Talk:Bubble fusion

Harness energy from Bubble Fusion?
Does anyone know how you'd harness the energy from Bubble Fusion? It doesn't make sense to me naturally since the liquid that the cavitation is taking place in is kept at room temperature and fusion is theoretically contained entirely inside the collapsing bubbles. That's something I've never seen addressed in any article on Bubble Fusion that I've read. It'd be a nice addition to the piece.


 * Well the heat generated by fusion is absorbed by the water, but the amount of fusion that actually goes on is very small.
 * "If you were to tile the world with these devices and let them run for an hour, there'd be enough thermonuclear energy to heat a cup of coffee 1 degree," Moss told UPI. "The likelihood that you could produce energy you could use is very, very slim -- but I'm not saying zero." - Omegatron 13:27, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * The interest at this time is mainly scientific, and I seriously doubt if it can ever be scaled up. However, from Nuclear fusion we have the easiest fusion reaction:


 * width="50px"|(1)||D||+||T
 * →|| ||4He||(3.5 MeV)
 * +|| ||n||(14.1 MeV)||
 * }
 * Most of the energy is in the neutron, which will escape the device. :pstudier 19:30, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
 * Most of the energy is in the neutron, which will escape the device. :pstudier 19:30, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)


 * I always wondered if it could be scaled down. They say the diameter of the bubble is ~100 µm or so max.  I envision millions of little spherical tanks etched into an integrated circuit running in parallel.  From the waveforms and videos I've seen, it looks like the bubble actually wants to resonate at a higher frequency, in the MHz or so (slow-mo video).  Which would mean...  on the order of a millimeter diameter tank.  So I guess not millions...
 * But what do I know? I'm sure my imagination is about as true to real science as Chain Reaction. - Omegatron 21:20, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * At first I doubt the bubble fusion does works. The reason is if if happen, the excess heat will cause the fluid to degas. causing sonoluminescence phenomenon ceases.

I'm really not confident to include this in the article itself, but I wonder if someone could take the information from the BBC Horizon documentary broadcast on 17/2/05 and incorporate it into the article. They got Putterman to attempt to replicate the exiperiment, but he failed to detect any fusion neutrons. (See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/experiment_prog_summary.shtml)

The movie Chain Reaction, while discussing sonoluminescence, did not directly address fusion. Instead, the scientists were pursuing a cheap method of producing gaseous hydrogen. The centerpiece explosion of the movie was an explosion of hydrogen gas, not a nuclear explosion.

Reply: This is true. Putterman, an expert in sonoluminescence, was commissioned along with an independent expert in nuclear fusion detection, to thoroughly study the claims of R. Taleyarkhan. With help from Brian Naranjo, another sonoluminescence expert, the group concluded that no evidence of nuclear fusion could be found using the techniques of Taleyarkhan, and that he was simply misinterpreting the by-products of radioactive decay from lab equipment for the by-products of fusion. If you attend a soft condensed matter Physics conference, every expert outside of Taleyarkhan's group (regardless of their affiliation) will tell you that Taleyarkhan's group got it wrong, but that sonofusion is still a theoretical possibility that we may see at some point in the future.

I believe bubble fusion works and there is a experiment of a open water electrolytic cell at the same time it is bombarded by ultrasonic vibration one can observe (feel)the heat it generates. ((See: http://www.energyoffusion.com)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Minhducthandan (talk • contribs) 21:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC) &mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;

I encourage the authors of this Wikipedia entry to take a look at some of the new sonoluminescence results which are the antecedent of this article:

http://www.physlink.com/News/030805CollapsingBubbles.cfm

They've confirmed that the surface of these collapsing bubbles are four times as hot as the surface of the sun. This does seem to confirm that the inside of the bubbles really may be as hot as the center of the sun.


