Slashdot Mirror
Bubble Fusion Inquiry Under Wraps
hubie writes "Purdue University launched an investigation last March into the questionable research behavior and actions by Prof. Rusi Taleyarkhan following his controversial claims of achieving bubble fusion. The investigation has completed but the results are being kept secret. The alleged behavior is remeniscent of another tabletop fusion incident from a number of years back.
Coincidentally, Purdue University has just secured Federal money to open up a new energy center. A more cynical person than I might suggest that there is a connection between the two."
Must. Invest. Giant. Gobs. Of. Money. (thank god I'm not a VC)
Philosophy.
What the hell is "bubble fusion"?
p.s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_fusion didn't help: "a nuclear fusion reaction hypothesized to occur during sonoluminescence, an extreme form of acoustic cavitation" WTF?!?
~ roscivs
When I roll my chair wheels over that bubble packing material and pop the plastic bubbles, lots of neutrons come flying up from the floor. Has anyone else noticed this?
I tried this bubble wrap fusion.
there is an audible release of energy.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's too bad about the series of car accidents, toaster explosions, and falling yaks that decimated the staff involved. Praise the Lord though we have clean burning coal!!!
Achieving bubble fusion drives you crazy. Unfortunately, it's awful hard to communicate what's necessary to replicate the experiment while crazy, so practically all successful bubble experiments get written off as fraud.
He's said the the experiments are incredibly touchy, and there are some days when it just won't work. Given that, it's not surprising others have had trouble duplicating the results.
In layman's terms: You take a speaker, dump it in a vat of (heavy) water, and fire it up. Bubbles are produced by the soundwaves (with temperatures that reach many thousands of degrees in their interior), and hence fusion occurs. Duh!
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
I'd recommend getting ahold of the BBC documentary on this topic and this particular researcher: "An Experiment to Save the World". The documentary does a reasonable job of explaining the concept. It's also pretty clear from watching this episode that this particular scientist knows deep down inside that he's a fraud but his conscious mind isn't allowing him to accept the reality that his career is over. He keeps saying stuff like "A have to believe the data" even though the show does a good job of explaining that his data is inconclusive and that the technology that would generate conclusive proof exists. The BBC ends up hiring a rival researcher to use the superior lab equipment to try to confirm bubble fusion. No dice. Of course, the original researcher then claims that he they weren't doing the experiment correctly, but refuses to help them redo the experiment with his special modifications.
Good documentary. It made me want to reach into the TV and strangle that asshole for wasting everyone's time. I hope he gets what's coming to him.
GMD
watch this
If this creates an unjustified surge of investment, is that a bubble fusion bubble?
If the startups merge and shed employees and energy, is that bubble fusion bubble fusion?
Sorry.
Would the result be more easily reproduced or guaranteed in a zero gravity environment eg: space? This could get some funds back into the ISS
I tried this bubble wrap fusion.
There is an audible release of energy here too. It's now scientifically proven.
are bubble baths no longer safe?
...cue theme from The Saint
A more cynical person than **I** might suggest that there is a connection between the two." ...than me...
That should be
Quote from second article:
Karl Popper argues that a scientific idea can never be proven true, because no matter how many observations seem to agree with it, it may still be wrong. On the other hand, a single contrary experiment can prove a theory forever false. Therefore, science advances only by demonstrating that theories are false, so that they must be replaced by better ones. The proponents of Cold Fusion took exactly the opposite view: many experiments, including their own, failed to yield the expected results. These were irrelevant, they argued, incompetently done, or lacking some crucial (perhaps unknown) ingredient needed to make the thing work. Instead, all positive results, the appearance of excess heat, or a few neutrons, proved the phenomenon was real. This anti-Popperian flavor of Cold Fusion played no small role in its downfall, since seasoned experimentalists like Lewis and Barnes refused to believe what they couldn't reproduce in their own laboratories. To them, negative results still mattered.
End quote.
This seems a grand failure of basic logic. Getting negative results does not mean that something (in this case, cold fusion) can not actually happen.
