Saturday, March 18, 2017
Trump is to gut the labs.
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will
have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like
a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.
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.
-
Tax dollars gone to waste for the "chili cookoff" http://www.sandia.gov/LabNews/100730.html Rumor has it this project didn't a...
124 comments:
NNSA-funded work is going to do fine, https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-would-increase-energy-department-funds-to-manage-nuclear-stockpile/2017/03/15/2c2c784a-0998-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html If you're supported by Office of Science, you might be worried, but how many people at the national labs are funded by Office of Science? A small number that arguably should be zero.
The Office of Science is the steward of 10 of the 17 DOE laboratories, including Argonne, Brookhaven, Fermilab, Lawrence Berkeley, SLAC and JLab. These are cream of the crop and have a stellar track record of Nobel-prize-winning research. You think it's a good idea to cut them by 20%? Or maybe eliminate them altogether? Are you serious?
Basic research is all about tough international competition. It's all about who leads the world in science and technology. These self-inflicted cuts basically amount to capitulating to the Europeans and the Chinese. I guess you will then be justified in saying "We don't win anymore".
The SC labs get anywhere from a quarter to most of their funding directly from SC, https://science.energy.gov/laboratories/ Change the funding stream, so users of these facilities pay for them. That might be private industry, it might still be .gov but through grants to universities, instead of block entitlement funding to labs and lab staff from SC regardless of whether or not they are doing nationally critical work. The rest of the country does not care about Nobel Prizes, they care about jobs, taxes, quality of life, and an unobtrusive government that is under control. Holding up the basic science torch might seem noble, but few are following the light.
You can all stop hyperventilating. We all know that presidents' budgets are always DOA in congress. Presidents don't fund or de-fund anything - all funding bills must originate in the House of Representatives. Nothing new here, it is an opening offer from the author of "The Art of the Deal."
The Office of Science is the steward of 10 of the 17 DOE laboratories, including Argonne, Brookhaven, Fermilab, Lawrence Berkeley, SLAC and JLab.
I am confused, the cowboy science labs is at LANL and hence LLNL and Sandia not these
other labs that you mention. Should we not cut the NNSA labs? What is done their that cannot be done better and cheaper at at any other lab? Every year there is another scandal about out of control cowboy scientists. If you do not believe me than why did they just changes he contract at Sandia and will soon change the contract at LANL? These labs have deep rooted problems going back many many decades. We need to cut these labs and DRAIN THE SWAMP!
That's right! Let's defund the Office of Science National Labs: they are the prime examples of obtrusive government that is out of control. Look at the enormous fraction of the federal budget that goes to sustain those lazy scientists that do little for the Nation and yet feel entitled to their salaries. All those Nobel Prizes are just for the nerds to amuse themselves; "the rest of the country" doesn't care. The US will continue to be a magnet for the best and the brightest students from around the world in any case. And if we end up ceding the intellectual leadership to the Chinese, so what? After all, the US jobs, taxes and quality of life never had any connection to its being a science and technology superpower, right?
This type of short-sighted, misguided rhetoric has always been present to some extent. There have always been people who failed to see the causal connection between the US leadership in science and its economic competitiveness. But these days, the spouting and the regurgitation is really at dangerous levels.
I and many others have wanted (for years) the gov't out of NPR (Liberal), PBS (Liberal) and also PP and UN.
I acknowledge the country is split then that means 50% wants those cuts and have been asking for those a long time.
Amusing to read the diatribes by Chinese and/or Russian agents.
Of every single Government program you have to ask if it's needed badly enough to borrow money to pay for it. The US is 20 TRILLION in debt, and it costs about $440 billion dollars annually to pay the interest on that debt. That $440B is already the second largest component of the Federal discretionary budget. As interest rates climb, and they are climbing now, the interest on the debt will grow exponentially unless we can eliminate the budget deficit.
It's going to take ruthless cutting of all spending to keep the debt from running away.
The US is 20 TRILLION in debt...
March 19, 2017 at 6:20 AM
Yes, and most don't realize that the US was 10 trillion in debt before Obama - he, and the Democrats in Congress, doubled the national debt in only 8 years. It is also true however, that in first order the debt does not matter. What matters is the GDP to debt ratio. Still favorable, but just barely. (You can afford a very large mortgage if you have a very high income.) What is needed is economic growth, not mindless cuts without any thought to unintended consequences.
Debt to GDP is NOT FAVORABLE. Not by any stretch. It now stands at 1.07, the WORST it has EVER been except right after World War II. And it's getting worse, not better.
Owebama not only doubled the debt in 8 years, he added almost as much to the debt as EVERY President before him, all combined together. This isn't like buying a mortgage, it's mortgaging the ENTIRE country.
Your mortgage analogy isn't accurate. You might be able to afford a large mortgage if you have a high income but, eventually, if you keep buying more and more stuff on credit - new fancy cars, bling, flashy tattoos, and you keep throwing your money around to buy "friends", your rapidly increasing debt will eventually bankrupt you, no matter how much you make. That's precisely what our Government has been doing, the US borrows more money EVERY year to buy more and more stuff and "friends" (foreign aid). We're not paying ANYTHING off, we can barely make the minimum payments.
No cut is "mindless", cuts are absolutely necessary. When the interest rate increases to even 1/2 of the historical average, probably less than 8 years away, we will be paying more to service the debt than we pay for ANY other line item, discretionary or not. More to pay off the debt than we pay out in Social Security, more to pay off the debt than we pay out in Medicare, more than Defense, and it will only get worse. We will have to cut EVERYTHING to the bone to dig out of that hole.
The problem with waiting for the economy to grow us out of significant debt is, it does not happen. For 45 years, with a brief period of exception in the 1990's, we have spent far more than we had available to spend, and our debt has gotten out of control. This is President after President, Congress after Congress, Democrats and Republicans, because compromise has come to mean, everyone gets to spend as much as they want for political reasons. There is no solution any more, other than to make massive cuts in spending, and shrink the size and reach of the federal government. This will be painful to some, but there is no other way. Even the socialist approach of jacking up taxes won't solve the problem, because history shows clearly that the result will simply be even bigger government, more spending, and more mouths to feed permanently.
This means Office of Science, too. Every branch of the huge tree will have supporters who say, don't cut this branch, it is too IMPORTANT to cut, but we just have to keep trimming. Do we need 10 Office of Science funded National Laboratories? If we step back and look at things objectively, probably not. If they are all that important, then private money should be available to fund the difference.
Why don't you actually look at where the federal spending goes?
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/
Study those pie charts, especially the fourth one. You will see that there are three elephants in the room: social security, Medicare and military spending. Add the interest on the debt and this is where all the money goes. See "science" on that chart? You can close all of the national labs and it won't make a dent in the budget imbalance. While you are at it, you can also stop spending any money environment, energy, transportation, housing and international affairs and it won't make any material difference. You will live in the country that is uneducated, poluted and has no roads, and still running budget deficits.
If you are really serious about the budget, tackle the imbalances in the main slices.
Speaking of mortgage analogies. Imagine a guy who takes out a $10M mortgage on a mansion he cannot afford. When he realizes his monthly budget doesn't balance, he decides to cut down on fresh fruit and vegetables in his diet, then stops brushing his teeth and taking showers to save on his water bill, toothpaste and shampoo. And then it still doesn't make an iota of difference in his deficit. Cutting science is actually a lot like that.
I think the debt argument needs some preservative. I would argue that we should not worry about the debt growing since we will not need to pay it back. There is a good chance that there will be some kind of human-machine merger coming by 2030-2040 which is less than 25 years away. At this point we will need very few jobs at all and things will be mostly automated. When this starts to happen the idea of debt or even money will become irrelevant. One could argue that we should spend away now so that the sooner that human-machine merger will arise. You can laugh at me all you want but many people including governments believe in just this scenario and is one of the reasons we will never see interests rates go up or spending decrease.
The Trump budget released so far does not deal with entitlements, it is just discretionary spending, roughly a third of the pie. Social Security and Medicare need to be reduced too, and that part of the budget is supposed to be released later in Spring. SS and Medicare are harder to cut, and spending needs to ramp down slowly over a longer period of time as new ways of dealing with these entitlements are developed. Otherwise, the Republicans in Congress will slit their own throats for 2018, and I'm certain they will not be willing to do this.
10:39 gives a phony analogy. Here's a much better one.
The guy is in an average household that takes in the National average $52K after taxes per year. A few years ago, right before Owebama, his family was taking in $60K but now his family has to make do with less. He takes a mortgage out on a condo, one he can afford, for $100K. But he then goes all bat-shit crazy with his credit cards. He buys a fancy new car he can't really afford for $40K. Then he buys some bling for $5K, he tattoos his arms and one butt cheek, and he throws a huge party for his "friends" to show off his tattoos, all on credit. He now owes $155K that he can barely pay off, but only just barely.
So what should he do? The first thing he has to do is STOP BUYING NEW STUFF ON CREDIT. He has to cut back on EVERYTHING that isn't really needed, especially if it doesn't help to pay the bills. The key word is EVERYTHING. No more fancy new cars, no new bling, not even a new tattoo to cover his barren butt cheek. He has to live within his means.
So why did I choose these numbers? $155K is the amount every taxpayer owes on the National debt.
Science, is just one thing, like a new butt cheek tattoo, that has to be cut back if it isn't really needed or doesn't help to pay the bills.
Now the real debate can start. Does all of the "science" we are buying help to pay the bills or should some of it be cut?
I submit there's a lot of "science" that buys nothing. Think hard and you can name "science" projects that have no possibility of helping with anything. How about that project that determined if there are gender differences in how we perceive glaciers?
You're right 11:03. We are all laughing at you.
Nonsense, 11:36 am, utter nonsense. The analogy used by 10:39 am is accurate and you are either not using your noggin or are purposefully trying to mislead. The US did not get in debt by overfunding its science, education, national parks, environmental protection, or transportation, but by spending more on its entitlements and defense than it collects in taxes. The things you are proposing to cut comprise a minuscule fraction of the budget, yet are essential for and civilized country to remain one. I know numbers are not your thing, but please look at the pie chart.
But we have no chance of persuading you. That you think science is a "new butt cheek tattoo" says it all. You can continue living in your Alternative facts universe, raving about "Owebama".
The US did not get in debt by overfunding its science, education, national parks, environmental protection, or transportation, but by spending more on its entitlements and defense than it collects in taxes. The things you are proposing to cut comprise a minuscule fraction of the budget, yet are essential for and civilized country to remain one.....
March 19, 2017 at 1:31 PM
In fact the US did get into debt by overfunding all these things, along with everything else. The rest of the country doesn't care what does or does not happen at Argonne, or SLAC, but it does care about social security and other entitlements, as well as a strong military defense. So guess what gets the axe first? The things that are perceived as luxuries we cannot afford right now. This also makes it easier to make the bigger more-painful cuts later, when you've already cut back as much as you can on the luxuries, and now it's time to move to a smaller house or get a second job.
Ms multiple personality is arguing with herself again!
1:31 PM. Sheesh. For the hard of thinking (you), the analogy used by 10:39 is NOT accurate because it doesn't reflect the actual magnitude of the debt. It does NOT represent the debt owed by the average taxpayer and how hard it will be to for the middle class to pay off that debt. 10:39 (probably the same person as you, 1:31) came up with a COMPLETELY ARBITRARY analogy. A phony analogy. A STUPID analogy. And you can't figure that out????
God Almighty, it is NOT essential to continue to fund phony science projects, e.g. gender differences in the perception of glaciers. That, you ignoranus, IS equivalent to getting a new butt cheek tattoo.
Your claims are just parroted liberal bullshit.
"gender differences in the perception of glaciers."
I was thinking, what the hell is this guy talking about and than I found this was
in fact an NSF funded project.
Glaciers, gender, and science: A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research
Glaciers are key icons of climate change and global environmental change. However, the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers – particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge – remain understudied. This paper thus proposes a feminist glaciology framework with four key components: 1) knowledge producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge; (3) systems of scientific domination; and (4) alternative representations of glaciers. Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/03/academic-gibberish-watch-we-have-another-winner.php
Over $10 trillion in current US government debt with the Baby Boomers retiring and wanting their Social Security and Medicare payments. But the two items of SS and Medicare make up the bulk (> 60%) of the budget. If cuts for these two are off limits then it's time to use the meat cleaver on everything else except defense and national security which will grow by 10% in Trump's budget.
Of course, in the long run this is unsustainable. Eventually there will have to be deep cuts in SS and Medicare but right now no politician wants to be truthful to the American public. The game of "pretend and extend" will go on for a little longer. We'll probably be looking at over $20 trillion in US government debt before the next 8 years is over. This is not the type of situation that you can grow yourself out of by increasing GDP. As many people suspect, it will not end well. Enjoy the bread & circuses until then. If you are still young and are smart you will save and invest wisely with as much money as you can sock away to be ready for what's coming in less than 10 years time. Many pensions are also going to go bust, particularly those of state and local governments. The weapon lab pensions look to be in good shape right now but that might change rapidly if things begin to unwind in the investment markets and we revisit another major crash. The next major crash is coming but it's still a few years away. When it hits, it should be even bigger than the crash of 2008. If you have cash at that time you'll be able to pick up some great assets at very cheap prices so prepare for it. Rockefeller and JP Morgan along with others made out very well during the Great Depression by having plenty of cash on hand to buy up good assets at dirt cheap prices. You can too.
We are already at 20 trillion, but you're right. If the adults who took over from the borrow and spend liberals don't make deep cuts soon then fasten your seatbelt because all hell is going to break loose
I've been voting republican since the late 1980s and I am deeply embarrassed by the raving dimwits claiming to speak for my party here. Ignorant morons for whom science is nothing but a butt cheek tattoo. True, most people don't realize just how many fundamental discoveries underly the technology inside their iPhones, or that corrections for General Relativistic effects are required for their GPS to work properly. They don't know about the role SLAC played in the development of the early internet, or that the World Wide Web was created at CERN. But the solution should be to get educated and not to proudly boast of your ignorance.
I argue often with my liberal friends who say that the GOP has become The Stupid Party. It is absolutely shocking for me to read these ignorant, arrogant, dimwitted ravings here, which confirm the worst stereotypes about the Republican Party of today. Yes, you are unable to understand the connection between scientific and technological leadership and the economic competitiveness of this country. But just accept that there is such a connection and that once lost it will be very difficult to regain the scientific and economic edge.
Trump has flown to this resort in Florida basically every weekend since taking office, and his wife is living in New York city - how much is this costing the tax payers? About $3 million for each trip to Florida and protecting the first family in New York City is $1 million each day.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/03/17/how-much-is-donald-trumps-travel-and-protection-costing-anyway/?utm_term=.1483b7ad6704
11:04 is arguing some other irrelevant point, that science is important. OK. I doubt many would argue with that. The relevant point that he should be addressing is, should the federal government directly fund 10 "science" laboratories at 100% of their wishes, in perpetuity and without question, or is it acceptable to cut 20% from that budget in a time of national crisis, with the difference possibly made up by private money (e.g. Stanford or University of Chicago) or even state money (UC Berkeley). Arguing to fund them without limit in perpetuity is what brought us our national crisis, because every corner of the federal government has supporters like that, and if everything is off-limits, then nothing gets cut and our crisis deepens. This has been going on for decades, and it cannot be sustained.
Thank you for the fake news, 5:51 AM.
11:04 is CLEARLY a brain-dead liberal posing as a Republican. How do we know?
He misses the point that SOME "science" is phony and shoudn't be paid for. No one EVER said that ALL science is like a butt cheek tattoo. He pulled that statement right out of a place near his own butt cheek tattoos. He can't see past his seething liberal hatred to actually read what was written, and he can't wait to falsely slander Republicans, and I'm not even a Republican, I'm a Libertarian.
He gives phony examples in support of science when he could have come up with real examples if he knew anything about science. The fact is that the internet came out of the Defense Department, NOT SLAC. DARPA, starting in the early 1960's to be exact. The Stanford Research Institute was ONE of many early partners but, of course SRI isn' SLAC. By the time SLAC hosted the first web page in the US, the internet had already existed in Europe for over 5 years. A Brit working at CERN did write the first web browser, but that has little to do with the commercially written web browsers we use today.
GPS came out of the military, it was not funded out of a science pot. The underlying relativity corrections were developed by Einstein about 100 years ago, in Switzerland, funded by Einstein's professorship.
5:51 is lying. Trump has not traveled to Florida "basically every weekend", Trump has traveled there 4 times this year.
Anyone who thinks that the debt problem can be solved by spending cuts or raising taxes is kidding themselves, ignoring economic, technological, demographic, political, and moral realities that will not change. Those ideas will destroy the country, one way or another.
1. No one who depends on voters to get elected can cut Social Security or Medicare.
2. Technical advances that increase productivity and cost jobs cannot be stopped.
3. No amount of "throwing money at" education has succeeded in reversing the decline of outcomes, producing generations of unemployable young people.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that nothing gets better, ever.
The only "solution" that does not destroy the country, one way or another, is long-term, sustained, incremental economic growth. Solve that, and everything else is fixed.
Stupid comment, 5:54 PM. Sustained incremental growth won't solve the debt problem if the Government runs a sustained deficit that increases debt faster than growth can pay for it. Running a sustained deficit WILL lead to EXPONENTIAL debt growth which CANNOT be solved with mere incremental economic growth. Anyone who has experienced ballooning credit card debt knows that debt can easily increase faster than your pay raise.
Sustained deficits are what has been happening, so it is imperative that the deficit be brought under control. The only way to do this is to a)cut spending or b) raise taxes (or both). Raising taxes has other detrimental economic consequences. It was seriously STUPID to make the false claim that you did.
Your point #1 is probably true, at least in the near term, but the rest of your post is pure bunk.
2. Technological advances also create jobs. Think of auto mechanics, airplane pilots, air conditioning repair staff, computer programmers, cell phone tower installers, MRI technicians, gene sequencers..... The list goes on and on. Since we're now approaching full employment despite all the technological advances since the horse and buggy days your gloom and doom prophesy is clearly completely false.
3) "Generations of unemployable young people"???? HUGE, HUGE exaggeration. 87% of young people between 20 and 24 years old are employed. 92% of people between 25 and 35 are employed. Education seems to work well enough to employ ~90 percent of young people and that's only a few percent less than it is for older people.
The Second Law does NOT say that "nothing gets better, ever." Only a complete science illiterate would claim that pure nonsense. The Second Law refers to entropy increasing, not things getting better. My case of the flu got better because medicine got better. My new car gets better gas mileage than my old car, internet speeds got faster, my new TV is way better than my old TV. THINGS can and do get better even though the entropy of the universe is increasing.
The solution to America's growing debt problem can be solved with Bozo Bonds. These are bonds issued by the Treasury that have no final payment date for the borrowed principle. The period of the bonds is not 5 years, not 10 years, not 30 years, not even 100 years.... but forever. When the payment for the interest on existing Bozo Bonds becomes too much to handle you simple issue even more Bozo Bonds to pay the interest due. With Bozo Bonds, the amount of debt the government takes on can go to gazillions of dollars with no problem. Just keep issuing more and more Bozo Bonds that never have to honor their principle payments.
See, when the government decides to engage in a Ponzi scheme it isn't a crime! Better yet, if foreign investors decide not to buy our endless growing stash of perpetuity Bozo Bonds then the government can force pensions and other institutions to buy them. If this is not enough, then the government can issue tax rebates as Bozo Bonds and even require employers to pay their workers using Bozo Bonds. Better yet, the government can buy up their own issued Bozo Bonds by simply printing up IOUs to themselves and using these IOUs as collateral to buy more newly issued Bozo Bonds. The possibilities are endless! What could possible go wrong? Besides, America loves a clown.
The only "solution" that does not destroy the country, one way or another, is long-term, sustained, incremental economic growth. Solve that, and everything else is fixed.
March 20, 2017 at 5:54 PM
Indeed, merge with the machines and the problem will be solved. We are reaching a point in the United States in which we would really only need about 5-10% of the population in the workforce and the rest can spend and enjoy the world. In order to protect the environment these people can spend most of their time in a VR world which will be more real than real life. The idea of money is coming to an end, it may be 20 or 30 years but it will most certainly be gone in 50 and in 100 years humanity will no longer exist in its current form. There is simply no need to pay of the debt and the elites know this. Crazy sounding? Maybe but maybe not.
Oh, so Mr Angry Dimwit is actually a Libertarian. Makes total sense. These are folks who at their convention last year booed their candidate, Gary Johnson, twice. First, when he said that he supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Second, when he spoke in favor of having drivers licenses. No way "gubmint" is gonna tell them where and how to drive, or that they had to share drinking fountains with Colored People! Not everyone in that party is a loon of course, but a large faction of diehards are.
So of course he wants to cut the government labs. Doesn't matter what they do. Novel Prize discoveries? "No one cares." Showing than nucleons are made of quarks? "So what?!" Discovering numerous elementary particles that make up the Standard Model? "No one cares!" Demonstrating that the expansion of the universe is accelerating? "Why, if it was important then private companies would pay for this!" And I think we can safely predict his view on climate change. "Owebama and Liberals made those phony things up!"
For the record: I'm a republican who believes in free markets, but that certainly doesn't prevent me from accepting basic atmospheric physics. I also think the government should support national parks, science and education, environmental protection and infrastructure development. To Mr A. B., I'm "a Phoney" and "a Liberal"!
It must be particularly painful for him to admit that the World Wide Web was created at CERN, a large European government lab where the US is an active participant. The Web was expressly invented to facilitate collaboration between scientists doing fundamental research (that no company would pay for). The very first web page in the US was created at SLAC, a DOE Office of Science lab, by a physicist named Tony Johnson. All of this history is readily available to anyone who can google. The web was then popularized by the browser named Mosaic, which was developed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA). According to Wikipedia, "in December 1991, the Gore Bill created and introduced by then Senator and future Vice President Al Gore was passed, which provided the funding for the Mosaic project". (My apologies to Mr A. D. here, this historical fact must particularly hurt!) Eventually, Marc Andreessen and several others left NCSA and evolved Mosaic into Netscape. Countless companies since figured out countless ways to monetize the Web. Which is of course how it ought to be: fundamental research lays foundations for technological progress and the resulting commercial success.
There are endless examples of this throughout history. Think of Faraday and Maxwell in the 19th century. I'm glad Mr A. D. here mentioned Einstein. Had Mr A. D. been around when GR was created, he would have almost certainly found it useless, as no company would sponsor that work.
What's also important here is that GR was developed in Germany. This is not a coincidence: Germany at the time was the world leader in science. The German science supremacy ended when that country was taken over by Angry Dimwits. (The damage was of course incalculable and went far beyond lost scientific supremacy.)
English has been the language of science ever since. By now people like Mr A. D. take American leadership in science and technology for granted. According to them, we can severely cut basic science funding and even eliminate all office of science labs -- that leadership will continue. All I can say here is: beware of Angry Dimwits, with their "solutions".
Does the DOE really need 17 National Laboratories?
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Does the DOE really need 17 National Laboratories?
March 21, 2017 at 4:31 AM
Being generous and rounding up to the next whole integer would give the DOE 4 National Laboratories if 20% of the current 17 were retained. Various paths could be identified to off-load the other 13, and the resulting competition should result in higher quality work overall.
Why do some people on this forum sit around late at night and type books, that no one even reads because they are too long? Goes with bloated egos, I suppose.
@4:31 AM
The DOE really needs more than this in order to save the planet from global warming. Some estimates put the number of needed labs at closer to 71 than 17. No idea is too far out to explore when the fate of the world hangs in the balance. Secretary Chu understood this and treated the Office of Science labs as they deserved by approving each new request for more money.
Insane rant, 12:01. By the way, if you had any reading comprehension at all you would know from my post that General Relativity was NOT developed in Germany, it was developed durung Einstein's time in Switzerland.
The rest of your post is so crazy it doesn't deserve a response. Here's a bit of friendly advice, slow down. You are hunting and pecking faster than your brain can keep up.
