Fusion

[clarkman]

Looks like the NIH still gives out grant money to those found guilty of research misconduct.

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

This type of thing is extraordinarily rare as noted by the small number in the article. I've worked in biomedical research for 20+ years and still don't know of a single researcher I have worked for or with who is in it for the money. They take this very seriously (as they should). Like Canuck from KS, I found the original statement from Fontinalis to be borderline offensive simply because it implies that this happens all of the time, which it just doesn't. I don't know how many people received grants over the last 25 years, but I'd bet that the number (the ones who received funding after sanctions) listed in the article is far under 0.000001%.

Also, from the author himself: ""I think it's a fair question to ask if it's right for those [scarce] resources to go to someone who's been found guilty of misconduct," Galbraith says. But even he's not sure about the final answer. "It depends on what day you ask me," he says. He notes that one new initiative—known as the P.I. Program—is trying to rehabilitate scientists from various U.S. universities with a history of bad behavior. "

 

[Doublebluff]

This is a real issue and I don't want to in any way demean the significance of research fraud. Here is an article in science the year before that one that talks of how individuals who are guilty of misconduct might be 'rehabilitated". This article directly addresses cases of individuals who committed fraud and eventually received more research $$. You can decide if these are reasonable actions. I am out-

https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.354.6311.408

 

[Anonymous member 148]

This type of thing is extraordinarily rare as noted by the small number in the article. I've worked in biomedical research for 20+ years and still don't know of a single researcher I have worked for or with who is in it for the money. They take this very seriously (as they should). Like Canuck from KS, I found the original statement from Fontinalis to be borderline offensive simply because it implies that this happens all of the time, which it just doesn't. I don't know how many people received grants over the last 25 years, but I'd bet that the number (the ones who received funding after sanctions) listed in the article is far under 0.000001%.

Also, from the author himself: ""I think it's a fair question to ask if it's right for those [scarce] resources to go to someone who's been found guilty of misconduct," Galbraith says. But even he's not sure about the final answer. "It depends on what day you ask me," he says. He notes that one new initiative—known as the P.I. Program—is trying to rehabilitate scientists from various U.S. universities with a history of bad behavior. "

I'm sure in certain fields it's more pervasive. My original statement should have been less broad. But hey I have a serious lack of trust in our storied institutions lately.

 

[Long_Rod_Silvers]

This type of thing is extraordinarily rare as noted by the small number in the article. I've worked in biomedical research for 20+ years and still don't know of a single researcher I have worked for or with who is in it for the money. They take this very seriously (as they should). Like Canuck from KS, I found the original statement from Fontinalis to be borderline offensive simply because it implies that this happens all of the time, which it just doesn't. I don't know how many people received grants over the last 25 years, but I'd bet that the number (the ones who received funding after sanctions) listed in the article is far under 0.000001%.

Also, from the author himself: ""I think it's a fair question to ask if it's right for those [scarce] resources to go to someone who's been found guilty of misconduct," Galbraith says. But even he's not sure about the final answer. "It depends on what day you ask me," he says. He notes that one new initiative—known as the P.I. Program—is trying to rehabilitate scientists from various U.S. universities with a history of bad behavior. "

What's your take? Should it be a zero tolerance policy?

 

[Anonymous member 148]

What's your take? Should it be a zero tolerance policy?

Would suck to lose talent, rehabilitation with extra scrutiny.

 

[SurfnFish]

There are cases found, yes, but this is not wide spread as the as the original poster suggest "cooking the books like usual", these are exceptions and as you just showed, are rooted out.

At the medical school I worked for, submitted research and education grant applications from the physcians and education faculty went through intense vetting, including on campus visits from the grantor offices to deep dive the submissions.

Conversely, the pure definition of fraudulent grant application is applying for a grant where the applicant lies about the ethnic/gender ownership of the company they are applying on behalf of. Despicable.

 

[Anonymous member 148]

At the medical school I worked for, submitted research and education grant applications from the physcians and education faculty went through intense vetting, including on campus visits from the grantor offices to deep dive the submissions.

Conversely, the pure definition of fraudulent grant application is applying for a grant where the applicant lies about the ethnic/gender ownership of the company they are applying on behalf of. Despicable.

So my wife should be denied a grant because she's married to a white man?

 

[Canuck from Kansas]

So my wife should be denied a grant because she's married to a white man?

Really have no information, only going but what you are saying. The problem is, you already admit to fudging the facts, so I would submit that I have doubts that the only reason the grant was denied was for the reason you state. This is the problem with being "untruthful", no one knows what should be believed.

 

[Canuck from Kansas]

To bring this full circle, how many remember the Fleischmann and Pons scandal around cold fusion? They were caught out pretty quickly.

 

[Anonymous member 148]

Really have no information, only going but what you are saying. The problem is, you already admit to fudging the facts, so I would submit that I have doubts that the only reason the grant was denied was for the reason you state. This is the problem with being "untruthful", no one knows what should be believed.

We're married, we own our business 50/50, there's 100 shares of stock in our s-corp. There were specific grants to help businesses during the pandemic that were for women or people of color only. I find this wrong on many levels. My wife fits this criteria, I don't. For 100$ you can change your filing with the secretary of state. I changes ours to 51% her 49% ownership me. I have no problems sleeping at night
Sorry to derail your thread @Zak but I guess this needed clarification. Back to FUSION.

 

[SurfnFish]

So my wife should be denied a grant because she's married to a white man?

You consistently mock the postings of others, boast of stealing from the food market, of submitting fraudulent grant applications, and of sleeping 'well at nights'...your self-entitlement is obvious, as is your character

 

[clarkman]

What's your take? Should it be a zero tolerance policy?

I don't have a good answer for that. I'd guess it would have to be a case by case basis, but as Fontinalis mentioned, with a whole lot of extra scrutiny. Again, we're talking about such a miniscule number in the grand scheme of things (don't take that to mean nothing should be done).

Edit: I just looked it up and the NIH alone gives out over 60k grants per year. One can do the math from there.

Sorry for the fusion derailment to the OP.

 

[wanderingrichard]

To bring this full circle, how many remember the Fleischmann and Pons scandal around cold fusion? They were caught out pretty quickly.

Ok, now I'm a bit facetiously confused I'd thought Fleischmann and Pons were purveyors of both butter and yeast. Didnt know they'd branched into nuclear power.

Being serious, not to confused with Yahoo Serius, I do remember reading that this group of researchers had to really up the ante on magnetic compression and containment fields. And, i know that one of the products of fusion is plasma, which melts pretty much anything, right? So, how do they contain the plasma during reaction?

 

[SilverFly]

Ok, now I'm a bit facetiously confused I'd thought Fleischmann and Pons were purveyors of both butter and yeast. Didnt know they'd branched into nuclear power.

Being serious, not to confused with Yahoo Serius, I do remember reading that this group of researchers had to really up the ante on magnetic compression and containment fields. And, i know that one of the products of fusion is plasma, which melts pretty much anything, right? So, how do they contain the plasma during reaction?

In the Tokamak type reactors, the plasma is contained by powerful magnetic fields.

The laser ignition approach does not use any magnetic confinement. Instead it relys on the extreme compression produced by the ionizing pulse. Basically, the laser heats the fuel pellet so rapidly, internal pressure builds faster than the obliterated pellet can expand. Hence "inertial confinement"

 

[DerekWhipple]

When could the power start to flow?

So if fusion isn’t a quick climate fix, could it be a more long-term solution to the world’s energy needs? Perhaps, but cost may be an issue. The National Ignition Facility at Livermore, where the experiment was conducted, was built for $3.5 billion. ITER’s price tag, so far, is more than $20 billion. It’s unclear whether the world could afford any fusion power plants that resulted from these two projects.

Why was this necessary in the article? If fusion power is made viable, life as we know it would change, but apparently we don't want to spend too much? Gimme a break. So far it costs a fraction of the F35 project, and there isn't a risk of operator decapitation or suffocation. It probably would be worth it to blow a few hundred billion at Livermore instead.

 

[kmudgn]

The fusion success will one day be acknowledged as important as Edison's light bulb, or Braton/Bartley/Shockley inventing the transistor. I suspect that my yet as unborn grand children, or possibly great grandchildren will have their world powered by fusion. Unfortunately, not in my lifetime

 

[Flymph]

I'm excited by this and stoked that the breakthrough was achieved in the USA. While they say fusion energy is 20 years away and always will be, maybe that is a real timeline now.

TLDR: the fusion reaction produced more energy than it consumed.

Scientists Achieve Nuclear Fusion Breakthrough With Blast of 192 Lasers (Published 2022)

The advancement by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory researchers will be built on to further develop fusion energy research.

www.nytimes.com

Nuclear fusion does produce radioactive waste. However, in contrast to fission produced wastes, they are short lived and decay to background levels in a very short time.

OK, tell me why the above second sentence should not bother me? Sorry, always been very skeptical of the word "However"! The NRC has been anything but truthful in the past and I still can't get "Silkwood" out of my mind.

 

[Zak]

Nuclear fusion does produce radioactive waste. However, in contrast to fission produced wastes, they are short lived and decay to background levels in a very short time.

OK, tell me why the above second sentence should not bother me? Sorry, always been very skeptical of the word "However"! The NRC has been anything but truthful in the past and I still can't get "Silkwood" out of my mind.

I am not a nuclear scientist and had to look it up. This seems like a good source of info:

https://www.iaea.org/topics/energy/...sion on the other hand,its half life is short.

Does Fusion produce radioactive nuclear waste the same way fission does?​

Nuclear fission power plants have the disadvantage of generating unstable nuclei; some of these are radioactive for millions of years. Fusion on the other hand does not create any long-lived radioactive nuclear waste. A fusion reactor produces helium, which is an inert gas. It also produces and consumes tritium within the plant in a closed circuit. Tritium is radioactive (a beta emitter) but its half life is short. It is only used in low amounts so, unlike long-lived radioactive nuclei, it cannot produce any serious danger. The activation of the reactor’s structural material by intense neutron fluxes is another issue. This strongly depends on what solution for blanket and other structures has been adopted, and its reduction is an important challenge for future fusion experiments.

 

[wanderingrichard]

I am not a nuclear scientist and had to look it up. This seems like a good source of info:

https://www.iaea.org/topics/energy/fusion/faqs#:~:text=Fusion on the other hand,its half life is short.

Does Fusion produce radioactive nuclear waste the same way fission does?​

Nuclear fission power plants have the disadvantage of generating unstable nuclei; some of these are radioactive for millions of years. Fusion on the other hand does not create any long-lived radioactive nuclear waste. A fusion reactor produces helium, which is an inert gas. It also produces and consumes tritium within the plant in a closed circuit. Tritium is radioactive (a beta emitter) but its half life is short. It is only used in low amounts so, unlike long-lived radioactive nuclei, it cannot produce any serious danger. The activation of the reactor’s structural material by intense neutron fluxes is another issue. This strongly depends on what solution for blanket and other structures has been adopted, and its reduction is an important challenge for future fusion experiments.

I can facetiously see a couple good things coming from the dominance of Fusion.

A) with all the generated helium, coupled with bio fuel burning engines for propulsion maybe the rebirth of intercontinental air transportation via dirigible ala Hindenberg.

B) tritium powered optics will be dirt cheap (teasing)

C) when the time comes, home based fusion reactors could solve heating and cooling by combining them into the reactor systems themselves in a closed loop.