gandik

This is so reminiscent of what happened after Fleischmann & Pons. Labs attempting to replicate saw this property, or that property, but never the whole, unequivocal picture.

Here we have a room temperature superconductor that isn't a superconductor at room temperature. A sample that has no measured Meissner Effect at any temperature. And the authors admit that some (many?) of the samples tested out as semiconductors.

Also, they don't happen to mention how they measured resistance. 1mA current, yes, but what equipment? And what setup? Micro-measurement of resistance is hard. We really need to know more about that.

I followed your link, but there is nothing there. Perhaps this is why no sane person should be using X for scientific communication at this point.

Because words, whether spoken or written, are not evidence.

Our greatest flaw, as a species, is failing to recognize this.

The perpetual narrative is, "He is a respected man; he has no reason to lie; he is putting his reputation on the line to do this." Those things fail to convert words into evidence.

Evidence begins with data. Very specific details. Drawings, measurements, logs, times and dates. These are all missing. If those were present, we could begin to follow the trail towards evidence.

But, apparently, most of us are not wired that way.