Blah blah blah....look at my immense IQ level argument and the way I use high falooting words to craft my ego satisfying position! All these useless positions are nothing compared to the revenge of the C+ students!! That's right, plant management will take all you suckahs to the bank! Look at me utilizing my West Point engineering background where I can theorize all this crap but then need a real expert to put my experiment together.....pack a lunch and take your blue ribbon, brain dead, boobie staring, BBQ arses to a more relative on line site to relay your useless rants and self stroking. Adios!
March 21, 2017 at 2:45 PM
I think you have been sniffing too much glue, but it is your life. This whole post is
crazy and nuts. Do we need to pay for idiots to play in a sandbox and go on and on about how smart they? It is time to cut from the losers and give to the makers. I am dropping the mic on that!
March 21, 2017 at 7:52 AM
That is how it was done under Chu, but Perry is a different Secretary.
That is how it was done under Chu, but Perry is a different Secretary.
March 22, 2017 at 1:42 PM
Perry may know that Texas is a state but does he even know where N Korea is?, Does Trump? Obama was a brilliant intellectual who know geo-poltics, economics, engineering, science, spirituality, warfare, and justice. Trump knows how to hustle a bad deal. Good God what has happened to us?
That's funny, Obama as a brilliant intellectual. I hope you were joking, if not then your gross spelling and grammar errors give you away as someone who would think a squirrel is a brilliant intellectual.
The comments here are for the most part amazingly short-sighted. Our only way out of the current economic situation is revolutionary technological innovation. Guess who doesn't pay for revolutionary innovation? The commercial sector. Industry (aside from a few companies with huge resources, like Google) would never invest large amounts of money in technology that is 10+ years off. That's why the government does it. So, the government pays for this science, and industry gets a hand-off almost for free.
Bad investment? Only if you honestly think that coal and gasoline are the way of the future. Spoiler alert: they aren't, and we had better damn well be all over and on top of whatever IS next.
Those that are ticked off at the labs because of losing a job - yes, we get it and we understand it. But don't amputate your foot because you stubbed your toe.
Every time somebody gets tasked with coming up with a list of where big government money has funded real technological innovation that has a major commercial impact, the list winds up very short, or not very exciting while struggling to redefine "major". It is close to blank within what is now NNSA. Think big stuff - semiconductor circuits, transistors, airplanes, cars, communications, lasers. All of those big things, and just about every other big thing you can think of, started with private money. Military needs can drive development that has big commercial spinoffs, like rockets or radar or drones, but the national labs focus on the R and not so much the D in R&D, and the DoD contractors do most of the D with things that come through the military.
So it's simply historically false that revolutionary innovation comes from government money, especially the national labs. I'm sure someone can come up with anecdotal counter-examples, but meanwhile look at all the revolutionary innovation that has come from private money.
semiconductor circuits, transistors, airplanes, cars, communications, lasers
Most of these are from Bell Labs, however Bell Labs was never private as it was hugely subsidized by the government and was a essentially a government lab. When the government stopped funding it Bell essentially dumped the lab. By the way you missed "computer" which was at least partially developed at national lab.
We can skip airplanes, cars and communications, so you must mean that lasers, transistors and ICs came from government money. Lasers and transistors were developed partly by Bell Labs, a private company lab funded entirely by private money that was spent under a monopoly-keeping deal with the US government, so you're right that there was a government hand involved, but no government money or oversight. The IC was developed at Texas Instruments, another private company. The history of computers long pre-dates US national labs, and even Eniac was designed at a University, albeit with military money for a military mission.
I'm hard-pressed to think of anything really major, other than nuclear bombs, that has come out of national labs and changed our lives.
10:19 is correct, few research projects in the labs have ever changed anyone's life. Most who follow the progress of R&D in the labs know of "The Valley of Death" between lab R&D and commercialization.
It's very telling that those opposed to cutting funding for ANY science project, no matter how stupid, are struggling to come up with concrete examples of government funded science successes while examples of government failures proliferate; NIF, MFTF-B, the Clinch River Breeder Reactor, Solyndra, carbon sequestration, ...
"Lasers and transistors were developed partly by Bell Labs, a private company lab funded entirely by private money"
Not true, look into it and you will see that there was actually a huge amount of government money put into the Bell Labs. It was hardly private.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development did a study in 2003 that found private research efforts stimulated economic development but government funded research stimulated NO economic development. NONE. The results of this study have not been challenged since.
By the way, Bell Labs were almost entirely funded by ATT and ATT's sister organization Western Electric. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying.
Well "no economic development" isn't quite right, just look at all the road and infrastructure improvements in Los Alamos. Federal money floods into national lab towns through employee pay, contracts, etc., and that money flows down to other people too - cost of living, contracts, taxes. But the same thing could be said for, say, a government-funded coal mine, so the real issue is, what technology invention and development goes on in national labs, or is driven by them. There are small-scale, incestuous kinds of commercial impacts, for example high-speed detectors and oscilloscopes, but those remain incestuous as long as the labs are the main customers.
The nuclear bomb is one clear major invention that came from a national lab. Are there others?
By the way, Bell Labs were almost entirely funded by ATT and ATT's sister organization Western Electric. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying.
False, this is simple to check
Also I you serious about citing the OECD? These guys are utterly biased and not taken seriously. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying.
You simply have no idea what you are talking about, none.
http://www.21stcentech.com/money-spent-nasa-not-waste/
This is an interesting view on (privately funded) Bell Labs, https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Bell-Labs-in-New-Jersey-able-to-do-so-many-cool-things-before-they-split-up
Anyone who claims Bell Labs was funded by the feds needs to show some evidence.
March 25, 2017 at 12:54 PM
Simply type in Bell Labs government funded and you will get everything you need to know and than some.
"The nuclear bomb is one clear major invention that came from a national lab. Are there others?"
Presumably if you have enough brains to post on this blog than you can type into google the words inventions from New Mexico or Los Alamos or Sandia or Livermore which gives you several lists. Computers, cell sorting, clean room, Monte Carlo, micro nuclear reactors, digital timing systems, heat pipe exchanger, dopler radar, solar wind detectors, areogels and so on. Just look at the list of R and D awards. Why do you need us to do this for you, Google is your friend us it.
You seem like you have some kind of agenda and of course the word that you live by is "bitter". Look after all these years of
hating the labs for firing you maybe you should get the hint that it is you not them. Just saying. One thing we know that the labs have produced are very bitter ex-employees who cannot let it go. I would not say that the lab invented this phenomena but the blog certainly provides evidence for it.
Radar and jet engines come to mind. You wouldn't want to travel by air without them. They have enabled the incredible mobility of this century.
Oooo, Mr. Bitter is back! Everyone he doesn't agree with must be a bitter fired ex-employee. So sad.
Oooo, Mr. Bitter is back! So sad
You do see the utter irony in your posting? You where the same idiot who was going on about how Stanford published 100 times more papers that LLNL and now that there has never been an invention and any national other than the bomb. Your lack of self-awareness is incredible and so so sad. You sure get upset whenever someone calls you out as bitter.
So Mr. Prove it will not provide evidence, and he dismissively sends people to google instead. How far have the labs descended?
The descent isn't of the labs, it is of Mr. Prove it. He has no actual knowledge except what he gets from Google searches. He thinks that makes him an expert since he has no idea what actual expertise is.
I am confused, is the bitter ex-empolyee Mr Prove it or is the Stanford published 100 times more papers than LLNL idiot Mr Prove it? It is hard to keep track which troll you are referring to. Google is not expertise but you might want to try it before you ask this blog if the moon is made out of cheese if there has ever been a single technolgy to come out of the labs.
I think he was referring to you, 6:28 AM.
You are never going to influnce opinion by lying. Bell Labs WAS NOT funded in any significant way by the feds. In fact, during the heyday of Bell, the Feds had very little science funding at all. Right now your credibility is zero. Let's agree that you have been lying, 2:33, and then we can all move on.
Oh, the list you came up with has a number of things that were not invented at the labs. Let's see if YOU can use your Google skills and figure out which ones they are.
Computers, cell sorting, clean room, Monte Carlo, micro nuclear reactors, digital timing systems, heat pipe exchanger, dopler radar, solar wind detectors, areogels...
March 25, 2017 at 2:33 PM
Not a single one of those items, some of which you even mis-spelled, were invented at a National Laboratory.
Stunningly stupid comment 11:44. The roads and infrastructure in Los Alamos DID NOT result from economic development in the area. They were paid for by (non-Science) Government funding. Likewise, the trickle-down in the area did not arise from economic development, that's just DOE/NNSA (mostly) non-science funding trickling down.
The Government doesn't create wealth by funding Government projects, it just takes wealth from some people and gives it to others. The trickle-down stuff you see near Los Alamos is counteracted by a reduction in the same stuff in the areas where the Government net took money away.
So what would be an example of creating economic development? The creation of private companies that employ lots of people making and selling products or services that arise from a synergy with the lab, goods or services that would not exist if the lab was not there. You see very little of this in Los Alamos and the surrounding areas.
Not a single one of those items, some of which you even mis-spelled, were invented at a National Laboratory.
March 26, 2017 at 9:15 AM
What???? You might want to back track on this as all these things where in fact invented at the National Labs. What the hell is wrong with you? These are trivial to check so you it is on you to prove it wrong.
"Los Alamos is counteracted by a reduction in the same stuff in the areas where the Government net took money away."
Yes for example we could have given a few more billion to Iraqi warlords instead. Good point on that.
Was there really any expectation that Mr Rabid Libertarian would objectively acknowledge the contributions of the National Labs? Of DOE-funded research? Of R&D dollars spent by other agencies? It's all "gubmint" and as such is evil by definition and has to be cut. End of story.
Clean air and water? Liberal conspiracy! Fundamental research? Nobody cares! Education? We don't need no education and certainly no government in education! Government produces nothing: those teachers, firefighters, USDA, CDC, are all parasites and leaches. Just compare them to the titans of the financial industry: Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, Countrywide, Indymac and you will see who's moving the country forward!
It's a simple and predictable world where all information is processed and all answers are given according to a miniature mental flowchart. I could write a short Python script that would readily imitate his responses. Just need to put in a bunch of keywords that would trigger the signature Yosemite-Sam-like outbursts of rage and cursing: "Owebama, liberals, you lie, phony," etc, etc.
Liberal conspiracy?
It is not just a conspiracy it is that I have a very personal agenda against the labs. My whole identity is tied to this. You see I am brilliant, hard working and creative, yet these things could not be recognized in academics or at the Labs, therefore the labs, universities and government funded institutes are worthless. The only thing worthwhile is the private sector since no one at the labs or a university could ever cut it in the real world. The only problem I have to figure out is that I could not hack it in the private sector however I can just say that having worked at the labs has given me a tainted look that no private company would want. It all works expect for all those people that left the lab and got jobs in the private sector but will just say those people don't exist.
Computers, cell sorting, clean room, Monte Carlo, micro nuclear reactors, digital timing systems, heat pipe exchanger, dopler radar, solar wind detectors, areogels...
March 25, 2017 at 2:33 PM
Not a single one of those items, some of which you even mis-spelled, were invented at a National Laboratory."
Not true if you look at this. I know it is the internet but does have some useful information. See was it that hard to use
Google?
https://www.newscastic.com/news/20-best-inventions-to-hail-from-the-land-of-enchantment-965404/
https://energy.gov/articles/top-10-things-you-didnt-know-about-lawrence-livermore-national-laboratory
March 27, 2017 at 9:49 AM
Mr I can prove with google is back. Pathetic just pathetic that you will believe anything google says. Again not one of these things ever came from LLNL, Sandia or LANL even if google says they do. You people are sad.
Computers, cell sorting, clean room, Monte Carlo, micro nuclear reactors, digital timing systems, heat pipe exchanger, dopler radar, solar wind detectors, areogels...
Hey idiot Monte Carlo was invited in Monaco not a national lab. It is laughable to think that Sandia could have invited the clean room.
The insane ignoranus is back repeating the same lies. Here's a start on debunking his lies:
Computers were not invented in the National Labs. That's a lie. The earliest known mechanical analog computer existed 2000 years before the labs (Antikythera mechanism). The first mechanical programmable digital computer existed over 100 years before the labs (Babbage analytical engine). The German Zuse Z3 built in 1941 was a programmable electro-mechanical computer, and it was even Turing-complete - before the labs also.
The first all-electronic computers were built in Great Britain in the mid-late 1930s for the phone company, followed by a computer built at Iowa State, both before the Labs existed. The Colossus, the world's first programmable electronic computer, was built in Great Britain for decoding encrypted German messages. Colossus existed before Los Alamos had any computer (except the human "computers").
Even ENIAC, the computer that first calculated thermonuclear fusion problems at Los Alamos wasn't developed at the Labs, it was developed at the University of Pennsylvania.
Hey, insane ignoranus, want to hear the history of the other items you falsely claimed were invented at the labs, or do you want to look them up yourself and confess that you've been lying?
Insane rant, 7:03 AM. Who are you pretending to be now?
Hey Ladies, we don't really give a rat's ass who you believe invented what.
Well, the chickens have flown the coop, we need the big nets.
The list some crazy person put up earlier, aerogels, computers, etc., is just wildly wrong. Does anyone who isn't drinking JD have a real list of significant inventions that came from the labs?
Oh Jeez, why keep this crap going? Let go, please. Is this your major concern in your life? In the world? How about a retreat to reality. Doesn't your wife want you to fix something? Isn't that more important? Oh, wait, all the posters here are unmarried misogynist jerks. How could I have forgotten that? Sorry.
9.49 AM gave some links that you simply like to ignore.
The guy is spitting out random trivia he found online without understanding. Yeah, right, computers were invented 2,000 years ago. How would you like to use one of those computers now? Come to think of it, this wouldn't be so bad actually: we would be spared the torture of having to read your usual pearls of wisdom.
Mr Yosemite Sam is getting desperate. All because of some obsessive bitterness against the Labs.
STOP. Computers were NOT invented at the labs. NO KIND OF COMPUTER WAS INVENTED AT THE LABS. Not mechanical computers, not electro-mechanical computers, and not electronic computers. Not analog computers and not digital computers. Your claim was proven to be an outright lie, yet you continue in your ridiculous, insane way to defend your putrid lies.
In fact, almost EVERY item on your phony list was not invented at the labs. You can look them up, but you won't. Why? Is it because liberals like you are militant about remaining ignorant? You know, you don't have to continue to be dishonest. You CAN look them up one by one, find out the truth, admit that you were wrong, STOP LYING, and move on.
Let's summarize. The topic was cutting spending on the fraction of science projects that are assuredly useless. You tried to defend continuing to spend, even on those clearly wasteful "science" projects, by pointing out how many useful things have come out of science spending. So far, you're batting very close to zero. You have randomly identified ONE thing. ONE, but you don't even know which one it is.
The topic was cutting spending on the fraction of science projects that are assuredly useless.
March 28, 2017 at 11:23 AM
How nice that you falsely restate the topic of the thread to match your (obsessive and borderline-insane) meme.
"In fact, almost EVERY item on your phony list was not invented at the labs. You can look them up, but you won't. Why"
The links to the multiple item list show that you cleary are wrong. You can check this your self, but you will not. As for the computers the labs certainly played a role their development and testing.
I would say you are more of modern day snowflake liberal who has their view of the world and cannot and will not let go. In your case it is personal. You got fired from one of the labs or where not appreciated or could never get a job in the first pace and your ego cannot take this now the labs are all you ever think about. After 10 years of posting vile hatred to all things lab and you still will not let it go. The labs are still hear, you are still without a job and filled with self loathing and denial. Guess what in 10 years the labs will still exist and you will either be dead or still a worthless self-hating person who wasted their life. Please move on as it is sad to see what has happened to you.
Not even a good try. You are defending your putrid lies by referring to a list that was developed precisely to defend lab funding, but that's circular. That's phony. You have dug a HUGE hole for yourself by telling these lies and now you're trying to get out of it by referring to more lies.
ANYONE can look this up, but you won't, so I'll do it for you.
Here's the second item on your list, cell sorting.
Cell sorting is done by three main methods; flow cytometry, magnetic sorting, and microchip array sorting.
Flow cytometry was patented in 1953 by Wallace H. Coulter (of the Coulter effect). It was developed by the Coulter Corporation. The Coulter Corporation (like Bell Labs) was privately funded. One variant, fluorescence cytometry, was invented in 1968 by Wolfgang Göhde of the University of Munster and first sold in 1968/69 by the German manufacturer Partec. It might be necessary to point out to the insane ignoranus that the Labs had nothing to do with this.
Magnetic sorting was invented by Miltenyi Biotech, another German Company, in 1989. The MACS technology has been sold commercially since 1990. Again, for the insane ignoranus, the Labs had NOTHING to do with this.
The principle behind microchip cell sorting arrays was developed in 2000 at the University of Texas. Further development took place at the University of California, San Francisco, Baylor University, University of California, Irvine, and more recently at the University of North Carolina leading to full microchip sorting technology. Again, NOT INVENTED AT THE LABS.
Insane Ignoranus, are you ready to admit that you've been lying, or do you want me to continue with the rest of your phony list?
1:48, Somehow you think you know things about me that you would have no way to know but every single thing you wrote about me is false. There's a mental condition in which sufferers think they know stuff that they don't, schizophrenia. Let me guess, your psychiatrist has told you that you're schizophrenic, but you don't believe her. Am I right?
Oh, and your writing skills are beyond abysmal too; "where not appreciated", "cleary are wrong", "a role their development", "the labs are still hear" ....
Here's a tip for you, no one is going to take you seriously with your obvious inability to write, your clear case of attention deficit disorder, your constant defense of pure lies, and, quite possibly, your (putative) case of schizophrenia. Work on fixing your own problems before you try to convince anyone that you have anything worthwhile to say. Seriously.
"It might be necessary to point out to the insane ignoranus that the Labs had nothing to do with this." You are so wrong about this, now you will be PWND.
In the early-mid 1960s, Los Alamos physicist Mack Fulwyler invented a device to isolate different types of cells. His invention, still a vital aspect of flow cytometry (cell measurement) in biological laboratories today, operates in a fashion similar to an ink-jet printer, redirecting a flow of tiny cell-containing droplets. With a laser and fluorescent tagging capabilities, its modern incarnation provides insight into the biochemistry underlying many diseases, including cancer and AIDS.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/cyto.a.20176/asset/20176_ftp.pdf;jsessionid=38120D5AAA72A07F7D2154D21C161726.f01t03?v=1&t=j0unhk8p&s=8ffdd616b280571db6171ee28d8
The development of Cytometry comes together with early advances in microscopy. The first investigations were the UV light source on samples. However, it was in 1934 that the first technique for counting cells flowing through a capillary tube was described, and then flow cytometry was born. In 1880 fluorochromes were used for the first time; but it was not until 1960-70 that they were applied to cytometry to measure DNA cell content immunophenotyping. Over time, cell separation was firstly associated with cytometry. Los Alamos National Laboratories (USA) developed the first cell counter able to measure the presence of cells and to separate them into droplets and charge them. Cell sorters have the same performances and possibilities than flow cytometers; however, cell sorters present the additional capacity to separate (sorting) and recuperate particles selectively from the liquid suspension according to their characteristics.
http://www.genyo.es/en/content/flow-cytometry-and-cell-sorting-unit
http://www.genyo.es/en/content/flow-cytometry-and-cell-sorting-unit
Ok, next on the list: Clean room
https://share-ng.sandia.gov/news/resources/news_releases/cleanroom_50th/#.WNtjzRQwjzI
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — When Willis Whitfield invented the modern-day cleanroom 50 years ago, researchers and industrialists didn’t believe it at first. But within a few short years, $50 billion worth of laminar-flow cleanrooms were being built worldwide and the invention is used in hospitals, laboratories and manufacturing plants today.
The retired Sandia National Laboratories physicist, who passed away this month at age 92, was dubbed “Mr. Clean” by TIME Magazine at the time, but the travel, scientific presentations and accolades didn’t change the unassuming scientist, who was always modest about the invention that revolutionized manufacturing in electronics and pharmaceuticals, made hospital operating rooms safer and helped further space exploration.
Oh and it just keeps going.
Heat pipe exchanger:
http://www.lanl.gov/science/NSS/issue1_2011/story6full.shtml
In 1963, Los Alamos physicist George Grover successfully demonstrated his invention of the heat pipe. Grover's inspiration for the heat pipe came from rudimentary heat-conducting pipes used by British bakers more than 170 years ago. The development of such pipes began in 1839, when American inventor Jacob Perkins patented the hermetic tube boiler. Angier March Perkins (Jacob's son) modified the tube boiler, and in 1936 he patented what he called the Perkins Tube, which saw widespread use in locomotive boilers and working ovens (including a mobile oven for the British Army). The Perkins Tube served as a "jumping off point" for Grover's development of modern heat pipes, which depending on their application can be as short as a hypodermic needle, or up to 24 feet long.
Micronuclear reactorThis micro nuclear power reactor promises to provide 27 megawatts, enough for 20,000 average houses, for seven to 10 years before needing to refuel. Invented in LANL, it produces clean and affordable energy that can be easily transported to remote locations or disaster areashttps://www.newscastic.com/news/20-best-inventions-to-hail-from-the-land-of-enchantment-965404/
William A. Higinbotham and Boyce B. McDaniel invented the Counter Chronograph, one of the first digital timing systems, in Los Alamos in 1945.
Solar wind detectorsDeveloped at the LANL and carried aboard NASA's Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) mission, are solar wind sensors designed to examine energetic particles in the solar system.
Monte Carlo: Named after the famous casino, the Monte Carlo method is a way of doing integrals by using random numbers. The modern version of the Monte Carlo method was invented in the late 1940s by Stanislaw Ulam, while he was working on nuclear weapon projects at LANL.
Aergel
http://www.aerogel.org/?p=71
Not long after RF aerogels were developed, Livermore scientists discovered that by heating them to temperatures of several hundred degrees Celsius in an inert atmosphere (such as nitrogen or argon), the polymer which makes up the aerogel can be dehydrated (or “pyrolyzed”) to leave behind an aerogel made of carbon!
Ok, now crawl back in your hole, until the next time you want to spew your bs hatred and bitterness at the labs.
Snort. He's using lanl.gov and sandia.gov cheerleader sites to support his argument. Look a little deeper on aerogels and Monte Carlo computing, you might win on clean rooms but only in their modern form. With the exception of the clean room, none of the things you mention are particularly important except to specialists. There is no doubt that inventions come from the labs, more than come from McDonalds (which is not zero, by the way) but not nearly as many as large companies in Si valley. But none that have transformed our lives, and arguably our lives would be no different (except bombs) without the labs. That doesn't argue to shut them down, but it might argue to refocus them back onto their core mission.
March 29, 2017 at 12:50 AM
You and your so called facts can go to HELL, there is a reason people hate arrogant scientists and it is because you have to prove you are right. No one cares about what was developed in the labs anyway.
" Look a little deeper on aerogels and Monte Carlo computing,"
Ok
In statistics and in statistical physics, the Metropolis–Hastings algorithm is a Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC
The algorithm was named after Nicholas Metropolis, who was an author along with Arianna W. Rosenbluth, Marshall N. Rosenbluth, Augusta H. Teller, and Edward Teller of the 1953 paper Equation of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines which first proposed the algorithm for the case of symmetrical proposal distributions, and W. K. Hastings who extended it to the more general case in 1970.[1] There is controversy over the credit for discovery of the algorithm. Edward Teller states in his memoirs that the five authors of the 1953 paper worked together for "days (and nights)".[2] M. Rosenbluth, in an oral history recorded shortly before his death[3] credits E. Teller with posing the original problem, himself with solving it, and A.W. Rosenbluth (his wife) with programming the computer. According to M. Rosenbluth, neither Metropolis nor A.H. Teller participated in any way. Rosenbluth's account of events is supported by other contemporary recollections.[4] Accordi
ng to Roy Glauber and Emilio Segrè, the original algorithm was invented by Enrico Fermi and reinvented by Stan Ulam.
The modern version of the Markov Chain Monte Carlo method was invented in the late 1940s by Stanislaw Ulam, while he was working on nuclear weapons projects at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Immediately after Ulam's breakthrough, John von Neumann understood its importance and programmed the ENIAC computer to carry out Monte Carlo calculations. In 1946, physicists at Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory were investigating radiation shielding and the distance that neutrons would likely travel through various materials. Despite having most of the necessary data, such as the average distance a neutron would travel in a substance before it collided with an atomic nucleus, and how much energy the neutron was likely to give off following a collision, the Los Alamos physicists were unable to solve the problem using conventional, deterministic mathematical methods. Stanislaw Ulam had the idea of using random experiments. He recounts his inspiration as follows.
"Lab's aerogel sets world record". LLNL Science & Technology Review. October 2003.
Min Nuke reactodz
Invented at the famed Los Alamos National Laboratory, Hyperion small modular power reactors make all the benefits of safe, clean nuclear power available for remote locations. For both industrial and community applications, Hyperion offers reliable energy with no greenhouse gas emissions.
"but it might argue to refocus them back onto their core mission."
Even if the labs did something like this you would complain that they are too narrow and horrible. You are going to complain about the labs no matter what because this is a very very personal issue on your part related to you being fired, rifftired, or not being recognized for the genius that you think you are. Your lack of even some of the most basic knowlegde about the labs or science shows argues that lack of success at the labs was due to your ablities not due some conspiracy at the labs. Again the labs are going to be around long after you are gone, do something else with what is left of your life.
He is very predictable and easily identifiable, at least. A couple sentences in, and you know it's him and you can skip reading the rest.
Hey insane ignoramus, the reason I included dates in my posts on computers and cell sorting is so you could see that well before the labs bought and used those technologies they had already been invented (and developed) somewhere else. Unfortunately, your brain is too addled with liberal hatred to pick up on that.
And you thought Mr Yosemite Sam would be convinced by detailed citations and facts? Fat chance! He's got his own, Alternative Facts! It doesn't matter what proof and sources you give him, he will just flat out reject it all. As he says, it's a case of an insane ignoramus, with a brain addled with hatred.
The modern clean room was invented at Sandia. That's one correct.
However, YOUR OWN WORDS prove that the heat pipe heat exchanger was patented BEFORE Los Alamos existed. Strike three for you (the first two strikes are Computers and Cell Sorters). DO YOU EVEN READ THE SHIT YOU CUT AND PASTE?
The counter chronograph? Your own words say that the Los Alamos design was ONE of the first digital timing systems. NOT the first. The first was the Cook Interval timer, from General Electric (a private company like Bell Labs). The patent on the GE device was filed 4 years before Higinbotham started working on his. Moreover, Higinbotham was aware of Cook's timer as evidenced in his own patent application in 1951. Strike 4. You're really looking dishonest now.
You were being VERY dishonest about the micro nuclear reactor. You cut and pasted an item about ONE design, the Gen4 Energy reactor, the design of which was INITIALLY developed at Los Alamos. That reactor has NEVER been licensed and has NEVER been built. There are over 34 designs for small or "micro" nuclear reactors and many predate the Los Alamos design. Only two have been licensed to date, a Korean design and a Russian design. The Russian Reactor, EGP-6, is the world's smallest nuclear reactor and it has been operating since 1974.
This is a particularly egregious case of your dishonesty. You couldn't have found the stuff you cut and pasted without also finding that your claim is totally false. The truth is that LANL did not invent the "micro" reactor - LANL was actually more than 30 years behind the Russians. Strike 5.
Solar wind detector? The NASA Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) mission you referenced was flown in August of 1997. Sorry, insane ignoranus, the Russians flew the very first solar wind detector on Luna 1 in January 1959. Strike 6. But hey, you were only off by 38 years with your reference and there were much earlier US solar wind detectors also not developed at Los Alamos.
Monte Carlo method? Nicholas Metropolis acknowledged in 1987 that Enrico Fermi worked with the Monte Carlo method in the 1930s, well before he or Ulam did. Oh, and well before Los Alamos existed. Look up "Monte Carlo Simulation, a Brief History". See Fermi listed on top? Moreover, since Fermi was associated with the Manhattan Project, it seems unlikely that he wouldn't have described his invention to Ulam and Metropolis. Strike 7.
I don't know anything about aerogels, so I'll have to look that up. Given your HORRIBLE record, I'm betting that you are wrong about that one too.
Why don't you just give it up? You've been proven to be a liar over and over again. You have NOTHING to gain by continuing to lie.
March 29, 2017 at 12:36 PM
The crap you are posting does not jive with the facts and can all be checked very easily. Again this is about you and you alone. You hate the labs because of some precived slight but it will not change the fact the labs are not going anywhere or that you failed in your career.
We can go over this again and get more data and documents to show that you are wrong yet again. Shall we? You have been spewing crap about the labs for 10 years now and have not been right once.
Let's just put the final stake in your lying heart, Insane Ignoranus.
Aerogels were invented by Samuel Stephens Kistler in 1929/1930. Insane Ignoranus, that too is well before Los Alamos existed. Not only that, but Aerogels have been commercially available since 1950 and have undergone almost continuous development by a number of non-lab researchers since then. Your reference for the stuff made at Los Alamos is dated 2003. Strike 8, NOT invented at the Labs, but your reference is only off by 73 years.
Insane, you should spend a whole lot more time reading and a whole lot less time writing. When you read, try to read the entire article, even the big words. If you do, trust me, you won't be such an ignorant asshole. Well, you'll still be an asshole, but you won't be as ignorant.
1:04, now you've descended to just flat lying. No attempt to refute, just lies.
Fuck-off, asshole. You're done.
On the Monte Carlo method it was developed and in Los Alamos. Fermi may have thought about something like but it was not
published so the result is clearly a work from Los Almaos as that is where the first papers come from,
An early variant of the Monte Carlo method can be seen in the Buffon's needle experiment, in which π can be estimated by dropping needles on a floor made of parallel and equidistant strips. In the 1930s, Enrico Fermi first experimented with the Monte Carlo method while studying neutron diffusion, but did not publish anything on it.[12]
The modern version of the Markov Chain Monte Carlo method was invented in the late 1940s by Stanislaw Ulam, while he was working on nuclear weapons projects at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Immediately after Ulam's breakthrough, John von Neumann understood its importance and programmed the ENIAC computer to carry out Monte Carlo calculations
Being secret, the work of von Neumann and Ulam required a code name.[citation needed] A colleague of von Neumann and Ulam, Nicholas Metropolis, suggested using the name Monte Carlo, which refers to the Monte Carlo Casino in Monaco where Ulam's uncle would borrow money from relatives to gamble.[12] Using lists of "truly random" random numbers was extremely slow, but von Neumann developed a way to calculate pseudorandom numbers, using the middle-square method. Though this method has been criticized as crude, von Neumann was aware of this: he justified it as being faster than any other method at his disposal, and also noted that when it went awry it did so obviously, unlike methods that could be subtly incorrect.
Monte Carlo methods were central to the simulations required for the Manhattan Project, though severely limited by the computational tools at the time. In the 1950s they were used at Los Alamos for early work relating to the development of the hydrogen bomb, and became popularized in the fields of physics, physical chemistry, and operations research. The Rand Corporation and the U.S. Air Force were two of the major organizations responsible for funding and disseminating information on Monte Carlo methods during this time, and they began to find a wide application in many different fields.
Yet a another variation of this is.
The algorithm was named after Nicholas Metropolis, who was an author along with Arianna W. Rosenbluth, Marshall N. Rosenbluth, Augusta H. Teller, and Edward Teller of the 1953 paper Equation of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines which first proposed the algorithm for the case of symmetrical proposal distributions, and W. K. Hastings who extended it to the more general case in 1970.[1] There is controversy over the credit for discovery of the algorithm. Edward Teller states in his memoirs that the five authors of the 1953 paper worked together for "days (and nights)".[2] M. Rosenbluth, in an oral history recorded shortly before his death[3] credits E. Teller with posing the original problem, himself with solving it, and A.W. Rosenbluth (his wife) with programming the computer. According to M. Rosenbluth, neither Metropolis nor A.H. Teller participated in any way. Rosenbluth's account of events is supported by other contemporary recollections.[4] According to Roy Glauber and Emilio Segrè, the original algorithm was invented by Enrico Fermi and reinvented by Stan Ulam.
