“My beehives were plagued with wax worms, so I started cleaning them, putting the worms in a plastic bag,” said Dr Federica Bertocchini, at the Biological Research Centre in Madrid. “After a while, I noticed lots of holes and we found it wasn’t only chewing, it was [chemical breakdown], so that was the beginning of the story.”
A team was able to reduce CO2 exhaust of a diesel-powered engine by 86% by replacing 90% of the fuel by hydrogen in a hybrid dual-fuel engine. It looks promising for applications not suitable for other energy sources
A team at the National Ignition Facility (NIF), which is a fusion experiment based at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, has reported that the magnetic fields can boost the temperature of the fusion “hot spot” in experiments by 40 percent and more than triple its energy output, which is “approaching what is required for fusion ignition”
Beyond a few cases of outright misconduct, these practices are rarely done to deceive. They’re an almost inevitable product of an academic world that rewards scientists, above all else, for publishing papers in high-profile journals—journals that prefer flashy studies that make new discoveries over duller ones that check existing work. People are rewarded for being productive rather than being right, for building ever upward instead of checking your foundations. These incentives allow weak studies to be published. And once enough have amassed, they create a collective perception of strength that can be hard to pierce.
« Il faut garder en tête que ce sont des maisons d’édition commerciales dont l’objectif est de faire du profit, décrit-elle. Elles mettent aujourd’hui en place des stratégies que les grandes entreprises dans les autres domaines adoptent également. »
« If the overall cost of the process can be reduced to a level economically comparable with agricultural planting in the future, it is expected to save more than 90% of cultivated land and freshwater resources »