> due to various impurities and that it will take a while before we have a sample that is pure enough that all of these properties can be nailed down for good.
Do you think it will be "purity" or understanding material variance/specific impurity?
It reminds me of Fogbank, the nuke material claimed to be "so secret they forgot how to make it." Part of the story of manufacturing difficulty was due to increased purity of modern materials/processes.
In a bizarre twist, the new production facility and reverse-engineered production process yielded a version of Fogbank that was of a higher purity than it had been in the past, according to the article. The problem, however, was that for Fogbank to work as intended in existing warhead designs, that previous level of impurity was actually essential. NNSA had to revise the process to ensure the final product was just as impure.
It reminds me of Max Gergel's Isopropyl bromide book:
When Hildebrand ran the baths the silver came out bright, and stuck to the objects; the minute he left troubles started. No one knew why. Shortly before he left to go into the antique business in Charleston he showed me the secret. It was his chewing tobacco, spat into the bath from time to time. From then on, one man in each shift chewed, and the problem was solved
That's a hilarious book: "There was a jar which I had not noticed before containing potassium metal. I knew that potassium was a silvery metal, but this was one inch spheres, green with the oil in which they were immersed. I removed two for a collection of elements we were starting at Columbia High, scraped off the oil and put the marbles in my handkerchief which I added to a collection of miscellaneous glassware in my back pocket. "
My last chemistry class was in high school, so I had to glide over a lot of the details. But the story is still awesome even with liberal skimming of chem reaction details.
This book is probably helping me cope with the extreme confusion of all the various LK-99 attempts. Like, it's going to be a hugely messy confusion and slog with lots of results that are "blend-A can meet 5 of the 7 requirements, but not the important ones. blend-B can meet 3 of the 7, but one of the important ones. blend-C looks very promising but doesn't quite meet any of the requirements." for... years.
> Do you think it will be "purity" or understanding material variance/specific impurity?
It could be either.
As I pointed out in other comments, that's how radioactivity was discovered and it is very well possible that they blundered into something exceptional by accident, it is also possible that both parties got it wrong and there are yet other effects at play (see the big gap in the t/R curve, that really needs explaining).
Do you think it will be "purity" or understanding material variance/specific impurity?
It reminds me of Fogbank, the nuke material claimed to be "so secret they forgot how to make it." Part of the story of manufacturing difficulty was due to increased purity of modern materials/processes.
In a bizarre twist, the new production facility and reverse-engineered production process yielded a version of Fogbank that was of a higher purity than it had been in the past, according to the article. The problem, however, was that for Fogbank to work as intended in existing warhead designs, that previous level of impurity was actually essential. NNSA had to revise the process to ensure the final product was just as impure.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32867/fogbank-is-myste...