BLOG purpose

This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA. The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore, The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them. Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com

Suggest new topics here

SUGGEST NEW TOPICS HERE

Submit candidates for new topics here only. Stay on topic with National Labs' related issues. All submissions are screened first for ...

Thursday, March 28, 2013

NIF

Your Favorite Blog Topic: NIF

Hey the reprieve you non-NIF programs got from discriminatory overhead rates (even 2 years after the build was complete), well you can do your duty and give it right back to NIF. Oh wait, you don't have a choice. You non-NIF people should just go to Silicon Valley. Google hires good people all the time. The bad ones can stay as government contractors at a national lab as part of the white collar welfare program.
 Weapons Complex Monitor
March 27, 2013

NNSA Seeking To Shift $138 Million In Funds For National Ignition Facility

With Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s National Ignition Facility set to run out of funding next month, the Department of Energy says it will need to reprogram $138 million to compensate for higher overhead rates that are being charged to the facility. In a reprogramming request sent to House and Senate authorizers and appropriators last week, DOE Deputy Chief Financial Officer Alison Doone said the Department was seeking to reprogram $88.1 million, and would soon ask for authority to transfer another $40 million to keep the facility running through the end of the Fiscal Year. NIF enjoyed lower overhead rates than the rest of the laboratory during construction, but as it has entered full operations, it has shifted to a higher overhead rate, forcing lab officials to free up additional funds in what largely amounts to a complex accounting exercise.

Doone said an internal NNSA reprogramming of $5 million during FY 2012 and another $5 million this month have allowed the most critical research at NIF to continue, and because the increase to NIF overhead rates has lowered overhead rates for other programs at the lab, the current $88.1 million reprogramming request will be paid for by the “windfall” from the other programs. “These funds can be redirected to LLNL’s RTBF activity with no adverse effects to the programs involved,” Doone said in a letter to top House and Senate authorizers and appropriators last week. However, the additional $40 million that will be needed for NIF is likely to have an impact on the program, Doone said. “We will aim to minimize potential adverse impacts to other programs as we select these sources to fund this high-priority effort,” she wrote.

Last year, NIF Director Ed Moses told Congress that a $140 million shortfall driven by higher overhead rates could force the lab to lay off 450 NIF employees.

87 comments:

Anonymous said...

Read the above text carefully: to prevent layoffs of NIF workers, non-NIF workers will have to pay for this on an enduring basis, through impacts on non-NIF programs and those people supporting the non-NIF programs. And this is all with NNSA's blessing. LLNL has outfoxed the customer, playing Russian Roulette with itself to force NNSA to "go along" with the lab's double-down strategy on NIF. Indeed, Washington does not tell LLNL what to do. The lab tells Washington what to do. And this has been clearly demonstrated.

Anonymous said...

NIF is a huge disgrace that just keeps getting more and more disgraceful.

Anonymous said...

How is it physically possible to spend your entire annual budget in half a year?

Aren't their accounting mechanisms in place to prevent this?

This damages the Director's "necessary furlough" credibility (llnl's lack of funds). How can llnl's costs be controlled when NIF, for what ever reason, is being fiscally irresponsible.

Anonymous said...

NIF, nor any other LLNL boodoggle, has never ever been "fiscally responsible." It is the Livermore way. Maybe those two words are not taught in the Kalifornia skool system.

Anonymous said...

It completely stuns me how my little project at the lab has to jump through multitudes of accounting hoops (vastly increased from 5 years ago) for any little thing I do...

...yet the largest project at the lab has free reign to do just about anything it wants.

They clearly have the oversite spotlight in the wrong place.

Anonymous said...

Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, HA.

Moses. the lesser, has to forgo reduced capital construction burden rates (an artificial DOE accounting practice that assert capital construction projects use less overhead per dollar spent than operations) Buttttt he is now operating a full burden rates and he needs more $ so he takes it back by taxing the organizations he is giving it to....

Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha.
Only a NY jew has such chutzpah. Does anyone wonder why he is hated?

Anonymous said...

Why not just reduce hours and salaries for NIF workers until you can stay within budget?

Why must other programs pay for NIF excesses? The salary increase gluttony is well known over many years.

Anonymous said...

Obamacare for fusion!

Anonymous said...

They would never cut NIF. They would sell your grandmother off to a whorehouse before they bother cutting hours, salary, benefits, etc. for NIF people.

