Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts you viewed tbe most last 30 days
-
LGBT intolerance problem at Sandia? I was just checking glassdoor.com and noticed several comments suggesting intolerance to LGBT at Sandia...
-
So did you SSVSP and why? Give details.
-
“Raise a concern, get blackballed then lose your job and benefits…” “…instead of raising your concerns just leverage on your skills and go t...
17 comments:
At least the title is neutral and there aren't a hundred authors.
Haha! The previous poster is quite correct. While there are definitely issues with NIF, at least LLNL has papers in PRL.
It seems like the only thing Sandia is proud of is still the chili cookoff (they're so proud of it that they put it in their newsletter). But it has not generated any papers, awards, and is continuously ridiculed.
http://llnlthetruestory.blogspot.com/2013/06/what-waste.html
" Tim Shepodd (8223) liked the moniker and agreed to call it the “chili cookoff.” But there was no chili involved, and the only “cooking” had to do with the kind of chemicals not usually found on Sandia grounds. "
NIF goes in for the kill...Checkmate.
The machine works, it is making progress, and ignition is still possible. Give the NIF bashing a break.
Key words are, "high adiabat", that means they are not trying to compress the fuel (as they need to if they want to get densities high enough to ignite), they've spoiled the drive shape and exchanged density for volume and areal density. Interesting, but not a path to ignition or a breakthrough, and this exact scheme was discussed years ago as a "meet the milestone" move. But PRL-worthy, sure.
Interesting but a long way from ignition.
I found the article to be self-congratulatory and not of great use to the scientific community. So what if they designed a non igniting capsule that agrees with their codes. I suppose that sounds good to the LLNL management who relies on codes for their understanding of everything. It doesn't answer the question as to why the ignition designs with a million man hours of work into them failed. They also assume that because they can calculate these high adiabat capsules they can find a path to low adiabat ignition capsules that work. Won't they just fail and disagree with the simulations just like before? I think the assumption is that now they can finesse their way into ignition. Sound like another "tuning" campaign.
The main problem with the low adiabat designs seems to be that the central densities were never close to what they were expected to be. Multiple people came to this same conclusion in different ways, and if there's a simple reason why ignition was never less than 3 orders of magnitude away, it's because the densities were too low. If they can figure out how to use this high-adiabat data to learn why the low-adiabat densities were too low, they might make progress. But the program is unfortunately driven by incompetent people who think they are one tweak away from a big boom, and until those people go away or are pushed away they won't make progress.
February 8, 2014 at 7:00 AM said: "Sound like another "tuning" campaign."
But I think he mispelled "tinkering"
The incredible progress at NIf is finally starting to get some deserved attention, see http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/13/science/giant-laser-complex-makes-fusion-advance.html?hp&_r=0 .
LLNL has really turned the corner and appears to be moving forward again.
LLNL has really turned the corner and appears to be moving forward again.
February 12, 2014 at 6:55 PM
Based on NIF???!!!??? What a joke. I want what you're smoking.
It's the same story on the same shots, nothing new.
PRL trumped by Nature ! The bozos need to get their s**t together
I get the feeling that the applied physics community is circling the wagons on this. Their credibility is at stake and they are breaking out the lipstick.
"Based on NIF???!!!??? What a joke. I want what you're smoking.
February 12, 2014 at 7:13 PM"
You're a joke.
You're a joke.
February 13, 2014 at 6:38 PM
Excellent, insightful contribution. Thank you.
"Excellent, insightful contribution. Thank you.
February 13, 2014 at 7:16 PM"
And saying "NIF SUCKS" is an insightful contribution?
And saying "NIF SUCKS" is an insightful contribution?
February 13, 2014 at 8:01 PM
Funny, I read back over the entire thread and didn't see that anywhere. Smoking the stuff again, huh?
Post a Comment