Purdue and RPI have both achieved this. RPI was second, but had better instruments.
It is not technically cold fusion. The collapsing bubble creates a high temperature and pressure spot, but it is small enough that it doesn't provide enough boom to destroy the can.
They used deuterinated acetone as the working fluid. That is standard acetone chemically, but with the standard single proton hydrogen replaced with deuterium, a proton and a neutron. As the bubbles form in the low pressure region of the sound wave the acetone evaporates, then in the high pressure region the bubbles collapse.
It acts a bit like the military shaped charges, with the edges of the bubble adding vectorally. The tiny center of the collapsed bubble is hit with neutrons while at high pressure and temperature, and you get helium (two protons and one neutron) out with a bit of energy.
Helium will not stay bonded to the rest of the acetone, so you have a tendency of the acetone to poison itself after operating for a bit.
Some folks are working on turning this into a powerplant. The previous cold fusion work (in Utah) was a rediscovery of the Alverez effect.
in other words, until others can get a claim and fame on the discovery - it won't be recognized.
It seems that the pioneers are always crucified
Just a WAG, but it would be interesting to know if sonoluminescence varies with latitude.
Question -- I wonder if my minor quibble with the use of the word "clean" in this context is justified: If fusion reactions blast out high-energy neutrons, perhaps the MSM should be dissuaded from calling it "clean" energy? Laymen are going to get the idea that clean means "safe." In fact, I've seen some pretty wild futuristic claims about cold fusion, e.g., where everything from wrist watches, to blenders, to automobiles, to nuclear submarines would all have their own little cold fusion nuclear power plant onboard, and big centralized power plants run by big utility companies would be a thing of the past. But I think these claims neglect the spray of neutrons you'd get out such devices . . . Or am I wrong about that?
Read later ping.
An article re. fusion appearing today on the other side of the world:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Sciences-suninabubble-debate-heats-up/2005/02/19/1108709482776.html
There's your answer. The luminescence is a chemical effect, definitely not nuclear.
The question is does it generate more energy than it takes to make it happen? If so I'm ready for either the sonoluminescentmobile or the fusioncar, whatever they want to call it.
Why does this whole article have such a strong bias towards the scientist's results being correct? If so many other scientists are sceptical, couldn't the BBC at least give them a voice in the article?
How about he calls it "Bob" instead of "fusion". That way science won't get it's panties in a wad and we can see if there's a commercially viable use for this discovery.