From the Huffington Post Why Workplace Jargon Is A Big Problem http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/work-words_n_5159868.html?utm_hp_ref=business&ir=Business When we replace a specific task with a vague expression, we grant the task more magnitude than it deserves. If we don't describe an activity plainly, it seems less like an easily achievable goal and more like a cloudy state of existence that fills unknowable amounts of time. A fog of fast and empty language has seeped into the workplace. I say it's time we air it out, making room for simple, concrete words, and, therefore, more deliberate actions. By striking the following 26 words from your speech, I think you'll find that you're not quite as overwhelmed as you thought you were. Count the number that LLNLs mangers use. touch base circle back bandwidth - impactful - utilize - table the discussion deep dive - engagement - viral value-add - one-sheet deliverable - work product - incentivise - take it to the ...
Comments
Some of the comments on the other blogs are kind interesting.
(1) I would guess they could get to 100% but how much greater would you need it to be really be viable as useful energy source is it 100, 10 times or just 3 time? Anyone have any ides
(2) One thing is also the cost per shot versus energy, I would guess if they could really get something going than ways to make it cheaper would be worked.
(3) If they get to 100% can this considered something that could be a Nobel prize? Although it is great technical feat I am not sure there is any grand new discovery science but perhaps I am wrong. Maby it just has lots of impact but from a series of smaller things rather than just one big result. In that is case I think it could be fair to give the prize. If it becomes a legit energy source or followup works using the same approach then I think it would qualify. The Nobel prize in physics includes technological advances as a possible criteria nut just scientific ones.
That is certainly a big jump up and something to be happy about. I have a couple of problems. The first is it is only a single shot, if they could that two shot, three shots and so on then I think this is major. The issue is that this was a single shot, no two samples are the same on the atomic level by definition so it could be some odd property go the surface of the sample, lack of grain boundaries or defects act, not to mention that rare events can arise where by chance some particles just happen to go the right way due to chaotic dynamics. This could be some kind of lucky shot kind of thing where some unknown parameter could be present that could hard to reproduce. Single event discoveries happen all the time that cannot be reproduced, like the magnetic monopole. Perhaps they know a lot more that will be in the paper that shows that this result is repeatable and can be built upon. Let us hope so., I am also a bit leery they that the go from 170 to 1.35 MJ, a rather large jump. It may be possible that the burning phase simply has a long trail distribution with mostly short times but occasionally you get a long time.
On a funny note I was watching popular sci-tech podcast tonight and they talked about the great new laser induced fusion just done at some place in California when someone said you mean UC Berkley National labs to be exact. Ha
Correct, Laser fusion will never be a viable energy source, and was never meant to be.