 * To pick a nit, the surface of the sun is 5780K, its center is probably many millions of degrees. If the bubbles were this hot at the center, they would be emitting easily detected X-Rays. Interesting story, if I have time later, I will incorporate it into the main article.  pstudier 19:24, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)

Reply to above: No, you cannot detect any of the X-ray radiation because these photons are quickly absorbed by the surrounding fluid and do not reach your detectors. You would need to have a detector in the fluid itself and very close to the collapsing bubble on top of this. As of 2006, this would be a very difficult engineering problem and/or require more funding to accomplish than most of these small sonoluminescence/cavitation groups are being given.



http://www.impulsedevices.com/index.html - Omegatron 19:42, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Rename?
Sonofusion seems to be the dominant term in use, especially in the literature. Should the article be renamed? Rei 20:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The RPI links do not work. Besselfunctions 01:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Successful sonofusion experiment, Jan 2006
http://physorg.com/news10336.html indicates that there was a successful sonofusion experiment, but I know way too little about this topic to update the Wikipedia article. Somebody who understands this should read the article and make appropriate changes, i.e. change the part about this being only "hypothesized".

Reply: This is not true, as every single sonofusion experiment to date that has claimed to be "successful" has later been shown to be incorrect or a misinterpretation of the data. While it isn't *theoretically* impossible to achieve sonofusion, noone has actually done it yet (every time a new claim is made, the experts either immediately see why the claim is incorrect OR many expert groups try to reproduce the results that are claimed and cannot).
 * Reply to reply: Check again--Taleyarkhan's results now have been verified. Whether or not this second group simply committed the same error remains to be seen; but to take the attitude that no one has ever verified Taleyarkhan's results and no one ever will, is absurd. -128.101.53.232 18:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not take the said attitude, so please re-read. And BTW, Taleyarkhan's interpretation that his data shows sonofusion is occurring has NOT been independently verified. In fact, it has been refuted again and again by all of the leading physicsts in the world that specialize in acoustic cavitation. After some of the best acoustic cavitation and nuclear physicists in the world all agreed that Taleyarkhan's group was either misinterpreting or falsifying data, a couple very smart (but not experts in this field) guys that are friends with Taleyarkhan visited his lab and were convinced by him to interpret the data the way he is interpreting it. I do NOT consider that an independent verification!!!

Cleanup needed
This article need neutralization and cleanup (maybe starting with the very long list of external links, which appear to include many irrelevant links). ---CH 11:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

As an example, the Patriot media anon near Bronx, New York just added a link to a news release from Pure Energy Systems News (PESN), which tends to be too credulous to be a reliable source of information.---CH 20:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I took a first pass at the external links. What a mess they were!  Still needs more work if someone has the time.  I find it troubling that half of them link to journals that require subscriptions.  Sure makes it hard to clean those up when you can't see the source.  The sealed Purdue report also makes one wonder just what in the world is going on.  By the time we clean this article up enough to  document the controversy in a neutral manner, it will all be obsolete.  There's something to be said for deleting all the controversy coverage and just referring straight to the May 2006 IEEE article, which is quite well written. --UncleDouggie 08:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This article needs to be more neutral. The experimental results are under review by Purdue University. Comments on the review should wait until the completion of the review. In any case the scientific method should be followed and not the political method.--Ron Marshall 21:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ron, can you clarify? I can't even tell whether you agreeing with what I said or disagreeing.  What do you mean by "political method"? ---CH 20:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The review is completed, but you won't find it any easier to comment on as it's sealed. Guess that means the speculation can stay in.  --UncleDouggie 08:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Ron, sonofusion is theoretically possible if the collapse of the bubble can be enhanced/optimized. This is why sonofusion research is given credibility. The problem is that noone has yet optimized the cavitation process to achieve sonofusion. If you talk to the experts in this field (Willy Moss, Ken Suslick, Seth Putterman, Brian Naranjo, Robert Apfel, etc, etc), all of them, no matter where they are from and who they are affiliated with, will tell you that sonofusion isn't impossible and they would *love* to see it achieved, however they will also all tell you that it has yet to be accomplished and that every single group (mainly Taleyarkhan's) that has claimed to observe sonofusion made a mistake in interpreting their data.

