a little teaser.

maybe next time. I will just talk about, what's going on on our Korean disk forward server. And, we had a long discussion after the today's work hours. And we, unanimously agreed that, our time commenting on BTechs is, just on finished there is no value in commenting on that anymore, like real pieces chart on it.

by by now, you need an whole department of orthopedics to compete on science, and, we don't have it. So we decided to focus on, history history of science more and, someone made a discovery of the so so so there is a Korean site called the Naval News Library which is essential to anyone researching the old history in South Korea.

It had a full archive of important daily newspaper of Korea in the original image form and, searchable text from, 1920 to 2000. So any newspaper after the 2000, the newspaper didn't agree to share because it is commercially valuable, but for more than 20 years old articles, they agreed to make the searchable and enable news library for the public benefit. And if you want to research something in South Korea before the 1920.

there is some old newspaper archive also in the national library of Korean So so anyway, we are, going through the, all the newspaper archive and some have found, 4 press conference and, controversy in 1996, involving the professor on, developed a new theory of super conductivity.

And then further develop the to the, so called ISB Studio Visual conductivity, meaning the, you know, interautomate superconducting band. So so that that's the initial is speak. But, so so our suspicion is, don't quote me on it, but, our discord this call the server. People think, ISB is a background in from, inter atomic superconducting band. that they just made, those words. And ISB actually is standard for the initial Uber E stock pack.

you just think the initial would be LSP, but in South Korea, Lee can also be, romanized that just to So so ISB is literally ease of pay. And they said that, So so so so there is an another press conference in the 1990, the 4 also in the neighbor news library. our home.

We are we are we are now now working on the research and publishing it, but, the case is that in 1994, Korea University had a press conference that they had a new serial issue for conductivity that explains the or the, or the experimental results, that was found before. Remember that, we had a satisfactory theory of low temperature superconductor, but high temperature superconductor is still on in the graph, and they think that their new theory of super conductivity is the best theory to explain the existing experimental results.

And they did a press conference and that everyone was not convinced. Like, if your theory can explain all the past experimental readers, that is a retrodiction, not prediction. And you come up with a new superconductor based on your Newiary. If you make an experimental prediction, we will, consider it.

Then after the 2 years, they board on another press conference saying that in 1996, that, we did an experimental confirmation of ISB Siri that they, predicted a new superconductor based on the ISB surgery.

And, they, confirmed the, critical temperature of a new superconductor And, this makes it clear that their their theory is entirely correct, and they should be funded by the public government And, everyone was also not convinced because, wire I think it was not controversial that they found a new, superconductor that was not known until the time.

It was a new superconductor, and it was based on, the their Siri and the the theoretical prediction matches the experiment. But what they found was, had a very low critical temperature, like, 6 kelvin or so. but but then match it to the story and it was unknown.

Uh-uh, should should I stop? Yeah. So so, first of all, Sanjay, thank you so much. 2nd of all, think, folks, if I had to recap kind of some of the stuff that some kind of team are working on, and I think they were incredibly interesting is that to all of us, this is to all of us, like, we saw this a couple of weeks ago, and we started, like, you know, reading into this, etcetera, to folks who are working for this for 20 years, this is not new. Like, literally, we have examples of professor, Sangha and Wissink Choi at this point. Professor Choi. Thank you.

Yes. So so so what I'm saying is that, so so we are going through the, National Library of Korea And Neighborhood News Library. And so far, we found an, so professor I demonstrated an interview with a popular science, magazine in 1993, and, published in the whole book published by Korea University press on the theory in 1994.

And, in 1994, they did a press conference announcing that their new serial receiver conductivity is a satisfactory confirmed and nobody listened. And after 2 years, they said that they made an experimental confirmation with the theoretical prediction of their judiciary and nobody listened. And and then after 3 years, they found glimpse of the room temperature superconductor we know at the LK99, which is from, 1999.

So, like, so so I thought this was from, 1999 so that, like, 24 years, but, it is actually at least starting from the debt popular science magazine interview, which is 1993, which means that this is literally 30 years old, by now.

So, Sanjay and thank you. I think, I think, this is a lot for one space and definitely we'll have you on in a dedicated space of the history and how this came to be. And for why we, like, for what reason the books published on this wiki or even if it's the existing science, I wanna just say, thank to everybody on the stage. First of all, if the interesting, if the history interests you, please follow Sankham and his team, he's publishing stuff in English, and they're definitely doing in-depth work.

I noticed him, and the team kinda catching on tiny, tiny differences in translation that, you know, as somebody who built, a translation kind of, software and is very, very strongly against language barriers. I really appreciate Sankan's work in, like, actually, like, very dedicated translation issues and, and, and these issues, and potentially translation ability in 94 could have also prevented this from getting wider public, look and many other people that, like, could have accepted this. However, it's very important and very interesting for some of us to, like, go down to depth of history here, because as I said, to many of us, this is new. This is exciting.

This is on Twitter. Everybody's talking about this. is a leak. However, there have been people for 20 years plus that are talking about this as a new theory, and the scientific world potentially not accepting them. And hopefully, or potentially now there's gonna be enough of public interest, money behind this to replicate, and also, you know, patents around end applications that actually show whether or not this is possible. Like, 8 to 5 said, maybe a date is gonna come forward, etcetera. So definitely keep watching, Sonia, we're gonna have you on, hopefully, in, maybe on Friday and other places, and we're gonna talk about history, of this. Everybody who's interested me while feel free to follow Sanyan. feel free to follow Daniel as well. Daniel, thank you so much for joining us for the first time.

You're always welcome to join in next time. I really appreciate your expertise and explanations. Elai and A to buy my, my, essentially, cohost at this point, we've been doing this so many, so many times. folks, the floating rocks FM, as well, gonna try to bring you as there's gonna be some hype, but some definitely is the hype moderator multiple times. However, we're gonna try to verify most of what we're saying. We're gonna try to be as clear, at least chronologically as possible. And, yeah, just follow the group, join the community, and we're welcome you to join the next space. I will finish with this.

I'm not scientists, like I said, I'm I don't know what put me in the position of having this amount of, like, incredibly smart folks talk to me, like, like, a simple chat and explain, and this helps other pop people in the audience. So I appreciate everybody's time here listening to us. And, if this if if you find this interesting, share with your friends and follow, we we're potentially, brushing against something that's incredible that's changing whether or not it's applicable a drop in replacement, or it's a new theory that needs new applications, or it does not seem at this point that it's a complete fake. It does not seem like this. Everybody was talking about papers release, folks, please go to the previous episode. We've talked about this.