In the video, it says above 110K and not below, I got confused as well. I will add that a lot of people are deleting retweeting this. May be there is something more to it.
Yes, very odd. This may be why the original team believes they have a superconductor on their hands, but it doesn't quite get there and yet it does show the Meissner effect so something doesn't quite add up yet.
Note that the team claiming a zero resistance replicate at 110K is the same team who said failed to replicate Meissner a few days ago. In the latest video they still don't think they have observed Meissner.
Original team had 20 years to play the synthesis lottery. Maybe you tweak the setting just enough and that low resistance drops to zero. Who knows, I’m still feeling optimistic.
He said in the video that their sample was more pure than the original paper. Would be wild if some impurity is what pushes it over the edge to a full blown super conductor.
They weren't quite playing the lottery as much as they were taking stacks of tickets and scratching them all off one by one to find something that looks like it might be a winner. This was very hard work. 100's or even thousands of samples.
> Would be wild if some impurity is what pushes it over the edge to a full blown super conductor.
I already mentioned this in another comment, but x-rays and radioactivity were discovered in that precise way.
It was exactly one of the point that were criticised in the original paper.
I think that the supposed Reddit “expert” that ridiculed it should really be shamed to apologise to the authors.
And together with him a lot of other people in various other places on the net.
In their sample they measured no resistance below 110 Kelvin. After 110 Kelvin resistance increased, although there was a weird dip in resistance around 225-250K that they can't explain (maybe instrument error.)