I note that the section about the misuse of funds seems to have little bearing on the rest of the article and seems out of place. Perhaps it would be a good idea to remove it, as its primary purpose appears to be to cast doubt on a particular research journal instead of being about bubble fusion. --69.69.127.231 22:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree - there is little context and the section does not really make sense. LeContexte 14:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"Tabloid" Side Issues / Aspects
Argueing about whether or not DARPA funds were misused to support sonofusion research or not credited in certain publications has little, or nothing, to do with sonofusion. This isn't supposed to be a tabloid. Imagine going to the page on the internal combustion engine and finding a ton of useless babble regarding how funds may have been misused through the years to support engine research and so on.

Items recently added
The previous section seems to have wandered from Cleanup to the Science, but I thought I'd start a new section anyway in view of some fairly substantial changes, including a new section. This is mainly a review of what I have added.

I have known and corresponded with Taleyarkhan for a year or so now and so have rather an insider's view of things. One thing that is obvious is that this is a hotly contested subject and has in some ways achieved the character of war, with one side wishing to destroy the other. There are reasons for this, some more obvious than the others. Let me say first of all that hypothetical wrong doing by Taleyarkhan was not the only issue that arose in Purdue's investigation, and trying to conceal the details seems to be the cause of Purdue's silence, with unfortunate consequences.

Then there is a point to be noted, not that frequently mentioned, which I have added to one of the sections: some phenomena are insensitive to conditions and so are easy to replicate, while others are not. Bubble fusion is clearly one of the sensitive ones: hence one should not infer too much from failures to replicate. In fact, I have seen evidence that one of the much-touted failed replications was the consequence of visible departure of the conditions from the ideal.

Also, there is a paper that has been submitted for publication by a group at a different university (such is the fear of the people concerned that they will be attacked that their names are blacked out in the copy I have seen). This group used the same method as the one where it is claimed the neutrons are caused by Cf-252 and got the same result. You would have to assume a massive conspiracy to suppose all the positive results were due to this cause; far more 'parsimonious' as they say to suppose that some people did the experiment better than others.

I might add that Taleyarkhan has received the goahead from PRL to put his accepted paper disputing Naranjo into the physics preprint archive, so soon you will be able to see for yourselves the evidence that Naranjo's theory was wrong, or at least did not apply.

I come now to the matter of Reich's nasty article in the July 20 issue of Nature. It is difficult to see this as being anything other than an 'attempt to wipe bubble fusion off the face of the Earth'. If that sounds strong, look at the evidence -- the new section that I added and its links to my web page analyses. The editor of Nature seemed upset by my first article 'Nature on the Attack' and tried to maintain 'we have merely this and merely that ... ' -- all very innocent. I took up the challenge and analysed the text and, I believe, refuted everything he said. He has not come back to me since.

It would not have mattered so much had the editor accepted that the article did look like an unwarranted attack (the main argument for what they categorise as funding misuse, ascribed to Putterman, was fallacious, in fact, an assertion Nature has not disputed). But he has refused to budge, and that is a serious matter for science and for truth.


 * It may seem that I have not adopted a neutral point of view. The problem is that I don't see that there is a point of view that can realistically defend Nature's position vis a vis the article (but let no one be deterred from trying!).  The links given do include statements by Nature, quoting their response to the Nature on the Attack page in full.  If anyone thinks it appropriate, the sentence concerning Nature's response could be expanded to give some detail.

It is unusual for reviews of the science to talk much of the political dimension, but these hostile articles in Nature (compare them with those in IEEE Spectrum) have had such a distorting effect on the science that they cannot be just written out of the picture. And the whole affair is of interest to historians of science and sociologists, as well.

