This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA.
The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore,
The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them.
Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted.
Blog author serves as a moderator.
For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com
Blog rules
Stay on topic.
No profanity, threatening language, pornography.
NO NAME CALLING.
No political debate.
Posts and comments are posted several times a day.
No propagating burn. I think they’re just getting better hot spot conditions? Pretty meaningless. I wish they would explain some of this stuff in their papers.
If memory and math serve, performance has improved by about a factor of 20 over the best of 2012, with another factor of 40 to go. Most of the factor of 20 came from using a diamond ablator, instead of plastic, but there are no more tricks like that up their sleeves, and diamond always looked like the best ablator option on paper. Nice result, but where does it lead other than a flag planting and another PRL?
I think about what is now understood re the physics and engineering of IC fusion, target design, heating, etc., compared to, say, 2000. Much of that came from NIF, in small incremental steps (i.e., science) that were invariably decried on this blog, one way or another, as “pretty meaningless.”
You can argue about whether it has been cost effective (although where else was some of that incremental knowledge to be gleaned?)
You can argue about whether the facility and its mission have been hyped (like that never happens elsewhere).
But I for one am weary of the “meaningless” label. Seriously...if you aren’t a fan, fine, but unless you also happen to work there, I think “meaningless” is not your call to make.
But I for one am weary of the “meaningless” label. Seriously...if you aren’t a fan, fine, but unless you also happen to work there, I think “meaningless” is not your call to make.
Tell me how is it fair for that some people get to play in a sandbox for tiny incremental results while others have to do real work that is not fun that they do not want to do but actually needs to be done. Tell me that will you. Your argument about incremental progress is weak, if it does no pay off down the road than it was just incremental progress to nowhere. Even if it does partially pay off it is still unfair to all the other workers who do get to play in sandboxes. The other issue is that the sandboxes think they deserve to play in a sandbox and that it is valuable, this is in general the issue with all of scientists. The reality is only 1/100 scientists contribute anything of value to the world, ask yourself how percentage of scientists get a Noble prize, very few. Even in that case it sometimes for something useless like the universe accelerating very fast or that gravity waves exists. Ya gravity waves will lead to a better smart phone or maintaining the stockpile. Science is like art, you have a small number of De Vincis, Picassoes but the rest are useless but act like they De Vinci or Picassoe.
On the other hand 1/1 real workers create actual value to the world everyday without Nobel prizes. Perhaps I am being a bit harsh but consider that UC just won the LANL contract again, from what I can tell the only thing of value they added was science to the lab, yet LANL is full of problems. We have let sandboxes win again. Why should Bechtel be punished by sandboxes? Bechtel actually did something real for the world, it built dams, rebuilt Iraq, made highways, built whole cities from the ground up, compare that to UC and you will see why so many people are so angry. How did it come to this how did society bless the idea of sandboxing as a great thing?
7:47 brings up an interesting point; the Phys Rev Lett announcing this achievement is NOT open access and is NOT freely available to the American public. This is in direct opposition to the established principle that publicly funded research results must be available without charge to the American taxpayers who are footing the bills. All reputable institutions support open access, and gladly provide the small surcharge for it. Under US Law, this surcharge is an allowable expense. That the NIF researchers were too lazy to take the few minutes to take this step to make their results freely available the Americans supporting their work speaks loads about their professionalism.
The anti-scientist guy is back, who identifies himself exclusively by use of "Ya" when everyone else in the country uses "yeah." No need to read his long and mostly incoherent post; he hasn't changed. Still the bitter passed-over loser who thinks if you can't win a Nobel Prize you are worthless as a scientist.
“You can argue about whether it has been cost effective (although where else was some of that incremental knowledge to be gleaned?)”
There is no argument. It has not been cost effective.
“You can argue about whether the facility and its mission have been hyped (like that never happens elsewhere).”
There is no argument. It has obviously been hyped.
“But I for one am weary of the ‘meaningless’ label. Seriously...if you aren’t a fan, fine, but unless you also happen to work there, I think ‘meaningless’ is not your call to make.”
It depends on what is meant by “meaningless.” Meaningful to the general taxpayer? Meaningful to sponsoring programs? Meaningful to the understanding of HEP? To the taxpayer, not obviously. But then again, to the taxpayer, neither is LIGO. To sponsoring programs, I think it is highly questionable but they keep paying for it. To the HEP field? Time will tell as to the depth of meaning of the accomplishments. It’s a bit too early to call.
However, because of the first two issues above - and particularly the hype one - the meaningfulness of any accomplishments are clouded.
