Question of Sound Fusion Power Generation

[scorpio_wan1945]

1.with the hot and cold fusion under experiment level now, would power from sound fusion provides equal or more power and economic value if it has been successfully researched?

2. what is the difficulty faced in building a commercial sound fusion generator?

3. Future of sound fusion development?

thanks in advance

 

[Rach3]

Sonofusion has never been observed.

 

[Morbius]

1.with the hot and cold fusion under experiment level now, would power from sound fusion provides equal or more power and economic value if it has been successfully researched?

2. what is the difficulty faced in building a commercial sound fusion generator?

3. Future of sound fusion development?

thanks in advance

Scorpio,

Neither "sound fusion" nor "cold fusion" has been conclusively demonstrated; and
based on our current understanding of the physics - they won't be.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Astronuc]

I know 'cold fusion' was dismissed as false, but I thought that some folk from RPI and one of the labs had detected neutrons in a deuterated liquid (acetone or something). Has that been found to be false?

Here is press release from RPI - New Sonofusion Experiment Produces Results Without External Neutron Source
http://news.rpi.edu/update.do?artcenterkey=1322&setappvar=page(1)

 

[Azael]

Taleyarkhan must be celebrating now! I hope that experiment will be verified by another team.

Astronuc do you think sonofusion can be a viable energy source in the future??

 

[Astronuc]

Not as an energy source. May understanding is that the process is inherently low energy density.

 

[ZapperZ]

Taleyarkhan must be celebrating now! I hope that experiment will be verified by another team.

Astronuc do you think sonofusion can be a viable energy source in the future??

Not so fast!

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113669

Zz.

 

[Azael]

Not so fast!

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113669

Zz.

Yeah I read that :( I was more thinking about the article astro posted
http://news.rpi.edu/update.do?artcenterkey=1322&setappvar=page(1)

or was that in response to the above article aswell? I know Taleyarkhan has published 2 times about his bubbel fusion and I though that what astro posted is a third time now with a completely different method

 

[Azael]

Not as an energy source. May understanding is that the process is inherently low energy density.

(if it works) is there anything preventing scaling it up?
My naive thought would be that if its possible to get one stable bubble why not thousand stable bubbles. If it is possible to scale up the number of stable bubbles in one canister wouldn't it be possible to get enough for heat production

The other option I could think of is to make the canisters very small(maby spherical canisters a few milimeters in diameter) and have a lot of them in close proximity. I don't know if its possible to create a stable bubble in the frequence range required in very small canisters though?

 

[Astronuc]

(if it works) is there anything preventing scaling it up?
My naive thought would be that if its possible to get one stable bubble why not thousand stable bubbles. If it is possible to scale up the number of stable bubbles in one canister wouldn't it be possible to get enough for heat production

The other option I could think of is to make the canisters very small(maby spherical canisters a few milimeters in diameter) and have a lot of them in close proximity. I don't know if its possible to create a stable bubble in the frequence range required in very small canisters though?

My feeling is that at the moment, the sonofusion system uses more energy than it produces. I don't see how it could be scaled up to be a useful energy source. Using sonofusion simply for a source of neutrons would be impractical with regard to power generation.

Also, I would like to acknowledge ZapperZ's post regarding the dispute over the validity of sonofusion. It appears that, like cold fusion, sonofusion may not be proven.

 

[russ_watters]

(if it works) is there anything preventing scaling it up?
My naive thought would be that if its possible to get one stable bubble why not thousand stable bubbles. If it is possible to scale up the number of stable bubbles in one canister wouldn't it be possible to get enough for heat production

Slight clarification - there is a difference between getting it to work and getting it to produce a positive and continuous amount of power. Regular hot fusion "works" - just only for a fraction of a second and without producing excess power (afaik).

So scaleability isn't the only issue, even if fusion can be successfully/repeatably demonstrated in a lab.

