Bubble Fusion Confirmed: New Energy Source?

[ohwilleke]

According to this release, bubble fusion (i.e. using ultrasonic waves to induce the rapid collapse of bubbles causing the atoms at the center to fuse), has been convincingly demonstrated in the laboratory.

http://www.rpi.edu/web/News/press_releases/2004/lahey.htm#cool

At least two movies (The Saint and one other one whose name escapes me at the moment) have featured this as a premise, and one prior experiment suggested the phenomena was present but not very convincingly.

This is, of course, notable, because the equipment needed to produce the effect is far less costly than plama containment equipment. Don't, however, count on this as a useful energy source any time soon.

 

[Pieter Kuiper]

http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2004/split/675-3.html

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PLEEE8000069000003036109000001

 

[ZapperZ]

According to this release, bubble fusion (i.e. using ultrasonic waves to induce the rapid collapse of bubbles causing the atoms at the center to fuse), has been convincingly demonstrated in the laboratory.

http://www.rpi.edu/web/News/press_releases/2004/lahey.htm#cool

At least two movies (The Saint and one other one whose name escapes me at the moment) have featured this as a premise, and one prior experiment suggested the phenomena was present but not very convincingly.

This is, of course, notable, because the equipment needed to produce the effect is far less costly than plama containment equipment. Don't, however, count on this as a useful energy source any time soon.

I hate to temper your enthusiasm here, and especially that RPI press release, but let's make this VERY clear: It isn't convincing until another INDEPENDENT group verifies the result. This doesn't apply just to this particular effect, but to ALL results reported in physics.

So far, the ONLY two experimental results on this effect were done by the same lead author. I would not go into the whole mess surrounding the first paper that was published in Science. Irregardless, until there are independent verifications, we should learn from the brouhaha surrounding that "other" cold fusion debacle from the 80's. The public and those who hold the purse string for science funding will tolerate only so many "cry wolf" calls before science lose all credibility.

Zz.

 

[ohwilleke]

FWIW, the other movie was "Chain Reaction" with Keanu Reeves and Morgan Freeman.

In any case, I'm not worried about science losing all its credibility. What else are we going to build jet fighters and computers and wonder drugs with? Astrology? (And I won't even begin to discuss the abuse to the English language known as "Irregardless").

Also FWIW, I must have misread the press release which made it sound as if this was a first independent confirmation by using the word "replicated". and while independent confirmation is good, publication of an article in a peer reviewed scientific journal that explains your methods and addressed previous scholarly criticism is certainly the next best thing.

The Engineers are talking about this issue here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=60575

 

[ZapperZ]

FWIW, the other movie was "Chain Reaction" with Keanu Reeves and Morgan Freeman.

In any case, I'm not worried about science losing all its credibility. What else are we going to build jet fighters and computers and wonder drugs with? Astrology?

You'd be surprised. Don't underestimate what people can be fooled with. There are already many who believe that prayers can cure diseases, and transcendental meditation can transport human sole to places. And I'm not the only one who think this way. I've seen way too many instances where the support for science is very fleeting, and built not on top of a clear understanding of what it can do, but rather on a perceived notion of what it is. Because of this, the public support for it can collapse or waver too easily.

Also FWIW, I must have misread the press release which made it sound as if this was a first independent confirmation by using the word "replicated". and while independent confirmation is good, publication of an article in a peer reviewed scientific journal that explains your methods and addressed previous scholarly criticism is certainly the next best thing.

The Engineers are talking about this issue here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=60575

I never said anything about it being a bad thing for this work to be published. But your topic "Bubble Fusion is Real", and your claim that, based on the press release, that this effect "has been convincingly demonstrated" are just not true! The news link that Pieter Kuiper has given clearly has shown that there are still strong skepticism about this, especially when the original Science article has been shown to have not been possible under the condition that it was measured.

... and the engineers are welcome to talk about it as much as they want. But until the neutron energy and counts are verified, this remains a physics problem that requires independent testing.

Zz.

 

[Janitor]

...can transport human sole to places...

I don't know about the "human sole," but I had fillet of sole earlier today, and it threatens to travel back up the old gullet.

 

[Chronos]

... and the engineers are welcome to talk about it as much as they want. But until the neutron energy and counts are verified, this remains a physics problem that requires independent testing.

Zz.

Hard to argue with that. Given that engineering is applied science, I would be hesitant to make the attempt before I was convinced the science was solid. My bosses have historically demonstrated a peculiar intolerance for failure, especially expensive failures.

 

[ZapperZ]

I don't know about the "human sole," but I had fillet of sole earlier today, and it threatens to travel back up the old gullet.

<Smacks Janitor with a very large boson>

:)

Zz.

 

[cronxeh]

Supposing his results were real - would scaling this up require exponential or linear increase in energy required to produce those waves?

Does RPI prof list any data on Phys Rev E ? I have no reason to suspect he'd make a mistake like that

 

[Hans de Vries]

I do share the sceptism, but OK, here a few interesting links:


To be presented by the researchers involved:

SONOFUSION – FACT OR FICTION?

The 11th International Topical Meeting on Nuclear Reactor Thermal-Hydraulics
(NURETH-11) Popes’ Palace Conference Center, Avignon, France, October 2-6, 2005.
http://www.rpi.edu/~laheyr/Sonofusion Paper-pdf_Lahey_NURETH-11.pdf



I found the US patent application(!) on the name of Taleyarkhan, Rusi P. (Knoxville, TN)

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph...10".PGNR.&OS=DN/20030074010&RS=DN/20030074010
(HTML without images)

The actual patent application pages are here:
http://aiw1.uspto.gov/.aiw?docid=us...PGNR.%26OS=DN/20030074010%26RS=DN/20030074010
(you may need to load the "alternatiff" TIFF viewer plug-in for your
browser to view the document here: http://www.alternatiff.com/ )



Regards, Hans

 

[ZapperZ]

OK.. since we're now playing "Show Me Your Links", I can play that game too:

1. http://www.aps.org/WN/WN02/wn030802.cfm

2. http://www.aps.org/media/tips/tips072402.cfm

3. http://www.aps.org/WN/WN02/wn031502.cfm

4. http://www.aps.org/media/tips/tips040302.cfm

Zz.

 

[polyb]

Why is this being mixed up with sonolumuniescence, 'The Saint', and Keanau Reeves?

If I remember correctly 'Bubble Cavitated Fusion' was being researched a couple of years ago at Oak Ridge using acetone and a nuetron source. I think Rensselaer was following up on it to verify the results.

 

[ZapperZ]

A new report published in this week's issue of Nature will stoke the fire of this version of fusion. You may read a review of this work here:

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/full/050228-7.html

Access to this news report is time-limited, so read it now while you can.

This work does not confirm that Taleyarkhan achieved fusion, but it does show that there's enough energy in the collapsing bubble to create a plasma.

Zz.