Brian Josephson 14:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's true the political side isn't usually touched upon in journals but it's discussed in things like New Scientist often enough. When it comes to NPOV, what matters is however we may feel, we ignore that as much as possible. Whether or not Nature's position can be defended, we simply present the position as accurately and neutrally (without editorialising or moralising) and any published response from a reliable source as appropriate (and bearing in mind that we shouldn't give undue weight to uncommon POVs). We also have to make sure to only include relevant content. For example, there is no really need to go in to much detail about problems between scientists or between scientists and journals per se unless they directly concern the article content. As this article is about 'bubble fusion' issues between Taleyarkhan, Nature etc should only be discussed in limited detail when they don't directly concern bubble fusion. More detail is best left for other articles. Nil Einne 07:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Duplication
I removed this paragraph as it was a duplication, it was discussed earlier in detail


 * An even more recent Nature article reports that colleagues at Purdue are skeptical of Rusi Taleyarkhan's previous findings. While it remains theoretically possible, it would now appear that "bubble fusion" has never been directly observed in nature, and that those who had their doubts regarding the Purdue group were correct to doubt initial claims.

Nil Einne 07:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

More replication?
http://www.letu.edu/opencms/opencms/events/Bubble_Fusion_Confirmed_by_LETU_Research.html — Omegatron 09:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Two papers? From :


 * "Confirmation of Neutron Production During Self-Nucleated Acoustic Cavitation", Edward R. Forringer, David Robbins, Jonathan Martin
 * "Confirmation of Neutron Production During Self-Nucleated Acoustic Cavitation of a Deuterated Benzine and Acetone Mixture", Edward R. Forringer, David Robbins, Jonathan Martin (LeTourneau Univ) — Omegatron 02:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed speculation
''Removed the following section for being unreferenced speculation. — Omegatron 03:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)''

Methods of increasing fusion output
While many of the claims remain unverified at this time, many ideas exist to increase the rate of fusion. The experimental apparatus as conducted in experiments thus far produces energy about seven orders of magnitude lower than that which went into it. However, a number of factors suggest that this is unlikely to remain the case.

Acetone under the temperatures, pressures, and other initial conditions involved is unlikely an optimal solution; several orders of magnitude of efficiency improvement are likely by experimenting with different solutions and laboratory settings. Additionally, using a mix of deuterium and tritium will increase fusion yields by three orders of magnitude (as would simply running the apparatus for long enough, as D-D fusion breeds tritium).

An increase in reaction rate may scale up faster than linearly. As a bubble collapses, shocks bounce inward from the edges, encountering their own reflections and additively combining creating the great heat and pressure to the degree that sonoluminescence or sonofusion can occur. The neutrons from the fusion reaction seed new bubbles nearby, creating a bubble cluster containing over 1,000 cavitating centers which act more powerfully together than they would individually.

One of the most interesting propositions, however, is the potential for a new kind of fusion criticality in sonofusion. Given two acoustic anti-nodes (wherein one is at minimum stress while the other is at maximum stress), neutrons from one node will be released while the other is at maximum stress. Some neutrons will interact with their anti-node, creating a bubble cluster and amplifying the reaction. When it collapses in turn, some of its neutrons will do the same to the original node, leading to a self-sustained nuclear reaction. This possibility is yet to be validated, and still remains theoretical.

Sonofusion has some fundamental benefits compared to most other methods of fusion. Shock heating of the fuel leaves the electrons at almost the same velocity as the ions, and thus (due to their much lighter mass) at insignificant temperatures. As energetic electrons are one of the principal energy loss mechanisms in most fusion apparatuses (Bremsstrahlung radiation, recombination losses, line losses, etc), the sonofusion reaction doesn't lose energy as quickly as in such systems. Instead, it behaves largely as if only ions were being dealt with. At the same time, however, it has some fundamental limitations. The amount of dense, energetic area involved in sonofusion is typically tiny, limiting the amount of fusion reactions that can occur (currently about ten per bubble collapse).

