Gross deficiencies in the NSF review process

We need the NSB to recognize the gross deficiencies in the NSF review of
proposals. I claim to have discovered everything that is chastised in the
following biased review of the referenced proposal:

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.

Clearly, this NSF reviewer cannot accept the fact that extremely significant
discoveries can be produced outside of academia. Following I have copied
one of the several outstanding discoveries that are in Proposal 1132890.

I think this is sensational. The procedure is to pressurize the apparatus to
about 6000 psi, apply a substantial heat flux in one step, and maintain that
heat flux as pressure is smoothly reduced over about 20 seconds, turn off
power at about 200 psi. Note the gradual increase in temperature as
pressure is reduced, then the upward jump of over 200 Centigrade at
around 3700 psi, followed by a smooth increase of another 100 Centigrade
to the critical pressure, then a smooth decrease of nearly 200 Centigrade,
then a downward jump of about 150 centigrade to the critical temperature.
At that point the subcritical boiling begins and continues until the power is
turned off. At the lowest heat flux there is a smooth continuous plot over the
entire pressure range with no intervening steps. The four plots at increasing
heat fluxes are neatly nested.