"Bubble Fusion" Questions Arise Again
Still, physics isn't without its own issues and it seems that nuclear fusion is a recurring theme, especially "cold fusion." I recall hearing stories in middle school in 1989 about the development of cold fusion which, ultimately, proved to be false hype.
Nobel prize-winning chemist Irving Langmuir coined the phrase pathological science in 1953 for such situations where scientists are repeatedly tricked into reporting and believing false results ... and which seem to "not go away" even after having been dismissed frequently.
Such is the case at Purdue University, where I will soon be earning my M.S. degree in Mathematics Education. They have their own little controversy regarding a researcher who reported achieving nuclear fusion in the laboratory. The work by Rusi Taleyarkhan was actually published in 2002, while working at Tennessee's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, but he's at Purdue now and their own inquiry has come up with some issues regarding the work.
Oddly, Taleyarkhan was cleared by a Purdue investigation committee in early 2007, but a second set of allegations surfaced secretly and on these allegations the committee has found that he has performed misconduct. The details of the alleged misconduct can be found in the complete report, but don't seem to have much bearing on the overall validity of the original paper, but instead seem to be focused on mis-statements and mis-representations he has made since then.
The major allegation (pp. 15-22 of the report) is that Taleyarkhan helped another researcher perform an experiment confirming his earlier results and then promoted this work as "independent confirmation" of his results. This would, if true, certainly fall under the heading of a "pathological science."
Comments
I recall reading a while back that the initial Purdue investigation had found Dr. Taleyarkhan NOT GUILTY of misconduct. Not long after, reports circulated (from the detractors themselves) that Congress got a nasty note from the crook-like faculty from Purdue–yes, the same whistle blowers who went openly AGAINST university policy and research regulations to take their “concerns” straight to the press, before anyone could further look into the matter.
And why do think they took that route? Perhaps because they knew that preeminence-obsessed Purdue would hate to tarnish its name by publicly punishing one of its own administrators for his lack of professional behavior?–and yes, this does refer to the very same Lefteri Tsoukalas, the former head of Dr.
Taleyarkhan’s department, who was not long after his committing those juvenile
actions, suspiciously and prematurely “resigned” his post has head.
As to the lack of independent confirmations of Dr. Taleyarkhan’s work, I have found that to be false lies, again seemingly fabricated by the detractors themselves.
Look deeper and you will find that there HAVE indeed been independent replications of Taleyarkhan’s work. But you’ve got to look hard, the detractors have seen to it that Taleyarkhan’s name is the only one disparaged.
And in the scientific community, even ONE successful duplication is enough. Fusion is a really finicky process. It requires JUST the right conditions and extraordinary
temperatures to occur–that’s why it’s so fascinating, so if you’re asking for a
full blown get-it-right-every-time deal, then you’ve got a long wait. I am in fact suspiciously surprised that this “Kenneth S. Suslick,” did not address this very crucial point, and instead brushes it aside as possible fraud.
It seems Taleyarkhan’s technology hasn’t even been allowed to progress any further, due to these impetuous whistle blowers smothering all positive results.
And the positive research results have been smothered because this technology is BIG NEWS–even been dubbed the “holy grail to physics.” Wouldn’t YOU like in on it?
What the public is seeing is a classic example of sour grapes. Those in power are petulant because their names aren’t first on the patent rights, and they don’t get their share of the fame, so they’re settling for this: fifteen
minutes at-a-time of derogatory fame, but fame nonetheless.
There’s even a published rebuttal of Taleyarkhan’s (not circulated as profoundly, hmm…I wonder why that is???), which shows the signatures of the DETRACTORS, yes the very people who are screaming out misconduct, attesting to the occurrence of FUSION right there in Taleyarkhan’s lab.
Look deeper, there’s only one side of the story being brought to the public’s attention, and you have to really search to piece it together. I was really surprised myself.
The evidence will show that the real frauds are those accusers now probably breaking out the champaign for another successful defamation.
