9 ms·

That's unfair, they may not have reproduced the 1.3Mj result, but they are consistantly hitting the 100s of Kj range, which the article addresses. This is stil

That's unfair, they may not have reproduced the 1.3Mj result, but they are consistantly hitting the 100s of Kj range, which the article addresses. This is still an important step forward, and shouldn't be dismissed frivously.

dghughes 4y ago
>That's unfair, they may not have reproduced the 1.3Mj result Fair or not isn't that the very definition of science? To reproduce a result. No matter who tries.
- switchbak 4y ago
  Exactly. The fervor around reproducibility seems more to do with managerial level politics. They've proven they can do something impressive, that's a huge leap. Understanding the underpinnings better so you can do it reliably: that's a matter of research effort and engineering. But they've already done the hard part, let them do their work.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    It has to do with the crisis of quality, and indeed outright fraud, that seems to be affecting science these days. https://retractionwatch.com/ https://retractionwatch.com/
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    > They've proven they can do something impressive If what they claim can't be reproduced, then what's the basis for asserting anything was proven?
    - vlovich123 4y ago
      They’ve analyzed the data from the experiment to prove that they achieved it (i.e. ruling out all possible other explanations). Assuming there’s been no fraud, then it’s likely they did achieve it. They’re trying to figure out what the problems are that make reproducibility difficult & I think there’s a new reactor being built that addresses the challenges with reproducing in the current design. It’s an early signal indicating that we may have line of sight to someone demonstrating working fusion within the next 5 years. Is that not impressive?
      - Retric 4y ago
        Without reproducing the result it can be extremely difficult to prove something wasn’t a measurement error of some kind.
      - tsimionescu 4y ago
        That do you mean by "working fusion"? This is a weapons research program wearing a very thin figleaf as a kinda sorta maybe possible power generation option. And fusion weapons have existed for decades - so nothing that nivel here.
        DennisP 4y ago
        It's a bit odd how people think nuclear weapons research needs a fig leaf in the US, where overt nuclear weapons funding is about a hundred times more than the government's fusion energy funding. It seems more likely that scientists used the weapons angle to dip into that massive flow of military money for their energy program.
        sudosysgen 4y ago
        Isn't this at the NIF? The goal was weapons all along.
        DennisP 4y ago
        So, you have a source proving the motivations of the people who founded it and run it now? Because I argued above that it makes little sense to simply assume that weapons are the only goal, or even necessarily the primary goal.
        IncRnd 4y ago
        > I argued above that it makes little sense to simply assume that weapons are the only goal, or even necessarily the primary goal. You can argue all you want. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is a government-owned, contractor-operated facility managed through a contract between the LLNS Board of Governors and the DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). The NNSA in turn works to ensure that the nation's stockpile of nuclear weapons is safe and secure.
    - mannykannot 4y ago
      They have achieved ignition multiple times. If reproducibility demanded getting the exact same numbers, a lot of good results would be thrown out for no good reason.
      - tsimionescu 4y ago
        If they claim they achieved 1.3MJ and can only reproduce some hundreds of KJ, that's not exactly close the exact same numbers.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - Nevermark 4y ago
      That is a remarkably pedantic take on the situation, no? Difficult tasks are difficult. Difficult tasks take time. A credible indicator that they have achieved something significant is the widespread acclaim they have received from the global physics and fusion communities. Repeatability isn’t the only tool in science and nobody is claiming reproducibility isn’t a goal. If five years from now nobody can reproduce the results, people will take notice. But the evidence is they did what they think they did.
      - MichaelCollins 4y ago
        I'm not sure what you mean by pedantic. But... > A credible indicator that they have achieved something significant is the widespread acclaim they have received from the global physics and fusion communities. How do those people know the result wasn't spurious, if it can't be reproduced? This comment and the one above are questions, do you have an answer?
  - IncRnd 4y ago
    If results are not reproducible, how does one know that the results are correct?
    - teamonkey 4y ago
      You can measure something accurately without needing to reproduce the thing you’re measuring.
      - Eji1700 4y ago
        And your measurement devices can error or be configured improperly. Seriously some large % of "breakthrough" results are just errors in methodology/measurement. It's why no one serious gives a damn about results until they're replicated(or at least they shouldn't). And that's before you get into outright fraud where they just claim they measured something. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you claim you've gotten that kind of fusion reaction, and can't reproduce it, then it casts doubt on if you ever really got that reaction at all.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - kcartlidge 4y ago
    That's not the line taken with Fleischmann and Pons. To be clear I'm not supporting/rejecting either F&P or this article's writers at all as I'm not knowledgable in the field, merely pointing out that the need for reproducibility was reinforced by their reported results and the inability of others to duplicate it. It's a good lesson - nothing is proven until it is repeated.