Alot of you poor bastards who work in matrix organizations like PLS, Comp, Engineering are going to get screwed unless you're deemed critical to NIF. And HEAF and Site 300? Notice how critical capability is not being sustained there? You guys are getting killed off. That's because you're critical capabilities are no longer critical.

But these are just the changing times. Remember how ANCD disappeared 15 years ago? The business lines associated with nuclear chemistry was not so important anymore. Alot of you there, sorry to sound so brutal. You can hate NIF and Moses and Parney all you want, but that's not going to change anything. Look out for yourself. Don't expect the lab to ever look out for you, unless you've been deemed critical to NIF programs.

Anonymous said...

My God, hasn't someone killed this project (i.e. NIF) yet! No one has any balls anymore!

Anonymous said...

Let me see if I have this right: rather than using the program generated $85 million overhead windfall to reduce the $121 million short fall (the cause of the furloughs) to $36 million (eliminating the need to furlough 6500 people), the money will instead be given NIF as a reward for being financially reckless?

Anonymous said...

"Last year, NIF Director Ed Moses told Congress that a $140 million shortfall driven by higher overhead rates could force the lab to lay off 450 NIF employees."

What's your point Moses? From my perspective, sounds like Moses can't manage his program. Make our day and follow through on this threat! Get rid of 1,000 for all we care! Hell, make it 5,000.

Anonymous said...

I agree with 1:03 AM & 6:03 AM,

NIF did absolutely nothing to solve their own foreseeable problem. Amazing!

NIF alone should pay the price for their problem and inaction. Let NIF suffer the necessary program cuts it brought about itself.

If this was done, I bet they'd be on budget next year.

No other program should be punished, or their employees suffer, for NIF's inability to run a program on budget.

thief said...

NIF is a huge disgrace that just keeps getting more and more disgraceful.

That's a little harsh...the landscaping is fabulous!

Anonymous said...

The Moses Math makes perfect sense.

Use the overhead savings to reduce the shortfall and cut 500 or so NIF employees...

Or

Apply the overhead savings back to NIF, maintain the larger shortfall, and cut 700 or so non-NIF employees...

That amounts to non-NIF employees being counted as 3/5 of a person... sounds like we've seen something like this in the distant past.

Anonymous said...

And being allowed, by management, to spend your entire annual budget in six months (which has nothing to do with paying overhead)!!!

Anonymous said...

I remember working for a physicist one time that always spent more than he was allocated for a set of experiments. Eventually he was called into his director’s office. At that time they began to chastise him for over spending. He let them talk and asked a simple question. Did you get the data you required on time and was it accurate? The answer was YES. He then said the problem doesn’t seem to be me over spending; the problem seems to be I was underfunded. They never barked at his spending habits again. He’s now one of the world best.

Anonymous said...

That's a great case study that unfortunately does not apply to LLNL's NIF experiments.

Anonymous said...

I sense that the topic of....

>>>>>> LASER EOS <<<<<<

will be rearing its ugly head again. Also it could be.....

*(*(*(*( RAYLEIGH TAYLOR STRENGTH )*)*)*)

The ironic thing is that the much reviled Ed Moses did his job very well, getting the build completed and to specification. He is not to blame for the shoddy science that his machine is subjected to.

Anonymous said...

We should certainly give Dr. Moses accolades for getting the build completed, but who should suffer the consequence, and who's to blame for this magnitude of overspending?

Anonymous said...

Overspending might not have been such a big deal if the experimental data that the laser EOS experiments were accurate and believable. The whiff of incompetence with regards to the analysis of experiments is what gives the NIF platform the bad stench of government waste and fraud. After 16 years they still haven't gotten Laser EOS right. And they keep putting golden boys in the technical leadership roles.

Anonymous said...

If there is scientific fraud associated with the Laser EoS work, that should be enough reason to shut the entire facility down. How can you trust the lab otherwise, if the same incompetent scientists are simply rotated around to other very expensive experiments, rather than fired on the spot.

Anonymous said...

Ed and company are just following the tradition of Lowell Wood and the other A-Holes spawned out of the Teller days.

Anonymous said...

The whiff of incompetence with regards to the analysis of experiments is what gives the NIF platform the bad stench of government waste and fraud.

March 29, 2013 at 4:21 PM

What about the initial selling of NIF as essential for nuclear fusion power research, and to stockpile stewardship and maintenance of our nuclear deterrent? Greatest flimflam known to man? (PT Barnum excepted.) Sort of like when LANSCE was sold as a "Meson physics facility".

Anonymous said...

