Skip to main content

2023 Nobel Prize

 The 2023 Nobel prize season is coming up. Is this the year NIF gets it?

Comments

Anonymous said…
Why on earth would NIF get a Nobel Prize? Must we endure this phony posturing another couple of decades before we move on?
Anonymous said…

Plasma and fusion have had a lot of money put into them, and NIF is the first big success. This on top of the push for alternative energy to fossil fuels. I give it a 50% chance it will get the prize. Like it or not the Nobel prizes can also be partially political.

The bigger question is if it does win, will be good for LLNL and NNSA in general in terms of more money and more science?
Anonymous said…
"NIF" cannot get a Nobel Prize. The "science" prizes (i.e., not the Peace Prize) can only be awarded to actual people. Those people must still be alive (at least at the time they were nominated), and only three people can receive the award for the same accomplishment. NIF's "successful" shots were the result of the efforts of hundreds (if not more) people.

If the *concept* of ICF is up for receiving a Nobel, then the unclassified literature would have it going to the authors of the 1972 Nature paper with lead author John Nuckolls, who would go on to become Director of LLNL: NUCKOLLS, J., WOOD, L., THIESSEN, A. et al. Laser Compression of Matter to Super-High Densities: Thermonuclear (CTR) Applications. Nature 239, 139–142 (1972). https://doi.org/10.1038/239139a0

There were four authors of this unclassified paper, but Thiessen passed away last December, so potentially the remaining 3 authors could be nominated. The problem is that there was classified work with not necessarily the same authorship that really set out the necessary physics. I'm not sure how the Nobel Committee could deal with that.

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...

Trump is to gut the labs.

The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.

tcp1 looking good

I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...