dghughes 4y ago

>That's unfair, they may not have reproduced the 1.3Mj result Fair or not isn't that the very definition of science? To reproduce a result. No matter who tries.

switchbak 4y ago
Exactly. The fervor around reproducibility seems more to do with managerial level politics. They've proven they can do something impressive, that's a huge leap. Understanding the underpinnings better so you can do it reliably: that's a matter of research effort and engineering. But they've already done the hard part, let them do their work.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  It has to do with the crisis of quality, and indeed outright fraud, that seems to be affecting science these days. https://retractionwatch.com/ https://retractionwatch.com/
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > They've proven they can do something impressive If what they claim can't be reproduced, then what's the basis for asserting anything was proven?
  - vlovich123 4y ago
    They’ve analyzed the data from the experiment to prove that they achieved it (i.e. ruling out all possible other explanations). Assuming there’s been no fraud, then it’s likely they did achieve it. They’re trying to figure out what the problems are that make reproducibility difficult & I think there’s a new reactor being built that addresses the challenges with reproducing in the current design. It’s an early signal indicating that we may have line of sight to someone demonstrating working fusion within the next 5 years. Is that not impressive?
    - Retric 4y ago
      Without reproducing the result it can be extremely difficult to prove something wasn’t a measurement error of some kind.
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      That do you mean by "working fusion"? This is a weapons research program wearing a very thin figleaf as a kinda sorta maybe possible power generation option. And fusion weapons have existed for decades - so nothing that nivel here.
      - DennisP 4y ago
        It's a bit odd how people think nuclear weapons research needs a fig leaf in the US, where overt nuclear weapons funding is about a hundred times more than the government's fusion energy funding. It seems more likely that scientists used the weapons angle to dip into that massive flow of military money for their energy program.
        sudosysgen 4y ago
        Isn't this at the NIF? The goal was weapons all along.
        DennisP 4y ago
        So, you have a source proving the motivations of the people who founded it and run it now? Because I argued above that it makes little sense to simply assume that weapons are the only goal, or even necessarily the primary goal.
        IncRnd 4y ago
        > I argued above that it makes little sense to simply assume that weapons are the only goal, or even necessarily the primary goal. You can argue all you want. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is a government-owned, contractor-operated facility managed through a contract between the LLNS Board of Governors and the DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). The NNSA in turn works to ensure that the nation's stockpile of nuclear weapons is safe and secure.
  - mannykannot 4y ago
    They have achieved ignition multiple times. If reproducibility demanded getting the exact same numbers, a lot of good results would be thrown out for no good reason.
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      If they claim they achieved 1.3MJ and can only reproduce some hundreds of KJ, that's not exactly close the exact same numbers.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Nevermark 4y ago
    That is a remarkably pedantic take on the situation, no? Difficult tasks are difficult. Difficult tasks take time. A credible indicator that they have achieved something significant is the widespread acclaim they have received from the global physics and fusion communities. Repeatability isn’t the only tool in science and nobody is claiming reproducibility isn’t a goal. If five years from now nobody can reproduce the results, people will take notice. But the evidence is they did what they think they did.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      I'm not sure what you mean by pedantic. But... > A credible indicator that they have achieved something significant is the widespread acclaim they have received from the global physics and fusion communities. How do those people know the result wasn't spurious, if it can't be reproduced? This comment and the one above are questions, do you have an answer?
- IncRnd 4y ago
  If results are not reproducible, how does one know that the results are correct?
  - teamonkey 4y ago
    You can measure something accurately without needing to reproduce the thing you’re measuring.
    - Eji1700 4y ago
      And your measurement devices can error or be configured improperly. Seriously some large % of "breakthrough" results are just errors in methodology/measurement. It's why no one serious gives a damn about results until they're replicated(or at least they shouldn't). And that's before you get into outright fraud where they just claim they measured something. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you claim you've gotten that kind of fusion reaction, and can't reproduce it, then it casts doubt on if you ever really got that reaction at all.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- kcartlidge 4y ago
  That's not the line taken with Fleischmann and Pons. To be clear I'm not supporting/rejecting either F&P or this article's writers at all as I'm not knowledgable in the field, merely pointing out that the need for reproducibility was reinforced by their reported results and the inability of others to duplicate it. It's a good lesson - nothing is proven until it is repeated.