"Did you get the data you required on time and was it accurate? The answer was YES. He then said the problem doesn’t seem to be me over spending; the problem seems to be I was underfunded. They never barked at his spending habits again. He’s now one of the world best.

March 29, 2013 at 11:14 AM"

This is exactly the problem with NIF, it has been underfunded. There is a lesson to learned from this story NIF will succeed just as the best will succeed if is given the right funding

Anonymous said...

LLNL is doubling down on a losing bet. When the government loses patience with NIF's continuing failure to achieve ignition, there won't be enough left in the rest of the lab to be worth saving.

Anonymous said...

" LLNL is doubling down on a losing bet. When the government loses patience with NIF's continuing failure to achieve ignition, there won't be enough left in the rest of the lab to be worth saving.

March 29, 2013 at 9:00 PM"

First of all NIF is exploring a new realm, we cant change Nature my friend. If in the end we cannot show ignition it will as big or a bigger discovery than ignition. Imagine if there was no Higgs, it would change everything we know about physics, the same could happen at NIF.

Anonymous said...

First of all NIF is exploring a new realm, we cant change Nature my friend. If in the end we cannot show ignition it will as big or a bigger discovery than ignition.

March 30, 2013 at 7:50 AM

Man, that is pathetic. Expensive machines that don't work are as valuable as those that do work? News flash - it isn't what we don't know about physics that is preventing ignition, it is what the NIF scientists don't know about making NIF work.

Anonymous said...

"Man, that is pathetic. Expensive machines that don't work are as valuable as those that do work? News flash - it isn't what we don't know about physics that is preventing ignition, it is what the NIF scientists don't know about making NIF work.

March 30, 2013 at 9:21 AM"

But what if NIF is working it is just that nature is different at the level of energy?

Anonymous said...

At what price, don't they still need to operate within their budget like everyone else?

Isn't one of managements tasks to ensure we operate within our budgets.

I'd like to overspend too.

Anonymous said...

"At what price, don't they still need to operate within their budget like everyone else?"

Amen to that. Parney has foolishly doubled down on Moses...and now we are all going to reap the negative results.

We all carried Moses for years paying ridiculous overhead. Moses needs to stand on his own two feet like the rest of running projects at the lab.

He's been given more than enough leeway...

Anonymous said...

NIF was sold with many lies from many dishonest people.

This won't be allowed to go on for much longer given the quickly shrinking national budgets. More lies won't save NIF.

Anonymous said...

" NIF was sold with many lies from many dishonest people.

This won't be allowed to go on for much longer given the quickly shrinking national budgets. More lies won't save NIF."

This just your opinion and yours alone. Prove the NIF was sold on lies, prove that the people where dishonest. You cannot because perhaps it is just an opinion.

Anonymous said...

EoS says it all why they are in this mess. Ignition is one issue but EoS provided the justification. How bad is the laser EoS work at LLNL? Nothing has improved since the deuterium EoS fiasco over 15 years ago. The machine delivers as promised. But the scientists can't deliver squat on EoS. They can't even design working isrntropic compression experiments on NIF. I have to suspect they don't know how to design isentropic compression experiments on ANY platform for those running the ship into the ground. Not sure why the capable ones are not running the experiments. I suppose they all left the lab already leaving the dregs and modellers in charge of experiments. Too bad too. Ed should fire the whole Laser EoS team for letting him down...after all he put on the line to get the facility up and working too....

Anonymous said...

Want dishonesty? Look at some of the questions raised out of their deuterium EoS fiasco work. And that's not all either. How about the last 3 years of EoS experiments on NIF? You got a ticking time bomb because the raw data is trickling out whenever they get academia and outsiders involved.

Anonymous said...

March 30, 2013 at 4:58 PM

By any chance where part of an EOS and got fired? You sure seem very bitter about this but you provide very little facts. It seems like you just have an agenda rather than a legitimate point. I am just saying, you seem like you protest too much as they say.

Anonymous said...

This just your opinion and yours alone. Prove the NIF was sold on lies, prove that the people where dishonest. You cannot because perhaps it is just an opinion.

March 30, 2013 at 2:56 PM

Of course it is an opinion - this is a blog! If it were easily provable, you and everyone else at NIF would be fired tomorrow. But the truth will out. Get ready. Nobody has to "prove" anything. This isn't a court of law. But your insistence on "proof" makes you sound like a defendant. All that needs to happen is that DOE/NNSA gets tired of all the lies and misdirection. Again, get ready.

