@RWBY's comment on 'I know you all kind of forgot about this but the room temperature superconductor is real and it's happening and the russian catgirl is going to release information showing zero resistance tomorrow'

https://twitter.com/iris_IGB/status/1690309378933411840

YES, ZERO R TRANSITION DETECTED
Update on Monday most likely.
— Iris (@iris_IGB) August 12, 2023

Proof she's based.

sci thread

https://archived.moe/sci/thread/15658145

Some gay-butt EE nerd posted something in there:

>I just talked to iris_IGB on twitter and I don't find her answers convincing. I am a researcher and have got a PhD in electrical engineering and magnetic materials, so I happen to know a bit about the measurement. To me, Iris is either an extremely erratic genius, or completely a troll.

>She measured the voltage across the sample ( I assume is a loop ) after a pulsing external magnetic field and said the voltage was zero. I mentioned that an easier way to measure very small resistance in a potentially superconducting loop is not to directly measure the voltage, but measure the magnetic field generated by the current, and see if it decays exponentially over time. The time constant of decay should be tau = L/R, where L is the inductance of the loop, and R is the resistance of the loop. The more conductive the ring is, the larger tau you should get. If the ring is superconducting, the tau is infinite, which means you can keep the current flow indefinitely. Although the current does not generate any significant voltage drop, it generates Oersted field. The presence of the current can be measured by a sensitive magnetic field sensor, or simply a compass, which should be readily available. And we can do a control experiment with copper loop of a similar shape to show a much smaller tau.

>However, she didn't seem to understand me and accused me of not reading her previous posts and my method only works for bulk superconductors, while LK-99 is 1D superconductor, and the shape of the conductive loop of a 1D superconductor is undefined.

>As I explained that to argue the sample contains any superconducting parts, we have to either isolate the superconducting phase and measure it, or measure the overall resistivity of the material, and it has to be much smaller than any known material at room temperature, like copper, to argue that this material is special. Otherwise, the resistivity jump people observed might just be a structural transition. At this stage, we can assume the LK-99 sample conducts uniformly within the loop and calculate the overall resistivity. If it is much smaller than copper, that should be very interesting.

>This time, she claimed this was exactly what she was doing, and gave additional comments: " I let it heat up and once magnetic field disappears - it's the point". I don't understand her point. I assume "once" means "instantaneously" but not sure. I explained that in her previous tweets she never explained this important measurement in detail, and encouraged her to upload more details of her work.

>But then she became mad and accused me of my "clown behavior" and threatened to block me.

>As a researcher, I think I have been kind and reasonable from the very beginning. Her erratic responses make me uncomfortable and also reduce her credibility as a legitimate source.

>tl;dr:

>didn't post the promised arxiv preprint

>stopped posting more pictures

>gets increasingly erratic when asked by actual experts

>a lot of extraordinary claims with barely any evidence that can be easily given in the first place

>posts way too much on twitter

What a straggot :marseylaugh: Cope about it more, b-word