In making the below article, a number of academics/tutors/teachers were consulted.
The competition to find a new sustainable energy source is becoming increasingly important as frightening projections on those remaining are made. Nuclear fusion has proved to produce vast energy outputs but only with methods requiring more energy than produced.
The general concencus from the academics/tutors/teachers was that:
When claims to achieving nuclear fusion relatively simply from noise waves concentrated scrutiny and criticism was inevitable. R.P.Taleyarkhan et al. published the original papers outlining exactly these results in 2002 that have since been dismissed by various scientists.
Taleyarkhan et al. claims to attain fusion using sonofusion, the phenomena sonoluminescence (SL) under specific conditions. SL is when high velocity ultra sonic waves are focused onto very small bubbles inside a liquid, the vibrations from the audio cause the bubble to collapse and let out a flash of light. The experiments performed in involve creating sonoluminescence in deuterated acetone with unique bubbles, produced using a pulse of neutrons. These proved more stable than tiny air bubbles already present in the liquid, which enabled high pressure and temperature conditions.
If D-D fusion is observed the outputs of tritium and neutrons should be the same and occur simultaneously with the production of light. However, one source acknowledges that the results from the experiments don’t show this, with a tritium neutron ratio of a maximum 10:1, and they reason this with:
1)’Neutron energy loss by scattering in the test chamber’
2) ‘Reduced detections efficiency for sizeable-angle knock-ons from 2.5MeV neutrons’
3) ‘Possible irregularities in T concentration in the acetone’
M.J.Saltmarsh and D.Shapira re-produced the experiment and stated that these reasons would only allow a 2:1 which doesn’t allow for the 10:1 ratio described in. They also questioned the difference in timing of the light from SL and the neutrons noted from the acclaimed sonofusion. Indicating the neutron counts were not produced in the SL but were from background noise and combined with the neutrons being used to form the bubbles.
In answer to this report Taleyarkhan et al. said didn’t account for experimental discrepancies and that they had mishandled the data in their calculations. Taleyarkin et al. eventually produced an additional article in 2004 citing that the previous results had been re-produced with the addition of neutron production on later cycles in the bubble implosions.
In 2005 the BBC joined in, asking S.Putterman to do an independent experiment Puttermans results implied absolutely no correlation between the timing of the SL flashes and the neutron signals and so concluded negative.
The legal side of this issue is also of immense interest, with Taleyarkhan being blamed by Dr.Suslick for scientific misconduct in 2006. This was not further followed when a new report of Taleyarkhans results being re-produced by E.Forringer et al was produced later that year. However on September 10th 2007 it was declared more investigation was being reinitiated due to several issues including the reconstructed results being carried out in Taleyarkhan’s own labs.
The academics/tutors/teachers concluded that:
The intrigue over sonofusion can be found with more experimentation and has the potential to revolutionise the modern world.