And as for the anti-science troll, he is best ignored. He does not make reasoned arguments, but emotional ones tied to his narcissistic desire for some sort of revenge. He’s obviously also the same guy that was screeching “BECHTEL IS GOING TO WIN!” He needs a good therapist to help him move on with his life.
UC didn't win the LANL contract again, "Triad" LLC won.
UC was originally the sole manager of LANL, but UC did a such a poor job in their last ~10 years that UC got fired.
Then UC was rehired as the lead of LANS, a two party LLC with Bechtel. UC lost a small amount of scope but retained control. LANS did an absolutely terrible job and was fired. DOE/NNSA must have thought that Bechtel could help UC improve their inept management, but DOE/NNSA was completely wrong.
Now UC is a member of a three party LLC, with Battelle in charge.
DOE/NNSA has demoted UC to a support role. Maybe UC can now concentrate on the things they actually do well leaving the things they do poorly at to other, more capable managers. Of course, things won't be a bit better at LANL if Battelle leaves the incompetent UC management in place.
DOE/NNSA has demoted UC to a support role. Maybe UC can now concentrate on the things they actually do well leaving the things they do poorly at to other, more capable managers. Of course, things won't be a bit better at LANL if Battelle leaves the incompetent UC management in place.
June 24, 2018 at 10:41 AM
Bitter much? Look UC did a great job that is why DOE wants them back. I don't know your what your personal issue is with UC but you are not very rational about it. Also Battelle is not in charge it is three equal teams, this has been stated very very clearly. I would guess that UC will now have much more input in running LANL than it did with LANS. By the way I have a bit of inside baseball on this and what happed in the last 10 years. Look UC won, get over it and move on with your life. Have a nice day ;)
UC will have a say in the management of LANL. Therefore , UC won. Explanation: It did not lose, like being on a losing team such as Bechtel or UT. There are only winners and losers in the real world, hence, and since UC did not lose -- it won.
19 comments:
No propagating burn. I think they’re just getting better hot spot conditions? Pretty meaningless.
I wish they would explain some of this stuff in their papers.
We’ve improved the performance by three orders of magnitude and only have two more to go!
It’s always just a decade away.
If memory and math serve, performance has improved by about a factor of 20 over the best of 2012, with another factor of 40 to go. Most of the factor of 20 came from using a diamond ablator, instead of plastic, but there are no more tricks like that up their sleeves, and diamond always looked like the best ablator option on paper. Nice result, but where does it lead other than a flag planting and another PRL?
I think about what is now understood re the physics and engineering of IC fusion, target design, heating, etc., compared to, say, 2000. Much of that came from NIF, in small incremental steps (i.e., science) that were invariably decried on this blog, one way or another, as “pretty meaningless.”
You can argue about whether it has been cost effective (although where else was some of that incremental knowledge to be gleaned?)
You can argue about whether the facility and its mission have been hyped (like that never happens elsewhere).
But I for one am weary of the “meaningless” label. Seriously...if you aren’t a fan, fine, but unless you also happen to work there, I think “meaningless” is not your call to make.
Unless you are a taxpayer
...or a scientist with integrity.
But I for one am weary of the “meaningless” label. Seriously...if you aren’t a fan, fine, but unless you also happen to work there, I think “meaningless” is not your call to make.
Tell me how is it fair for that some people get to play in a sandbox for tiny incremental results while others have to do real work that is not fun that they do not want to do but actually needs to be done. Tell me that will you. Your argument about incremental progress is weak, if it does no pay off down the road than it was just incremental progress to nowhere. Even if it does partially pay off it is still unfair to all the other workers who do get to play in sandboxes. The other issue is that the sandboxes think they deserve to play in a sandbox and that it is valuable, this is in general the issue with all of scientists. The reality is only 1/100 scientists contribute anything of value to the world, ask yourself how percentage of scientists get a Noble prize, very few. Even in that case it sometimes for something useless like the universe accelerating very fast or that gravity waves exists. Ya gravity waves will lead to a better smart phone or maintaining the stockpile. Science is like art, you have a small number of De Vincis, Picassoes but the rest are useless but act like they De Vinci or Picassoe.
On the other hand 1/1 real workers create actual value to the world everyday without Nobel prizes. Perhaps I am being a bit harsh but consider that UC just won the LANL contract again, from what I can tell the only thing of value they added was science to the lab, yet LANL is full of problems. We have let sandboxes win again. Why should Bechtel be punished by sandboxes? Bechtel actually did something real for the world, it built dams, rebuilt Iraq, made highways, built whole cities from the ground up, compare that to UC and you will see why so many people are so angry. How did it come to this how did society bless the idea of sandboxing as a great thing?