For instance, I make an announcement that I have tied a piece of string to an object, threw the object in the air, and it stayed up floating for over an hour. Seems impossible, but heaps of people try to replicate it. Some try tying string to a wooden table, and throwing it in the air. It comes down after a couple of seconds. Other try other objects with similar failures. However, someone tried attaching string to a sheet of paper, and it floated for over 20 seconds before coming down. A partial success perhaps? But most people look at the equations of gravity and acceleration, and say that nothing will stay up for more than a few seconds, depending on how high you throw it. The original announcement is written off as a joke.
A few years later, it is well known that if you shape paper over a frame of rigid sticks in a diamond shape, add a tail, and have an air flow of at least so many metres per second, the object will fly so long as the wind keeps blowing. It is now called a kite. So do the initial negative results mean that the positive result is false, even though there was currently no known theory??
I respect several people who work in my field of science and they are not idiots. I assume the same applies to other scientific fields. So when several top-class individuals (eg. McKubre, director at SRI) say after a period of time they have achieved worthy cold fusion experimental results, I assume they are not incompentent or idiotic, and have actually achived something worthwhile. Perhaps one could be wrong, but the if all of them are wrong, then we are talking mass hallucinations of a lot of previously highly respected and compentent (in their field) people.
Or I could believe the other side, who seem to all have multi-trillion dollar interests in keeping cold fusion passive for as long as possible (energy companies and high energy physicists eg. CERN).
From last semester's Intro to Nuclear and Particle Physics textbook, The Physics of Nuclei and Particles by Richard A. Dunlap, 2004: According to a plot in the book, magnetic confinement projects (tokamaks, stellerators, etc) have just barely entered the thermalized breakeven region. It is not clear from another plot where inertial confinement projects stand, except to say that they are still quite far from the ignition region.
Anyway, all that to say that even if the Purdue claims are correct, it isn't anything to get too excited about, merely yet another technique for producing extremely endothermic fusion.
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
It's now called "game theory", or "protecting our *cough* best interests".
Wikileaks, no DNS
I saw "bubble" and "wraps" and went wheee!
Anyone can "stand up for what they believe", but it takes a very brave individual to change what they believe. - Loundry
If you were to read the articles on Wikipedia and around the web in general regarding cold fusion, somoluminescence, and other "cold" fusion reactions you would come away with two very wrong impressions. First would be that these technologies are very close to fruition and second that they are the holy grail of energy production and the answer to all of our problems. You would think that the fusion reactions are not dangerous, do not pollute, and the fuels involved are of infinite supply.
The reality is that the only reproducable, controlled, fusion reactions mankind has managed to generate in a reproducable manner consume much more power than they generate, and are many, many years before becoming a source of power.
Regarding fusion by-products, the fact is that most fusion reactions produce deadly forms of radiation, weather "cold" or "hot", and the fuels required for a-neutronic reactions are not in infinite supply.
Granted that the idea of "Mr. Fusion" powering our automobiles on flat beer with helium, water vapour, and heat as it's only waste is captivating. Having a near infinite supply of energy would solve many of our and the world's problems (and I'm sure cause many of it's own as well).
We should not lose sight that there are real, proven sources of energy that are renewable, cleaner and longer term than fossil fuels, that also require our investment of research, money, time, and education. Although they are not a "Magic Bullet" like Cold or Bubble fusion, they are the reality we should be focused on.
with china ready to light up their "artificial sun" in august, seems this is an haha we were first plot.
This is not offtopic. And no, I'm not the original poster.
According to Wikipedia, Purdue is a public university spending public dollars, therefore they are obliged to hand over documents via the Freedom of Information Act.
All someone has to do is make a request and sue if they refuse.
...that is, you must first pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so that one of his Noodly Appendages whips through the ether and ** pop ** goes your fusion bubble! Without that, the repeat experiments are doomed to failure....
On a more serious note, this is more about psychology than physics. The ability of man to fool himself is unmatched.