I have completely lost faith in the “authorities” presiding over this case, such as that Purdue panel, simply from following the time line of events.
I remember reading an article about that Butt fellow and his work with Dr. Taleyarkhan. He was doing work with Dr. Xu, Dr. Taleyarkhan’s post-doc. In fact, it was regarding their INDEPENDENT CONFIRMATION of his work.
The Butt man was pictured sitting there smiling at the computer, with Xu, crying out happily about the positive results of their work.
And believe me, he was very much involved with the studies. I even recall hearing about a presentation he made on the work.
When I read about this, I just couldn’t believe that he could claim that he was not involved in the work, knowing full well what it could do to his mentor’s reputation. It is full proof that more is going on here than meets the public’s eye.
Purdue spokespeople say that Dr. Taleyarkhan has 30 days to respond to all this, so why are they announcing their findings so early?
This is doubtless proof that Purdue is amongst the detractors who are just hellbent on disparaging Dr. Taleyarkhan.
Such blatant inconsistencies of the facts are not easily missed.
Having read that earlier article about Butt, it just makes me sick to think of how betrayed Dr. Taleyarkhan may feel right now: having his own student join in on the hopefully short-lived party with the detractors.
Shame on you, Butt, for shame.
The previous two messages on this board, though listed with the different names of “Marshall” and “Jenn,” are in fact posted from the same e-mail address and are clearly, from their tone and the fact that they were posted within 12 minutes of each other, part of some sort of calculated response to the negative media attention. I can only imagine that this is someone with a personal stake in the decision, or who just clearly has nothing better to do with their time. If this individual is in any way involved with the case and would like to make some sort of official rebuttal, I would encourage them to e-mail me at physics.guide@about.com and I will be happy to post their response if I feel it would be of interest to our readers.
Thanks and good day,
Andrew
Andrew: my wife and I happened to have the same email address from which we posted. In the future, if you would kindly bring your concerns to the email address provided, just as you had recommend we do, before proceeding to directly place such disparaging comments on the web, we would much appreciate it. This blog was open for comments, and simply because the comments are not obviously something you agree with, it is no reason for you to label them as having some personal connection with the article.
“Randy,” “Marshall,” “Jenn,” and whoever else may be reading:
Since I find it hard to believe that you and your wife happened to stumble upon the website within 12 minutes of each other, I stand by my assessment that the responses were in some way calculated.
Even your response now doesn’t jibe with your feigned lack of guile – you and your wife were, apparently, taking turns responding to the posting. The posts are specifically tailored to seem casual (i.e. “I recall reading a while back…” and “I remember reading an article about that Butt fellow…”) while clearly, from the rest of the content of these posts, you have detailed knowledge of the situation.
I don’t necessarily disagree with anything about the comments themselves, but merely disagreed with the attempt to manipulate the anonymity of the boards to support one specific viewpoint.
Had you posted a half dozen posts under the name Marshall (or Randy), I would not have had an issue, but I frequently see people post multiple times under different names in an attempt to support their own ideological view and, when I notice it, I feel the need to speak up on the matter.
I do, however, apologize about speaking out of turn regarding my speculation about you having a personal stake in the decision. My only defense is to point out that I did clearly label this as speculation (i.e. “I can only imagine that this is someone …”)
as opposed to saying it was a fact.
Sincerely,
Andrew
Andrew, I am not connected with any of you and I see your post as presumptuous. If blogs are not for sharing ideology than what is the point? Just because they are from a couple who have specific viewpoints however detailed or casual doesn’t make them a conspiracy. However your take is almost that of a conspiracy theorist. You might just want to stand down on that one. The very fact that they are knowledgable about what they speak makes their ideas matter more than casual ideological spam. So chill out a little and let us speak with out the interruptions. Thanks.
Hi. I regularly scan this forum. This is the oldest together unqualified to ask a topic.
How multifarious in this forum are references progressive behind, disingenuous users?
Can I depute all the communication that there is?
I’m the only one in this world. Can please someone join me in this life? Or maybe death…