Does anyone know what transpired during the congress hearing for Secretary Chu on the NIF?
1 comment:
Anonymous
said...
Was there a hearing already? I understand that they needed to submit a report to congress by November 30. It's a pretty ugly situation. Cook and Deeney know full well how questionable and shoddy large portion of the results and data analysis coming out of the non-ignition experiments. Or are they being told otherwise? So if they come out saying that excellent work is being performed by lab scientists in support of stockpile stewardship... well they are going to end up having a lot of explaining to do. The people behind the Deuterium EoS fiasco should be blackballed from the scientific community and be stripped if the APS fellowships given to them because they cheapen the accomplishments of legitimate scientists. Their equation of state and strength work needs to be scrutinized. Look at the results and interpretations in publications and conference presentations. This is mediocrity at its finest. They even made some ridiculous statements about a tantalum phase transition where there was none. I thing they were staring at fuzzy data sets for so long that they were starting to see all sorts of hallucinations... The face of the Virgin Mary, Elvis, and yes, even a tantalum phase transition. I wonder if there is such a thing as an internal technical review there. I have to wonder, because I know there are some very smart people there who know all about these issues. If its true that they run their organization as a kleptocracy, then maybe these NIF scientists are never questioned either in their analysis of experimental results specifically or their technical abilities generally. I really have to wonder if NNSA is actually facilitating this scientific fraud. The public statements made by Deeney and Cook certainly supports this notion up to now.
1 comment:
Was there a hearing already? I understand that they needed to submit a report to congress by November 30. It's a pretty ugly situation. Cook and Deeney know full well how questionable and shoddy large portion of the results and data analysis coming out of the non-ignition experiments. Or are they being told otherwise? So if they come out saying that excellent work is being performed by lab scientists in support of stockpile stewardship... well they are going to end up having a lot of explaining to do. The people behind the Deuterium EoS fiasco should be blackballed from the scientific community and be stripped if the APS fellowships given to them because they cheapen the accomplishments of legitimate scientists. Their equation of state and strength work needs to be scrutinized. Look at the results and interpretations in publications and conference presentations. This is mediocrity at its finest. They even made some ridiculous statements about a tantalum phase transition where there was none. I thing they were staring at fuzzy data sets for so long that they were starting to see all sorts of hallucinations... The face of the Virgin Mary, Elvis, and yes, even a tantalum phase transition. I wonder if there is such a thing as an internal technical review there. I have to wonder, because I know there are some very smart people there who know all about these issues. If its true that they run their organization as a kleptocracy, then maybe these NIF scientists are never questioned either in their analysis of experimental results specifically or their technical abilities generally. I really have to wonder if NNSA is actually facilitating this scientific fraud. The public statements made by Deeney and Cook certainly supports this notion up to now.
Post a Comment