*Shakes head so hard slobber flies from his chops*
Huh-WHAT?!? LOL
Posted on 09/12/2006 1:05:40 PM PDT by saganite
On May 8, 2006, science journalist Eugenie Samuel Reich published a series of four articles in Nature which came as close as possible to accusing Purdue physicist Rusi Taleyarkhan of committing fraud without actually saying so.
Taleyarkhan's research -- nuclear reactions in a novel mechanism that could have immense technological potential -- apparently seemed too good and too profound to Reich and Nature.
Reich's series of four stories in Nature was replete with innuendo and groundless speculation, building a house of cards on which to base the thesis that her journalistic investigation would lead to "the end of bubble fusion."
The core of the Reich/Nature allegation was based on speculations made by physicist Seth Putterman and his associate Brian Naranjo at UCLA that an on-hand source of Californium-252 was responsible for the novel results claimed by Taleyarkhan.
Months earlier, Putterman, after receiving $800,000 from the U.S. government, failed in his effort to replicate the Taleyarkhan experiment.
Taleyarkhan's collaborator, Richard T. Lahey Jr., a professor of engineering and physics at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, told IEEE Spectrum that "Putterman was using a design 'that was doomed to failure' and that he told him so when visiting his laboratory at UCLA last year."
Putterman and Naranjo disagreed with Lahey and told IEEE Spectrum that the UCLA team performed the replication "according to blueprints provided by Taleyarkhan's group."
Naranjo, with the help of Putterman, a direct competitor of Taleyarkhan for research funds, speculated that the nuclear emissions from Taleyarkhan's experiment were the result of contamination. But there was little to suggest that this was just an innocent mistake, according to the way the story was reported by Reich in Nature.
Taleyarkhan is far too experienced a scientist to make such a careless mistake: allowing contamination from on-hand source of Californium-252 to interfere with the results. The very clear implication was that Taleyarkhan had spiked his experiment intentionally.
And thus, within a matter of hours after the Nature story broke, Taleyarkhan's name and reputation, as well as Purdue's, were being defamed around the world in print and electronic media.
Reich never mentioned the word fraud; she didn't have to. It was a well-executed assist, though Reich told New Energy Times that she failed to see New Energy Times' perspective that her story was "ugly journalism." Reuters introduced the word "fraud" in the story and used the word fraud in its suggested headline. Many newspapers picked up Reuters' story.
Two days later, on March 10, New Energy Times investigated the controversy and identified numerous questions about the manner in which the Reich/Nature story developed.
Since we completed our March 10 investigation, we have been following this story closely. There is much more to it. This article will not go into all of the details; however, New Energy Times has received important news this week, as well as a set of key facts that appear to vindicate Taleyarkhan.
Earlier this week, Physical Review Letters accepted for publication a paper by Brian Naranjo, who initiated this controversy by speculating that Taleyarkhan's bubble-fusion neutrons were the result of Californium-252 contamination.
However, Taleyarkhan has been a busy man in the last few months. In addition to hiring attorneys to help him defend his personal and professional rights, undergoing a University administrative examination, and enduring numerous personal challenges and disruptions, he decided to tackle Naranjo's charge head-on.
He and his colleagues, Robert Block and Richard Lahey Jr. of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Robert Nigmatulin, former president of the Ufa branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences; and Yiban Xu, a postdoctoral research assistant at Purdue, tested Naranjo's speculation empirically. They performed experiments in which they intentionally exposed the test device to Californium-252.
According to their findings, a different spectrum results, refuting the Naranjo claim.
"Rather than argue about the merits or demerits of attempts at a computer code calculation for a ‘presumed experimental configuration and instrument settings-cum-performance,’ we directly obtained additional experimental data with our laboratory’s Californium-252 source with the same liquid scintillation and sodium iodide detectors and settings used before. We then show by direct one-on-one comparison that the reported spectra in our [earlier] paper for neutron and gamma photons are significantly different from corresponding spectra derived from a Californium-252 source."
This paper, too, was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication by Physical Review Letters earlier this week.
Yet another paper by Taleyarkhan is also on the way.
Andrei Lipson from the University of Illinois, an expert on the use of CR-39 track detectors, had submitted comments regarding the Taleyarkhan work to Physical Review Letters in the traditional manner. The Taleyarkhan group's rebuttal to Lipson has been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication, as well.
