Ambient Temperature and Pressure Superconductor...

[Ricky]

I\'m surprised no one else has mentioned this here.

https://qcentre.co.kr/home

This web site is often down from the high traffic volume. The visit counter is reset at 10AM KST or 9PM EDT.

The long and the short of it is, they appear to have designed a material (LK-99) which is a superconductor up to temperatures above the boiling point of water and pressure of 1 ATM.

There is some confusion about who has provided what info, with someone providing an unofficial preliminary paper, followed by someone else providing a rushed official paper. The published data shows a few discrepancies.

A Youtube video is linked from the web site main page, of a LK-99 film plated onto a disk of unknown material, which does not properly demonstrate superconductivity, for who knows what reason. In EEVBlog, they are getting a lot of crap from Dave about this video, since you might think it was presented as evidence, but it isn\'t. Whatever. Dave likes making noise.

Still, the claim is the material is not hard to make and I expect to hear some news about verifying (or not) the results of the superconductivity tests.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Piotr Wyderski]

Ricky wrote:

> I\'m surprised no one else has mentioned this here.

Possibly everyone already knows and waits for confirmation. That\'s too
good to be true, so the only thing one can do is to wait and see.

Best regards, Piotr

 

[Ricky]

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 1:52:16 AM UTC-4, Piotr Wyderski wrote:

Ricky wrote:

I\'m surprised no one else has mentioned this here.
Possibly everyone already knows and waits for confirmation. That\'s too
good to be true, so the only thing one can do is to wait and see.

I had to laugh out loud about the idea that people here would want to wait until all the facts are in to discuss something like this. The EEVBlog group are running wild over this one. It hasn\'t reached the extent the Titan submersible did, but I think it might get there.

But, I agree, you are totally right. There\'s no real point in trying to reach any conclusions about the veracity of the claim of superconductivity. I would like to hear from anyone who actually knows what all the data means.. It appears there is the crap video (which is never claimed to prove anything, really), but even the data in the paper has some issues. I just don\'t know how bad the issues are.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Martin Brown]

On 01/08/2023 07:12, Ricky wrote:

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 1:52:16 AM UTC-4, Piotr Wyderski wrote:
Ricky wrote:

I\'m surprised no one else has mentioned this here.
Possibly everyone already knows and waits for confirmation. That\'s too
good to be true, so the only thing one can do is to wait and see.

I had to laugh out loud about the idea that people here would want to wait until all the facts are in to discuss something like this. The EEVBlog group are running wild over this one. It hasn\'t reached the extent the Titan submersible did, but I think it might get there.

But, I agree, you are totally right. There\'s no real point in trying to reach any conclusions about the veracity of the claim of superconductivity. I would like to hear from anyone who actually knows what all the data means. It appears there is the crap video (which is never claimed to prove anything, really), but even the data in the paper has some issues. I just don\'t know how bad the issues are.

Can you post a link to the paper in English? All I got at that site was
a blue flying saucer and an error message in Korean that I can\'t read.

--
Martin Brown

 

[Clive Arthur]

On 01/08/2023 08:46, Martin Brown wrote:

<snip>

Can you post a link to the paper in English? All I got at that site was
a blue flying saucer and an error message in Korean that I can\'t read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK-99

--
Cheers
Clive

 

[Martin Brown]

On 01/08/2023 09:30, Clive Arthur wrote:

On 01/08/2023 08:46, Martin Brown wrote:

snip

Can you post a link to the paper in English? All I got at that site
was a blue flying saucer and an error message in Korean that I can\'t
read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK-99

Extra ordinary claims require a better standard of proof and all bets
are off until at least one other group can verify the initial results.

A hexagonal lattice structure might work with the right dopants, but it
would be a lot more reassuring if it showed superconducting behaviour
when cooled down.

I remember the cold fusion debacle when you couldn\'t buy palladium foil
or heavy water for months afterwards since everybody and their dog had a
try at replicating that experiment. Some are *still* trying even now!
>

--
Martin Brown

 

[Phil Hobbs]

Martin Brown <\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 01/08/2023 09:30, Clive Arthur wrote:
On 01/08/2023 08:46, Martin Brown wrote:

snip

Can you post a link to the paper in English? All I got at that site
was a blue flying saucer and an error message in Korean that I can\'t
read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK-99

Extra ordinary claims require a better standard of proof and all bets
are off until at least one other group can verify the initial results.

A hexagonal lattice structure might work with the right dopants, but it
would be a lot more reassuring if it showed superconducting behaviour
when cooled down.

