Posted on 02/18/2005 11:29:31 AM PST by Arkie2
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
There is a claim of a process that goes beyond this, and their is a company seeking capital to exploit both. Some question whether they are nothing more than a scam however.
I have lost the details but boot hill may remember.
Researchers report bubble fusion results replicated ~ Cold fusion no longer confusion
Thanks for the link. The team mentioned in this article as having replicated the results is the same team led by Taleyharkin who claimed to have detected fusion in 2002. The BBC team sponsored an attempt to replicate the experiment and reported that there was absolutely no evidence of fusion.
So, the beat goes on. This appears to be cousin to the cold fusion debate. Until the results can be replicated in other labs there's not much here in my opinion but I wanted other's opinions.
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?
If the set up is this simple, you'd think the experiment would be reproduced (or fail at being reprodueded)immediately all over the world, and the controversy would not be dragged out for years.
I saw stuff like this in a corner of the accelerator lab at BYU in the early 90s. It's kind of neato, but there's a big jump from random collapse to controlled generation. Although, I wonder if something like a laser might be acheived here...
Rule #1: The essence of scientific experimentation is that the experiment be replicable by others.
"The data speaks for itself."
Rule #2: Data never speaks for itself.
"US government made some research funds available...to turn their star in a jar into fusion...Rusi Taleyarkhan got there first."
Rule #3: The glare of light reflecting from gold can sometimes blind even the keenest eye.
Bottom line here, EATB, is even if this sonoluminescence is eventually shown to produce fusion, it is producing it in such minute amounts that the resulting neutron flux is masked by the very tiny amounts of background (natural) neutron radiation.
--Boot Hill
No, your BS detector is working just fine.
--Boot Hill
I always wondered about that too. The nuetrons can irradiate objects, can't they?
Of course, I imagine they're easily contained in the (hypothetical) retaining walls of a powerplant.
If it produces energy in tiny amounts, that could still be significant, because it could presumably be done on a larger scale.
I say presumably because their could be engineering or containment problems. But usually those sorts of problems are soluble.
As for the pollution question, neutrons are not a problem except possibly up close when they are moving very fast. So it's doubtful that you would power a wristwatch this way. But you would produce clean, cheap electric power that could charge batteries, charge hydrogen cells, and power the national electrical grid.
Hydrogen cells are totally useless as a source of "alternative" energy unless you find a clean, non-fossil method of breaking down water into hydrogen and oxygen. Using electricity from coal, oil, or natural gas fired power plants to produce hydrogen is worthless.
Inefficient is inefficient, irrespective of the scale.
"...neutrons are not a problem except possibly up close when they are moving very fast."
What happens to an atom that absorbs one of those very fast neutrons? It becomes a radio-isotope.
--Boot Hill
Read later ping.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.