realistic consequences of "bubble fusion"
considering the possibility that real fusion is occurring inside these bubbles, i was wondering if any research has been done on actual energy output and transmittance.... using basic equations the bubbles depending on size, heat transfer should give off energy from 1g tnt to 1kg? so the reaction vessel may have a hard time containing this and perhaps so would the building. i was wondering on the validity the claims when i recalled the scientist mentioned previously from a bbc doc, i believe the same one mentioned earlier? showed his fusion device and seemed like there was no sudden output of energy that should most likely damage the glass flask he was using, and perhaps also kill any bystanders. bubbles seemed to range from 1cm dia to 1mm hence 1g tnt to 1kg? but I’m not sure how losses to escaping neutron would change this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent

anyway these were crude calculations but no one has addressed the issue-  e=mc2 to fusion in a glass flask. if there are experts out there it would be interesting to hear their comment. i hope i'm not breaking any rules here on wikipedia(not too many)- regards Alexander —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkmatterscientist (talk • contribs) 06:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

"deuterated benzine" or "deuterated benzene"?
The article states that Forringer et al. at LeTourneau University used a solvent mixture including "deuterated benzine" for their experiments. Although I am neither a physicist nor a chemist, it seems more likely to me as a layman that they actually used "deuterated benzene," a commonly available solvent. Benzene (C6H6) is a discrete hydrocarbon compound, as are the other solvents used in the Forringer teams's mixture, while benzine is (according to Wikipedia) "a group of various volatile, highly flammable, liquid hydrocarbon mixtures." To me a solvent characterized as a "group of mixtures" would not seem appropriate to this kind of experiment. Wikipedia warns (caveat lector!) that "Benzine should not be confused with benzene." Can someone who is closer to the literature and experimenters than I am perhaps give a second opinion on this? Piperh 08:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not a domain expert, but given that the only Google presence of "deuterated benzine" is 4 hits, only one of which is a professional document (ANS meeting notes that are subject to typos), and "deuterated benzene" returns over 18,000 hits (many top hits of which are also professional documents) and is stated (in our article at least) as being "used in NMR spectroscopy", I was bold and changed the text to "deuterated benzene", including the link. I'd prefer finding a proper source for this information, but it looks like the professional journals are requiring subscriptions, and I don't have time at the moment to run down to the Library of Congress to review them there. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Source cleanup
I've just done a major reformatting, expansion, and verification of the many citations in this article. After nearly 3 hours, I'm too exhausted to go back and fix a few small errors (like some DOIs I added that are truncated). But I've accomplished several things: I hope this will make it easier for everyone to analyze the available source information and edit the text appropriately. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Made each citation robust and well-formatted and offset from the text to make it easier to find them and reuse or correct them if needed later.
 * Checked all available links, fixed a few, removed some that didn't provide the cited information (sometimes because they were only abstracts), and tagged problems with the apparently vanished LeTourneau replication paper.
 * Tagged the "Ethical dimension" section as original research, although something useful may be extracted from the cited New Energy Times article to replace it.
 * Replaced some vague statements like "Questions have been asked" with specific descriptions of who said what, per Avoid weasel words. This is crucial because, as seems to have occurred in this situation, the vagueness disguises the questioner's own potential biases. (I haven't done a thorough job of this, as my main focus was citation-fixing, so there may be more of this problem on both sides of this controversy.)

Update article
This article still needs some work being updated. Specifically, this bit needs some work: "None of the above measurements have been confirmed by a group outside of Taleyarkhan's and are highly debated, recalling the 1989 cold fusion controversy.[3][4][5][6] However, New Energy Times has reported a replication by an unrelated group at a university in Texas.[7] (Researcher Edward Forringer works at LeTourneau University, a small evangelical Christian school.)"

