[Asclepius]

Actually, yes. Scientific/tech terms are supposed to be descriptive of the process. Since "sonoluminescence" is already an accepted term, I'm happy with "sonofusion".

My (counter)question would be this: what about the other kind of "fusion"? Why isn't it called "nuetro-fusion" or something like that? How is this fusion different than the other fusion?--answer: only because of the perturbing force or cause. Why is combustion in gasoline engines not called "sparkcombustion" as opposed to "compressioncombustion" for diesel engines?

So by your reasoning should not every instance of fusion, however caused, get its own moniker too?--and would we not be multiplying terms beyond necessity when what we're talking about in every instance is still fusion?

Wonder warthoggin', I think, would be a more defensible term. It has a better ring to it.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Why isn't it called "nuetro-fusion" or something like that? How is this fusion different than the other fusion?"

For the simple reason that for many decades, it was the "only" type of fusion even considered as possible. Then there was "cold" fusion to distinguish it from "hot" fusion. And now there is "sonofusion" to distinguish it from either of those.

Semantics aside, this is really exciting news.