-
Performance-optimized components for quantum technologies via additive manufacturing
Authors:
S H Madkhaly,
L A Coles,
C Morley,
C D Colquhoun,
T M Fromhold,
N Cooper,
L Hackermüller
Abstract:
Novel quantum technologies and devices place unprecedented demands on the performance of experimental components, while their widespread deployment beyond the laboratory necessitates increased robustness and fast, affordable production. We show how the use of additive manufacturing, together with mathematical optimization techniques and innovative designs, allows the production of compact, lightwe…
▽ More
Novel quantum technologies and devices place unprecedented demands on the performance of experimental components, while their widespread deployment beyond the laboratory necessitates increased robustness and fast, affordable production. We show how the use of additive manufacturing, together with mathematical optimization techniques and innovative designs, allows the production of compact, lightweight components with greatly enhanced performance. We use such components to produce a magneto-optical trap that captures $\sim 2 \times 10^8$ rubidium atoms, employing for this purpose a compact and highly stable device for spectroscopy and optical power distribution, optimized neodymium magnet arrays for magnetic field generation, and a lightweight, additively manufactured ultra-high vacuum chamber. We show how the use of additive manufacturing enables substantial weight reduction and stability enhancement, while also illustrating the transferability of our approach to experiments and devices across the quantum technology sector and beyond.
△ Less
Submitted 19 February, 2021;
originally announced February 2021.
-
Innovative Science
Authors:
Donald W Braben,
John F Allen,
William Amos,
Richard Ball,
Hagan Bayley,
Tim Birkhead,
Peter Cameron,
Eleanor Campbell,
Richard Cogdell,
David Colquhoun,
Steve Davies,
Rod Dowler,
Peter Edwards,
Irene Engle,
Felipe Fernandez-Armesto,
Desmond Fitzgerald,
Jon Frampton,
Dame Anne Glover,
John Hall,
Pat Heslop-Harrison,
Dudley Herschbach,
Sui Huang,
H Jeff Kimble,
Sir Harry Kroto,
James Ladyman
, et al. (23 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
Sir, We write as senior scientists about a problem vital to the scientific enterprise and prosperity. Nowadays, funding is a lengthy and complex business. First, universities themselves must approve all proposals for submission. Funding agencies then subject those that survive to peer review, a process by which a few researchers, usually acting anonymously, assess a proposal's chances that it will…
▽ More
Sir, We write as senior scientists about a problem vital to the scientific enterprise and prosperity. Nowadays, funding is a lengthy and complex business. First, universities themselves must approve all proposals for submission. Funding agencies then subject those that survive to peer review, a process by which a few researchers, usually acting anonymously, assess a proposal's chances that it will achieve its goals, is the best value for money, is relevant to a national priority and will impact on a socio-economic problem. Only 25% of proposals received by the funding agencies are funded. These protracted processes force researchers to exploit existing knowledge, severely discourage open-ended studies and are hugely time-consuming. They are also new: before 1970, few researchers wrote proposals. Now they are virtually mandatory.
△ Less
Submitted 23 September, 2015;
originally announced October 2015.
-
An investigation of the false discovery rate and the misinterpretation of P values
Authors:
David Colquhoun
Abstract:
The following proposition is justified from several different points of view. If you use P = 0.05 to suggest that you have made a discovery, you will be wrong at least 30 percent of the time. If, as is often the case, experiments are under-powered, you will be wrong most of the time. It is concluded that if you wish to keep your false discovery rate below 5 percent, you need to use a 3-sigma rule,…
▽ More
The following proposition is justified from several different points of view. If you use P = 0.05 to suggest that you have made a discovery, you will be wrong at least 30 percent of the time. If, as is often the case, experiments are under-powered, you will be wrong most of the time. It is concluded that if you wish to keep your false discovery rate below 5 percent, you need to use a 3-sigma rule, or to insist on P value below 0.001. And never use the word "significant".
△ Less
Submitted 20 November, 2014; v1 submitted 20 July, 2014;
originally announced July 2014.