 

[Astronuc]

Hot fusion has been in the works since the 50's. It is the basis of thermonuclear weapons, which however, are not practical energy sources.

Seriously, fusion research has focussed on magnetically confined plasmas, which are really 'hot' and inertial confinement. Both are still in the experimental stages.

Cold fusion was found to be false, and it would appear sonofusion may also be false. Even IF sonofusion has been demonstrated, it seems limited to provided low level neutron sources. The question is whether or not it is any better than current (alternative) neutron sources.

 

[Azael]

My feeling is that at the moment, the sonofusion system uses more energy than it produces. I don't see how it could be scaled up to be a useful energy source. Using sonofusion simply for a source of neutrons would be impractical with regard to power generation.

Also, I would like to acknowledge ZapperZ's post regarding the dispute over the validity of sonofusion. It appears that, like cold fusion, sonofusion may not be proven.

I hope that, even if Taleyarkhan is proven to be a crank regarding sonofusion, research into sonoluminescence will continue. Its a exciting phenomenon and maby something worthwhile will be the result of it all.

Slight clarification - there is a difference between getting it to work and getting it to produce a positive and continuous amount of power. Regular hot fusion "works" - just only for a fraction of a second and without producing excess power (afaik).

So scaleability isn't the only issue, even if fusion can be successfully/repeatably demonstrated in a lab.

Didnt think about that

Hot fusion has been in the works since the 50's. It is the basis of thermonuclear weapons, which however, are not practical energy sources.

I sure enjoy the tan the big thermonuke in the sky gives me each summer

 

[Astronuc]

I sure enjoy the tan the big thermonuke in the sky gives me each summer

Well, yeah! Nature has demonstrated hot fusion on a big scale for billions of years, and some think that solar energy/power (PV or otherwise) is the best utilization of fusion energy, and it probably is.

 

[Azael]

Well, yeah! Nature has demonstrated hot fusion on a big scale for billions of years, and some think that solar energy/power (PV or otherwise) is the best utilization of fusion energy, and it probably is.

But solar power isn't exciting

 

[Astronuc]

But solar power isn't exciting

Au contraire, mon ami.

2006 IEEE 4th World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conversion
http://www.wcpec.org/ in Hawaii no less.

 

[Azael]

Au contraire, mon ami.

2006 IEEE 4th World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conversion
http://www.wcpec.org/ in Hawaii no less.

They sure are good at picking locations atleast

 

[ZapperZ]

More problems with the bubble fusion claim. Read this soon before you require a registration access.

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060508/full/060508-8.html

Zz.

 

[Astronuc]

to accidentally using equipment different from that reported in their most recent paper.

Accidentally? Careless more like it.

There is such a concept as quality control, even for research experiments and laboratory measurements, which is essentially just good scientific or engineering practice, or something like due diligence (i.e. attention and care).

In the nuclear industry, QA/QC is mandated by 10 CFR 50 Appendix B!

If validated, such work could pave the way for cheap, green energy.

Not necessarily. It's comments like this that really bothers me about media, even scientific journals.

 

[vanesch]

Just some information concerning the detectors. I'm surprised to read some explanations given by the team.

BF3 gas detectors are quite good (but extremely dangerous) neutron detectors - I fail to understand the comment about them seeing gamma radiation, because they essentially don't, and moreover the signal they produce in a BF3 detector is extremely weak and difficult to distinguish from the electronic noise.
The thermal neutron interaction in BF3 liberates more than 2.3 MeV, which is a rather strong signal ; electrons liberated by gamma radiation usually deposit much less energy in the gas before hitting the wall, hence the very strong separation between neutron and gamma signals.
The polyethylene around a neutron detector works essentially as a moderator in order to slow down fast neutrons. As the absorption cross section of the B in the detector essentially goes down linearly with neutron speed, this is done to increase the efficiency of the detector setup for fast neutrons (by slowing them down first before having them interact with the detector). But normally, polyethylene is NOT generating any gammas under neutron irradiation ! So I don't understand that comment.