Anonymous said...

I wholeheartedly blame LLNL management for allowing the state of affairs regarding NIF to remain mission critical at the expense of other programs, it fosters "The Golden Boy" syndrome and creates an ugly "NIF workers vs the the other workers" at the lab environment. You better nip this sh** in the bud, Parney.... Give yourselves a big fat zero...LLNL managers....

Anonymous said...

Moses is just smarter than everyone else.

Anonymous said...

LLNL's laser EoS program is truly a scientific scandal. The poor coverup (after all alot of us outside are privy to insider information) is just going to add insult to self-inflicted injury. This is not just about inaccurate data or shoddy analysis. It's much worse. I don't know how long they can keep the lid on it. It would guess that once they are compelled to release raw data to outside experts, it will be the beginning of the end for a handful of project leads.

Anonymous said...

If you spend your entire annual budget in six months, that is a fiscal scandal.

No opinion there, just a fact.

As it is having a grave impact on the entire lab population, what is being done to prevent this from occurring again?

Anonymous said...

March 30, 2013 at 9:37 PM

I guess someone touched bit of nerve here to get you going. You are the only talking about EOS. I think one of the posters may have summed up your situation.

Anonymous said...

March 30, 2013 at 9:37 PM

I guess someone touched bit of nerve here to get you going. You are the only talking about EOS. I think one of the posters may have summed up your situation.

March 31, 2013 at 5:33 PM

March 30, 2013 at 9:37 PM said nothing about EOS, only "lies and misdirection." Maybe your guilt led you to read the truth into it?

Anonymous said...

Whenever someone brings up EoS, there is a change in tone highly suggestive of hitting a big nerve at the lab. I thought that the lab is already saying publically that their results are accurate. That can only mean that the analysis of data from the machine is solid. Has the analysis of the raw data been vetted independently by a non lab affiliated scientist? That should close the book on the EoS issue. They can start with releasing the tantalum experiment raw data. That should be available through a FOIA request, no?

Anonymous said...

How long can the keep a lid on this laser EoS doozie? This is going to be interesting to watch when it all unravels.

Anonymous said...

That should be available through a FOIA request, no?

April 1, 2013 at 5:10 AM

Betcha the response from LLNS will be "proprietary information" not subject to FOIA. Another exemption to FOIA is "pre-decisional" information, which will be claimed applies to raw data. Good luck with that, I hope you are very, very patient.

Anonymous said...

Make no mistake. The esoteric field of EoS is a BIG deal for the lab. NIF had 3 missions: ignition, LIFE, and stockpile stewardship. LIFE requires Ignition which could not be achieved. So stockpile stewardship is the only mission holding up NIF at the moment. Stockpile stewardship includes The measurement of EoS and strength data at high pressures. But these are going poorly. The problem for the lab is that they are not measuring up to standards set by high pressure physics research at the other labs and academia. So while the lab thinks it is in the forefront of a field with no
Competitors, the rest of the community sees an emperor (LLNL laser EoS program) with no clothes. The promise or potential of accurate measurements is 16 years too late. I don't know if lab managers have even a clue of the predicament that the laser EoS effort is in....

Anonymous said...

Is lab management going after dissent within the lab? Shutting down people and programs that directly or indirectly shed light on the mediocre scientific work performed on NIF? The went after Nellis after all.

Anonymous said...

will be rearing its ugly head again. Also it could be.....

*(*(*(*( RAYLEIGH TAYLOR STRENGTH )*)*)*)