I'm not sure what to do with it. Which measurements have been reported by whom? — Omegatron 03:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In the first sentence of the article, I have just somewhat clarified SL vs SF. In the section "Original experiments," I have replaced 4 references that seemed to address a different issue (probably left over from a deleted section, see refs [4] thru [7] above), with one that is specific to the topic of high temperatures (along with a sentence giving actual and projected temperatures). This whole paragraph is applicable to the original experiments, but not of them. Can it be indicated as an "aside" or footnote in some manner? The first sentence of the section beginning "Shock wave simulations" needs a reference. I can provide one if no one else has a preference.Aqm2241 (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"Replication" / Doubts prompt investigation - Hypothesis
From version: "They claimed a liquid scintillation detector measured neutron levels at 8 standard deviations above the background level, while plastic detectors measured levels at 3.8 standard deviations above the background. These measurements were within one standard deviation for the same experiment with a non-deuterated control liquid, indicating that the neutron production had only occurred during cavitation of the deuterated liquid."

"The report quotes Brian Naranjo of the University of California, Los Angeles to the effect that spectrum measured in these sonofusion experiments is consistent with radioactive decay of the lab equipment and hence does not reliably demonstrate the presence of nuclear reactions."

Let's just say both of these pieces of information/speculation are true (blatant speculative hypothesizing). Would this mean the deuterated setup is possibly catalyzing the radioactive decay of the lab equipment?

A further question: Are the neutron detectors tested with no working fluid (in addition to the calibration with the control non-deuterated fluid)? --Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 (talk) 04:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Better yet, just measure with the ultrasound turned on and with the ultrasound turned off. Duh.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.62.4 (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

good point! but perhaps more focus is needed on the harnessing of the energy (get a wire or something close enough to the bubble without it burning) instead of just detecting the neutrinos. a positive energy output would be proof enough surely, there is maybe a distinct lack of funding for this project, it would be interesting to compare it to the funding of JET and ITER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.27.48 (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Butt?
Seriously, is the dude's name Mr. Butt? Cornince (talk) 10:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Very seriously, he's called "Adam Butt", from Purdue University. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Updates to Bubble Fusion Controversy
The extensive investigation and facts presented by New Energy Times call into serious question the much of the content in the Wikipedia article--specifically the section titled "Doubts prompt investigation" should be removed in its entirety because the accusations of research fraud put forth by Tsoukalas, Suslick, Putterman have been shown to be false, dishonest and/or self-serving. Rusi Taleyarkhan, professor of nuclear engineering at Purdue University, has refuted these accusations and he is supported by signed affidavits provided by other Purdue faculty and staff. All of this calls into question the accuracy, truthfulness and motives of those who attempted to discredit the work of Rusi Taleyarkhan.

Regarding the reported failed replication by Seth Putterman and Ken Suslick, New Energy Times repors that "In that experiment, the UCLA team deliberately added noncondensable gases to the experiment; this guarantees a failure." see 2005 NURETH-11 [Nuclear Engineering and Design and the Nuclear Reactor Thermal Hydraulics conference] papers by Yiban Xu, Adam Butt and Shripad Revankar, which specifically demonstrate that, under the UCLA (Seth Putterman and Ken Suslick) experimental conditions, successful deuterium-deuterium bubble fusion will not occur."

Deland78 (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

More information about Shapira and Saltmarsh's attempts to replicate Taleyarkahan's work - http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/energy/nuclear/bubble-fusion-bubbles-up-again "Not only was there excess tritium production in the Taleyarkhan group’s experiment, checked by a resident ORNL expert, but also Shapira and Saltmarsh knew it," Krivit writes. "Not only had the Taleyarkhan group measured excess neutrons with its detector, but so did Shapira and Saltmarsh, independently with their own detector." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thompn4 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

RS > Science Refers to New Energy Times
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/11/roundup-1123-ke.html refers to http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/NET33Cdfkj5.shtml

Contained within the NET report: "the UCLA/UIUC replication attempt was not a mirror of the Oak Ridge experiment. This slide presentation best explains this matter" http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/UCLA-UIUC-FailureToReplicate.pdf

RS > Royal Society of Chemistry, JEM
"A New Look at Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction Research, " Journal of Environmental Monitoring, (Accepted for publication: 26 August) Vol. 11, p. 1731-1746, 2009, DOI:10.1039/B915458M Peer-reviewed journal paper http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2009/2009Krivit-S-ANewLookAtLENR.pdf

