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.
Friday, June 26, 2020
An unusual lawsuit at LLNL
Don’t know what to say to this somewhat bizarre lawsuit:
The whole thing does seem odd. He sure did not work at the lab very long and representing yourself in court is a very bad/crazy idea. I am not sure if he is a crackpot but he may well be one. Another odd thing is it said he did postdocs at SFSU and Sonoma State? These are very strange places to do a postdoc. Heck I had no idea that there could even be postdocs at these places. Also as for his publication record I don't see very much of anything. What little I do find is are some statements about how industry is so much better than academics. I am leaning crackpot on this.
Correction: The article said he just did two postdocs but was a "teacher" at San Francisco City College and Sonoma State. It did not specify where he did his postdocs. I am not sure what that means but it does not sound like a tenure track position but just one of those part time teaching gigs that you cannot really live off. I looked online and he some statements that seem to be negative on academics. As for the bit about "deep and independent thinker "you might expect that this could be confirmed by some high profile or high impact work which might confirm this but I have found nothing. The fact that his time at LLNL was so short indicates that something was really wrong. Simply not keeping up with assignments sounds a bit fishy, maybe this guy was just a complete nightmare to work with. Of course representing himself in court will be a complete disaster and is the biggest giveaway that something is off with the guy. Hell even lawyers know better not represent themselves in court.
I’m noticing that the younger generation likes to use the codes as black boxes. They assume everything is going to automatically overlay with experimental results. If it doesn’t, they get freaked out and start calling the codes “wrong”. A young guy I worked with did this without questioning the inputs or understanding the underlying models.
I think I got his publication record. He has something like 100 citations. If this is correct it is very weak and I am surprised he was even hired in LLNL in the first place, it may explain why he did not last very long.
The real question is how they hired this guy in the first place.
6/27/2020 8:40 AM
Yep. I think we could have done much better than this. I would presume he did interview and a talk? The talk often gives away what they really know but I think a number of people are just hired as is because there was money available or was someones bar buddy.
"He was a postdoc at Los Alamos for two years but left when he couldn't pursue his own research interests.
6/27/2020 4:15 PM"
I am not sure what that means. Are you implying he was offered a job at LANL? A postdoc is for two or three years after which if he/she is good enough a job offer may be made. Perhaps they turn in down perhaps they take it, the point of the postdoc is to see how well they do ect. The question is did he complete the postdoc and was made some offer and said no, or did he leave during his postdoc because he could not pursue his own research? The latter is bit odd, because if he was a fellow, (which I doubt) you can do you own work. If you are just a regular postdoc you have to work in what you where hired to do but in general 1/2 or 1/3 of you time is for your own work. If he was a postdoc at LANL he sure did not publish much. In any case it looks like LANL dodged a bullet.
If you believe your code, and ignore the data you are likely to get promoted. If you believe your data, and ignore the code, you are likely to get screwed. Welcome to the (not so) new reality.
Below is a link to the persons record. If accurate it is very weak.
https://inspirehep.net/authors/1024107
These papers have almost zero citations in other words no impact. The other odd thing is the number of single author papers. Having one or two is fine but with most of these papers being single author and no one citing them is a big red flag. Crackpots most often have single author papers.
As for Los Alamos it appears he published only one paper as postdoc that got 6 citations. That is a very poor showing for a postdoc and I doubt he was offered a job at LANL with that kind of record. I strongly suspect that he did not get along nor could work with his advisor. I simply do not trust this persons scientific background enough to take anything he has to say seriously.
"Was he a paleo climate scientist at some point?"
Cute, I would simply say that he was simply a poor scientist which means he may not understand even what modeling is or why it is done.
I had disagreements happen between code and experiment. It’s no cause to accuse people. Also, with TATB stuff (what we called LX17), everything has been validated with hydros and underground tests. If there is disagreement for a particular HE experiment, that’s great news. Now we can try to understand it.
Didn't get very far at the lab with that tactic, did you? "Yes sir!" trumps clear logical reasons for disagreement every time at NNSA labs in 2020.
7/02/2020 1:20 PM
Oh, come on. I am as cynical is the next guy about the NNSA labs but you are just full of it with this. I still stand by that if you give a logical and well thought out counter point that it will be taken seriously at least in my opinion. Sure there are always a few literal crackpots, you can explain to them why the are wrong but they refuse to listen.
