Great article on scientific fraud. Relevant the the deuterium EOS fiasco at Livermore
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/when-scientists-lie-ian-freckleton-on-scholarly-misconduct-fraud/7660464
Note that all the fraudulent work mentioned the article was ultimately retracted. No such thing for the Livermore scientists involved in the deuterium work. Why didn't the scientific community ever demand a retraction? Also, why does NNSA continue to fund the very same people to do EOS work on NIF?
Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 483–486 (1997)
Absolute Equation of State Measurements on Shocked Liquid Deuterium up to 200 GPa (2 Mbar)
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/when-scientists-lie-ian-freckleton-on-scholarly-misconduct-fraud/7660464
Note that all the fraudulent work mentioned the article was ultimately retracted. No such thing for the Livermore scientists involved in the deuterium work. Why didn't the scientific community ever demand a retraction? Also, why does NNSA continue to fund the very same people to do EOS work on NIF?
Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 483–486 (1997)
Absolute Equation of State Measurements on Shocked Liquid Deuterium up to 200 GPa (2 Mbar)
Comments
Their attempts to produce isentropic compression data like the Z machine have failed miserably.
It's time for NNSA to pull the plug on these frauds, but they won't. Everyone wants to get along and pretend that all approaches are valid.
NIF should concentrate on producing more and more PoP and Nature articles explaining why ICF is a failure.
But wait, the date of the article is 1997. NIF was not operational. The authors used the 10 beam NOVA laser with less than 60 kJ at 2w or 40 kJ at 3w. This is before the advent of high res CCD camera's. All data was recorded on film (analog) and required painstaking photo densitometry and careful calibration (D-log-E). Streak camera data also on film. It's not a wonder that the data could have given inaccurate conclusions. Compute power was also very limited in 1997 so simulations would have been poor quality. But what do I know ?
How do we answer the Sandia claim that the Da Silva, Celliers, Collins work (Phys Rev Lett. 78(3), 483-486, 1997) is a fraud. I don't think so.
August 5, 2016 at 6:50 PM
Indeed however they blazed a new trail in the utterly wrong direction and published it. In order to make an omelette your have to break a few eggs or waste a few billions dollars but in the end you get an omelette or in the case of NIF nothing, but hey the analogy sounded good.