I remember the cold fusion debacle when you couldn\'t buy palladium foil
or heavy water for months afterwards since everybody and their dog had a
try at replicating that experiment. Some are *still* trying even now!

I have a fun demo on my lab shelf. It’s a 1-cm square by 0.5 mm piece of
nondescript black material, suspended over four NdFeB magnets arranged in a
quadrupole.

When visitors come, I put it somewhere obvious, and arrange to mention
casually that I came up with this interesting material when I was at IBM
Research.

I can tell how much physics the visitor knows by the size of the
double-take.

(It’s actually pyrolytic graphite, which is hugely diamagnetic—I bought it
long ago.)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC /
Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

 

[Ricky]

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 8:02:23 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

On 01/08/2023 09:30, Clive Arthur wrote:
On 01/08/2023 08:46, Martin Brown wrote:

snip

Can you post a link to the paper in English? All I got at that site
was a blue flying saucer and an error message in Korean that I can\'t
read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK-99
Extra ordinary claims require a better standard of proof and all bets
are off until at least one other group can verify the initial results.

A hexagonal lattice structure might work with the right dopants, but it
would be a lot more reassuring if it showed superconducting behaviour
when cooled down.

I don\'t follow what you are trying to say. This material is supposed to be superconducting at room temperature. Why would you need to cool it to test it?

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[server]

On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 09:30:31 +0100, Clive Arthur
<clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:

On 01/08/2023 08:46, Martin Brown wrote:

snip

Can you post a link to the paper in English? All I got at that site was
a blue flying saucer and an error message in Korean that I can\'t read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK-99

A problem with many \'high temperature\' superconductors is that they
support only small current densities (without loosing
superconductivity) making them economically or even technically
unusable for long power cables or electric motors.

If this LK-99 is really a room temperature superconductor, lets hope
that it supports high current densities without loosing
superconductivity, so that continent long power cables can be made.
This would solve a lot of problems with renewable energy.

 

[Ricky]

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 1:41:43 AM UTC-4, Ricky wrote:

I\'m surprised no one else has mentioned this here.

https://qcentre.co.kr/home

This web site is often down from the high traffic volume. The visit counter is reset at 10AM KST or 9PM EDT.

The long and the short of it is, they appear to have designed a material (LK-99) which is a superconductor up to temperatures above the boiling point of water and pressure of 1 ATM.

There is some confusion about who has provided what info, with someone providing an unofficial preliminary paper, followed by someone else providing a rushed official paper. The published data shows a few discrepancies.

A Youtube video is linked from the web site main page, of a LK-99 film plated onto a disk of unknown material, which does not properly demonstrate superconductivity, for who knows what reason. In EEVBlog, they are getting a lot of crap from Dave about this video, since you might think it was presented as evidence, but it isn\'t. Whatever. Dave likes making noise.

Still, the claim is the material is not hard to make and I expect to hear some news about verifying (or not) the results of the superconductivity tests.

Seems we have the first verification.

https://twitter.com/Andercot/status/1686286684424691712

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Martin Brown]

On 01/08/2023 14:08, Ricky wrote:

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 8:02:23 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/08/2023 09:30, Clive Arthur wrote:
On 01/08/2023 08:46, Martin Brown wrote:

snip

Can you post a link to the paper in English? All I got at that
site was a blue flying saucer and an error message in Korean
that I can\'t read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK-99
Extra ordinary claims require a better standard of proof and all
bets are off until at least one other group can verify the initial
results.

A hexagonal lattice structure might work with the right dopants,
but it would be a lot more reassuring if it showed superconducting
behaviour when cooled down.

I don\'t follow what you are trying to say. This material is supposed
to be superconducting at room temperature. Why would you need to
cool it to test it?

In general terms superconductors invariably work better when cooled so
for a room temperature superconductor you shouldn\'t need to cool it very
much to see it really work well. I\'d happily settle for one that only
required mild refridgeration and was a ductile metal.

Another alternative is that it does exactly what it claims but the
Earth\'s magnetic field is sufficient to prevent it from superconducting!

I suspect this is one destined for \"The journal of Irreproducible
Results\" assuming here that it survives peer review to get that far.

There was a great demo with the early inefficient LEDs of dunking them
into LN2 which stiffens up the lattice improves QE and decreases
resistive losses the change in brightness is huge. You can\'t do it very
often before the device croaks but it is a good one whilst it lasts.

