Researchers report bubble fusion results replicated ~ Cold fusion no longer confusion

The Inquirer UK ^ | Friday 21 January 2005, 08:10 | Nick Farrell:

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

BOFFINS FROM the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), Purdue University, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), and the Russian Academy of Science (RAS) have managed to replicate controversial cold fusion experiments.

A March 2002 an article in Science (Vol. 295, March 2002), indicated that boffins had managed to use bubble fusion successfully, but this data was questioned because it was made with imprecise instrumentation.

Now Physical Review E is publishing an article by the team of researchers stating that it has replicated and extended previous experimental results and this time has used the right instruments. Cold fusion is a bit of a holy grail in the science world because if it could be made to work, it could produce a lot of energy without having to have a large amount of energy to start it.

Scientists have managed to do it in the past, but it always required more energy to be put into it than could be taken out, which is defeating the point a bit. A press release going into the details can be found here. µ

[expatpat]

No, there's a long wait between submitting a paper to Phys. Rev. and its actual publication.

[VadeRetro]

Moving at about the speed of sound, the internal shock waves impacted at the center of the bubbles causing very high compression and accompanying temperatures of about 100 million Kelvin.

As has been pointed out before, not really "cold" fusion. No wonder you put in more energy than you get out here.

[bahblahbah]

I googled up "Physics Review E" and the only article about fusion is talking about laser defined fusion.

http://scitation.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=PLEEE8&Volume=71&Issue=1#MINOR17

[expatpat]

See #81.

[bahblahbah]

defined=confined

[rface]

is that..note at #62 for real....or somebody just having some fun?

I think it's real -- looks real to me

[Quix]

Thanks. Anyone following it fair-mindedly expected this in due course.

[MeanWestTexan]

Puffin! That's it.

Don't know where I got "boffin" in my mind.


MMMMM Flightless bird. Delicious.

[Physicist]

But I sure hope so.

I know. Really cheap energy would trump everything; all the world's problems would fade to irrelevance.

Analogy: my daughter had me up until almost 4:00 am. I got up at 7:00, after which I took my son to preschool, which it turned out was closed. When I got home, an ice dam revealed a serious leak in our roof. But it's all OK, because the Eagles are going to the Superbowl.

That's what cold fusion would mean, but for the whole world.

[Plutarch]

Moving at about the speed of sound, the internal shock waves impacted at the center of the bubbles causing very high compression and accompanying temperatures of about 100 million Kelvin.

Now I'm not too sure about those crazy metric measurements, but I don't think that fusion at a temperature of 100 million Kelvin is best described as cold.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

January 20, 2005

Researchers Report Bubble Fusion Results Replicated Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Posted by tourdemars to Technology at January 20, 2005 11:29 AM Physical Review E has announced the publication of an article by a team of researchers from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), Purdue University, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), and the Russian Academy of Science (RAS) stating that they have replicated and extended previous experimental results that indicated the occurrence of nuclear fusion using a novel approach for plasma confinement. This approach, called bubble fusion, and the new experimental results are being published in an extensively peer-reviewed article titled “Additional Evidence of Nuclear Emissions During Acoustic Cavitation,” which is scheduled to be posted on Physical Review E’s Web site and published in its journal this month.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

extensively peer-reviewed article

Does this explain the delay in this paper.....

See #91.

[2ndreconmarine]

I tried your link, it didn't work for me.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

See #91.

[elfman2]

" I still have a newspaper clipping from the Fleischman and Pons 1989 press conference. It's tucked inside my organic chem. text book. "

You too? I have one from the week it was discovered as well, LA Times I think. I collected crap like that for a couple of years and drug it around to about 10 different residences.

[2ndreconmarine]

No, there's a long wait between submitting a paper to Phys. Rev. and its actual publication.

Not typically 10 months. The peer review process I am familiar with lasts 2 months tops. Although... perhaps with something this controversial. Still, something is funny hear. Especially since the google search did not reveal the paper.

[norwaypinesavage]

"There's a long wait between submitting a paper to Phys. Rev. and its actual publication."

Good point. There may be more MSM coverage after the actual publication.

[bahblahbah]

“Additional Evidence of Nuclear Emissions During Acoustic Cavitation”

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PLEEE8000071000001019901000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=Yes

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Sorry...but that link actually takes you back to the paper at post #3 above.

[elfman2]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. "

Freepers must have argued with me a dozen times after I said that.