maegul (he/they)@lemmy.ml to Technology@beehaw.orgEnglish · 1 year agoFailed replication of claimed superconductor reported on arxivarxiv.orgmessage-square64fedilinkarrow-up163arrow-down10
arrow-up163arrow-down1external-linkFailed replication of claimed superconductor reported on arxivarxiv.orgmaegul (he/they)@lemmy.ml to Technology@beehaw.orgEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square64fedilink
minus-squaretakeda@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up16·1 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-squareNeshura@bookwormstory.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 year ago10% success rate suggests there’s some hidden factor they haven’t discovered themselves yet, might influence the success rates of other labs. (assuming of course the claim is not fabricated)
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.
10% success rate suggests there’s some hidden factor they haven’t discovered themselves yet, might influence the success rates of other labs. (assuming of course the claim is not fabricated)