This would be more appropriate:

~~~~~~~~RAYLEIGH~TAYLOR~STRENGTH~~~~~~~~

Anonymous said...

"LLNL is doubling down on a losing bet. When the government loses patience with NIF's continuing failure to achieve ignition, there won't be enough left in the rest of the lab to be worth saving.

March 29, 2013 at 9:00 PM"

"First of all NIF is exploring a new realm, we cant change Nature my friend. If in the end we cannot show ignition it will as big or a bigger discovery than ignition. Imagine if there was no Higgs, it would change everything we know about physics, the same could happen at NIF."

Ignition was first demonstrated in 1951. It was demonstrated hundreds of times since then. There is no discovery to be made.

Anonymous said...

It is correct to claim that NIF was underfunded. Instead of 1.8 megajoules of laser energy it should have been constructed with a few hundred megajoules of energy, at the cost of a few hundred billion dollars, to assure that ignition would be achieved.

Anonymous said...

Doesn't matter if you're underfunded. If you need more dollars, go back to your funding agent.

You have a budget & you live within that budget, just like all other programs.

Anonymous said...

Instead of 1.8 megajoules of laser energy it should have been constructed with a few hundred megajoules of energy, at the cost of a few hundred billion dollars, to assure that ignition would be achieved.

April 1, 2013 at 6:53 PM

False premise, false conclusion.

Anonymous said...

Yeah get it right. Think 10 MJ.

Anonymous said...

How is that X-ray diffraction working out for the NIF scientists? It's kind of bad when everything goes right on the build but everything goes wrong on the science. Sandia and LANL produce much more high quality science for much smaller efforts and smaller teams. Maybe there is a lesson to learn from the other labs: one common theme: experiments are run by experimentalists and modellers, when needed, are integrated Into experimental efforts. LLNL let's modeling (by people who lack a track record of designing, performing and analyzing experiments successfully) drive these EoS, strength, ignition, etc etc experiments.

But don't hold your breath that they will correct the problem. Failure has always strengthened the resolve of the usual Livermorons to dig their heels in and double down on fail strategies. Ed is an anomaly because he did his part and delivered as opposed to the experiment leads. What's a capable general to do when all his minions fail and let him down? What does a general do with all these people? Just suck it up and accept his ultimate fate of disappointment and failure because he is in a sense being conned by his own scientists and mid level management?

The lab really needs a "win" but Ed is not being given any results to make his job easier. The clock is ticking, and on top of that, they have the "ticking time bomb" to deal with on EoS. The best approach is to come clean, to clean house and purge the mediocrity within the scientific ranks, and in doing so, buying goodwill to be given time to rebuild teams that are run by superstar experimentalists who have a record of success. They should stop making their inward facing messaging different from their public facing messaging. After all, in the age of Internet, we already know about the admissions to scientific failure by lab management internally in EoS and strength. And they spend far too much time and resources trying to massage their outward messaging and trying to manage external perceptions while leaving the same failed teams with more and more chances. What is up with that? Are the technical leads somehow exerting leverage against the lab? Is that why the lab can't just get rid if them? It's not like they are near the top of the food chain...

Anonymous said...

Getting rid of a mediocre technical lead in high profile work is publically admitting a failure in their leadership. That is worse than actual failure, for some organizations. LLNL feels it is too big to fail. So continuing with mediocrity is a rational choice on the part of lab leadership. It has ALWAYS been this way. That will never change. Furthermore they routinely screw over successful technical leads in smaller successful programs to make sure nobody outshines to failed larger programs.

Anonymous said...

Getting rid of a mediocre technical lead = promotion. The labs are fueled by the Peter Principal.

Anonymous said...

How can you say that Ed has no responsibility for the quality of the science there? Isn't he the ultimate decider for how work gets done for NNSA on NIF?

Anonymous said...

All the labs have a great deal of mediocrity in many programs. They just isn't a mechanism to cull out the low performers. Add to that, top performers that are self-driven and intrinsically motivated just leave and go to a better employer. If you take a not-too-hard look at all of the labs, you'll see this problem alot. I don't think it's fair to just focus on one program at one lab. All of them have loads of parasitic types. In the old days when the national labs were centers of excellence, you had real competition for good people and they had reason to stay. That just isn't universally true anymore in most national labs.

Anonymous said...

NNSA is solely responsible for ANY problem mentioned here. Their failure to have effective oversight of the quality of technical work done on taxpayer funds is a failure on the part of the sponsor agency. NNSA left the labs to run wild and self-regulate and look where it got us. It is hard to imagine that they would let problems fester for so long.

Anonymous said...

