Purdue panel finds misconduct by fusion scientist

ravingdave · Post by **ravingdave** » Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:02 pm

News item on "sonoluminescence" fusion.

http://www.physorg.com/news135611730.html

David

BSPhysics · Post by **BSPhysics** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 4:16 am

Is there any other branch of science more tarnished and looked at with more skepticism than nuclear fusion? Even if Dr. Nebel and crew make it work they will need a massive PR campaign to overcome the prejudice and ignorance.

BS

scareduck · Post by **scareduck** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 7:39 am

I've been watching Taleyarkhan and his antics over the last few years. It's obvious to me that at least there's something there worth investigating, but Taleyarkhan isn't sufficiently careful or diligent enough (and maybe not ethical enough) to do it. The principle charges against him have been that he left unshielded Californium out in his lab and that was adequate to trip his neutron counters. The charges in the linked article are about something far more insidious: whether or not the listed parties on the paper were in fact able to reproduce his results independently. The finding that they had nothing to do with the paper is indicative that he has almost certainly falsified results somewhere along the way.

drmike · Post by **drmike** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 1:24 pm

It is an interesting statement on human nature more than anything else. Why bother with the effort of lies in science? Eventually the truth of reality wins. It's one thing to be con man in the "over unity - free energy" field, it's quite another to fabricate scientific data for peer review.

zbarlici · Post by **zbarlici** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 2:00 pm

Dr. Taleyarkhan filing an appeal to the research misconduct against him.

I don`t side with him or against him - but it seems to me that this world has gotten quite stupid.

He should be asked to be present whenever independent confirmation of fusion claims are attempted to be made. He should be in the lab on the sidelines guiding the peer reviewers with the setup... and if the positive fusion results are duplicated with success, yes, it would still be "independent review", because its the extra set of eyes that confirm results, not Taleyarkhan himself. And if the results turn out bogus, then Taleyarkhan is there to see it for himself, and you`d not waste your time with all these appeals...

Whenever independent confirmation is made on anything, it should only be considered a proper confirmation(whether positive or negative results) when the original claimant is present.

This applies to processes that require a lot of finesse in setting up... and having someone else trying to duplicate results without guidance would be like trying to break encrypted codes without proper tools.

Helius · Post by **Helius** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 4:38 pm

zbarlici wrote:Dr. Taleyarkhan filing an appeal to the research misconduct against him.

I don`t side with him or against him - but it seems to me that this world has gotten quite stupid.

He should be asked to be present whenever independent confirmation of fusion claims are attempted to be made. He should be in the lab on the sidelines guiding the peer reviewers with the setup... and if the positive fusion results are duplicated with success, yes, it would still be "independent review", because its the extra set of eyes that confirm results, not Taleyarkhan himself. And if the results turn out bogus, then Taleyarkhan is there to see it for himself, and you`d not waste your time with all these appeals...

Whenever independent confirmation is made on anything, it should only be considered a proper confirmation(whether positive or negative results) when the original claimant is present.

This applies to processes that require a lot of finesse in setting up... and having someone else trying to duplicate results without guidance would be like trying to break encrypted codes without proper tools.

That perspective validates Yri Geller. Gotta be present indeed!

Taleyarkhan first convinced himself that there was fusion, then forced himself to the to the forfront of what would be a lucrative endeavor. Greed, it's a spoiler. It's the same with Pons and Fleschmann. They also wanted to be at the lucrative forefront. In both cases it would have been worse if it were real.

I'm no juror so don't tell me any of the "innocent until proven guilty" nonsense.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:09 pm

Pons and Fleschmann definitely found something. So far no explanations are forthcoming.

And yes. In their case it would have been really helpful had they had a lab review.

BTW did you know the MOSFET (could have been JFET) transistor was invented in 1923 (or some where in that era) and patented. The problem was that no one understood the science well enough to make it reproduceable.

P&F are having similar problems. Some batches of metals they use are active some are not and no one knows why.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor

The first patent[2] for the field-effect transistor principle was filed in Canada by Austrian-Hungarian physicist Julius Edgar Lilienfeld on October 22, 1925, but Lilienfeld did not publish any research articles about his devices.[3] In 1934 German physicist Dr. Oskar Heil patented another field-effect transistor. There is no direct evidence that these devices were built, but later work in the 1990s shows that one of Lilienfeld's designs worked as described and gave substantial gain.