However, it is also crucial to acheive a self-sustaining reaction, something not yet done
It is crucial to achieve a controlled and/or contained self-sustaining reaction. If they ever get a self-sustaining reaction then it's also important that it be kept within tolerable limits. I've always wondered what would happen if some private individual manages to start a tappable fusion reaction, but isn't able to control it. You might think this unrealistic but I do remember reading a true story where a kid was able to create a homegrown breeder reactor, but luckily it didn't get too out of control or give off large amounts of radiation (he got in trouble, but was also later hired on with a research group I believe)
*MOOOOOOOOP* This is a test of the black helicopter alert system. Had this been an actual government coverup, the tone would have been followed by mindless government propaganda. This concludes the test of the black helicopter alert system.
I would probably call the experiment touchy or finnicky rather than subjective.
"Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
Experimental protocol.
Fankly who modded that insightful ? It ain't even a good thougth experiment since the protocol would have inside "incredible when I add a piece of paper in such and such form now the piece of wood float in the air for a few second. And if in addition there is such and such wind condition it can stays in air for hours !" that is what experimental protocol are for : to enable other to reproduce under the same condition the experiment.
There are good reason to not ignore negative result in science : because those are NOT failed experiment. They are *RESULTS* in themselves. I do not want to do an ad-hominem, but frankly, Your propention to plaid for and beg to look at positive result more than negative means that you should stay away from any experimental lab.
Negative and positive experimental results are both as important.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I'm just gonna say. I had Prof Rusi last semester for Nucl Engineering and as a student - I think he conducts himself with a lot of integrity. You may say... your argument brings no valid support. But for all those who interacted with him, he is after the truth. Not the glory, fame, but the Science. He worked with us to make sure we understood the concepts.. he didn't brush us off or deny us the chance for questions because of his convenience.
They are building a neutron accelerator to test some properties of neutron stars. They are having some problems as the neutron beam is moving around somewhat randomly.
"Fix it"
If you can't spell, and even if you can, use spellcheck when submitting something to be read by upwards of a million people. Don't expect the editors to fix it.
From wikipedia:
Allegations exhibiting several of the following features are candidates for classification as conspiracy theories. Confidence in such classification improves the more such features are exhibited:
1. Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence;
As far as I know, there has never been any evidence of "the powers that be" shutting down research on cold fusion.
2. Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact;
Free energy (as cold fusion promises) would definately change history.
3. Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions;
Quote: The powers that be do not play by any rules, and anything or anyone who threatens their power are fair game.
4. Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators;
Not really related
5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators;
I know several researchers, which claim that the current theories forbid cold fusion. Why did they tell me that? Thousands of researchers, (most of them very idealistic) must be stopped by "the powers that be". A staggering task.
6. Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning;
Not relevant (unless someone can point to an instance of cold fusion researches being stopped).
7. Appeals to 'common sense';
Not relevant (but you could say that the experiments which are taken to imply cold fusion suffers from this).
8. Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies;
Not really sure about this one.
9. Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review;
Posted on slashdot. Enough said.
10. Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science;
Not relevant.
11. Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities;
Most serious researchers ignore cold fusion, because current theories forbid it.
12. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative;
I suppose this is true, but I have not gone through the rebuttals.
13. The conspiracy is claimed to involve just about anybody;
Every nuclear physicist in the whole world is part of the conspiracy, obviously. The practical issues in organising this requires that a lot of people are involved.
14. The conspiracy centers on the "usual suspects";
"The powers that be" is a vague term, but definately one of the usual suspects.
what is the point of a nucluear fusion that does not produce heat ?
If they were serious about a fusion energy source, they would release the classified papers on shock induced fusion along with the counter++ generation designs of fusion weapons. Let's stop the nonsense with "collapsing bubbles" and "laser compression" and "cold fusion". Fusion is a gross phenomenon and you are not going to finesse it. Perhaps a properly designed fusion reactor would use an efficient, well directed fission primary initiator to start a self-sustaining shock-induced fusion reaction in the appropriate fusion fuel.
I have no access to classified data.
E Proelio Veritas.
I saw this guy lecture at Fermilab two years ago... it was sort of the buzz around the office, and I don't think he was greeted very warmly. Some of the talk was above my head (being a lowly undergrad at the time) but I do very distinctly recall a few instances where physicists stood up, asked a question, and then walked out before the question was completely answered.
s /Colloquium/040714Taleyarkhan/index.htm] go back and watch it again.
