Failure to Reproduce Fuels Fraud Claims
By Brian Wallheimer
The [Lafayette, Indiana] Journal & Courier

May 22 , 2007

If Rusi Taleyarkhan is right about bubble fusion, it could revolutionize the energy industry.

If he's wrong, his name will forever be associated with a major blunder in the scientific world.

So which is it?

Taleyarkhan claims to have achieved tabletop bubble fusion, a process that could lead to the production of cheap, clean energy. It's also a process that's much too complicated for almost anyone who isn't a nuclear scientist to understand.

The idea behind the experiment is to bombard a liquid solution with sound waves that cause bubbles to implode, giving off massive amounts of heat and fusion, which could be used for energy production.

But many high−profile scientists have tried to duplicate Taleyarkhan's findings without success, leading to a large amount of skepticism. In fact, the word fraud is even being bandied about, though no one likes to say it.

"The most probable explanation of the observations and lack of reproducibility is the 'F−word,' " said Ken Suslick, a University of Illinois chemistry professor who has filed allegations against Taleyarkhan.

Taleyarkhan argues that those who tried his experiments were unable to do so because their equipment had flaws or was not set up correctly.

Suslick has visited Taleyarkhan's lab and said he has firsthand knowledge of fraud, which he won't talk about with the media.

His allegations are at least part of the current inquiry into research misconduct Purdue is conducting over the Taleyarkhan situation.

Others stop just short of calling his work fraud.

Brian Naranjo, a postdoctoral scholar at the University of California Los Angeles, has done experiments he believes show that Taleyarkhan's research is incorrect.

Naranjo explained that fusion gives off a neutron spectrum that can be shown on a graph. He said the neutron spectrum from Taleyarkhan's bubble fusion work doesn't look like the spectrum associated with fusion.

He decided it looked more like Californium 252, a strong neutron emitter that Taleyarkhan said wasn't in the lab during his experiments.

"His spectrum is totally inconsistent with fusion. It couldn't possibly be fusion," Naranjo said. "I can't say for sure (Californium 252) is the cause, but it is consistent, and I can't think of any other explanation."

Taleyarkhan and Naranjo disagreed on the point publicly in a scientific journal.

Now those who did the original bubble fusion research with Taleyarkhan are running to his defense.

"I believe it works. I've seen some of the experiments with my own eyes," said Colin West, a retired researcher at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, where Taleyarkhan's first reported experiments were conducted.

West and Taleyarkhan trumpet the findings of Ted Forringer, an assistant professor of physics at LeTourneau University in Texas, who did experiments with Taleyarkhan and wrote a paper about the findings.

Forringer believes he saw fusion. He can't believe fraud allegations because he said too many people, himself included, would have to be in on the scam.

"Some very talented scientists have tried to replicate this and been unable to do it. That's a red flag," Forringer said. "But unless there was some really remarkable, elaborate set up, I just don't buy it."

Taleyarkhan counts Forringer's experiments and others done by Purdue researchers as independent verification of his bubble fusion findings.

"From my standpoint, the science has been proven over and over again," Taleyarkhan said.

But Forringer said Taleyarkhan helped with about half of his experiments. And the experiments done at Purdue that claimed to verify the work were done with at least some guidance from Taleyarkhan.

That makes skeptics such as Naranjo and Suslick argue that no one has independently verified Taleyarkhan's work.

"There's other information that points to those experiments not having been done until Taleyarkhan got there," Suslick said.

(In accordance with Title 17, Section 107, of the U.S. Code, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. New Energy Times has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of the original text in this article; nor is New Energy Times endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted on New Energy Times may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.