by Joy Cernac and Sterling D. Allan
for Pure Energy Systems News
August 27, 2008
from
PESNetwork Website
NOTE: Rusi Taleyarkhan,
pictured above, was officially reprimanded, despite the NED
peer-reviewed paper that vindicates Bubble Fusion. He will no
longer have a named professorship at the university and will not
fully supervise graduate students for three years.
The announcement follows an
unsuccessful appeal by Taleyarkhan against two counts of
research misconduct:
"He added a student's name to
papers to invoke a witness to the experiments, and stated
falsely that his results had been independently confirmed."
(New Scientist; Aug. 28,
2008)
Bubble fusion
Bubble fusion, also known as
sonofusion, is the non-technical name for a nuclear fusion reaction
hypothesized to occur during sonoluminescence, an extreme form of
acoustic cavitation. Officially, this reaction is termed acoustic
inertial confinement fusion (AICF) since the inertia of the
collapsing bubble wall confines the energy, causing an extreme rise
in temperature.
The high temperatures sonoluminescence
can produce raises the possibility that it might be a means to
achieve thermonuclear fusion. At temperatures hot enough, atoms can
literally fuse and release even more energy than when they split in
nuclear fission, now used in nuclear power plants and weapons.
Furthermore, fusion is clean in that it does not produce long-lived
nuclear waste. (Wikipedia)
|
Bubble fusion, which in the last
couple of years has come to be viewed with a jaundiced eye, has been
cleared by a new peer-reviewed report that examines the faulty basis
for the negative assessment.
A new scientific paper*
on bubble fusion has been published by the multi-institutional team
of Taleyarkhan, Lapinskas, Xu, Cho, Lahey and Nigmatulin
under the international publishing house, Elsevier B.V., in the
nuclear industry’s premier scientific journal, Nuclear
Engineering and Design (NED).
The purpose of this new seminal paper is to undo misconceptions
generated by University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA)
researcher’s webposting, which was assumed as technically accurate
and reported by Nature magazine in March of 2006.
Over the past two years, a methodical and systematic study was
undertaken with the intense efforts of researchers from Purdue
University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Russian Academy of
Sciences, FNC Tech. of S. Korea together with input from Dr. West
(retd. ORNL). This study was documented, using time-honored
traditions, then offered for anonymous peer review, acceptance and
publication in Nuclear Engineering and Design *.
The results of the new archival publication*
confirm for the record that the confusion and controversies caused
from past reports have resulted from neglect of important details
within bubble fusion experiments.
(*)
Nuclear Engineering and Design
article reference -
Taleyarkhan, R.P., J. Lapinskas, Y. Xu, J. S. Cho, R. C. Block, R.
T. Lahey,Jr., and R. I. Nigmatulin. Modeling, analysis and
prediction of neutron emission spectra from acoustic cavitation
bubble fusion experiments. Nucl.Eng.Des.(2008).doi:10.1016/i.nucengdes.2008.06.007.
The new results demonstrate that neutron
pulse pileup due to pico-second duration neutron pulse emission
during bubble fusion events, ice-pack shielding between the detector
and the fusion source, and gamma photon leakage all play important
roles in affecting the spectra of neutrons from acoustic inertial
confinement thermonuclear fusion experiments.
The new paper presents a comprehensive
study that takes into account all six of the reported successful
bubble fusion studies, including those associated with successful
confirmations by groups unaffiliated with the original Taleyarkhan
et al. research team. Two, unique, calibrated, validated and
cross-checked methods were employed.
Notably, in some of these successful
bubble fusion experimental programs, ice-pack shielding was present
between the reactor and detector. The goal was to address the
confusion resulting from simulations conducted under incorrect
experimental configurations and omission of key physics behind the
bubble fusion phenomenon.
On
March 8, 2006,
Nature magazine unfortunately
published an online article under the title,
“Bubble bursts for table-top fusion;
Data analysis calls bubble fusion into question”, by UCLA
researchers, namely Brian Naranjo, under the supervision
of Seth Putterman (doi:10.1038/news060306-3).
This single, misinformed, unpublished,
web-posted, non-peer reviewed article, which relied on sources with
undisclosed conflicts of interest with competitors, set into motion
a federally mandated two-year investigation.
This article presented
computer code simulation results for the anticipated neutron
spectrum in bubble fusion experiments of Taleyarkhan et al. (PRL 96,
Jan. 2006).
This UCLA simulation was conducted for a
guessed (without fact checking) experimental geometry, and it missed
other attributes of bubble fusion phenomena in which neutrons of a
fixed energy of 2.45 MeV from the bubble fusion nuclear reactor go
whizzing past to a nearby detector with nothing in between. UCLA’s
calculated neutron spectrum was shown to be very different from that
published in the 2006 experimental report by Taleyarkhan et al., but
resembled the overall features of a neutron energy spectrum from
Californium-252.