However, a LiF detector is highly sensitive to gamma radiation. In fact, it is almost a better gamma detector than a neutron detector and it is difficult to distinguish both signals. Again, however, the polyethylene doesn't generate gamma radiation.

Normally, all this shouldn't be an issue, when calibrated against a known lab neutron source.

However, there's a main worry with such setups, which is electromagnetic interference. Detectors which are badly cabled up can easily mimick particle detection, while what they are in fact seeing is electromagnetic disturbance from a nearby appliance.

 

[ZapperZ]

So vanesch, what is your gut feeling about Taleyarkhan's claim in all of this, knowing the type of measurement he claim to be doing?

I only have some superficial understanding of his detection scheme, so I can't really judge the reasonableness of his result. However, based simply on the history of this thing and what has transpired, there are just way too many red flags appearing one after the other that just simply don't sit right. Usually, claims this significant are tested and reproduced very quickly (after all, it isn't that outrageous of an experiment to do). I see nothing of this sort at all. This almost mirrors the Schon debacle, except that in the latter, there were only whispers in the hallway that no one could reproduce the results at the very beginning.

This one, on the other hand, is splattered all over the media.

Zz.

 

[Astronuc]

Without a detailed schematic and description, it is hard to understand how Taleyarkhan and his colleagues used the gamma and neutron detectors.

As for gamma radiation (~0.48 MeV), it does come from the decay of ⁷Li* which is produced in approximately 94% of (n, \alpha) reaction with ¹⁰B. But it is not clear that is what they were doing.

Time spectra of neutron and sonoluminescence emissions were measured in cavitation experiments with chilled deuterated acetone. Statistically significant neutron and gamma ray emissions were measured with a calibrated liquid-scintillation detector, and sonoluminescence emissions were measured with a photomultiplier tube. The neutron and sonoluminescence emissions were found to be time correlated over the time of significant bubble cluster dynamics. The neutron emission energy was less than 2.5 MeV and the neutron emission rate was up to ~4×10⁵ n/s. Measurements of tritium production were also performed and these data implied a neutron emission rate due to D-D fusion which agreed with what was measured. In contrast, control experiments using normal acetone did not result in statistically significant tritium activity, or neutron or gamma ray emissions.

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PLEEE8000069000003036109000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
Phys. Rev. E 69, 036109 (2004) (11 pages)

 

[Astronuc]

The goal in fusion is to provide sufficient energy to the nuclei to cause them to fuse, reconfigure, and release the binding energy in the form of kinetic energy of the product nuclei.

In magnetic confinement, this is done by heating light nuclei (usually isotopes of hydrogen) to several million K, such that the atoms are ionized and the nuclei will collide such that eventually they will fuse. One method of heating is neutral beam injection in which some atoms are stripped of electrons, accelerated, recombined with electrons just before they hit the plasma, and then are ionized by collisions with the plasma. Neutral beam energies are on the order of 80-100 keV, for D atoms.

Accelerators are typically not used. (In response to a post which was deleted)

In inertial confinement, a very small target capsule of fusile material is hit with high energy lasers which heat an outer ablative layer. The ablation cause the capsule to be highly compressed which causes rapid heating to several million K, and fusion takes place, and the capsule burts in a pulse of energy.

Sonofusion is questionable at the moment. One can read about it in Phys. Rev. E, which I cited. The authors claim about 100 million K in the collapsed microbubbles. I'd have to read the article to learn how they determined that.

 

[Morbius]

In inertial confinement, a very small target capsule of fusile material is hit with high energy lasers which heat an outer ablative layer. The ablation cause the capsule to be highly compressed which causes rapid heating to several million K, and fusion takes place, and the capsule burts in a pulse of energy.

