| Bubble Fusion |
Article Index for Bubble |
Website Links For Bubble |
Information AboutBubble Fusion |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT BUBBLE FUSION | |
| nuclear fusion | |
| alternative energy | |
|
ORIGINAL EXPERIMENTS The earliest reference to a sonofusion-type reaction is in US patent 4,333,796 filed by Hugh Flynn in 1978. (Researcher Edward Forringer works at LeTourneau University, a small evangelical Christian school.) Although the apparatus operates in a room temperature environment, this is ''not'' cold fusion (as it is commonly termed in the popular press), as the claimed nuclear reactions would be occurring at the very high temperatures in the core of the imploding bubbles. The researchers used a pulse of neutrons in order to nucleate (i.e., "seed") the tiny bubbles, whereas most previous experiments start with small air bubbles already in the liquid. Using this new method, the team was able to produce stable bubbles that could expand to nearly a millimeter in radius before collapsing. In this way, the researchers stated, they were able to create the conditions necessary to produce very high pressures and temperatures. The sensitivity of the fusion rate to temperature, which is in turn a function of how small the bubbles get when they collapse, in combination with the likely sensitivity of the latter to fine experimental details, may account for the fact that some research workers have claimed to see an effect, while others have not. Taleyarkhan et al. also prepared identical experiments in non-deuterated (normal) acetone and failed to observe neutron emission or tritium production. Taleyarkhan got the idea of bubble fusion from his friend Dr. Mark Embrechts after a friendly post-dinner chat in 1995. OAK RIDGE REPLICATION A rebuttal by Taleyarkhan and the other authors of the original report claimed that the Shapira and Saltmarsh report failed to account for significant differences in experimental setup, including over an inch of shielding between the neutron detector and the sonoluminescing acetone. Taleyarkhan et al. report that when these differences are properly accounted for, the Shapira and Saltmarsh results are consistent with fusion. SUBSEQUENT CLAIMS OF REPLICATION These results differed from the original results in that fusion was occurring for a much longer time frame than previously reported; the original report only showed neutron emission from the initial bubble collapse after the bubble nucleation whereas this report shows neutron emission many acoustic cycles later. The data however was lacking in that too large of a window was used for determination of a coincidence between the neutron emission and sonoluminescence Light Emission . Also, the energy of the detected neutrons was not consistent with neutrons produced from a fusion reaction. In July 2005 , two of Taleyarkhan's students at Purdue University published evidence confirming the previous result. The initial news report, however, shows that the reaction does not always work correctly, and it is not known what parameters change to cause the reaction to function properly versus not function at all. After this report, Purdue's investigation cleared Taleyarkhan of the charges, stating that they "determined that the evidence does not support the allegations of research misconduct and that no further investigation of the allegations is warranted." DOUBTS PROMPT INVESTIGATION Doubts about the truthfulness of claims of positive observations have arisen within the Nuclear Engineering faculty of Purdue University. Because of these concerns, ''NATURE'''S SUGGESTION OF MISUSE OF FUNDS ILL-FOUNDED? Since Putterman does not himself consider funds were misused, it is unclear why such a paragraph should have been included if there were no intent at all to make the reader think this might have been the case. Another problem with ''Nature'''s stance (the journal has stated " {Link without Title} believe that we have nothing to apologise for, and nothing to correct") is that the accounting details obtained by Putterman do not appear necessarily to support his conclusions. Despite the damaging effects that the publication of a flawed allegation is likely to have had, the journal is still at this time refusing to publish a clarification. SEE ALSO
REFERENCES EXTERNAL LINKS Repositories News
|
|
|