Furthermore, Taleyarkhan reports to New Energy Times that there have been four successful public demonstrations of his bubble fusion phenomenon since March 2006.
Taleyarkhan told us that he and his colleagues invited outside visitors and experts into their laboratory to offer real-time demonstrations of bubble fusion. Taleyarkhan asserts that all four successful results have been acknowledged in written affidavits and documentation. He has provided us with three of these, which are summarized below. The fourth has been promised.
One independent group, a professor and two students from a university in Texas, obtained successful results in an audit of Taleyarkhan's experiment, confirming the key elements of the discovery with two independent detection methods. One used a liquid scintillation detector; the other used a passive CR-39 track detector. This group has submitted its results for peer review in the proceedings of a forthcoming international conference as well as a respected peer-reviewed journal.
Taleyarkhan has requested that the identity of this group be withheld pending review of its papers; however, New Energy Times has obtained a pre-print of the paper. The summary reads as follows:
"Neutron production during self-nucleated acoustic cavitation of a mixture of deuterated acetone and benzene has been verified with two independent neutron detectors. No neutron production is observed for the deuterated liquid when cavitation is not present, and neutrons are not produced with or without cavitation for the non-deuterated liquid. These observations support previous results showing deuteron-deuteron fusion during self-nucleated acoustic cavitation of a mixture of deuterated acetone and benzene."
William Bugg, a nuclear research professor at Stanford University with more than 50 years' experience, visited the Purdue laboratory on June 6-7 and provided a strong endorsement of Taleyarkhan’s use of CR-39 track detectors, generally considered to be an unambiguous diagnostic method for detection of nuclear emissions. Observers can see results from such detectors with their own eyes instead of depending on complicated electronic devices.
CR-39 track detectors permanently record neutron or charged particles emanating from a nuclear source by an etching procedure after exposure. They are used routinely by health physicists to measure exposure of individuals to neutrons, which, unlike charged particles, can present a serious health risk. The detectors provide a permanent record of the exposure and can be examined microscopically track by track at any time after the experiment.
Bugg's report says he found "statistically significant excess neutrons over the background in the two deuterated sample detectors located on the chamber and none in the undeuterated sample."
The third testimonial New Energy Times has obtained is that of Ross Tessien of Impulse Devices Inc.
Tessien wrote, "The experiment conducted yesterday revealed that the background sample tracks were in the range of about 15-16 tracks, whereas the chamber-mounted detectors experienced an increase to approximately 28 and 39 tracks, respectively."
It is my opinion that this is STILL a worthwhile avenue to pursue...
How about sonoluminescence being a sort of Cherenkov radiation produced by in-spinning bubble components ridding themselves of excess energy to stay under local c as they conserve angular momentum?
*Shakes head so hard slobber flies from his chops*
Huh-WHAT?!? LOL
Unfortunately, the nonsense about outside "audits" in lieu of outside replication should bring an instant cry of "BULLSHIT!" from every physicist in the house.
Funny thing is, the three old women huddled in the corner chanting "Double, double, toil and trouble - Fire burn and cauldron bubble..."
Putterman, the physicist mentioned in the Article as challenging Taleyarkan's results' has produced a working "tabletop fusion" device he says will be useful for things like security scans etc. but did not achieve excess energy. I suspect there's an ongoing battle among these guys to come up with some sort of explanation for this phenomenon and it's getting nasty. I'm reserving judgement on it since I don't even come close to having the knowledge to evaluate any of these claims but I'll stick to the old adage that where's there is smoke there is fire. Something is happening in these experiments and I wish the physics community could come to some conclusion, whether it's a source of excess energy or not.