3:16 is a probably a Fed, not a regular staff member. They like to pretend that everything at NNSA labs is ship-shape, logical, and orderly. Of course nothing could be further from the truth.
Anonymous said... 3:16 is a probably a Fed, not a regular staff member. They like to pretend that everything at NNSA labs is ship-shape, logical, and orderly. Of course nothing could be further from the truth.
7/03/2020 3:59 AM
Please, a fed at the NNSA wouldn’t bother even looking at this blog. Those guys do absolutely no work and pretty content.
Well, I am not a fed or an contractor (any longer), but I know a bunch of feds at NNSA and DOE who are pretty much the experts at what they do and know their stuff. Not saying in all areas, but beware of broad brushes.
6:00 Get real. There are no scientific experts among DOE feds, or pretty much anyone within the beltway. They ARE experts at: fleecing the taxpayer, living off the work of others, and obtaining Congressional funding for useless projects.
Your viewpoint is extremely narrow and shallow. Plus, no one said "scientific experts." There is much broader expertise in DOE/NNSA. Again, your prejudiced brush is too broad.
During my last year at the lab there was a meeting in B123 where high level DOE/NNSA types were in attendance to give out congratulatory backslaps for whatever morale boosting. While they were passing out the attaboys one of the Feds noted that the results obtained from NIF tests and the predicted outcome from the codes did not match. He was giving the hairy eyeball to folks in Comp and stating that there was high confidence in the diagnostic data and he wanted to know why the predictions of the code did not match the results.
We will have to wait for testimony in the trial, if it does go to trial, but just because you predict it doesn't mean you got it right.
23 comments:
He clearly did not understand the work ethic required for working at Livermore.
The whole thing does seem odd. He sure did not work at the lab very long and representing yourself in court is a very bad/crazy idea. I am not sure if he is a crackpot but he may well be one. Another odd thing is it said he did postdocs at SFSU and Sonoma State? These are very strange places to do a postdoc. Heck I had no idea that there could even be postdocs at these places. Also as for his publication record I don't see very much of anything. What little I do find is are some statements about how industry is so much better than academics. I am leaning crackpot on this.
6/26/2020 9:00 PM
Correction: The article said he just did two postdocs but was a "teacher" at San Francisco City College and Sonoma State. It did not specify where he did his postdocs. I am not sure what that means but it does not sound like a tenure track position but just one of those part time teaching gigs that you cannot really live off. I looked online and he some statements that seem to be negative on academics.
As for the bit about "deep and independent thinker "you might expect that this could be confirmed by some high profile or high impact work which might confirm this but I have found nothing. The fact that his time at LLNL was so short indicates that something was really wrong. Simply not keeping up with assignments sounds a bit fishy, maybe this guy was just a complete nightmare to work with. Of course representing himself in court will be a complete disaster and is the biggest giveaway that something is off with the guy. Hell even lawyers know better not represent themselves in court.
The real question is how they hired this guy in the first place.
I’m noticing that the younger generation likes to use the codes as black boxes. They assume everything is going to automatically overlay with experimental results. If it doesn’t, they get freaked out and start calling the codes “wrong”. A young guy I worked with did this without questioning the inputs or understanding the underlying models.
I think I got his publication record. He has something like 100 citations. If this is correct it is very weak and I am surprised he was even hired in LLNL in the first place, it may explain
why he did not last very long.
The real question is how they hired this guy in the first place.
6/27/2020 8:40 AM
Yep. I think we could have done much better than this. I would presume he did interview and a talk? The talk often gives away what they really know but I think a number of people are just hired as is because there was money available or was someones bar buddy.
He was a postdoc at Los Alamos for two years but left when he couldn't pursue his own research interests.
"He was a postdoc at Los Alamos for two years but left when he couldn't pursue his own research interests.
6/27/2020 4:15 PM"
I am not sure what that means. Are you implying he was offered a job at LANL? A postdoc is for two or three years after which if he/she is good enough a job offer may be made. Perhaps they turn in down perhaps they take it, the point of the postdoc is to see how well they do ect. The question is did he complete the postdoc and was made some offer and said no, or did he leave during his postdoc because he could not pursue his own research? The latter is bit odd, because if he was a fellow, (which I doubt) you can do you own work. If you are just a regular postdoc you have to work in what you where hired to do but in general 1/2 or 1/3 of you time is for your own work. If he was a postdoc at LANL he sure did not publish much. In any case it looks like LANL dodged a bullet.
