Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Tyranny at the National Science Foundation


Subject:                NSF discourages the real American Innovators

Date:     11/19/2017 1:23:56 PM Mountain Standard Time

From:    bobleyse@aol.com

To:          kari_emond@risch.senate.gov

Senator Risch, 

It is time for funding of our National Science Foundation (NSF) to be substantially reduced.  This past Saturday NSF issued the following spectacular announcement:

Innovation Corps - National Innovation Network Teams Program (I-CorpsTM Teams)



However, it is less spectacular hundreds of words later:

Who May Submit Proposals:

Proposals may only be submitted by the following:

·         Universities and Colleges - Universities and two- and four-year colleges (including community colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in, the US acting on behalf of their faculty members. Such organizations also are referred to as academic institutions.

Briefly Senator, I know a lot about the NSF.  For example, I took my discoveries to UCLA and we jointly submitted a proposal to NSF.  It was rejected.  So, without my awareness, UCLA submitted an essentially identical proposal on its own  and it was accepted.  I then submitted my proposal and it was vehemently rejected.  The academicians resent significant discoveries that originated outside of their turf.  Following is one of the three reviews that is far more vindictive than objective; as well as being loaded with errors.  Furthermore, NSF will not disclose the identity of that reviewer and that is tyranny.

·         Proposal Number:

1132890
Proposal Title:

Proprietary Transformative Separations
Received by NSF:

03/01/11
Principal Investigator:

Robert Leyse



Review #3



Proposal Number:

1132890
NSF Program:

THERMAL TRANSPORT PROCESSES
Principal Investigator:

Leyse, Robert H
Proposal Title:

Proprietary Transformative Separations
Rating:

Fair






REVIEW:
What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?

The most compelling portion of this proposal is that the PI has identified an anomalous boiling heat transfer regime from microscale wire surfaces. Unfortunately, the PI has not presented a convincing research plan that will lead to a fundamental understanding of the heat transfer process he has identified. Countless anomalous regimes have been identified in boiling heat transfer. While the PI believes that his discoveries are transformative, this Reviewer fails to see it. Truly transformative research will seek to explain the physical mechanisms driving the anomalous observations, and provide technologists with the understanding that may lead to technological advances. However, the PI fails to mention any of the various physical boiling phenomena at different length and time scale which may influence the process. For example, the PI claims his measurements are steady state. This completely ignores the time scales associated with ebullition. The PI claims the dispersive mechanism is turbulence without any evidence. It can just as easily be hypothesized that the dispersive mechanism is microbubble growth and collapse that has been observed in highly subcooled systems. It is unfortunate that the PI has expended so much effort to convince NSF to fund his proposed research. If the PI is convinced that his discoveries are transformative and can lead to revolutionary new technology, he should focus his efforts on developing that technology. For whatever it is worth, this Reviewer believes that the heat transfer behavior observed is confined to microscale wires, and attempts at scale-up would not be fruitful.

What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?

It is difficult to identify broader impact associated with the proposal.

Summary Statement

Past Reviewers have been too gentle in pointing out the weaknesses of the proposed study. The PI should not be encouraged to resubmit a proposal covering the core topic.



Senator, this past Saturday’s Wall Street Journal has a significant discussion on page A11, Trump vs. the Deep Regulatory State.  It is time for an equivalent discussion of how the NSF has become dominated by assorted forces to the disadvantage of the real American innovators.

Robert H. Leyse


No comments: