3 ms·

Is it an actual "reproduction" if the specific experimental steps cannot be reproduced? I think what people do not understand is that there is a difference betw

Is it an actual "reproduction" if the specific experimental steps cannot be reproduced? I think what people do not understand is that there is a difference between "result" and "process". The existence of one is not a validation of the other. As programmers, we know this: there are many ways of implementing the same algorithm. So, it really depends on what is being "reproduced". Is it the outcome? Or is it the process? If it is just the outcome, then the original authors could merely store an example of it as the only proof necessary. But, my intuition says that it is much more often the process that is needing to be reproduced/proven. Therefore, "lab technique" should have nothing to do with a proof of process. Either it can or it cannot be done as it has been defined.

bsder 6y ago
> Either it can or it cannot be done as it has been defined. You can't define everything precisely--and inaccuracy may not lead to failure--just suboptimal results. My favorite example of this was a semiconductor fabrication lab in college. There were 4 or 5 masks which have the step of "Align masks on lithography machine using alignment marks on silicon and expose photresist". Okaaaaay. No big deal, you're putting lines and crosses in the center of other lines and crosses visually through a stereo microscope. Humans do that well. Erm, that lithography machine is possibly older than the professor and likely hasn't been maintained in about the same timeframe. So, the vernier screws have an enormous amount of backlash. If you've used shitty guitar tuners, you know how to deal with this. If you haven't, you spend a lot of time being frustrated figuring out what backlash is and how to deal with it. Okay, that's lab technique. However, if even if you do know about backlash, this wastes time on a piece of equipment which is already time constrained. If you actually know something about semiconductors and think a bit about the process, you realize that Mask 2 is the crucial alignment because it defines your critical dimensions and screwing it up will haunt you while you can be a little more cavalier about the other masks. So, you spend way more time fighting the machine on Mask 2 to get it right (because it's important) and you spend less time on the rest. That's also lab technique. Finally, if you're paranoid, you test the measurement equipment and calibrate it every single time you enter the lab. You note the serial numbers of the broken ones and only use the ones that reliably give correct measurements. Your prize for this level of lab technique is that your transistor gives gorgeous graphs and works exactly like the lab claims it should while everybody else gets mushy results, at best.
- jiggawatts 6y ago
  I had the same kind of experience making holograms in the physics lab. My transmission hologram was a blurry, faded mess. I suspected old chemicals, but to be honest we had no idea why. My lab partner and I tried about three times, with three total failures. The reflection hologram turned out to be the best one the lab supervisor had seen in a decade. I have no idea why it worked at all, let alone why it turned out so good! Both processes are simple conceptually, but incredibly finicky in practice. The interference fringes can be ruined by wind outside the lab shaking the walls, which then shakes the optical table through the floor. You can't feel it, but the hologram is ruined. The laser could have a short coherence length, and you wouldn't know it. If it warms up too fast, it'll shift the fringes. Don't cough. Don't bump the table. Don't bang the door. So on, and so forth.

bsder 6y ago

> Either it can or it cannot be done as it has been defined. You can't define everything precisely--and inaccuracy may not lead to failure--just suboptimal results. My favorite example of this was a semiconductor fabrication lab in college. There were 4 or 5 masks which have the step of "Align masks on lithography machine using alignment marks on silicon and expose photresist". Okaaaaay. No big deal, you're putting lines and crosses in the center of other lines and crosses visually through a stereo microscope. Humans do that well. Erm, that lithography machine is possibly older than the professor and likely hasn't been maintained in about the same timeframe. So, the vernier screws have an enormous amount of backlash. If you've used shitty guitar tuners, you know how to deal with this. If you haven't, you spend a lot of time being frustrated figuring out what backlash is and how to deal with it. Okay, that's lab technique. However, if even if you do know about backlash, this wastes time on a piece of equipment which is already time constrained. If you actually know something about semiconductors and think a bit about the process, you realize that Mask 2 is the crucial alignment because it defines your critical dimensions and screwing it up will haunt you while you can be a little more cavalier about the other masks. So, you spend way more time fighting the machine on Mask 2 to get it right (because it's important) and you spend less time on the rest. That's also lab technique. Finally, if you're paranoid, you test the measurement equipment and calibrate it every single time you enter the lab. You note the serial numbers of the broken ones and only use the ones that reliably give correct measurements. Your prize for this level of lab technique is that your transistor gives gorgeous graphs and works exactly like the lab claims it should while everybody else gets mushy results, at best.

jiggawatts 6y ago
I had the same kind of experience making holograms in the physics lab. My transmission hologram was a blurry, faded mess. I suspected old chemicals, but to be honest we had no idea why. My lab partner and I tried about three times, with three total failures. The reflection hologram turned out to be the best one the lab supervisor had seen in a decade. I have no idea why it worked at all, let alone why it turned out so good! Both processes are simple conceptually, but incredibly finicky in practice. The interference fringes can be ruined by wind outside the lab shaking the walls, which then shakes the optical table through the floor. You can't feel it, but the hologram is ruined. The laser could have a short coherence length, and you wouldn't know it. If it warms up too fast, it'll shift the fringes. Don't cough. Don't bump the table. Don't bang the door. So on, and so forth.