Three misstatements
We very much appreciated you publishing an article about our research (“New iron-based superconductor found,” Sept. 13, page 4). The article is quite well written in general. However, some corrections are needed in order to avoid confusion.
First, the statement “Currently, the iron-based compound — dubbed ‘PbO type structure alpha-FeSe’ — can reach superconductive status at a temperature of 30 Kelvin” is not accurate. The FeSe superconductor has a transition temperature of 8K, and under pressure can reach 27K. Thus, it is important to stress that the higher transition temperature to the superconducting state can be achieved only under high pressure.
Second, the statement “Superconductivity is a physical phenomenon in which certain materials, when cooled to very low temperatures such as zero Kelvin” could be misleading. Up to now, it has been very difficult to cool things to exactly zero Kelvin. The lowest attainable temperatures with liquid cryogenic methods are typically in the range of tens of milliKelvin, which is still somewhat larger than zero. Also, as seen with high-tc and iron superconductors, we observe transitions around 8K to 93K, which are larger than zero Kelvin.
Finally, the statement “Meanwhile, a long-existing hypothesis about superconductors is that only substances that are anti-ferromagnetic in nature can be transformed into superconductors” is misphrased and somewhat incorrect. The hypothesis is that magnetism does not lead to superconductivity. Antiferromagnetism is in fact a form of magnetism that denotes how interacting spins align in an anti-parallel position. The high-tc superconductors are normally antiferromagnetic materials that become superconducting below their transition temperature. But the antiferromagnetism is not necessarily directly responsible for the superconductivity.
Saying that only antiferromagnetic materials can become superconducting is a gross misstatement.
MAW-KUEN WU
Director
Institute of Physics
Academia Sinica
Taipei
Importance or impotence?
Taiwanese sometimes have difficulty pronouncing the English words “importance” and “impotence.” The words might sound similar, but it seems that some can’t even tell them apart by their meanings.
Minister of Transportation and Communications Mao Chi-kuo (毛治國) does not feel like saying sorry to the nation after “only” four bridges collapsed when Typhoon Sinlaku pelted Taiwan. The destruction does not seem to bother the minister: His important position has more important tasks than facing the families of victims and taking responsibility.
Casualties and damage brought by the typhoon are increasing, the stock market is tumbling, tainted Chinese products are entering the market and the sovereignty of the country is being challenged.
President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) important post also involves dealing with other more important issues, whatever they are. His schedule is hectic and includes dining with Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators.
What else must happen on this island that would prompt the leaders of this country to reflect on the style of their leadership and make them aware that a sense of “importance” can be destructive? “Importance” leads to a failure to perform — to impotence.
HANNA SHEN
Taipei
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS