3 ms·
The original authors have apparently said they are only able to successfully produce the material in around 1 in 10 attempts and they don't yet know why. Also,
by mrandish 3y ago
The original authors have apparently said they are only able to successfully produce the material in around 1 in 10 attempts and they don't yet know why. Also, replicators have reported that the information in the papers and the patent aren't entirely clear on some potentially significant implementation details.
Unfortunately, real science makes for a pretty lousy spectator sport :-). Given the context of the release, it was always a near-certainty that early replication attempts would be a random mix of "No" and "Maybe" results. I think our best chance for any meaningful near-term clarity rest with the team of scientists reportedly visiting the original authors in their lab to test the author's own samples. While a positive result from that won't be a definitive replication, it will at least be external validation of the original process and results.
- canjobear 3y ago> Unfortunately, real science makes for a pretty lousy spectator sport :-). I’ve found this whole thing incredibly entertaining and informative.
- mrandish 3y agoI actually agree with you because I've enjoyed it immensely but I suspect you and I share fairly nuanced and informed perspectives. My statement was more directed to those who seem to be expecting some kind of near-term definitive verdict or box score, more like a sporting event.
- MayeulC 3y agoThis is more like a high stakes multi round baking competition :) I never thought of replication experiment as an alternative to televized sports, but this does it for me (caveat: I never really was into following sports competitions). Imagine if national sports were replication attempts :P I suspect this whole story is at least going to inspire a few material science/chemistry/EE careers in South Korea!
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]