Clarification of “academic relevance”

Hi community, I’m reaching out to better understand the removal of my recent post regarding the quantum computer hardware replica I designed and built for a local university. It was removed for "not being related to the academics of quantum computing," and I’m hoping for some clarity on that criteria. To provide context: this wasn’t a fan-art project. This was a commissioned educational tool built specifically for a university’s quantum computing department. The "cooling tower" (dilution refrigerator) architecture is fundamental to how superconducting qubits function; without that specific hardware environment, the "academics" of the math and logic don't translate to reality. My post aimed to show the hardware side of the field, specifically how universities are using physical models to teach students about: Cryogenic environments and the stages of cooling. Signal routing and the physical constraints of wiring a quantum processor. Scaling challenges in hardware design. If a project commissioned by a university for the express purpose of departmental education doesn’t qualify as "academic," could you please clarify what does? Is the sub restricted strictly to theoretical papers, or is there room for the physical engineering and pedagogical tools that make the science accessible? I’d love to find a way to share this that fits your guidelines, as the intersection of hardware engineering and education is a vital part of the field. submitted by /u/StarsapBill [link] [comments]