It seems that a group of scientist DID use the idea of sonoluminescence to create fusion. It is called Acoustic Inertial Confinement Fusion. When they successfully produced results in France at NURETH-11 for peer review, they shortly afterward got hammered by the 'institutions'.
DARPA's involved, UCLA, Oak Ridge National Lab, Purdue University, and a few science journals.
Initially one of the scientists did experiments of Sonofusion at Oak Ridge National Labs, but they couldn't get a good enough ratio of repeatable results. I think the story goes like this...so, they went to Purdue University. They used a variation in techniques and became successful. This is when they decided to go to NURETH-11. A lawsuit was brought into the mix, and all funding got cut off and they got caught up in legal issues, which resulted in the main scientist getting debarred and discredited (no funding, etc.), though affidavits out the butt proved otherwise.
See below for the articles etc.,
Umm, check this out. This Lahey guy says they successfully did it!
Lahey Affidavit
To the best of my
recollection, I received from Taleyarkhan summary documentation of successful sonofusion
results in June, 2005. How in the world could someone surmise that DARPA-UCLA funds,
which arrived into the Purdue financial system in June, 2005, actually contribute to the intense
underlying research to find a way to self-nucleate in a totally different fluid-mixture of vastly
different properties, in a differently designed test cell, with random vs timed nucleation, conduct
a large array oftests, including careful control experiments, within "seconds" of receiving
funding from a new source? The mere thought of suggesting the use of such funds for something
already largely accomplished (and only requiring publication) is totally bizarre.
[link to newenergytimes.com]
cont.
39. The above mentioned issues highlighted in the Press are a either wrongful or
inaccurate allegations against Taleyarkhan (and in many respects all of us who worked with him)
and have no merit. These are apparently desperate attempts by our competitors to detract from
our seminal work on the discovery of sonofusion.
[link to newenergytimes.com]
___________________________________________
A standing wave of sound creates a bubble in liquid. When the bubble implodes, light is emitted. This is called: Sonoluminescence. Awesome.
Sonoluminescence is the emission of short bursts of light from imploding bubbles in a liquid when excited by sound.
In 1989 a major experimental advance was introduced by Felipe Gaitan and Lawrence Crum, who produced stable single-bubble sonoluminescence (SBSL). In SBSL, a single bubble trapped in an acoustic standing wave, emits a pulse of light with each compression of the bubble within the standing wave. This technique allowed a more systematic study of the phenomenon, because it isolated the complex effects into one stable, predictable bubble. It was realized that the temperature inside the bubble was hot enough to melt steel. Interest in sonoluminescence was renewed when an inner temperature of such a bubble well above one million kelvins was postulated. This temperature is thus far not conclusively proven, though recent experiments conducted by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign indicate temperatures around 20,000 K.
Sonoluminescence can occur when a sound wave of sufficient intensity induces a gaseous cavity within a liquid to collapse quickly. This cavity may take the form of a pre-existing bubble, or may be generated through a process known as cavitation. Sonoluminescence in the laboratory can be made to be stable, so that a single bubble will expand and collapse over and over again in a periodic fashion, emitting a burst of light each time it collapses. For this to occur, a standing acoustic wave is set up within a liquid, and the bubble will sit at a pressure anti-node of the standing wave. The frequencies of resonance depend on the shape and size of the container in which the bubble is contained.
~ The light flashes from the bubbles are extremely short—between 35 and a few hundred picoseconds long—with peak intensities of the order of 1–10 mW.
~ The bubbles are very small when they emit the light—about 1 micrometre in diameter—depending on the ambient fluid (e.g., water) and the gas content of the bubble (e.g., atmospheric air).
~ Single-bubble sonoluminescence pulses can have very stable periods and positions. In fact, the frequency of light flashes can be more stable than the rated frequency stability of the oscillator making the sound waves driving them. However, the stability analyses of the bubble show that the bubble itself undergoes significant geometric instabilities, due to, for example, the Bjerknes forces and Rayleigh–Taylor instabilities.
~ The addition of a small amount of noble gas (such as helium, argon, or xenon) to the gas in the bubble increases the intensity of the emitted light.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
DARPA's involved, UCLA, Oak Ridge National Lab, Purdue University, and a few science journals.
Initially one of the scientists did experiments of Sonofusion at Oak Ridge National Labs, but they couldn't get a good enough ratio of repeatable results. I think the story goes like this...so, they went to Purdue University. They used a variation in techniques and became successful. This is when they decided to go to NURETH-11. A lawsuit was brought into the mix, and all funding got cut off and they got caught up in legal issues, which resulted in the main scientist getting debarred and discredited (no funding, etc.), though affidavits out the butt proved otherwise.
See below for the articles etc.,
Read this letter.
Lahey Letter to Physics Today
Feb. 20, 2009
Response from Marty Hanna is below Lahey letter
You write, “Independent research groups have so far failed to confirm the result of Taleyarkhan’s group.” Indeed, this is at the heart of much of the controversy concerning bubble fusion. However, this is false. Edward Forringer, William Bugg, Adam Butt, and Yiban Xu have performed and reported independent confirmations of bubble fusion. This is in addition to on-demand public demonstration of successful outcomes of bubble fusion on two occasions.
[link to newenergytimes.com]
Now, who is Lahey? Google DARPA Lahey.
Holy crap. I think I found a cover-up. This is crazy...
Lahey Letter to Physics Today
Feb. 20, 2009
Response from Marty Hanna is below Lahey letter
You write, “Independent research groups have so far failed to confirm the result of Taleyarkhan’s group.” Indeed, this is at the heart of much of the controversy concerning bubble fusion. However, this is false. Edward Forringer, William Bugg, Adam Butt, and Yiban Xu have performed and reported independent confirmations of bubble fusion. This is in addition to on-demand public demonstration of successful outcomes of bubble fusion on two occasions.
[link to newenergytimes.com]
Now, who is Lahey? Google DARPA Lahey.
Holy crap. I think I found a cover-up. This is crazy...
Lahey Affidavit
To the best of my
recollection, I received from Taleyarkhan summary documentation of successful sonofusion
results in June, 2005. How in the world could someone surmise that DARPA-UCLA funds,
which arrived into the Purdue financial system in June, 2005, actually contribute to the intense
underlying research to find a way to self-nucleate in a totally different fluid-mixture of vastly
different properties, in a differently designed test cell, with random vs timed nucleation, conduct
a large array oftests, including careful control experiments, within "seconds" of receiving
funding from a new source? The mere thought of suggesting the use of such funds for something
already largely accomplished (and only requiring publication) is totally bizarre.
[link to newenergytimes.com]
cont.
39. The above mentioned issues highlighted in the Press are a either wrongful or
inaccurate allegations against Taleyarkhan (and in many respects all of us who worked with him)
and have no merit. These are apparently desperate attempts by our competitors to detract from
our seminal work on the discovery of sonofusion.
[link to newenergytimes.com]
Purdue News
____
March 2, 2004
Evidence bubbles over to support tabletop nuclear fusion device
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. – Researchers are reporting new evidence supporting their earlier discovery of an inexpensive "tabletop" device that uses sound waves to produce nuclear fusion reactions.
Rusi Taleyarkhan
The researchers believe the new evidence shows that "sonofusion" generates nuclear reactions by creating tiny bubbles that implode with tremendous force. Nuclear fusion reactors have historically required large, multibillion-dollar machines, but sonofusion devices might be built for a fraction of that cost.
[link to www.purdue.edu]
____
March 2, 2004
Evidence bubbles over to support tabletop nuclear fusion device
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. – Researchers are reporting new evidence supporting their earlier discovery of an inexpensive "tabletop" device that uses sound waves to produce nuclear fusion reactions.