Astronuc,

Instead of using lasers, like at Lawrence Livermore; the "other" method of inertial
confinement fusion is to use the "pulsed power" devices like the Z-Machine at
Sandia National Laboratories:

http://www.sandia.gov/media/z290.htm

Picture of the Z-Machine firing:

http://www.sandia.gov/media/images/jpg/Z02.jpg

Although termed an "accelerator", the Z-Machine doesn't accelerate the fusion fuel.
Instead it dumps a hugh amount of electricity through a target made of fine wires:

http://www.sandia.gov/media/images/jpg/Z01.jpg

The wires magnetically implode the fusion fuel - similar to the way
the laser-driven ablation implodes fusion fuel in laser fusion.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Astronuc]

Morbius,

I was thinking about electron beams and perhaps Z machine, but I don't know where they are in comparison with other methods. At the moment, the Z-machine is producing lots of X-rays with temperatures of the wire ~1.6 million K (or about 140 eV). They need about 100 times that amount IMO - 14 keV (160 million K) for any reasonable attempt at fusion.

I wonder when they will get there?

 

[Morbius]

Morbius,

I was thinking about electron beams and perhaps Z machine, but I don't know where they are in comparison with other methods. At the moment, the Z-machine is producing lots of X-rays with temperatures of the wire ~1.6 million K (or about 140 eV). They need about 100 times that amount IMO - 14 keV (160 million K) for any reasonable attempt at fusion.

I wonder when they will get there?

Astronuc,

Yes - there are lots of different proposals - all in different states of development.

Before LLNL decided on builing NIF - and all we had was Nova; which had pretty
much reached its maximum capability; I was really wondering if the inertial
confinement community would turn more to something like Sandia's Z-Machine.

It is interesting to look at all the diferent concepts. In the magnetic fusion arena,
everybody thinks about tokamaks. However, there were magnetic fusion devices
before tokamaks - simple magnetically wound torus, then the stellarator with
helical windings, also yin-yan magnets, magnetic mirror machines [ MFTF ], ...

Who knows what type of machine will be the next "bright idea"?

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[vanesch]

So vanesch, what is your gut feeling about Taleyarkhan's claim in all of this, knowing the type of measurement he claim to be doing?

Honestly, I don't know. Detecting neutrons with a neutron detector is not such a difficult thing to do, but you need - as with anything - to know what you're talking about - so, like you, I'm puzzled by some strange statements which are indeed red flags - and it is more a matter of psychology than anything else to establish whether or not this is an indication of fraud or bad practice, or just an overlooked detail.

Nevertheless, it would be rather simple to establish whether or not there are neutrons produced. I haven't read the original article so I don't know whether this was done, but it seems to be rather elementary practice, independent of the type of neutron detector used.
First of all, you measure the background (there are cosmic neutrons, there's noise in the detector...). Next you bring in a known neutron source, and you verify whether you count them. Next, you bring in a gamma source, and you verify your sensitivity to any gamma radiation. Finally, you do an "electromagnetic perturbation" test, where you switch on all the electrical appliances, but without the potential source you want to measure: you should fall back on your background. If not, it simply means your detector (or its wiring-up) is an antenna for the electromagnetic activity in the neighbourhood (something which is very, very often the case and a real pain!).
Next, you do your measurement.
Finally, if you really want to be sure, you redo all the tests after the measurement.
If you see a clear neutron signal above background, no effects of any perturbation, and a low gamma sensitivity, and the measurements are repeatable, then I'd consider that the presence of neutrons has been established.

But all this sounds simply like elementary good lab practice, *especially* if your claim stands or falls with the established presence of neutrons. If I were there, I'd do all this, just for myself, in order to be sure! So I'd assume, from the start, that this is done, in which case, indeed, it doesn't matter exactly WHAT kind of neutron detector is used. The procedure should indeed be rather insensitive to the kind of detector used.
In fact, it would be easy to silence any negative comments by INVITING people to come and measure the neutron activity for themselves, and by letting them do the entire procedure above themselves. It's done in an afternoon !

