> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 7:42 PM, J. Forster <j...@quikus.com> wrote: >> There are failures and there are failures. >> A negative result is a failure that is worth reporting. >> A failure due to an improperly mated connector... not so much. > > That is saying to anyone who wants to do a similar experiment in the > future that they need at least two redundant systems. I believe that > is quite a valuable lesson.
Not quite, IMO. You need to do "sanity checks". When you are doing science in unknown territory, you need to eliminate everything you can, as a source of error. Remember the problems Perkin Elmer had with the Hubble mirror? > Concerning the OCXO, one has to bear in mind that this experiment was > not meant to measure time of flight, but rather neutrino oscillations. > The message for me here is that it's good to publish all your designs, > including gateware sources, as soon as possible, but I don't know how > compatible that is with today's highly competitive scientific world. Was there any real competition to this experiment? Seems like they have a lot of very, very big, expensive, unique hardware that can't exactly be bought at Radio Shack. Which is more important? Getting it fast, or getting it right? -John ============= > > So I think there is an important lesson behind each one of the two > issues. Of course this is easy to see from outside and after the fact. > > Cheers, > > Javier > > _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.