Jones, If the experimental outputs were properly measured, I am not as pessimistic as you are. Maybe the neutron generator could be removed in a self-sustained mode, for example. Also, the tritium could be used in an after-burn fusion reactor. Bubble formation might be increased with nanoparticle seeding, etc.
In any case, if the results are correct, the peer-review process needs its own review. -- Lou Pagnucco Jones Beene wrote: > This is interesting - especially in that it validates Rusi Taleyarkhan > claims. > > Shame on you Purdue ! > > OTOH as of now - the device is grossly inefficient and the mention of > having > a route to self-power is ridiculous. It would take at least 10,000 linked > reactors like this one to get near breakeven. Scale-up is a bitch, as they > say. > > A Farnsworth Fusor is less complicated and can get as close to breakeven > without the costly neutron source but it too is going nowhere. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > > I forgot to include the text description link: > > http://www.scribd.com/doc/137767342/Sonfusion > >> The following presentation from India describes (what appears to be) a >> successful sonofusion experiment. >> >> The essential apparatus involved are: >> >> - Pyrex flask. >> - Deuterated acetone >> - Vacuum pump. >> - Piezoelectric crystal. >> - Wave generator. >> - Amplifier. >> - Neutron generator. >> - Neutron and gamma ray detector. >> - Photomultiplier. >> - Microphone and speaker. >> >> The neutron generator produces 6 microsecond bursts of 14.1 MeV neutrons >> which collide with acetone to expel carbon and oxygen nuclei. >> >> The fusion appears to be conventional. >> >> 2.54 MeV neutrons are detected - the signature of D-D fusion. >> Neutron arrivals are coincident with photons from bubble collapse. >> Tritium is produced. See: >> >> SONOFUSION >> http://www.scribd.com/doc/137766520/sonofusion >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >
