Comments
I agree with a post on another thread. This blog is just performance art - like the guy that never showers or the girl that makes art out of poop,
And isn't that kind of a silly reason to exist?
I agree that the Labs were better off under UC and that the new LLC arrangement is both less pleasant and less capable. But that's just the way it is. I see absolutely zero chance of the LLC being reversed and LLNL reverting to the halcyon days of yore. You might as well believe in fairy dust.
I agree that the Labs were better off under UC and that the new LLC arrangement is both less pleasant and less capable. But that's just the way it is. I see absolutely zero chance of the LLC being reversed and LLNL reverting to the halcyon days of yore. You might as well believe in fairy dust.
This blog exists to provide constant evidence of how great most of us are doing, by showing the other end of the scale. It's a guilty pleasure just like watching those shows about "who's the daddy". It reminds us how stupid, coarse, and generally unhappy people can be. We shake our heads and are truly grateful we're not like that.
But, like the "who's the daddy" shows, if you take it in large doses, it just makes you feel ill.
But, like the "who's the daddy" shows, if you take it in large doses, it just makes you feel ill.
If you think this blog is a cesspool of negativity, then these four words will make your blood pressure boil:
Laser Equation of State
Laser Equation of State
If you read the posts from August, "angry" is the word best describing NIF proponents. The naysayers were having a rip roaring time with all the parodies and snide remarks and exposing old wounds. There are many classics back then. LLNL management got smart and now most of them do not post (rightly so, they shouldn't anyways.). The sane naysayers are still here. Anger is the wrong word to describe them. 'Anger' describes someone laid off because of poor management decisions or strategy. 'Anger' describes lab management that cannot contain embarrassing leaks regarding lab incompetence in certain programs. But 'anger' does not describe naysayers. Naysayers are "satisfied whistleblowers"
Geez. I don't know what blog you're reading...but it sure ain't this one! If there's a "sane naysayer" posting here, I sure haven't seen him/her.
Fiction isn't "whistleblowing", no matter how many times you repeat it.
Fiction isn't "whistleblowing", no matter how many times you repeat it.
The D2 EoS thread isn't fiction.
The posters for Pu NIF shots and d2/laser EoS are sane (aside from the grammar nazis and the angry management posters).
Then your definition of "sane" is different than most. The thread on NIF Pu shots was based on zero information, and was confined exclusively to hysterical fear-mongering.
The ubiquitous EOS threads are all maintained by the Bitter EOS Troll, who relates every event of his everday life to some grudge about an arcane subject nobody here cares about.
No sanity in either place.
The ubiquitous EOS threads are all maintained by the Bitter EOS Troll, who relates every event of his everday life to some grudge about an arcane subject nobody here cares about.
No sanity in either place.
You count yourself as being not sane also?
Actually the Pu NIF shot thread is based on leaked information from within the NW complex. It may be mute if NNSA decides to bury the whole laser EoS fiasco. LLNL has come to realize how deep into the shite they are. All legitimate non-troll topics based on real information.
Yep, leaked info from within the NW complex. I overheard the same information down at the Livermore Saloon from the guy falling off his bar stool. It must be true.
And of course, we MUST believe everything said by somebody that STILL isn't smart enough to know the difference between mute and moot.
No basis in fact whatsoever.
And of course, we MUST believe everything said by somebody that STILL isn't smart enough to know the difference between mute and moot.
No basis in fact whatsoever.
About D2 EoS and laser EoS in general? That is a real mess. REAL mess.
Your problems with spelling and grammar are all mute points.
You know, I can't find a body of LLNL laser EoS work that is of the same depth, breadth and quality as from the other two labs over the last 15 years. Something is clearly wrong if you aren't able prove that you are qualified to analyze raw data from experiments for "easy" materials and fluids, let alone SNM.
This looks pretty sane to me.
http://llnlthetruestory.blogspot.com/2012/12/deuterium-eos-issue.html
Anonymous said...
http://www.aps.org/programs/honors/prizes/prizerecipient.cfm?last_nm=Collins&first_nm=Gilbert&year=1998
http://www.aps.org/programs/honors/prizes/prizerecipient.cfm?last_nm=Da%20Silva&first_nm=Luiz&year=1998
http://www.aps.org/programs/honors/prizes/prizerecipient.cfm?last_nm=Celliers&first_nm=Peter&year=1998
http://www.aps.org/programs/honors/prizes/prizerecipient.cfm?last_nm=Cauble&first_nm=Robert&year=1998
December 4, 2012 at 5:41 PM
Anonymous said...
After winning the 1998 John Dawson Award for Excellence in Plasma Physics Research for their Nova experiments, their results were shown by Markus Knudson and his collaborators on the Sandia Z facility to have been spurious.
December 4, 2012 at 5:45 PM
Anonymous said...
Regarding some of the historical events surrounding this issue, the lab management retaliated against a highly regarded senior scientist working at the lab who took a dissenting position against these results. His name escapes me. But this just another element adding to the fabric of the "sordid affair" mentioned by others.
Any attempt to portray these events as a natural part of the discovery process is simply propaganda. This is a common practice at the lab - to silence employees who raise legitimate technical and scientific issues that management deems to be inconvenient or not in support of its agendas.
Deuterium EOS is a full case study in itself for those studying organizational structures and organizational behavior.
If someone can recall the name of the LLNL employee that was blackballed, I would appreciate it. This was a truly shameful injustice that the lab management committed.
December 6, 2012 at 3:49 PM
Anonymous said...
That's kind of hard to do, given that the lab blackballs scientific leaders like Bill Nellis. Notice how they never mention his name or even acknowledge his existence. They always skirt around that particular issue.
December 7, 2012 at 11:51 PM
http://llnlthetruestory.blogspot.com/2012/12/deuterium-eos-issue.html
Anonymous said...
http://www.aps.org/programs/honors/prizes/prizerecipient.cfm?last_nm=Collins&first_nm=Gilbert&year=1998
http://www.aps.org/programs/honors/prizes/prizerecipient.cfm?last_nm=Da%20Silva&first_nm=Luiz&year=1998
http://www.aps.org/programs/honors/prizes/prizerecipient.cfm?last_nm=Celliers&first_nm=Peter&year=1998
http://www.aps.org/programs/honors/prizes/prizerecipient.cfm?last_nm=Cauble&first_nm=Robert&year=1998
December 4, 2012 at 5:41 PM
Anonymous said...
After winning the 1998 John Dawson Award for Excellence in Plasma Physics Research for their Nova experiments, their results were shown by Markus Knudson and his collaborators on the Sandia Z facility to have been spurious.
December 4, 2012 at 5:45 PM
Anonymous said...
Regarding some of the historical events surrounding this issue, the lab management retaliated against a highly regarded senior scientist working at the lab who took a dissenting position against these results. His name escapes me. But this just another element adding to the fabric of the "sordid affair" mentioned by others.
Any attempt to portray these events as a natural part of the discovery process is simply propaganda. This is a common practice at the lab - to silence employees who raise legitimate technical and scientific issues that management deems to be inconvenient or not in support of its agendas.
Deuterium EOS is a full case study in itself for those studying organizational structures and organizational behavior.
If someone can recall the name of the LLNL employee that was blackballed, I would appreciate it. This was a truly shameful injustice that the lab management committed.
December 6, 2012 at 3:49 PM
Anonymous said...
That's kind of hard to do, given that the lab blackballs scientific leaders like Bill Nellis. Notice how they never mention his name or even acknowledge his existence. They always skirt around that particular issue.
December 7, 2012 at 11:51 PM
Just a few more "sane" discussions
Anonymous said...
Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 483–486 (1997)
Absolute Equation of State Measurements on Shocked Liquid Deuterium up to 200 GPa (2 Mbar)
L. B. Da Silva, P. Celliers, G. W. Collins, K. S. Budil, N. C. Holmes, T. W. Barbee Jr., B. A. Hammel, J. D. Kilkenny, R. J. Wallace, M. Ross, and R. Cauble
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Livermore, California 94550
A. Ng and G. Chiu
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
We present results of the first measurements of density, shock speed, and particle speed in liquid deuterium compressed by laser-generated shock waves to pressures from 25 to 210 Gpa (0.25 to 2.1 Mbar). The data show a significant increase in D2 compressibility above 50 Gpa compared to a widely used equation of state model. The data strongly suggest a thermal molecular dissociation transition of the diatomic fluid into a monatomic phase.
Anonymous said...
The back story is that LLNL managers (Miller, Goodwin, Moses) were arguing that NIF was going to be superior to Z for EOS and material strength measurements. This happened during the DOE review to decide whether NIF should be scaled back to a smaller number of beams to reduce its cost, which was held before the 2001 Knudson publication.
December 5, 2012 at 5:59 AM
Anonymous said...
It is ironic that the senior leadership in Defense Programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration includes former managers of the Sandia Z facility during the time of the Nova D2 awards. They are intimately familiar with this sordid history.
December 5, 2012 at 6:04 AM
December 4, 2012 at 5:37 PM
Anonymous said...
Is it just coincidence that the LLNL NOVA experimental data points sit right on top (within error bars) of the LLNL theoretical predictions? Just downloaded and examined the Nellis PRL. What are the odds that two supposedly independent papers from the same lab (and directorate) are both incorrect, but matching each other within the error bars? Does anyone else find this odd?
I consulted with a colleague just now who mentioned the existence of a third modelling paper (maybe an internal report only?) out of the lab whose data also sits on top of the incorrect results, but I could not find this reference.
December 11, 2012 at 9:54 AM
Anonymous said...
Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 483–486 (1997)
Absolute Equation of State Measurements on Shocked Liquid Deuterium up to 200 GPa (2 Mbar)
L. B. Da Silva, P. Celliers, G. W. Collins, K. S. Budil, N. C. Holmes, T. W. Barbee Jr., B. A. Hammel, J. D. Kilkenny, R. J. Wallace, M. Ross, and R. Cauble
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Livermore, California 94550
A. Ng and G. Chiu
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
We present results of the first measurements of density, shock speed, and particle speed in liquid deuterium compressed by laser-generated shock waves to pressures from 25 to 210 Gpa (0.25 to 2.1 Mbar). The data show a significant increase in D2 compressibility above 50 Gpa compared to a widely used equation of state model. The data strongly suggest a thermal molecular dissociation transition of the diatomic fluid into a monatomic phase.
Anonymous said...
The back story is that LLNL managers (Miller, Goodwin, Moses) were arguing that NIF was going to be superior to Z for EOS and material strength measurements. This happened during the DOE review to decide whether NIF should be scaled back to a smaller number of beams to reduce its cost, which was held before the 2001 Knudson publication.
December 5, 2012 at 5:59 AM
Anonymous said...
It is ironic that the senior leadership in Defense Programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration includes former managers of the Sandia Z facility during the time of the Nova D2 awards. They are intimately familiar with this sordid history.
December 5, 2012 at 6:04 AM
December 4, 2012 at 5:37 PM
Anonymous said...
Is it just coincidence that the LLNL NOVA experimental data points sit right on top (within error bars) of the LLNL theoretical predictions? Just downloaded and examined the Nellis PRL. What are the odds that two supposedly independent papers from the same lab (and directorate) are both incorrect, but matching each other within the error bars? Does anyone else find this odd?
I consulted with a colleague just now who mentioned the existence of a third modelling paper (maybe an internal report only?) out of the lab whose data also sits on top of the incorrect results, but I could not find this reference.
December 11, 2012 at 9:54 AM
There is still no resolution regarding this or any subsequent work on EoS using NIF or other laser drive? That's very bad.
Your problems with spelling and grammar are all mute points.
May 31, 2013 at 2:46 PM
So is your head.
May 31, 2013 at 2:46 PM
So is your head.
The problem won't solve itself. They have leadership with no experience or business designing EoS experiments. It's a lost cause. Drive out all the brains like Nellis over the past 15 years. You see where this is all going. The level of incompetence at the lab is fully intentional. They will just fire all the technical leads, and be able to free up money for what really matters.. ignition.
So is your head.
But that's a mute point
But that's a mute point
No it's not because I will keep saying it - so's your head.
LLNL's Laser EoS program needs an independent external review. This business about not publishing any corrigendums or retracting the article is unconscionable. The 2 or 3 LLNL data sets all sitting on top of the wrong EoS is a serious problem also. Why does the lab get 300M+ for such nonsense? I keep seeing partial tidbits about some high pressure phase transition in tantalum which is worthy of a PRL but I haven't seen any definitive peer reviewed article on it. Given past behavior, I have to suspect that the "evidence" is fabricated unless they start putting out the raw data and publish the analyses. Otherwise the scientific community will just keep asking "WTF?" over and over until there is a resolution.
Your point is still mute. Characteristics of my head (which is very large indeed) bears no relevance to the topic, "Why LLNL THE TRUE STORY exists?" or even to the Laser Deuterium EoS fiasco.
The fact that the theoretical curve (provided by Marvin Ross) followed the incorrect Nova data exactly in the bogus 1997 PRL is no surprise. It was nothing more than curve fitting. Ross freely admitted as much at the time.
Your point is still mute. Characteristics of my head (which is very large indeed) bears no relevance to the topic, "Why LLNL THE TRUE STORY exists?" or even to the Laser Deuterium EoS fiasco.
June 1, 2013 at 2:38 PM
Please mute your head. It's the button that has a label that looks like "11". Do it now.
June 1, 2013 at 2:38 PM
Please mute your head. It's the button that has a label that looks like "11". Do it now.
Geez people the word you want is MOOT! Look it up.
Every time you ridicule someone with "its a mute point" you show your lack of basic English skills. I hope this is just one person posting over and over, and not a whole slew of high school dropouts adding their misguided comments.
It's hard to take a commenter's opinion seriously when I'm laughing at their writing skills.
Every time you ridicule someone with "its a mute point" you show your lack of basic English skills. I hope this is just one person posting over and over, and not a whole slew of high school dropouts adding their misguided comments.
It's hard to take a commenter's opinion seriously when I'm laughing at their writing skills.
Every time you ridicule someone with "its a mute point" you show your lack of basic English skills.
June 3, 2013 at 12:18 AM
You've fallen for his game. He's been told over and over, by me and others, that the word is incorrect. It's not his lack or writing skills, it's his glee at poking a finger in the eye of everyone to whom his use of "mute" is like fingernails on a chalkboard. Best to ignore his childishness.
June 3, 2013 at 12:18 AM
You've fallen for his game. He's been told over and over, by me and others, that the word is incorrect. It's not his lack or writing skills, it's his glee at poking a finger in the eye of everyone to whom his use of "mute" is like fingernails on a chalkboard. Best to ignore his childishness.
Judging by comparisons of miss-spelling, non-grammar,idioms, and such, there are no more than two dozen regular posters to this blog, half of whom have less intelligence than a normal 12 year old. Why Scooby donates his time to make this forum available to these misfits is beyond comprehension. And, why do otherwise sane people bother to read this, and sometimes post here? Don't know -- why do millions of people watch inane reality shows? Maybe it's the same rason --
Come on, Bitter EOS Troll. You're citing postings from THIS BLOG as evidence of something? You probably wrote most of those yourself. All I see is rumor an innuendo.
Maybe it's the same rason --
June 3, 2013 at 3:05 PM
All I see is rumor an innuendo.
June 3, 2013 at 5:32 PM
Maybe it's all the same guy who can't spell or type. Or only tries to do so when drunk.
June 3, 2013 at 3:05 PM
All I see is rumor an innuendo.
June 3, 2013 at 5:32 PM
Maybe it's all the same guy who can't spell or type. Or only tries to do so when drunk.
Well, since others are doing it... I might as well join in occasionally... It's a mute point anyways. I have a dog named "point." By the way, point is mute. A mute dog, really. He insists on me spelling his name in all lower case. The mute point makes mute points about other mute points, other mute dogs also named point. Mute, really.
June 4, 2013 at 1:17 AM:
Bravo. Ridicule is the sincerest form of belittlement.
Bravo. Ridicule is the sincerest form of belittlement.
Tell point that I said hi, mutedly.
Sorry, I think you mean "mutt" Plese lern how to spel!
point says: " "
That means, spelling is mute.
That means, spelling is mute.
Yes, but spelling is definitely not moot.
Moar Vodka!!!
To mix a cocktail? what'llyou have: Black Russian, White Russian, Moot Russian, or Mute Russian ?
I prefer mute Russians. Their accent drives me nuts.
But are their points mute mutts like ours, or is this just moot?
Mute mutts serve no purpose but eating and pooping. Yikes! LLNL management??
Well...because this blog is for "real" information of LLNS that only "real" employees would pass on to employees...This is not about science, this is about grading the management of the LLNS in these present days. If there were no transition to LLNS, this blog would never be here.
LLNL was a good place to work. The transition to LLNS was the mistake of the century in every sense.
What this tells me is LLNL The True Story will go on until LLNL is no longer under a private contractor like LLNS and goes back to being a facility which offer a pension exactly like the OLD UC pension program. As long as it is an "at will" society you have seen the best years LLNL will ever be.