--
Martin Brown

 

[bitrex]

On 8/1/2023 12:02 PM, Martin Brown wrote:

On 01/08/2023 14:08, Ricky wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 8:02:23 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/08/2023 09:30, Clive Arthur wrote:
On 01/08/2023 08:46, Martin Brown wrote:

snip

Can you post a link to the paper in English? All I got at that
site was a blue flying saucer and an error message in Korean
that I can\'t read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK-99
Extra ordinary claims require a better standard of proof and all
bets are off until at least one other group can verify the initial
results.

A hexagonal lattice structure might work with the right dopants,
but it would be a lot more reassuring if it showed superconducting
behaviour when cooled down.

I don\'t follow what you are trying to say.  This material is supposed
to be superconducting at room temperature.  Why would you need to
cool it to test it?

In general terms superconductors invariably work better when cooled so
for a room temperature superconductor you shouldn\'t need to cool it very
much to see it really work well. I\'d happily settle for one that only
required mild refridgeration and was a ductile metal.

Another alternative is that it does exactly what it claims but the
Earth\'s magnetic field is sufficient to prevent it from superconducting!

I suspect this is one destined for \"The journal of Irreproducible
Results\" assuming here that it survives peer review to get that far.

There was a great demo with the early inefficient LEDs of dunking them
into LN2 which stiffens up the lattice improves QE and decreases
resistive losses the change in brightness is huge. You can\'t do it very
often before the device croaks but it is a good one whilst it lasts.

Now modern LEDs are stupid efficient and tend to be plenty bright at
100s of uA but a lotta consumer manufacturers seem to like to set the
forward current at 10 mA like a textbook from the 1980s says, anyway,
and make you get out the black tape to tone it down

 

[Ricky]

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 12:02:37 PM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

On 01/08/2023 14:08, Ricky wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 8:02:23 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/08/2023 09:30, Clive Arthur wrote:
On 01/08/2023 08:46, Martin Brown wrote:

snip

Can you post a link to the paper in English? All I got at that
site was a blue flying saucer and an error message in Korean
that I can\'t read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK-99
Extra ordinary claims require a better standard of proof and all
bets are off until at least one other group can verify the initial
results.

A hexagonal lattice structure might work with the right dopants,
but it would be a lot more reassuring if it showed superconducting
behaviour when cooled down.

I don\'t follow what you are trying to say. This material is supposed
to be superconducting at room temperature. Why would you need to
cool it to test it?
In general terms superconductors invariably work better when cooled so
for a room temperature superconductor you shouldn\'t need to cool it very
much to see it really work well. I\'d happily settle for one that only
required mild refridgeration and was a ductile metal.

Please define your use of the term, \"works better\".

This superconductor is claimed to work above 100°C, so 20°C *is* cooled. How much cooling is required?

Another alternative is that it does exactly what it claims but the
Earth\'s magnetic field is sufficient to prevent it from superconducting!

I suspect this is one destined for \"The journal of Irreproducible
Results\" assuming here that it survives peer review to get that far.

Based on what exactly?

--

Rick C.

+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[bitrex]

On 8/1/2023 9:25 AM, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 09:30:31 +0100, Clive Arthur
clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:

On 01/08/2023 08:46, Martin Brown wrote:

snip

Can you post a link to the paper in English? All I got at that site was
a blue flying saucer and an error message in Korean that I can\'t read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK-99

A problem with many \'high temperature\' superconductors is that they
support only small current densities (without loosing
superconductivity) making them economically or even technically
unusable for long power cables or electric motors.

If this LK-99 is really a room temperature superconductor, lets hope
that it supports high current densities without loosing
superconductivity, so that continent long power cables can be made.
This would solve a lot of problems with renewable energy.

As I understand it the critical current, critical temperature, and
enthalpy of the material are a bit of a three-legged stool, but the CC
and CT aren\'t totally tangential so I would think a material with a
higher critical temperature would tend to have a higher critical
current, all else being equal

 

[John Walliker]

On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 13:33:43 UTC+1, Phil Hobbs wrote:

Martin Brown <\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 01/08/2023 09:30, Clive Arthur wrote:
On 01/08/2023 08:46, Martin Brown wrote:

snip

Can you post a link to the paper in English? All I got at that site
was a blue flying saucer and an error message in Korean that I can\'t
read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK-99

Extra ordinary claims require a better standard of proof and all bets
are off until at least one other group can verify the initial results.

A hexagonal lattice structure might work with the right dopants, but it
would be a lot more reassuring if it showed superconducting behaviour
when cooled down.

I remember the cold fusion debacle when you couldn\'t buy palladium foil
or heavy water for months afterwards since everybody and their dog had a
try at replicating that experiment. Some are *still* trying even now!


