2009 17 Dec

Sonofusion Could Rescue The Earth?

In making the below article, a number of academics/tutors/teachers were consulted.

The rush to find a revolutionary sustainable energy source is becoming increasingly important as frightening projections on those remaining are made. Nuclear fusion has demonstrated to produce large energy outputs but only with methods requiring more energy than generated.

The general concencus from the academics/tutors/teachers was that:
When claims to achieving nuclear fusion relatively simply from audio 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 produce fusion using sonofusion, the phenomena sonoluminescence (SL) under special conditions. SL is when high velocity ultra sonic waves are focused onto very small bubbles inside a liquid, the vibrations from the sound 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, generated using a pulse of neutrons. These were shown more stable than tiny air bubbles already present in the liquid, which enabled extreme pressure and temperature conditions.

If D-D fusion happens the outputs of tritium and neutrons should be balanced and occur simultaneously with the output of light. However, one source shows that the results from the experiments don’t reflect this, with a tritium neutron ratio of a maximum 10:1, and they reason this with:

1)’Neutron energy reduction by scattering in the test chamber’

2) ‘Reduced detections efficiency for large-angle knock-ons from 2.5MeV neutrons’

3) ‘Possible non-uniformities in T concentration in the acetone’

M.J.Saltmarsh and D.Shapira re-produced the experiment and said that these reasons would only permit a 2:1 which doesn’t permit for the 10:1 ratio described in. They also questioned the disagreement in timing of the light from SL and the neutrons perceived from the acclaimed sonofusion. Hinting the neutron counts were not produced in the SL but were from background noise and muddled with the neutrons being used to form the bubbles.

In answer to this report Taleyarkhan et al. said didn’t account for experimental differences and that they had mistaken the data in their calculations. Taleyarkin et al. then published an additional article in 2004 citing that the previous results had been re-produced with the addition of neutron output on later cycles in the bubble implosions.

In 2005 the BBC joined in, commissioning S.Putterman to execute an independent experiment Puttermans results showed absolutely no connection between the timing of the SL flashes and the neutron signals and so concluded negative.

The moral 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 pursued when a new report of Taleyarkhans results being reconstructed by E.Forringer et al was reported later that year. However on September 10th 2007 it was declared further investigation was being reinitiated due to several issues including the re-produced results being carried out in Taleyarkhan’s own labs.

The academics/tutors/teachers concluded that:
The riddle over sonofusion can be uncovered with further experimentation and has the potential to revolutionise the modern world.