Map of Purdue Allegations
A map of how allegations A.2 and B.2 "came to be." http://newenergytimes.com/v2/bubblegate/2008/2008HowPurdueFabricatedTheAllegations.jpg

Full trace and source data on the map is here: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/bubblegate/2008/PurdueResearchIntegrityCommitteeFabricatesAllegations.shtml StevenBKrivit (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions section?
After reading this article I'm seeing evidence that it does work, and it doesn't work. Which is it? The article needs to be more clear about that. If it's pseudo science, it needs to be said. If it's legit, it needs to be said. ScienceApe (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The answer is that nobody knows. People tend to have an idealised view of reality that assumes that fine details of an experiment don't really affect the result.  People who have worked on something for a long time may have been able to tweak their expt. to get results better than most.  One thing that is clear, but this probably can't be included in the article, is that things got very political, with someone whom I won't name wanting to discredit Taleyarkhan, and one of the Nature people wrote a clearly libellous article giving readers the impression that T. had been committing fraud in regard to grants.  When you examine the details you can see that the writer of the article had got things confused, but the journal refused to apologise or to retract, as is their wont (in a previous case which is documented on my web pages, it was only after they started receiving a lot of hate mail that they admitted to error in a certain book review). --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * After reviewing several sources, it looks that there was never any independent replication by experts. They are all co-authored by Taleyarkhan, ot not made by experts, or not independent. But this is just my personal assessment, any I can't find any source saying if it was independently replicated. The Chronicle of Higher Education says Ross Tessien, president and founder of Impulse Devices Inc., in Grass Valley, California, had spent $4 million by 2007 trying to make the experiment work. He has observed almost 1 million degrees inside the bubbles, but he needs to reach 10 million to initiate fusion--[[User:Enric Naval|Enric Naval] (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've not done any study of this subject since Taleyarkhan was displaced from his job by his enemies, but the trouble is that this is almost certainly a very sensitive expt., and any failure to replicate by others may only mean that they didn't get the conditions precisely correct. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Clearly whether or not the bubble experiments produced fusion is up for discussion, but Taleyarkhan was not displaced by "enemies", he displaced himself with questionable research/lab practices. GLP is a HUGE deal in professional science research, and he should not be surprised that when presenting rather ground breaking results, that his reliability is brought under scrutiny, and since it was found wanting, neither should people be surprised that his research is looked upon as dubious. It is not even as if research into "bubble fusion" has dissappeared, the scientific community is still very interested, but (surprise surprise) has yet to produce any further ground breaking results.178.15.151.163 (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Introduction
The introduction to this article has a tag that says it needs to be rewritten. I'll try to improve it, but I'd like it if others could help me. Zeromus1 (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's just the lead that needs to be written to summarize the article. I tidied up much of the rest of the article some time ago. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I added a few sentences to the lead. Is my change an improvement? Zeromus1 (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Oak Ridge failed replication
This section is mostly incorrect.

On July 29, 2013, New Energy Times published a special report "2001 Oak Ridge Nuclear Cavitation Confirmation Uncovered." What has been reported - until now - as a failure by Dan Shapira and Michael Saltmarsh to confirm the nuclear cavitation work of Rusi Taleyarkhan and his group at Oak Ridge National Laboratories was actually a confirmation. In 2012, New Energy Times obtained the full set of internal ORNL technical reports that reveal the events that took place behind the scenes. We also obtained live video footage of nuclear cavitation experiments performed at Oak Ridge in 2003. Together with a brief telephone interview we conducted with Shapira, the facts shed new light on this controversy. Any editors of Wikipedia who would like a complementary copy of the full report may send a request to New Energy Times. StevenBKrivit (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:RS. We are not going to rewrite a section based on existing reliable sources based on a report in New Energy Times, let alone unpublished communications directly from you. VQuakr (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

VQuakr, I understand that Wikipedia is a community, and that you are just one of the many members of this community. I am also not aware that you or anyone else is a designated representative of this worldwide community and has the authority to speak on his behalf.