Rusi Taleyarkhan
The researchers believe the new evidence shows that "sonofusion" generates nuclear reactions by creating tiny bubbles that implode with tremendous force. Nuclear fusion reactors have historically required large, multibillion-dollar machines, but sonofusion devices might be built for a fraction of that cost.
[link to www.purdue.edu]
Bubblegate Testimonials and Affidavits
Back to Bubblegate Portal
Before Lefteri Tsoukalas was removed as the head of the Purdue School of Nuclear Engineering, an extra-legal committee that he organized produced the Feb. 23, 2006, Statement from Adam Butt. Someone provided this document to Kenneth Chang of The New York Times. Chang has declined to confirm or deny whether Tsoukalas provided the document. Chang has confirmed that he received other related documents from Tsoukalas. Chang made the decision to publish the unsigned, unnotarized, unsworn, unverified document.
The Statement from Adam Butt caused severe problems for Rusi Taleyarkhan, a professor in the School of Nuclear Engineering. In response, numerous people came to Taleyarkhan's defense with testimonials and affidavits. A number of the affidavits accuse Tsoukalas of serious grievances. Some of them are now part of the public record in legal proceedings.
[link to newenergytimes.com]
Back to Bubblegate Portal
Before Lefteri Tsoukalas was removed as the head of the Purdue School of Nuclear Engineering, an extra-legal committee that he organized produced the Feb. 23, 2006, Statement from Adam Butt. Someone provided this document to Kenneth Chang of The New York Times. Chang has declined to confirm or deny whether Tsoukalas provided the document. Chang has confirmed that he received other related documents from Tsoukalas. Chang made the decision to publish the unsigned, unnotarized, unsworn, unverified document.
The Statement from Adam Butt caused severe problems for Rusi Taleyarkhan, a professor in the School of Nuclear Engineering. In response, numerous people came to Taleyarkhan's defense with testimonials and affidavits. A number of the affidavits accuse Tsoukalas of serious grievances. Some of them are now part of the public record in legal proceedings.
[link to newenergytimes.com]
On March 1, 2006 I helped set up two experiment stations for review by the visitors. The
first and main station involved experiments needed for the DARPA-UCLA project (i.e., using
external neutrons). The second experiment involved self-nucleation for which Ken Suslick of
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign himself was invited to and did indeed randomly select
neutron detectors for mounting on the test cells and for use as controls. He also insisted on doing
the experiment in a particular way and we accommodated each of his requests during setup. At
the end of the day, the detectors showed positive signatures of neutron emission as evidenced by
several people in the audience. Neither I, nor anyone from Purdue engaged in misconduct of any
kind and in fact went out ofour way to assist the visitors engage in a successful review.
[link to newenergytimes.com]
first and main station involved experiments needed for the DARPA-UCLA project (i.e., using
external neutrons). The second experiment involved self-nucleation for which Ken Suslick of
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign himself was invited to and did indeed randomly select
neutron detectors for mounting on the test cells and for use as controls. He also insisted on doing
the experiment in a particular way and we accommodated each of his requests during setup. At
the end of the day, the detectors showed positive signatures of neutron emission as evidenced by
several people in the audience. Neither I, nor anyone from Purdue engaged in misconduct of any
kind and in fact went out ofour way to assist the visitors engage in a successful review.
[link to newenergytimes.com]
They did it, didn't they? I mean, they did, but then funding got cut-off and they tried to discredit the researchers. Bubblegate.
They said it in signed affidavits. They did it, and were successful.
Purdue Knew
Purdue's Persecution of Professor Rusi Taleyarkhan
[link to newenergytimes.com]
They said it in signed affidavits. They did it, and were successful.