March 29, 2017 at 12:36 PM
Your hated for the labs has made you insane and immune to all facts and reasoning. You are one sad little bitter person.
What you have given up on saying cell sorters where not developed at the labs? I thought you proved that was wrong but you have no reply to the new set of facts that prove unequally that you are wrong.
What about the heat pipe exchanger? You have not gone about why that is wrong
By they way you are very confused about what what the Russians did with small nuclear reactors and was developed at the labs these are two very different things if you look into it. The same is true of the solar wind detectors.
The counter chronograph was invented at Los Alamos. here is the patent. http://www.google.ch/patents/US2575759
By the way it is organic aerogels. This is from http://www.aerogel.org/?p=71
Although organic aerogels have been around since the first aerogels were prepared, they were, for the most part, overlooked until the 1980’s when Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientists began producing organic aerogels made of phenolic resins. The bulk of this work was done by scientists Dr. Rick Pekala and Dr. Joe Satcher, who synthesized the first resorcinol-formaldehyde polymer aerogels (or RF aerogels for short).-essentially, aerogels composed of the same material as the plastic “Bakelite”. Depending on their density, RF aerogels range from light orange to deep red to black in color and range from translucent to opaque. Low density organic aerogels (<0.020 g cm-3) are generally irreversibly squishy, similar in feel to green floral potting foam. High density organic aerogels (>0.5 g cm-3) can be extremely robust and very hard to squeeze, almost like a car seat cushion.
This thread now has over a hundred posts by arrogant know-it-alls who cannot resist having their chains pulled by a master deflector and tale-spinner, who is laughing up his sleeve at the overwrought, pedantic, encyclopedic attempts to refute his insane rants. Hint: you can't educate insanity out of anyone. The fact that you can't recognize this and stop trying is evidence that there's enough insanity to go around.
No, in fact we're pulling his chain and doing all the laughing. See?
Fuck-off, asshole. You're done.
March 29, 2017 at 1:07 PM
No, in fact we're pulling his chain and doing all the laughing. See?
March 29, 2017 at 4:31 PM
What I see is that you're doing all the work, and he's just making stuff up that you think you have to respond to. And I guess you think profanity makes it ok for you. Yeah, insanity. Not much daylight between you guys.
I think the point here is to explain the facts not to this gentleman, but to anonymous visitors to this blog, who might otherwise be mislead by unanswered statements. In today's political climate, it is very dangerous to let angry people with nefarious political agendas slander the workers of our National Labs.
Lets recap: In the last year the troll has stated that (1) There are no good scientists at the lab, (shown to be false). (2) All the good
scientists leave before they are 40. (again false also 1 and 2 cannot both be right at the same time). (3) The weapons science is horrible (false). (4) Stanford published 100 times more publications than LLNL ( proven false). (4) No one in the labs can ever get a job in the private sector (False we all know people have have left for the private sector). (5) No one at the labs can get an
academic job, (False every year people at the labs get academic jobs) (6) Anyone who could get an academic jobs left years ago,
(False by definition). (7) People at the labs only have degrees from Fresno State, (False, there people with Phds from all over including UCB, MIT, Harvard, Princeton and son on). (8) Nothing other than the bomb has been created at the labs (False this was just shown).
No, 12:34 AM, you are the troll people are talking about. The one who thinks there is only one other person on this blog, who is responsible for 1-7.
No, 12:34 AM, you are the troll people are talking about. The one who thinks there is only one other person on this blog, who is responsible for 1-7.
March 30, 2017 at 7:36 AM
Nope, there is only one deal and true "I HATE THE LABS" Troll.
Oh, labs, hark, villains! I will grind your bones to dust. Vengeance is in my heart, death in my hand, Blood and revenge are hammering in my head. O, why should wrath be mute, and fury dumb? I am no baby, I, that with base prayers I should repent the evils I have done: Ten thousand worse than ever yet I did. Would I perform, if I might have my will; If one good deed in all my life I did, I do repent it from my very soul. Bitter am I not but full of zeal to destroy that which mocks my existence and honor, which I have none.
Folks think Republicans are the stupid party because of the things they say regarding climate change and Obama's birth certificate. It's pretty jistified. I haven't heard a republican say anything smart until Lindsey Graham mentioned that Trump's Russia entanglement needs to be investigated. Truly, when is the last time you heard a republican say climate change is real and fossil fuels cause global warming. They don't. They say things like "the sea level won't rise becausegod said he would never flood the Earth again" I mean, people that run the country believe in talking snakes. So, it's pretty easy to see why Republicans are viewed as dumb. They deserve the title.
We could cut more than half the jobs at LANL and Sandia and not notice a difference in output. Start saving money by cutting New Mexico job entitlements. People with no skills making $100,000 a year. No wonder we are in debt.
You are an idiot. What a truly assinine response. Obviously Obama is rather smart. If you can't see that, then hate yourself some more. The world is your reflection, oh smart one.
Hmm, I forgot, where did the internet really develop into something tangible? Oh yeah DARPA. I guess that is no big deal though. Even if it makes every task in our lives including private technology development easier and faster. Rockets. Where did rockets come from? Oh yeah from the Nazis our government took from Germany. Again the government. Yes private industry makes great contributions, but don't sell your country short. Oh yeah the whole nuclear thing was helpful. What about satellite comms? Oh GPS, government again. Oh yeah radiological medicine, government again. I mean the list is endless. Industry isn't interested in science for the sake of bettering humanity, but it sure is interested in money. Private industry pays for time on LANLS hpc machines. That's right, they pay the government because they are not interested in building their own machines, cuts into the bottom line too much. Yeah government hasn't done squat.
March 30, 2017 at 9:41 PM
OK, so let's hear your learned explanation of why the global average temperature hasn't budged in 20 years, when the atmospheric CO2 level has increased dramatically? And why temperature increase predictions are constantly having to be revised downward by the IPCC and others?
I was waiting for you to finally turn to climate change. You spend too many hours of every day listening to Rush Limbaugh. It's a myth peddled by Rush to appease a certain kind of audience that the global temperatures haven't budged in 20 years. You are regurgitating it here. Here is the graph from NASA:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
It's pretty unequivocal. And don't tell us that this is another gubmint conspiracy and you have Alternative Facts. How gets their science facts from Rush anyways?
We could cut more than half the jobs at LANL and Sandia and not notice a difference in output. Start saving money by cutting New Mexico job entitlements. People with no skills making $100,000 a year. No wonder we are in debt.
March 30, 2017 at 9:44 PM
Ok we now have item (9) to add to the list of the troll nonsense. One thing we do know is that when the labs fired the troll it was a good start. You seem really jealous of people with jobs or who are earning money. Odd just why its that?
You are regurgitating it here. Here is the graph from NASA:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
March 31, 2017 at 11:01 AM
Sorry, but the NASA graph has nothing to do with average global temperature (satellite data, for example). Nice try though. Fake news.
Yeah, right. The GLOBAL LAND-OCEAN TEMPERATURE INDEX using the data from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies has nothing to do with average global temperature.
It's pretty unequivocal. And don't tell us that this is another gubmint conspiracy and you have Alternative Facts. How gets their science facts from Rush anyways?
March 31, 2017 at 11:01 AM
It is all total lies to get more money into the labs or universities. You have already shown that you are liars when it comes to the labs producing anything other than the bomb and now you are lying about climate. There is a reason people hate arrogant scientists. I am not bitter but I am sick of unworthy people being treated like they know what they are talking about. If their is any issue with the climate than private industry could handle it much better.
Their should be an IQ test required to buy a computer or cellphone, than the blogs would be readable.
Their should be an IQ test required to buy a computer or cellphone, than the blogs would be readable.
April 1, 2017 at 9:30 AM
The attitude of an arrogant scientist. This is the reason we need to cutt the labs in at least half.
Their should be an IQ test required to buy a computer or cellphone, than the blogs would be readable.
April 1, 2017 at 9:30 AM
I bet you're a liberal who believes in tolerance, acceptance, and diversity.
Yes cut all the crap like NPR and PBS that nobody watches anymore. Toddlers don't even care for Sesame Street anymore. Sad !
Post a Comment