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Unless you are a taxpayer
June 22, 2018 at 7:47 PM
7:47 brings up an interesting point; the Phys Rev Lett announcing this achievement is NOT open access and is NOT freely available to the American public. This is in direct opposition to the established principle that publicly funded research results must be available without charge to the American taxpayers who are footing the bills. All reputable institutions support open access, and gladly provide the small surcharge for it. Under US Law, this surcharge is an allowable expense. That the NIF researchers were too lazy to take the few minutes to take this step to make their results freely available the Americans supporting their work speaks loads about their professionalism.
8:53 ...and their (lack of) integrity.
June 23, 2018 at 8:42 AM
The anti-scientist guy is back, who identifies himself exclusively by use of "Ya" when everyone else in the country uses "yeah." No need to read his long and mostly incoherent post; he hasn't changed. Still the bitter passed-over loser who thinks if you can't win a Nobel Prize you are worthless as a scientist.
“You can argue about whether it has been cost effective (although where else was some of that incremental knowledge to be gleaned?)”
There is no argument. It has not been cost effective.
“You can argue about whether the facility and its mission have been hyped (like that never happens elsewhere).”
There is no argument. It has obviously been hyped.
“But I for one am weary of the ‘meaningless’ label. Seriously...if you aren’t a fan, fine, but unless you also happen to work there, I think ‘meaningless’ is not your call to make.”
It depends on what is meant by “meaningless.” Meaningful to the general taxpayer? Meaningful to sponsoring programs? Meaningful to the understanding of HEP? To the taxpayer, not obviously. But then again, to the taxpayer, neither is LIGO. To sponsoring programs, I think it is highly questionable but they keep paying for it. To the HEP field? Time will tell as to the depth of meaning of the accomplishments. It’s a bit too early to call.
However, because of the first two issues above - and particularly the hype one - the meaningfulness of any accomplishments are clouded.
And as for the anti-science troll, he is best ignored. He does not make reasoned arguments, but emotional ones tied to his narcissistic desire for some sort of revenge. He’s obviously also the same guy that was screeching “BECHTEL IS GOING TO WIN!” He needs a good therapist to help him move on with his life.
UC didn't win the LANL contract again, "Triad" LLC won.
UC was originally the sole manager of LANL, but UC did a such a poor job in their last ~10 years that UC got fired.
Then UC was rehired as the lead of LANS, a two party LLC with Bechtel. UC lost a small amount of scope but retained control. LANS did an absolutely terrible job and was fired. DOE/NNSA must have thought that Bechtel could help UC improve their inept management, but DOE/NNSA was completely wrong.
Now UC is a member of a three party LLC, with Battelle in charge.
DOE/NNSA has demoted UC to a support role. Maybe UC can now concentrate on the things they actually do well leaving the things they do poorly at to other, more capable managers. Of course, things won't be a bit better at LANL if Battelle leaves the incompetent UC management in place.
DOE/NNSA has demoted UC to a support role. Maybe UC can now concentrate on the things they actually do well leaving the things they do poorly at to other, more capable managers. Of course, things won't be a bit better at LANL if Battelle leaves the incompetent UC management in place.
June 24, 2018 at 10:41 AM
Bitter much? Look UC did a great job that is why DOE wants them back. I don't know your what your personal issue is with UC but you are not very rational about it. Also Battelle is not in charge it is three equal teams, this has been stated very very clearly. I would guess that UC will now have much more input in running LANL than it did with LANS. By the way I have a bit of inside baseball on this and what happed in the last 10 years. Look UC won, get over it and move on with your life. Have a nice day ;)
UC did not "win" idiot. Go read the award statement again and quote here where it says "UC won.'
UC will have a say in the management of LANL. Therefore , UC won. Explanation: It did not lose, like being on a losing team such as Bechtel or UT. There are only winners and losers in the real world, hence, and since UC did not lose -- it won.
Well, let's see...
1. LANL was changing contractors, as evidenced by DOE/NNSA putting out a bid.
2. UC wanted to retain its affiliation with LANL, as demonstrated by its membership in a bidding team.
3. The team of which UC was a part won the bid, thereby retaining UC's affiliation with LANL.
Within the parameters of the problem statement, it thus seems fair to say that UC won.
Or even more simply, Triad won, so each of its constituent team members won something, which was the point of their bidding.
UC was part of bid that won, so UC won. Clear now?
Tough to argue with 2:27’s logic. I’m sure Bechtel will continue to try. One of the many reasons they lost.
Post a Comment