How does a 50 year old PhD physicist not understand the difference between models and reality? Was he a paleo climate scientist at some point?
If you believe your code, and ignore the data you are likely to get promoted. If you believe your data, and ignore the code, you are likely to get screwed. Welcome to the (not so) new reality.
Below is a link to the persons record. If accurate it is very weak.
https://inspirehep.net/authors/1024107
These papers have almost zero citations in other words no impact. The other odd thing is the number of single author papers. Having one or two is fine but with most of these papers being single author and no one citing them is a big red flag. Crackpots most often have single author papers.
As for Los Alamos it appears he published only one paper as postdoc that got 6 citations. That is a very poor showing for a postdoc and I doubt he was offered a job at LANL with that kind of record. I strongly suspect that he did not get along nor could work with his advisor. I simply do not trust this persons scientific background enough to take anything he has to say seriously.
"Was he a paleo climate scientist at some point?"
Cute, I would simply say that he was simply a poor scientist which means he may not understand even what modeling is or why it is done.
Anonymous said...
" He clearly did not understand the work ethic required for working at Livermore.
6/26/2020 8:15 PM"
Agree with your boss, regardless of facts.
Agree with your boss, regardless of facts.
6/29/2020 4:01 PM
You don't have to agree with your boss but you have to give some clear logical reasons for doing so.
I had disagreements happen between code and experiment. It’s no cause to accuse people. Also, with TATB stuff (what we called LX17), everything has been validated with hydros and underground tests. If there is disagreement for a particular HE experiment, that’s great news. Now we can try to understand it.
You don't have to agree with your boss but you have to give some clear logical reasons for doing so.
6/29/2020 6:46 PM
Didn't get very far at the lab with that tactic, did you? "Yes sir!" trumps clear logical reasons for disagreement every time at NNSA labs in 2020.
Didn't get very far at the lab with that tactic, did you? "Yes sir!" trumps clear logical reasons for disagreement every time at NNSA labs in 2020.
7/02/2020 1:20 PM
Oh, come on. I am as cynical is the next guy about the NNSA labs but you are just full of it with this. I still stand by that if you give a logical and well thought out counter point that it will be taken seriously at least in my opinion. Sure there are always a few literal crackpots, you can explain to them why the are wrong but they refuse to listen.
3:16 is a probably a Fed, not a regular staff member. They like to pretend that everything at NNSA labs is ship-shape, logical, and orderly. Of course nothing could be further from the truth.
Anonymous said...
3:16 is a probably a Fed, not a regular staff member. They like to pretend that everything at NNSA labs is ship-shape, logical, and orderly. Of course nothing could be further from the truth.
7/03/2020 3:59 AM
Please, a fed at the NNSA wouldn’t bother even looking at this blog. Those guys do absolutely no work and pretty content.
Well, I am not a fed or an contractor (any longer), but I know a bunch of feds at NNSA and DOE who are pretty much the experts at what they do and know their stuff. Not saying in all areas, but beware of broad brushes.
6:00 Get real. There are no scientific experts among DOE feds, or pretty much anyone within the beltway. They ARE experts at: fleecing the taxpayer, living off the work of others, and obtaining Congressional funding for useless projects.
7/04/2020 6:58 AM
Your viewpoint is extremely narrow and shallow. Plus, no one said "scientific experts." There is much broader expertise in DOE/NNSA. Again, your prejudiced brush is too broad.
During my last year at the lab there was a meeting in B123 where high level DOE/NNSA types were in attendance to give out congratulatory backslaps for whatever morale boosting. While they were passing out the attaboys one of the Feds noted that the results obtained from NIF tests and the predicted outcome from the codes did not match. He was giving the hairy eyeball to folks in Comp and stating that there was high confidence in the diagnostic data and he wanted to know why the predictions of the code did not match the results.
We will have to wait for testimony in the trial, if it does go to trial, but just because you predict it doesn't mean you got it right.
Post a Comment