Slashdot Mirror
"Tabletop" Fusion Researcher Committed Scientific Misconduct
Geoffrey.landis writes "A Purdue University panel investigated allegations against nuclear engineering professor Rusi Taleyarkhan, finding that he had in fact committed scientific misconduct in his work.
Taleyarkhan had published papers in which he reported seeing evidence of nuclear fusion in the collapse of tiny bubbles in a liquid subjected to ultrasonic excitation — a finding that would be groundbreaking, if true, but one that apparently could not be replicated by other researchers. The allegations against Taleyarkhan were made in March of 2006. A local Indiana paper gives the full list of allegations against Taleyarkhan, and the resolution of each by the panel. The full report (PDF) is also available. Of the nine specific allegations, only two were found to comprise scientific misconduct. The committee 'could not find any other instances of scientists being able to replicate Taleyarkhan's results without Taleyarkhan having direct involvement with the experiments,' but notes that this comes 'just short of questioning whether Taleyarkhan's results were fraudulent.'"
We've discussed this gentleman's work and the scrutiny it has received several times, and members of the scientific community seem to have given him the benefit of the doubt in many cases.
The committee 'could not find any other instances of scientists being able to replicate Taleyarkhan's results without Taleyarkhan having direct involvement with the experiments,
I see two possibilities there...
First, he could have made up numbers. Absolutely unforgivable, and we should all break out the tar and feathers.
However, if reputable scientists have reproduced his work, even with his direct involvement, then he has accomplished something interesting (even if not necessarily what he believes).
i just saw that video a few days ago and was more fascinated by the ultra-sonic bubble than the prospect of cold fusion.
Yep... but note that the ultrasonic bubble collapse thing-- "sonoluminescence"-- isn't something that Taleyarkhan discovered. It was his claim that sonoluminescence produces fusion that was noteworthy, not the sonoluminescence itself.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
There was a TV programme on this guy a couple of years ago
NB: The following is more about the quality of the TV show than any attempt to wish away the apparent irreproducability of Taleyarkhan's results so that we can all have Mr Fusions for Xmas.
If I believed in Taleyarkhan, that TV program certainly wouldn't have changed my mind. The scientist conducting the experiment appeared to be an outspoken critic of Taleyarkhan and we (the audience) had to accept his word that differences in equipment c.f. Taleyarkhan's experiment were inconsequential. As far as I remember, the originally stated purpose of the experiment was to check if the neutrons detected were in sync with the flashes from the bubbles (something not shown in T's results). We were told at the end that the experiment had failed, but with little explanation as to how (no flashes? no neutrons? not in sync? the first two of those would not have been "as was to be demonstrated").
As for Taleyarkhan attending the experiment, why would he do that? If he'd participated in any way, it would have destroyed the independence of the test.
...which was a pity, because in an earlier show they gave the same treatment to a test of the "memory of water" theory beloved of homeopathic medicine: in that case the experiment was presented beautifully, from the careful setting up of independent, blind tests through to analysis of the results for statistical significance. One of the best science documentaries I've seen.
The "desktop fusion" show was not up to the same standard.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
The problems with the "we need to drill more domestically" solution are:
1) Most people in favor of more offshore drilling are typically the ones who are looking for a solution that requires the least amount of effort on their part. Just imagine how things would be different if people actually conserved energy instead of buying the biggest SUV they could find simply because gasoline was cheap.
2) Developing countries (eg China) have a growing demand for gasoline, which is driving up the speculative price of fuel. Why should this matter? While some in congress would like to restrict the use of domestic oil to the domestic market, a large number of congressmen do not generally support such restrictions which means we would be bidding against China even for domestic oil (I'll leave the assigning of party affiliations to you). So exactly how will this effect the cost of gasoline?
3) It will take 10 years for these new sources of oil to come to market and even begin to affect price of fuel.
4) Most people who support domestic drilling don't live near the affected areas. Meanwhile the people who live on the gulf coast will have to suffer with eyesores and pollution (even more than we have from the current level of offshore drilling).
5) The same people who don't mind drilling in areas far away from where they live, will fight tooth-and-nail against any refineries being built near them. Despite the fact that It is the lack of refineries that is the biggest influence on the price of gas and not the price of crude oil.
6) The oil companies have yet to drill all the areas for which they currently have drilling rights. Why? Well because they want to show a large amount of reserves on hand for their financial reports, AND they would rather drill closer to land where the cost of drilling is cheaper than deep water drilling. The point being, there will be more eyesores and the potential for pollution for the area being drilled.
7) Weather. Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico have negative affects on production and safety of the off-shore platforms...
8> As for ANWR, it's a wildlife reserve and should remain off limits to the greedy oil barons.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...