Yes this is LK-99 derived. (See the paper's reference 4 and 5.) Eh, of course it is unlikely LK-99 is bogus and this one is not, but then the correct conclusion to draw is that LK-99 is not bogus?
Perhaps LK-99 is bogus, and they were triying to reproduce the result, they failed succesfully and they got another similar compound that is not bogus.
That’s possible but far less likely than the alternative explanation that either this is bunk too or LK-99 contained signal that people dismissed due to a hole in our methodology.
Wait how are all the flaws in the paper and all the failed reproductions of LK-99 and all the signs that LK-99 is just diamagnetism compatible with LK-99 being a proper superconductor?
The thing is.... all the failed reproductions of LK-99 were based on the leaked version of the paper, which according to the authors is missing some information/steps for production. They said they would publish the complete/final version of the paper in 2024, waiting to see that.