EDIT: I forgot: a very good test to establish that you've really seen neutrons, is by redoing the experiment, but by wrapping the detector (inside the polyethylene) in a sheet of cadmium. This should drastically lower the counting rate of real neutrons.

 

[vanesch]

As for gamma radiation (~0.48 MeV), it does come from the decay of ⁷Li* which is produced in approximately 94% of (n, \alpha) reaction with ¹⁰B. But it is not clear that is what they were doing.

No, this is gamma radiation during the neutron detection event, but it means that there IS already a neutron detected. The incomprehensible thing was the talking about gamma radiation produced by neutrons in the poly-ethylene. To my knowledge, neutrons on polyethylene doesn't produce gammas at all.

 

[vanesch]

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PLEEE8000069000003036109000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
Phys. Rev. E 69, 036109 (2004) (11 pages)

He uses a PULSED NEUTRON SOURCE to generate the bubbles ?

Why use a neutron source, if the significant effect you want to see, are a few neutrons ??

Then all bets are off, honestly. You have a MODERATOR there in your lab, and a pulsed fast neutron source. When you change your moderator (like, when generating bubbles in it), you modify the neutron transport problem, and nothing tells you that you're not going to deflect part of the initial pulse of neutrons to be detected later, no ?

Also, I don't understand his neutron spectrum. You would expect the neutrons going in and coming out to be at least partially moderated, no ?

EDIT:
when looking at:
http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/atomic_and_nuclear_physics/4_7/4_7_3.html

I see some significant problems.
For instance, the average absorption length in water is 27 mm, which is probably why, with normal acetone, he doesn't see much: all the moderated neutrons are absorbed.
In heavy water (~ heavy acetone ?), this length is 970 mm, so they surely come out again.

Also interesting, the slowing down time in normal water is 6 microseconds, and in heavy water is 53 microseconds. This could explain why nothing is seen "just after" the pulse, and only later.
The lifetime of neutrons in heavy water is 100 MILLIseconds, so a pot of heavy water can contain such neutrons for quite some time.

So a pulse of fast neutrons on a pot of heavy water (or heavy acetone ?) will "saturate" it after about 53 microseconds with neutrons, which will then diffuse out slowly until 100 milliseconds later. I don't know what is the effect of making bubbles into this: do neutrons get out faster ?

 

[Astronuc]

a very good test to establish that you've really seen neutrons, is by redoing the experiment, but by wrapping the detector (inside the polyethylene) in a sheet of cadmium. This should drastically lower the counting rate of real neutrons.

Or alternatively, one could use a Pu-Be or Sb-Be neutron source of strength comparable to that which Taleyarkhan's group claims for sonofusion. With a neutron source of known strength, it would be possible to test the detection arrangement.

I haven't read the paper, and the kayelaby link isn't working for me at the moment.

Thermal neutron capture gammas (2.2 MeV) from hydrogen in the polyethylene, (ref: http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q5218.html)

but that still doesn't resolve questions about reliability of the results. I'd have to read the paper.

The presence of bubbles would increase the transport/diffusion distance, but only in the acetone (obviously).

Vanesch, I am not saying I agree with what has been reported, and in fact I share your skepticism. You raise some very good questions, which any responsible scientist/engineer should raise.

 

[vanesch]

Concerning the neutrons on polyethylene, I didn't think of the absorbed neutrons, you're right there. Usually when you put polyethylene around a detector to moderate them in order to detect them better, you want this layer to be thin enough not to absorb most neutrons, so that this yield is small. That's why we never see them (and I didn't think of it).
But you're entirely right, neutron capture by hydrogen, producing deuterium, gives gammas of the order of the binding energy of deuterium.