Purdue Knew
Purdue's Persecution of Professor Rusi Taleyarkhan
[link to newenergytimes.com]
Recent Advances and Results in Acoustic Inertial Confinement Bubble Nuclear Fusion
R. P. Taleyarkhan
Abstract
This paper provides an update on developments since the first announcement of the discovery in 2002 of acoustic inertial confinement (a.k.a bubble) nuclear fusion. A theoretical foundation for the supercompression of acoustically driven deuterated bubble clusters has been developed and published. Initially, bubble fusion experiments used external neutron sources for nucleating bubble clusters, and despite compelling evidence, lingering doubts remained because of the use of external neutrons to maintain neutron production. This was overcome using a self-nucleation method. In those novel experiments, seeding of nanometer bubbles was accomplished using nuclear-decay recoils from dissolved uranyl nitrate. Bubble fusion experiments have been replicated successfully, and confirmatory results were reported at least five times since 2005. Moreover, speculations and controversies about the discovery related to our bubble fusion experiments have now been conclusively addressed, rebutted, and dismissed.
[link to pubs.acs.org]
R. P. Taleyarkhan
Abstract
This paper provides an update on developments since the first announcement of the discovery in 2002 of acoustic inertial confinement (a.k.a bubble) nuclear fusion. A theoretical foundation for the supercompression of acoustically driven deuterated bubble clusters has been developed and published. Initially, bubble fusion experiments used external neutron sources for nucleating bubble clusters, and despite compelling evidence, lingering doubts remained because of the use of external neutrons to maintain neutron production. This was overcome using a self-nucleation method. In those novel experiments, seeding of nanometer bubbles was accomplished using nuclear-decay recoils from dissolved uranyl nitrate. Bubble fusion experiments have been replicated successfully, and confirmatory results were reported at least five times since 2005. Moreover, speculations and controversies about the discovery related to our bubble fusion experiments have now been conclusively addressed, rebutted, and dismissed.
[link to pubs.acs.org]
___________________________________________
A standing wave of sound creates a bubble in liquid. When the bubble implodes, light is emitted. This is called: Sonoluminescence. Awesome.
Sonoluminescence is the emission of short bursts of light from imploding bubbles in a liquid when excited by sound.
In 1989 a major experimental advance was introduced by Felipe Gaitan and Lawrence Crum, who produced stable single-bubble sonoluminescence (SBSL). In SBSL, a single bubble trapped in an acoustic standing wave, emits a pulse of light with each compression of the bubble within the standing wave. This technique allowed a more systematic study of the phenomenon, because it isolated the complex effects into one stable, predictable bubble. It was realized that the temperature inside the bubble was hot enough to melt steel. Interest in sonoluminescence was renewed when an inner temperature of such a bubble well above one million kelvins was postulated. This temperature is thus far not conclusively proven, though recent experiments conducted by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign indicate temperatures around 20,000 K.
Sonoluminescence can occur when a sound wave of sufficient intensity induces a gaseous cavity within a liquid to collapse quickly. This cavity may take the form of a pre-existing bubble, or may be generated through a process known as cavitation. Sonoluminescence in the laboratory can be made to be stable, so that a single bubble will expand and collapse over and over again in a periodic fashion, emitting a burst of light each time it collapses. For this to occur, a standing acoustic wave is set up within a liquid, and the bubble will sit at a pressure anti-node of the standing wave. The frequencies of resonance depend on the shape and size of the container in which the bubble is contained.
~ The light flashes from the bubbles are extremely short—between 35 and a few hundred picoseconds long—with peak intensities of the order of 1–10 mW.
~ The bubbles are very small when they emit the light—about 1 micrometre in diameter—depending on the ambient fluid (e.g., water) and the gas content of the bubble (e.g., atmospheric air).
~ Single-bubble sonoluminescence pulses can have very stable periods and positions. In fact, the frequency of light flashes can be more stable than the rated frequency stability of the oscillator making the sound waves driving them. However, the stability analyses of the bubble show that the bubble itself undergoes significant geometric instabilities, due to, for example, the Bjerknes forces and Rayleigh–Taylor instabilities.
~ The addition of a small amount of noble gas (such as helium, argon, or xenon) to the gas in the bubble increases the intensity of the emitted light.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
