Sonofusion Experiment Produces Results Without External Neutron Source

A team of researchers from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Purdue University, and the Russian Academy of Sciences has used sound waves to induce nuclear fusion without the need for an external neutron source, according to a paper in the Jan. 27 issue of Physical Review Letters.

The results address one of the most prominent questions raised after publication of the team’s earlier results in 2004, suggesting that “sonofusion” may be a viable approach to producing neutrons for a variety of applications.

By bombarding a special mixture of acetone and benzene with oscillating sound waves, the researchers caused bubbles in the mixture to expand and then violently collapse. This technique, which has been dubbed “sonofusion,” produces a shock wave that has the potential to fuse nuclei together, according to the team.

The telltale sign that fusion has occurred is the production of neutrons. Earlier experiments were criticized because the researchers used an external neutron source to produce the bubbles, and some have suggested that the neutrons detected as evidence of fusion might have been left over from this external source.

“To address the concern about the use of an external neutron source, we found a different way to run the experiment,” says Richard T. Lahey Jr., the Edward E. Hood Professor of Engineering at Rensselaer and coauthor of the paper. “The main difference here is that we are not using an external neutron source to kick the whole thing off.”

In the new setup, the researchers dissolved natural uranium in the solution, which produces bubbles through radioactive decay. “This completely obviates the need to use an external neutron source, resolving any lingering confusion associated with the possible influence of external neutrons,” says Robert Block, professor emeritus of nuclear engineering at Rensselaer and also an author of the paper.

The experiment was specifically designed to address a fundamental research question, not to make a device that would be capable of producing energy, Block says. At this stage the new device uses much more energy than it releases, but it could prove to be an inexpensive and portable source of neutrons for sensing and imaging applications.

To verify the presence of fusion, the researchers used three independent neutron detectors and one gamma ray detector. All four detectors produced the same results: a statistically significant increase in the amount of nuclear emissions due to sonofusion when compared to background levels.

As a cross-check, the experiments were repeated with the detectors at twice the original distance from the device, where the amount of neutrons decreased by a factor of about four. These results are in keeping with what would be predicted by the “inverse square law,” which provides further evidence that fusion neutrons were in fact produced inside the device, according to the researchers.

The sonofusion debate began in 2002 when the team published a paper in Science indicating that they had detected neutron emissions from the implosion of cavitation bubbles of deuterated-acetone vapor. These data were questioned because it was suggested that the researchers used inadequate instrumentation, so the team replicated the experiment with an upgraded instrumentation system that allowed data acquisition over a much longer time. This led to a 2004 paper published in Physical Review E, which was subsequently criticized because the researchers still used an external neutron source to produce the bubbles, leading to the current paper in Physical Review Letters.

The latest experiment was conducted at Purdue University. At Rensselaer and in Russia, Lahey and Robert I. Nigmatulin performed the theoretical analysis of the bubble dynamics and predicted the shock-induced pressures, temperatures, and densities in the imploding bubbles. Block helped to design, set up, and calibrate a state-of-the-art neutron and gamma ray detection system for the new experiments.

The research team leaders are all well known authorities in the field of nuclear engineering. Lahey is a fellow of both the American Nuclear Society (ANS) and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), and is a member of the National Academy of Engineering (NAE). Block is the longtime director of the Gaerttner Linear Accelerator (LINAC) Laboratory at Rensselaer, and he is also a fellow of the ANS and recipient of their 2005 Seaborg Medal, which recognizes an individual who has made outstanding scientific or engineering research contributions to the development of peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Taleyarkhan, a fellow of the ANS and the program’s director, is currently the Ardent Bement Jr. Professor of Nuclear Engineering at Purdue University. Nigmatulin is a visiting scholar at Rensselaer, a former member of the Russian Duma, and the president of the Bashkortonstan branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS).

If you talk to some "in the business" type "nuke guys" you will find out that the Fusor is not only real, but very well known working technology.

Reminds me of a New Yorker cartoon: an executive type is talking on the phone and says,
"A billion is a thousand million ? Why wasn't I informed of this ?"

