Skip to main content

Decreased LANL Fellows

Image
By scooby

 The American Physical Society only gave two Fellows to LANL this year. 10-15 years the lab would get seven to ten every year. About a month ago one of the lab senior scientists gave a report about the declining number publications at LANL. The trend started around 2006. Before that LANL was the top publishing lab in the DOE system now it has fallen behind LBNL, ORNL, ANL and soon it will be behind PNNL. Another point is that number people at LANL has also grown in terms of people who could publish.

Comments

Anonymous said…
The elephant in the room is the simple fact that Pete Nanos transformed the Laboratory culture from one where science was at the center to one where Washington politics is at the center. The fallout was and is as predictable as the sun coming up.

From 1943 until 2003, the Laboratory management would say things like, “we will have the fastest computers…the best scientists…the largest accelerators…the finest machine shops etc in the world”, and we did! Now they half-heartedly say, “we will be among the best…”. in all those things, but nobody really believes it because we are rarely in the top 10. Like it or not, Nanos, for-profit management, and Washington bureaucrats have ruined the Labs. They cannot recover.
10/16/2024 3:08 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
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...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
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.
124 comments
Read more

tcp1 looking good

By scooby
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...
105 comments
Read more