This is all part of the gov't funded CTNF crowd to deep six Cold Fusion, it's been going on since 1989. No business(and CTNF is a BUSINESS, that will NEVER get over unity energy, but ALWAYS gets over unity FUNDING of your tax dollars)ever funds its competitor that will put IT out of business. Do you have access to a mass spectrometer and $100 for parts? To wit, a 6V battery charger, stainless steel cup and spoon, BB beads, coffee filters, plastic brochure cover, drum-type nickel coating of BB beads(at local jeweler), photographic fluid(KOH)...in a weeks run you transmute the Ni into a whole spectrum of elements as the electrolyte cell cooks away at about 100:1 output over input. As an architect I did this on the kitchen counter. My mass-spec test showed the usual high tritium spike plus K41 went from 8% natural abundance to 15% by actual count.....Thus you see that there is a conspiracy against CF/LENR/sonofusion and this journalist is just one more hit man in a long list of hit men, don't even bother listening to them anymore, you KNOW where they are coming from...LIARS one and all.
I don't understand your contention that this journo is a hit man since this article is sympathetic to Taleyarkhan and his claims for bubble fusion. Also, this online website is sympathetic to his research.
Rule One. The Scientific Method cannot prove anything. Indeed, its only purpose is to disprove false assertions and hypotheses.
Rule Two. Whenever somebody -- anybody -- claims that they have scientifically proven something -- hold onto your wallet and check the silver drawer.
The point of scientific challenge and technical criticism is to knock holes in things.
What a bunch of whiners. Challenge and disbelief are the foundations of good science. Believing what you are told is fine when it's your parents or your priest talking, but not some scientist out on a grant.
When scientists make assertions, they are SUPPOSED to get challenged. HARD.
If you read the article you'll see that Taleyarkan is submitting new papers to refute his critics. Hence, the scientific process goes on.
Neither the scientific community, nor I (a physics major long long ago) care as much for a "paper" as a successfully met challenge. Papers don't refute. Experiments that cah be reproduced refute. Read on please.
> Something is happening in these experiments and I wish the physics community could come to some conclusion, whether it's a source of excess energy or not.
Look, claims and assertions progress from speculation, to conjecture, to hypothesis, to theory only one way -- by making accurate predictions and surviving hard challenges.
The more accurate predictions made, and the more hard challenges met, the better a claim looks. This is fundamental to all science.
The most rigorous testing of all -- decades or centuries of accurate predictions and challenges met -- allows a theory to be considered a Law of Physics. There aren't many of them, for a damn good reason. It's tough.
A couple of experiments like the ones described here are fine and worthy endeavors, and the experimenters should be encouraged.
But don't start talking about changing something like Thermodynamics or Conservation of Energy because of it. Get real. The huge weight of evidence and experience is on the side of the law, not the neat new hard-to-reproduce experiment.
When this has been reproduced in hundreds of labs under rigorous scrutiny, you can talk about the "physics community" giving a rat's ass about it. The history of science is filled with such neat things, all untrue. If this one is real, it'll pan out -- after decades of scrutiny, not before.
The papers submitted are the result of further experimentation. If you read any of my earlier posts you'll see that even the most ardent critic of Taleyarkan has achieved some limited results with his own experiments. The scientific community will decide in it's own time what is happening here (and there surely is a process at work that is not clearly understood) but your assertion that this is all BS isn't credible in light of the results that have been achieved so far.
Nowhere did I say it is BS. Indeed, I said:
"A couple of experiments like the ones described here are fine and worthy endeavors, and the experimenters should be encouraged."
Let the experimenters carry on. I'm an experimentalist myself, I like it when people rock the boat.
I'm only objecting to the idea that these initial forays are already worthy of talk about challenging the laws of physics. Reality check...
Oh, yeah. There's also got to be some serious math behind it. Physics and math are fraternal twins -- not identical, but they are so tightly bonded as to be inseparable. There is not one good scientific hypothesis, much less theory or law, that doesn't have a solid mathematical basis. That's some of what takes decades. If there is anything that smacks of "proof" in physics, it is due to the math, not to any number of experiments. Experiments can only disprove.
Consider something as simple as Ohm's Law in electricity. He got it wrong for years due to the internal resistance of his own batteries. The simple truth emerged long after the original experiments and documents, for which he was roundly criticized.
"New" is not a compliment, in physics. It is grounds for healthy and tough skepticism.
This is a success story for science -- it shows how the checks and balances we have spent hundreds of years building work and work well.
But I agree this should still be pursued.
I recommend that you clam down. Don't overreact as I have in the past.
I'm rather calm and nothing in that post indicates any lack of calmness. Maybe you should try not to read between the lines?
I'm still waiting for the cold-fusion bomb.
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.