Having been involved in the new energy field now for several years, a few things are obvious. Many flashes in the pan that go no where. Dissipation of resources, many promising leads going no where, lost in the shouting crowd for investor monies. Many dead ends like the hydrogen economy(where does the energy come from in the FIRST place to produce H2?). Deadly fission plants, the core of the iranian problem. Big oil of course throws every obstacle in our way, no business ever funds its competitor and so politicians run off at the mouth about freedom from foreign oil but, since they are OWNED by big oil, you'll NEVER see them helping. Like Jesus said : lawyers, liers, pharisees : you load burdens on other men's backs but won't lift a finger to help. But consider this : a fantastic new energy source arrives, do you give it to EVERYONE? Idiots, children, terrorists; what will they, in their ignorance or malice, do with it? Or AG? Picture BILLIONS of poor, starving third worlders landing on YOUR lawn, stripping everything you own BARE, with this magic flying carpet(technology)you gave them? Do you see then how TOO MUCH energy is as bad as too little? It leads quickly to the extermination of the human race, not its salvation...

The demand for better and better, the idea that there is something greater out there has propelled such luminaries as Galileo, Columbus and Einstein; and this drive will perhaps propel man to the stars. Of course, as you imply, it may also assist us on our road to perdition.

If we can survive this decade, we may be energy independent yet.

Nice as that is, I've begun to theorize that solving any such problem creates many more to fight about. People will always demand more and better stuff at the cost of freedom, taxes, and civility.

Therefore, the problem is not energy- but those who are never happy in life and constantly complaining about things...
////////////
the federal research budget on alternate energy research runs about 1.5 billion spread over 4 years. The federal research budget on nanotechnology run 1+ billion every year.

imho the alternate energy solutions will come from nano technology as materials reasearchers find better faster smarter materials for catalysts, semipermiable membranes & hydrogen storage.

I enjoy reading the flow of research on this stuff. imho we're within five years of some major major technological break throughs.

What's your take on superconduction? I've always had a childish dream of building hugh nuclear plants out in the desert where nobody will complain, but then you'd need to transmit the power... using some new ceramics, perhaps.

I think that will have to wait for a major major breakthrough in materials research coming in a couple years.

Currently what's happening in materials research is that scientists can run models of molecules and then run simulations of combinations of molecules until they find a combination that they like. and then they shake and bake it into existance.

I think that really cheap high temperature superconducting materials will have to wait until the next generation math for materials comes out. I've seen a couple papers in the last several months from one of the ivy's in the north east. The papers were involved with doing the math to create algorithms that will enable programmers to directly specify the characteristics of a material they want to build and then shake and bake it into existance.

Man when that happens the world changes in a flash. It'll be just like a frigging house has dropped on the world and the present age will be like the witch in the wizard of oz when the house drops on the witch and all that's left of her that we can see are her shriveling feet.

It'll be just like a frigging house has dropped on the world and the present age will be like the witch in the wizard of oz when the house drops on the witch and all that's left of her that we can see are her shriveling feet.

That's what they all say... In any case the same things are happening in biotech. Genomics, proteomics, modelling of proteins, enzymes, target drugs, and other computational biology - all thanks to computers.

There were traditional biologists who resisted these tools... If we had listened to them we'd still be at the start of the Human Genome project, an estimated 300-year process of using dideoxy chain termination to sequence DNA. Celera did it in 2 years!

"Man when that happens the world changes in a flash. It'll be just like a frigging house has dropped on the world and the present age will be like the witch in the wizard of oz when the house drops on the witch and all that's left of her that we can see are her shriveling feet."

Sounds like a winner...but will the common cold be expunged?

"will it come from the US fusion research budget."

This isn't about fusion as an energy source. The thing runs at room temp. That means any fusion reaction is quenched immediately. At most, this device might be good for a neutron source for diagnostic testing purposes. That's it. It's a small niche market item. Right now, the beaker's output is 3x the background radiation around you now.

Oh, I agree with that, but that doesn't matter. If fusion is in the conversation, you can rest assured it will be in the research grant applications and those will be sent to the folks who dole out fusion money. That makes it a threat to the fusion empires.

Sounds like a winner...but will the common cold be expunged?

////////////////
no probably not. but then I don't know as much about what's happening in biotech except that there are similiar tools. Still, if I were to hazard a guess I would guess no because colds are caused by so many different viruses and viruses can likely mutate pretty quickly ... so as fast as a cure for a particular bug could be developed a new one would pop up.

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.