For your benefit, as well as for others in the Wikipedia community, I would like to direct your attention to the relevant facts, should any of you choose to improve the accuracy of Wikipedia, here they are:

Quoting from Shapira: “The paper presents a convincing case of excess tritium productions when cavitation is induced in cold deuterated acetone. The methods and procedures in collecting these data have been independently reviewed by a relevant ORNL expert in the field.”

Quoting from Shapira: “The [Taleyarkhan group’s] paper also presents data which show excess of nuclear radiation (neutrons/gammas) production when cavitation is induced in deuterated acetone.”

Related news article: http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013/07/22/ornl-nuclear-cavitation-surprise-in-shapira-saltmarsh-raw-data-part-5/

Original source reference: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/bubblegate/2001/2001ORNL-Shapira-Neutronics-Review12-19-01.pdf

To summarize the Oak Ridge matter:

For 10 years, the public’s understanding of this research has been that 1) Shapira and Saltmarsh made their own independent replication of the Taleyarkhan group's experiment, 2) in doing so, they failed to replicate the group's work, and 3) by this disconfirmation, they proved that the original experiment by the Taleyarkhan group was wrong.

The New Energy Times investigation found that 1) Shapira and Saltmarsh did not perform their own experimental replication, 2) they measured data from an experiment set up and operated by the Taleyarkhan group, 3) the data they took was positive and confirmed the group's claim, 4) internal documents revealed how Shapira and Saltmarsh attempted but failed to hide the data from Oak Ridge management and 5) Shapira and Saltmarsh attempted to hide and succeeded in hiding the data from the public.

StevenBKrivit (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I indeed do not speak for the community as a whole, which is why I started by citing the relevant policy (that does speak for the community as a whole. If your source is New Energy Times then we need to go no further because your source does not meet our requirements. If you disagree with my characterization of this source, an appropriate next step to get a wider opinion would be to take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. VQuakr (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * VQuakr, Here is a link to a scientific comment on Shapira and Saltmarsh's paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.3217
 * Other relevant papers can be found here: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/bubblegate/BubblegateTG-SciPapers.shtml
 * Thompn4 (talk) 02:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Research
“None of the investigations examined the research itself.” This needs a citation.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

2H Plasma smashed to 3H EBC Wall
2H Plasma smashed to 3H BEC Wall. H means hydrogen. The numbers are isotopes. BEC means bose-eistein condensate

This is not cold fusion by any means! The BECed 3H is only a spread net to capture with more inertia the supefast 2H plasma!

It works in the labs. It is considered a standardised method and has nothing to do with BEC fusion.

Here BEC plays only the role of the high inertia spread 3H net. The main job is done by supehot 2H plasma.

No claims fot cold fusion here, just a BEC 3H net. It is a simple BEC, and the plasma a classic plasma,

but to make it extra hot and to control it, you need some bucks to build it right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.196.37 (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Sonoluminescene and Sonofusion
Is it note worthy for the article that Gizmodo just did an article on this form of fusion (alternatively names "First Light Fusion" apparently) and noted the earliest speculation was from a by-product of an experiment in "1934" sonoluminescene. I don't "do" science articles so wondered if it had a place in the "Original experiments" section to show the development in knowledge. Article link here Jonjonjohny (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bubble fusion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081013100451/http://www.photonics.com/content/news/2006/June/21/83135.aspx to http://www.photonics.com/content/news/2006/June/21/83135.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bubble fusion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111006174400/http://personnel.physics.ucla.edu/directory/faculty/putterman to http://personnel.physics.ucla.edu/directory/faculty/putterman
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070525172515/http://science.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1734 to http://science.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1734

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Cheers, bothead. GangofOne (talk) 02:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bubble fusion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303194250/http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN06/wn031006.html to http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN06/wn031006.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)