Talk:Bubble fusion

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rename? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Cleanup needed

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Items recently added

message: I removed this paragraph as it was a duplication, it was discussed earlier in detail
:An even more recent Nature articleNature. March, 2006. Bubble fusion: silencing the hype 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)
thread_title:  Duplication 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  realistic consequences of "bubble fusion" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "deuterated benzine" or "deuterated benzene"? 

message: 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:
* 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 Wikipedia: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.)
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)
thread_title:  Source cleanup 

message: This article still needs some work being updated.  Specifically, this bit needs some work:
I'm not sure what to do with it. Which measurements have been reported by whom? — Omegatron 03:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Update article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Replication" / Doubts prompt investigation - Hypothesis 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Updates to Bubble Fusion Controversy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Map of Purdue Allegations 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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[http://newenergytimes.com/v2/inthenews/2007/Q2/CHE-BurstingOfBubbleFusion.shtml. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Conclusions section? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Introduction 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  2H Plasma smashed to 3H EBC Wall 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sonoluminescene and Sonofusion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: Cheers, bothead. GangofOne (talk) 02:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)