Summary: "We calculated that 16 hours of LED illumination corresponds with several hundreds of years of illumination by museum light".
The article offers no further explanation or citation.
The article offers no further explanation or citation.
The summary of the article is in the chemistry of the pigment, not the technical details of re-creating the effect.
But that's not because journalists aren't capable, its that these days audiences freak out when they see anything more than tabloid level detail in an article. In-depth discussions are glossed over, they don't fetch views and subscriptions. Masses want entertainment instead of information. So, there is no incentive to write deeply studied articles.
I appreciate your desire for deeper analysis, but I hate the "5 whys" as they imply every event has a single root cause.
That's an implication you're imposing yourself: there's no reason why asking the answer to any single question looking for cause will only have a single cause. Even Wikipedia's cursory overview includes this:
> "Not all problems have a single root cause. If one wishes to uncover multiple root causes, the method must be repeated asking a different sequence of questions each time."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_whys
Particularly if you're aware of a tendency to limit to a single root cause, you can actively work to ensure you don't fall into that trap.
If you can never say, "That's why it happened," then the 5-whys method fails.
Which goes, Who, What, When, Where, Why and How.
If an article answers those five then it's done. Any other details is seen as fluff and a waste of editorial space. Which is funny considering the internet actually means there should be a a lot more space for editorial.