This is a commonly used laboratory
radio-isotope, which spontaneously emits neutrons over a range of
energies.
The Nature March 8, 2006 article
alleged actions that constitute fraud, bubble fusion data
fabrication, and quoted UCLA’s B. Naranjo as stating:
“The probability of getting such a
poor match for neutrons produced by fusion is one in more than
100 Million –virtually impossible.”
This webpost verdict from a UCLA
graduate student was portrayed by the Nature reporter as true
without accurately investigating the facts.
The resulting fallout was immense and extremely damaging to the
Taleyarkhan et al. team, and severely damaged credibility of the
bubble nuclear fusion field, bringing it to a virtual halt. An
in-depth, federally mandated investigation of the incident has
dismissed allegations related to scientific fraud and fabrication,
and has supported validity of the discovery and it’s several
successful replications.
The two remaining Purdue
University-based allegations (also apparently trumped up) are not
aimed at the science and will take some time to resolve. In tandem,
bubble fusion research and subsequent discoveries will continue to
take place as these issues are resolved.
Taleyarkhan said,
“I can’t control the actions of the
University in their unfortunate situation of having
administrators and attorneys who place themselves ahead of the
truth and importance of the science. This could happen to any
other faculty member and is a sad precedent for the academic
world. I can only move forward and remain positive”.
Upon careful examination by multiple
researchers, it was found that UCLA’s computer modeling neglected to
add a simple but crucial physical parameter:
a ~1-inch piece of ice pack...
Used as thermal shielding, this
significant component should be placed between the bubble fusion
reactor and the neutron detector, as specified for the experiments
in the Taleyarkhan et al. 2006 PRL publication. Put simply, neutrons
generated from fusion carry a momentum similar to bullets of a
certain speed shot from a gun. If one measures fusion neutrons
without shielding, the neutrons’ energy should be 2.45 MeV,
analogous to the 1,000 fps velocity of bullets fired from a shotgun.
However, if one places a shield composed of steel balls between the
gun and the target, some of the bullets will pass through the holes.
Others will interact with the steel balls and slow down to various
levels depending on the angle of attack, while still others may
stick to the balls or create fragments. Consequently, the measured
velocity of bullets leaving the shield will range from ~0 to 1,000
fps.
The same applies to neutrons flying
through a shield composed of water molecules. Neutrons are
sub-atomic particles and much smaller than atoms of water. As in the
bullet example, the neutrons emerging from the water molecule shield
will also have a range of energies, along with other nuclear scale
effects. This sort of “neutron” spectrum is deceptively similar to
that from a radioisotope like Californium.
The UCLA researchers failed to include the ~1-inch piece of water
ice-pack thermal shielding in their model. As a result, this
omission and overlooking other aspects of bubble fusion physics has
led to the publication of incorrect information in Nature that has
been highly damaging to the fusion research industry.
To date, the world has not witnessed a comprehensive
three-dimensional study of bubble fusion neutron transport
processes.
Recommended
Technical Contacts
-
R. T. Lahey (Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute, - ex Dean, Chair Professor)
-
R. C. Block (Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute, ex.Assoc. Dean, Professor retd.)
-
C. D. West (Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (ORNL) Director- Adv. Neutron Source Proj.–retd.)
-
J. S. Cho (FNC Tech., S.Korea;
ORNL-retd)
-
R. I. Nigmatulin (Russian
Academy of Sciences, ex-President)
-
Y. Xu (Purdue)
-
J. Lapinskas (Purdue)
-
W. Bugg (Stanford Univ.,
UT-Knoxville, ex-Head of Physics, retd.)
-
E. Forringer (LeTourneau Univ.)
-
G. Lohnert
(Editor-in-Chief/Consulting Editor - NED)
-
L. Miller (Prof. -Univ. Tenn.,
Knoxville, TN; ORNL)
-
J. Harvey (ORNL, nuclear
pioneer– retd.)
-
L. Waters (Los Alamos National
Laboratory)
-
G. VanTuyle (Los Alamos National
Laboratory)
-
R. Fleishcher (General Electric
Co, nuclear pioneer, retd.)
-
F. Best / K. Vierow / Y. Hassan
/ L. Braby (Professors, Texas A&M Univ.)
SOURCES
Related Links
-
Misconduct Verdict for Fusion
Researcher Upheld - Nuclear engineer Rusi
Taleyarkhan, who claimed to have achieved nuclear fusion by
popping bubbles in a solvent, has been formally reprimanded
for research misconduct by Purdue University in West
Lafayette, Indiana. (NewScientist;
August 28, 2008)
-
Bubble-fusion scientist to appeal over
misconduct charge - Lawyers for the
"bubble-fusion" researcher Rusi Taleyarkhan have told
physicsworld.com that he will appeal over the findings of a
panel that last week found him guilty of two charges of
scientific misconduct.
(Physics World; Jul 23, 2008)
|