Mediocrity of scientific work is a failure of technical risk management on the part of the contractor, not the sponsor. The contractor is required to provide assurances to the sponsor that the tax-payer's funding is spent well and generating value to the government through top-rate work and prompt delivery. Only when there a failure in this relationship should you expect the sponsor to intervene directly in the day-to-day operations and risk management of these very large and expensive scientific endeavors. It may be that the sponsor is irresponsible by not asking the right questions or escalating issues when dealing with a nonperforming project. I've also heard quite a lot about these "problems," beyond the alpha heating milestone failure, and I attribute these to failures in technical risk management and controls within the lab, coupled with weak oversight by the sponsor.

Anonymous said...

Why bring up EoS and strength measurements when we all know its not even important compared to, say, LEP or ignition goals even. Those measurements are things you pat yourself on the back for when they go right, but there is no real program impact when things go wrong, other than wasted time and money. If you want to point out waste, there are much bigger programs that deserve scrutiny.

Anonymous said...

Small programs make for better scapegoats because they are more likely to have less institutional buy in, and therefore have fewer institutional defenders who might get in the way of a much needed public lynching. Just grow your program large and make big promises and you will improve your survivability as a too-big-to-fail program. All the labs play this game. Once your management is fully bought in and their fate is tied to yours, then you are a made man or woman.

Anonymous said...

Wow - are we finally done with NIF?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Wow - are we finally done with NIF?

April 4, 2013 at 7:14 PM

No. These charlatans will be around for many years to come. As long as the DOE and NNSA are gullible enough, and there is no executive oversight of those agencies, they will continue to waste your tax dollars on the NIF.

Anonymous said...

No - I meant are we finally done TALKING about NIF? (Please?)

Anonymous said...

People will stop talking about NIF, when they live within their budget, do their job, pay their share of overhead, and suffer the consequences of their own actions.

Anonymous said...

Topics of NIF and EoS will keep coming back, because they are the blogger's gift that keeps giving. All of the unmanaged technical risks as part of the science phase will come to fruition because the strategy to attempt to keep all of this out of public view also limits them from implementing structural changes in the way that they manage their technical risks.

Anonymous said...

NIF should just shut down a non-NIF program, blaming them for failures in NIF. In fact they should just get rid of B-Division. The cost savings can go towards propping up the NIF experiments in support of stockpile stewardship. After all, B division is already the monkey-boy for NIF, being forced adopt the new party line. The money they sit on is more important than they supposed loyalty they have towards NIF. Just get rid of them. Get rid of supporting capabilities like HEAF as well. LANL can do the nitty gritty certification work anyways.

Anonymous said...

I congratulate the Sandia contributors to this blog for reminding everyone of the laser EOS failures. They deserve payback for the Livermore claims that NIF could do everything (including EOS and strength) and thus there was no need for such work at Sandia. Livermore was wrong and should suffer the consequences.

Anonymous said...

The world would be safer today if Livermore had never been created.

Anonymous said...

Those Sandians are so nefarious and scheming, always plotting behind that facade of politeness, sensibility and industriousness. In reality, they are no better than those at the other labs.

Anonymous said...

Just put NIF out of its misery!

Anonymous said...

Sandia has its share of problems with their EoS scientific work. The only difference is that they manage any problems that arise better. If they get to take the "prize" of all NNSA EoS work, you'll get to see the royal clusterf*ck of hubris like you've never seen before. and all for measurements that are unimportant.

Anonymous said...

Sigh...More NIF drivel. I'd hoped we were done, but no. Still stuck in some folks' craw, and unable to be coughed out. What a waste of bits.

Anonymous said...

This thread is about NIF.... you can read your thread of choice, no one is putting a gun to your head. I'm sure people have alot to say about your precious HAPC or accrual accounting methodology or whatnot topics.

Anonymous said...

This thread is about NIF.... you can read your thread of choice, no one is putting a gun to your head. I'm sure people have alot to say about your precious HAPC or accrual accounting methodology or whatnot topics.

Anonymous said...


Are we finally done with NIF and EOS whatever that is?

Anonymous said...

There is still more NIF material in the pipeline.

Anonymous said...

NIF EoS seems to be one of the most popular topic on this blog. The metrics spike for this topic.

Anonymous said...

Hey, it's the gift that just keeps on giving.

Anonymous said...

The EOS topic will not go away until the Nova guys lose their Division of Plasma Physics Award for Excellence in Plasma Physics Research for a publication that was wrong.

Anonymous said...

Wow what jealousy! "Real Housewives of the NNSA Labs." It's be a hit!

Anonymous said...

The EOS topic will not go away until the Nova guys lose their Division of Plasma Physics Award for Excellence in Plasma Physics Research for a publication that was wrong.

April 7, 2013 at 6:48 PM

Who was on the awards committee that year? Anyone from Livermore, per chance?

Anonymous said...

All the national labs stack the deck with regards to APS honors that they have lost their prestige value. In fact why bother rescinding the award since APS not rescinding it is just confirmation that the awards are just an annual circle jerk take-home swag gift the the labs give themselves.

Anonymous said...

Buh-bye NIF thread! Yay!

Anonymous said...

Never worry. Many more threads to come. We have the lab to thank for that by the way.

Posts you viewed tbe most last 30 days