Comment on "Carbon content drives high temperature superconductivity in a carbonaceous sulfur hydride below 100 GPa" by G. A. Smith, I. E. Collings, E. Snider, D. Smith, S. Petitgirard, J. S. Smith, M. White, E. Jones, P. Ellison, K. V. Lawler, R. P. Dias and A. Salamat, Chem. Commun., 2022, 58, 9064

J E Hirsch

doi:10.1039/d2cc05277f

Comment on "Carbon content drives high temperature superconductivity in a carbonaceous sulfur hydride below 100 GPa" by G. A. Smith, I. E. Collings, E. Snider, D. Smith, S. Petitgirard, J. S. Smith, M. White, E. Jones, P. Ellison, K. V. Lawler, R. P. Dias and A. Salamat, Chem. Commun., 2022, 58, 9064

Chem Commun (Camb). 2023 May 9;59(38):5765-5770. doi: 10.1039/d2cc05277f.

Author

J E Hirsch¹

Affiliation

¹ Department of Physics, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0319, USA. jhirsch@ucsd.edu.

PMID: 37083704
DOI: 10.1039/d2cc05277f

Abstract

Experimental data supporting the claim that a carbonaceous sulfur hydride (CSH) under pressure is a high temperature superconductor were presented. Here we report results of a mathematical analysis that indicates that with probability larger than 1-10^-338 some of those data were not measured in a laboratory, contrary to what the papers claim. This finding undermines confidence in the claim that any of the experimental evidence reported in those papers reflects the properties of real physical samples of CSH.

Publication types

Comment