maegul (he/they)@lemmy.ml to Technology@beehaw.orgEnglish · 1 year agoFailed replication of claimed superconductor reported on arxivarxiv.orgexternal-linkmessage-square73fedilinkarrow-up1204cross-posted to: hackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fanstechnews@radiation.party
arrow-up1204external-linkFailed replication of claimed superconductor reported on arxivarxiv.orgmaegul (he/they)@lemmy.ml to Technology@beehaw.orgEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square73fedilinkcross-posted to: hackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fanstechnews@radiation.party
minus-squaretakeda@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up28·1 year agoIt is notoriously hard to replicate things in labs, especially with material science. This was attempt to do it within 2 days of the paper being published. To add to that, the original researchers apparently had 10% successes rate in their lab, they wanted to perfect it before publishing their paper. Bad luck was that it leaked, so to make sure somebody else doesn’t get credit for their work they published what they had within hours. It likely will take months before this will be verified.
minus-squareArtZuron@beehaw.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up8·1 year agoThat’s often how it goes. Something doesn’t do what you expect, so you have to keep trying new things until you figure out why it wasn’t what you expect.
It is notoriously hard to replicate things in labs, especially with material science.
This was attempt to do it within 2 days of the paper being published.
To add to that, the original researchers apparently had 10% successes rate in their lab, they wanted to perfect it before publishing their paper.
Bad luck was that it leaked, so to make sure somebody else doesn’t get credit for their work they published what they had within hours.
It likely will take months before this will be verified.
Removed by mod
That’s often how it goes. Something doesn’t do what you expect, so you have to keep trying new things until you figure out why it wasn’t what you expect.