To come back to the original discussion, until your cited paper, I didn't realize that there was a neutron source in the game, so I thought it was about a neutron-free lab in which suddenly an apparatus started producing neutrons. When there's a pulsed source in the neighbourhood, I'd say that all bets are off. It must be extremely difficult to prove that the neutrons are not lost neutrons from the source, but rather newly produced fusion neutrons.
If the only reason for the source is to nucleate bubbles, the effort should be put on finding another, neutron-free way to make these bubbles arise, otherwise I'd never believe it.
When I set up a neutron instrument, it is amazing where neutrons can come from. Usually, the first accusation is that my detector is counting gammas. I then have to go, with the instrument user, through a lot of procedures to show him that it are genuine neutrons.
An anecdote: Once I had the problem that there was a small defect in a detector image, but only when it was placed on the instrument. When I took it to the lab to analyse it, I couldn't reproduce the defect. The defect was in fact a design error, there was a small piece of stainless steel behind the detector which reflected a small fraction of the neutrons that got through the detector unnoticed, and hence got a second chance to be detected, a 0.3 % effect in the image, easily corrected in software, but we wanted to understand where it came from.
But the problem was that I couldn't reproduce it with a source in the lab... Until I put some polyethylene and B4C BEHIND the detector structure. In fact, the lab was surrounded by big plexiglass windows which partially reflected the neutrons of the source, so that the lab was actually bathing in a kind of uniform isotropic background neutron radiation, and the source was not the single point source I thought it was. This bath of neutrons, also irradiating the back of the detector, completely swamped the small reflection from the metal piece. I went outside, repeated the measurement, and I COULD reproduce it.

 

[Morbius]

Nevertheless, it would be rather simple to establish whether or not there are neutrons produced.

vanesch,

One would think so...

However, I remember watching an interview with a professor at Georgia Tech that
had been one of the early verifiers of the Pons-Fleischman experiment in "cold
fusion".

They had a technician who was very gingerly handling the neutron detector by its
cable - and putting it in the electrolytic cell to get a neutron count, and then moving
it behind a lead shield. Back and forth they went - in what they thought was a
controlled experiment - the neutron count rate when up when the detector was in
the "cold fusion" cell - and the neutron count rate went down when the detector was
moved behind the shield.

Then they switched to another technician. This one actually handled the detector
itself, and his hand was still around the detector when it was placed behind the
lead shield. However, the neutron count rate with the detector behind the shield
with the technician's hand around it - was just as high as when it was in the cold
fusion cell.

They then realized that the increased neutron count rate was due to the additional
moderation provided either by the water in the cold fusion cell, or the water in the
hand of the technician.

As the research group had already announced to the world that they had confirmed
the results of Pons-Fleischmann; the professor announced to his team, "Gentlemen,
we are in trouble!" The professor stated in the interview, that there are other things
that can give you counts in a neutron detector - other than what you think you are
measuring.

Yes - it is a simple matter to establish whether neutrons are produced - but you
better have people who understand neutron physics well enough to give you an
accurate measurement.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Astronuc]

One of my pet peeves regarding nuclear research is the way people make announcements via press releases, even before the results are independently verified. This is really inexcusable.

There should be a protocol by which an important experiment is independently reviewed (there appear to be capable independent reviewers at PF ) and then independent tested. This could be done confidentially under the auspices of the National Academies of Science or Engineering in the US and comparable organizations elsewhere.

I detest sloppy science and engineering.

 

[vanesch]

I detest sloppy science and engineering.

I hate sloppy science, but I like sloppy engineering. It gives you room to improve things, and have a second success with it

 

[ZapperZ]

One of my pet peeves regarding nuclear research is the way people may announcements via press releases, even before the results are independently verified. This is really inexcusable.

There should be a protocol by which an important experiment is independently reviewed (there appear to be capable independent reviewers at PF ) and then independent tested. This could be done confidentially under the auspices of the National Academies of Science or Engineering in the US and comparable organizations elsewhere.

I detest sloppy science and engineering.