I have a fun demo on my lab shelf. It’s a 1-cm square by 0.5 mm piece of
nondescript black material, suspended over four NdFeB magnets arranged in a
quadrupole.

When visitors come, I put it somewhere obvious, and arrange to mention
casually that I came up with this interesting material when I was at IBM
Research.

I can tell how much physics the visitor knows by the size of the
double-take.

(It’s actually pyrolytic graphite, which is hugely diamagnetic—I bought it
long ago.)

I must try that. I have some pyrolytic graphite, also from a very long time ago,
although I never noticed a diamagnetic effect when I was fixing samarium cobalt
magnets to it for a medical application. (I also developed a way of electroplating
gold onto it in such a way that it would not come off.)
My magnetic breakaway connector pre-dated the one patented by apple by
many years.
John

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC /
Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

 

[Jeff Layman]

On 01/08/2023 13:33, Phil Hobbs wrote:

Martin Brown <\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 01/08/2023 09:30, Clive Arthur wrote:
On 01/08/2023 08:46, Martin Brown wrote:

snip

Can you post a link to the paper in English? All I got at that site
was a blue flying saucer and an error message in Korean that I can\'t
read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK-99

Extra ordinary claims require a better standard of proof and all bets
are off until at least one other group can verify the initial results.

A hexagonal lattice structure might work with the right dopants, but it
would be a lot more reassuring if it showed superconducting behaviour
when cooled down.

I remember the cold fusion debacle when you couldn\'t buy palladium foil
or heavy water for months afterwards since everybody and their dog had a
try at replicating that experiment. Some are *still* trying even now!



I have a fun demo on my lab shelf. It’s a 1-cm square by 0.5 mm piece of
nondescript black material, suspended over four NdFeB magnets arranged in a
quadrupole.

When visitors come, I put it somewhere obvious, and arrange to mention
casually that I came up with this interesting material when I was at IBM
Research.

I can tell how much physics the visitor knows by the size of the
double-take.

(It’s actually pyrolytic graphite, which is hugely diamagnetic—I bought it
long ago.)

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fileiamagnetic_graphite_levitation.jpg>

--

Jeff

 

[whit3rd]

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:25:23 AM UTC-7, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 09:30:31 +0100, Clive Arthur
cl...@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:

On 01/08/2023 08:46, Martin Brown wrote:

snip

Can you post a link to the paper in English? All I got at that site was
a blue flying saucer and an error message in Korean that I can\'t read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK-99
A problem with many \'high temperature\' superconductors is that they
support only small current densities (without loosing
superconductivity) making them economically or even technically
unusable for long power cables or electric motors.

Also low magnetic fields before they stop superconducting.
The flip side is that, for Josephson junction switches, that\'s ideal behavior.
There have been CPUs made with such superconducting materials

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_computing>

 

[Martin Brown]

On 01/08/2023 17:22, Ricky wrote:

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 12:02:37 PM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/08/2023 14:08, Ricky wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 8:02:23 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/08/2023 09:30, Clive Arthur wrote:
On 01/08/2023 08:46, Martin Brown wrote:

snip

Can you post a link to the paper in English? All I got at that
site was a blue flying saucer and an error message in Korean
that I can\'t read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK-99
Extra ordinary claims require a better standard of proof and all
bets are off until at least one other group can verify the initial
results.

A hexagonal lattice structure might work with the right dopants,
but it would be a lot more reassuring if it showed superconducting
behaviour when cooled down.

I don\'t follow what you are trying to say. This material is supposed
to be superconducting at room temperature. Why would you need to
cool it to test it?
In general terms superconductors invariably work better when cooled so
for a room temperature superconductor you shouldn\'t need to cool it very
much to see it really work well. I\'d happily settle for one that only
required mild refridgeration and was a ductile metal.

Please define your use of the term, \"works better\".

Able to tolerate more ambient magnetic field before it stops
superconducting. Attempts to reproduce their material seem to have
failed at all the sites that have tried so far. That isn\'t good.

> This superconductor is claimed to work above 100°C, so 20°C *is* cooled. How much cooling is required?

Lots of claims but non-one seems to be able to reproduce their results
and even they don\'t seem very clear on what it is they are claiming
either. Anyone can fake a Youtube video.

I found one of their papers on arXiv. I don\'t recognise the house style
of any reputable physics journal. It looks more like a press release put
together by an intern having a bad day. Even allowing for English not
being their first language it is pretty close to word salad with some
random and badly drawn graphs thrown in which hide important details.

This is the URL of the paper I found (there are others). I could only be
bothered reading one of them since they are tedious in the extreme.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12037

This makes me a bit suspicious (although it could be an innocent
mistake). All but one of the listed authors do *not* own the paper.

https://arxiv.org/auth/show-endorsers/2307.12037

It looks to me more a prospectus to separate the gullible and credulous
from their hard earned spondulicks.

Their recipe and production method seem strange to me since it risks
having sulphur impurities in the finished product, but if it works then
fair enough. Purer reagents seem to give a better graph which is good.

The diamagnetic properties seem OK up to a point but may not necessarily
be due to bulk superconduction. There is a distinct possibility that if
it is superconducting at all then it is only along one preferred crystal
axis.(see Fig 4) The authors acknowledge that themselves.

Fig 5 I particularly dislike since it is incredibly messy and the
plotting of fat data points on the main graph makes checking the derived
graph impossible. The latter is awkwardly x-scaled. Don\'t they teach
anything about clear data presentation in universities these days?

Superconductivity, like pregnancy is usually all or nothing so I find it
odd that the resistance comes off baseline around 40C for a small hump
and then rises gradually from 60C to 80C before reaching a plateau and
then a jump at about 113C (not the 126C claimed in the abstract).

It doesn\'t help that their 4 point measurement method of conductivity
will be invalidated if the material really is a 1D superconductor since
their voltage probes would have to hit the same 1D strand to give true
readings.

If it does superconduct then it is only at pretty feeble currents. The
sample becomes metallic with as little as 250mA flowing at 25C. I\'d like
to know what current it can handle at dry ice or LN2 temperatures. Fig 6(a)

It doesn\'t seem to tolerate ambient magnetic fields well either Fig 6(d)

I\'m not going to comment on their proposed mechanism (I last did TCM 4
decades ago) but I doubt if it is any better then the rest of the paper.

I have sent a link to one of my friends who is at a lab where real
superconductivity experts reside to see what they think of it (and also
to ask if they have tried making this recipe and have any results).

Another alternative is that it does exactly what it claims but the
Earth\'s magnetic field is sufficient to prevent it from superconducting!

I suspect this is one destined for \"The journal of Irreproducible
Results\" assuming here that it survives peer review to get that far.

Based on what exactly?

The fact that it isn\'t emblazonned on the front page of a reputable
scientific journal like Nature. arXiv and Wikipedia is no place to
announce such a momentous discovery if that is really what it is.

I\'m inclined to file it in with LENR until such time as they can
demonstrate clear behaviour that I can recognise unambiguously as
superconductivity. YMMV (and clearly it does)

--
Martin Brown

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Wed, 2 Aug 2023 09:33:03 +0100) it happened Martin Brown
<\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <uad4c0$5qh$1@dont-email.me>:

This is the URL of the paper I found (there are others). I could only be
bothered reading one of them since they are tedious in the extreme.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12037

This makes me a bit suspicious (although it could be an innocent
mistake). All but one of the listed authors do *not* own the paper.

https://arxiv.org/auth/show-endorsers/2307.12037

Levitation, as in the picture in figure 4c,
does not mean superconduction is present.
Here my levitation experiment with a simple drawing pen carbon rod:
panteltje.nl/pub/levitation_cut_img_3051.jpg

Theirs does not even come free 100%, could just be some opposite magnetic poles
in the middle, held down by gravity on the big heavy end.

 

[Martin Brown]

On 02/08/2023 10:49, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 2 Aug 2023 09:33:03 +0100) it happened Martin Brown
\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <uad4c0$5qh$1@dont-email.me>:

This is the URL of the paper I found (there are others). I could only be
bothered reading one of them since they are tedious in the extreme.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12037

This makes me a bit suspicious (although it could be an innocent
mistake). All but one of the listed authors do *not* own the paper.

https://arxiv.org/auth/show-endorsers/2307.12037

Levitation, as in the picture in figure 4c,
does not mean superconduction is present.

+1

Here my levitation experiment with a simple drawing pen carbon rod:
panteltje.nl/pub/levitation_cut_img_3051.jpg

Theirs does not even come free 100%, could just be some opposite magnetic poles
in the middle, held down by gravity on the big heavy end.

Didn\'t Geim at the ultra high magnetic field lab get an Ignoble prize
for levitating a frog this way in a 16T field once? This lot:

https://www.iflscience.com/in-1997-scientists-made-a-frog-levitate-63041

www.ru.nl/hfml/research/levitation-explained/diamagnetic-levitation/
>

--
Martin Brown