Still interesting stuff... mayhaps I'll [http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/Lecture
A recent Horizon Program on the BBC says that the final toll of deaths attributable to Chernobyl is more likely to be in the region of 56.
Apperently this is because low levels of radiation are far less dangerous than though to be the case even twenty years ago. Statistical evidence even suggest that low levels (equivalent to a high level of normal background radiation) may in fact have a positive effect on cancer rates.
Now how many people have died in the last year working in the oil extraction, coal mining, gas supply industries?
In May 2006 (several months ago) several of my students and I visited Dr. Taleyarkhan's lab and, under his supervision, conducted experiments on acoustic inertial confinement nuclear fusion (the more technical name for sonofusion).
Our work has been submitted for publication so I will not reveal the results here (look for them at the ANS 2006 Winter Meeting).
But I will say that it is my opinion that any criticism of Dr. Taleyarkhan's is based on something other than on the merits of his research. All technical questions about his work have been addressed publicly.*
"Dr. Ted"**
Associate Professor of Physics
* see for example:
** Posted anonymously b/c I do not have University permission to publish these results before the paper is presented at the ANS conference.R. P. Taleyarkhan, C. D. West, J. R. T. Lahey, R. I. Nigmatulin, R. C. Block, and Y. Xu, Phys. Rev. Let. 96 (2006).
Y. Xu and A. Butt, Nucl. Eng. Des. 235-3 (2005).
In the petroleum business theres are these "secret deposit" scams going on. Some turn out to true, but most dont pan out. They are either poor science or schemes to bilk investors.
One going on for twenty years was the claim by the recently deceased Cornell professor Thomas Gold (and some Soviet Union geologists) that oil or natural gas comes from primordial methane deep in the earth from original earth accretion rather from buried plant decay like most convential geologists believe. That would predict the supply of oil could be nearly unlimited and it might in occur in many places where geologists dont look, e.g. granite instead of shale.
So every few years a "secret consortium" tries to drill in an unusual location and of course the results are not disclosed but "promising". The Swedish govermment was bilked about $60 million drilling into Swedish granite.
P.S. Actually another successful Gold prediction may explain why geologist keep on drilling. Gold predicted bacterial would be buried deep in rocks and most every deep (> 5 miles) oil wells have found them. So every deep well is going to detect some methane bug waste, but not in large commercial quantities.
Bubble fusion is what happens when you combine pop rocks and soda!
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Everyone knows you don't use bubble fusion, you use Bin fusion instead. Wait a minute, fusion?
I'm going to make a wild guess and state that, in all likelihood, nuclear power has killed or seriously or otherwise harmed far less people than fossil fuel per megawatt produced
You're more correct than you know. In 2004, the worldwide death toll among coal miners was a whopping 21,500!! (Most of the accidents happened in China.) That's as many deaths, every single year, as seven World Trade Centers stacked atop each other.
Contrast the coal industry with the nuclear power industry; in its entire history, there's been only one incident with fatalities. (Chernobyl, a reactor that was orders of magnitude less safe than modern designs, killed 31 people. Divide that by the 50-year existance of the nuke power industry, and you get an annual death toll of 0.62 persons.)
If all coal-fired power plants were converted to nuclear, we'd immediately surpass the goals of the Kyoto Protocol. Environmentalists spend a lot more time criticizing nuclear power than coal; the facts show they are barking up the wrong tree. Even when they criticize coal, they do so for the wrong reasons - like acid rain, which pales in comparison to the massive death toll among miners.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Well said. That's one of the most informative Slashdot comments I've seen. As for the grandparent, there's nothing more tragic than a conspiracy theory nerd that doesn't have an appreciation for hard science.
Last time I as an 'anonymous coward' put a little white space in one of my posts, back came a reply from the computerized reviewer that a so called 'lameness detector' had kicked in and kicked out my post. So who did this guy suck to get this posted...or was a moderator on line at the time he posted and found this chap's ideological bent more to his liking and gave him leeway none of the rest of us would get?
He got modded up for going through the trouble of finding that article and copy pasting the paragraph, saving us lazy losers the effort.