I think, subconsciously, that whole incident shapped my present-day view on why I will only pay attention to peer-reviewed journals. I'm not saying that papers appearing in such journals are correct or valid, but at the very least, someone who has some knowledge in that field had a look at it. It is why I cringe when someone calls a press conference to announce some result, or someone already touting some e-print Arxiv paper (which is now a common practice in several fields in physics, including String, etc.).

I suppose that scientists, like people in general, are guilty of having short memory span and forget about these debacles.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

More problems with the bubble fusion claim. Read this soon before you require a registration access.

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060508/full/060508-8.html

Zz.

This mess just won't go away.

I'm going to copy this off of Science daily news update, because it annoys the hell out of me that a university administration seems to think an "internal" matter such as this should be kept under wraps. It looks bad on Purdue officials.

Purdue University officials today announced that they have completed a review on controversy swirling around Purdue nuclear engineer Rusi Taleyarkhan, the chief proponent of the contentious notion that sound waves can cause bubbles to collapse in a way that yields energy. Contrary to earlier statements by the university, officials now say they have no plans to make the review public or to reveal any potentially forthcoming disciplinary actions. "Specific recommendations of the examination committee and any subsequent steps by the university will be treated as confidential internal matters," said Purdue University Vice President for Research Charles Rutledge in a statement.
Rutledge appointed the review committee in March after an article in Nature described several Purdue colleagues as upset with Taleyarkhan because he had allegedly obstructed their work by removing shared equipment. They also said he tried to stop them from publishing results that contradicted his own. Other articles at the time also raised new questions about Taleyarkhan's scientific results (Science, 17 March, p. 1532). Calling the concerns "very serious," Purdue officials said they would launch a review and make the results public. Asked why Purdue reversed the decision to publicize the results, Purdue spokesperson Joseph Bennett would say only that "there was some confusion about that."

One possibility, outsiders suggest, is that Purdue limited the scope of its inquiry to Taleyarkhan's alleged inappropriate research behavior and did not extend it to the scientific controversy surrounding bubble fusion. University officials have declined to release either the committee's precise charge or the names of the committee members. But several sonofusion experts, who are both critics and coauthors of Taleyarkhan, say they were never contacted by the Purdue committee. "I don't think they contacted anyone [outside Purdue] and are looking at it as a personnel matter," says Ken Suslick, a sonofusion expert at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. "God forbid they talk to anyone who knows anything," adds Richard Lahey, Jr., a longtime collaborator of Taleyarkhan's at Rennselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York. Taleyarkhan and other Purdue University colleagues did not reply to phone or e-mail queries from ScienceNOW.

Taleyarkhan first reported that bubbles could collapse with enough force to fuse atomic nuclei four years ago in Science (Science, 8 March 2002, pp. 1808 and 1868). The work held out the prospect that the effect might be harnessed and scaled up to produce an inexhaustible supply of energy. But the findings have remained controversial ever since. Now, with Purdue's decision to seal their report, the controversy swirling around bubble fusion shows no signs of quieting down anytime soon.

But not making it public, it creates even MORE of mess, and throws doubt not just on the credibility of Taleyarkhan, but also on Purdue.

What were they thinking?!

Zz.

 

[selfAdjoint]

This mess just won't go away.

I'm going to copy this off of Science daily news update, because it annoys the hell out of me that a university administration seems to think an "internal" matter such as this should be kept under wraps. It looks bad on Purdue officials.



But not making it public, it creates even MORE of mess, and throws doubt not just on the credibility of Taleyarkhan, but also on Purdue.

What were they thinking?!

Zz.

Perhaps they were thinking of not being sued by Taleyarkhan?

 

[Astronuc]

I hear you ZZ. This is ridiculous.

The work held out the prospect that the effect might be harnessed and scaled up to produce an inexhaustible supply of energy.

I wish people would quit making grandiose claims, and that includes research scientists.

Four years later and there are still questions is problematic.

An internal review committee should have been in place 4 years ago, and a thorough review of the claims of sonofusion performed. Then they can make a press announcement.