While his career was all but ruined, maybe R Teleyarkhan being listed as #'s 5&6 in the paper's references, will be a bit of redemption:
A Purdue University physicist who claimed to have demonstrated a tabletop fusion process that could revolutionize energy production is guilty of research misconduct in asserting that his findings were independently reproduced, a university committee said Friday.
The panel did not investigate whether Rusi P. Taleyarkhan fabricated his widely publicized and highly controversial research but whether he intentionally misled the scientific community in claiming that his work had been independently replicated.
It has been six years since Taleyarkhan’s original publication, and no one else has been able to duplicate his findings, said physicist Michael J. Saltmarsh, who is now retired from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and had tried unsuccessfully to replicate the work.
Taleyarkhan was using a well-known technique called sonoluminescence, in which sound waves are used to collapse bubbles in a liquid, creating very high concentrations of energy and light. The technique is already used for such purposes as catalyzing chemical reactions, cleaning badly contaminated surfaces, and melting fat during liposuction.
In a 2002 paper touted on the cover of the prestigious journal Science, Taleyarkhan reported that he had used sonoluminescence on acetone in which the hydrogen atoms had been replaced with deuterium. The high temperature and pressure, he said, produced nuclear fusion, generating neutrons and tritium.
The article was published over the vehement objections of several reviewers and was heavily criticized by other physicists.
While researchers tried to duplicate the experiment, Taleyarkhan set his postdoctoral fellow Yiban Xu to the task.
Xu observed the critical fusion products and prepared a paper that was submitted to Science under his name. The paper was rejected, in part because referees maintained that he could not have carried out the experiments alone.
According to the report by the Purdue committee -- composed of scientists from inside and outside the university -- Taleyarkhan asked master’s candidate Adam Butt to review Xu’s data. Butt’s name was then added to the paper, even though he had not participated in the research.
That, said the panel, was clearly scientific misconduct because it was designed to give the appearance of a collaboration that had not occurred.
Meanwhile, Taleyarkhan made heavy revisions to the paper, in grammar and scientific content, according to the panel. The paper was ultimately published in 2005 in the journal Nuclear Engineering and Design with virtually no mention of Taleyarkhan’s participation.
The wording of the paper suggested that the work had been performed with funding and guidance from physicist Lefteri Tsoukalas, chairman of the department.
In a 2006 paper in Physical Review Letters on his own work, Taleyarkhan asserted that his original observations reported in the Science paper “have now been independently confirmed.”
The Purdue committee, however, concluded that Taleyarkhan was heavily involved in Xu and Butt’s paper and that “the direct assertion of independent confirmation . . . is falsification of the research record and thus is research misconduct.”
Taleyarkhan now has 30 days to respond to the committee’s findings. A university spokesman said the school would have no comment until the 30 days had elapsed.
Taleyarkhan did not respond to phone and e-mail messages.
The panel’s findings “do not clear up the central issue of the research,” which is whether tabletop fusion is real, said chemist Kenneth S. Suslick of the University of Illinois.
Suslick characterized Taleyarkhan’s Science paper as “sloppy . . . but not fraudulent,” adding: “There is serious reason to believe that [his] later work might have been tampered with. . . . Among the scientific community, he no longer has any credibility.”
Robert, this arose from the finding that water taken out of the reactor had a significant increase on density (up to 3%). This is not said in the paper, you have to see the videos posted prior in this thread, this means a significant amount of the O in the water is O17 for explaining the increased density. 100% H2O17 is 1.044 g/mL.
as said in the presentation,,
Too good to be true..TM 4.22
Hopefully they can get enough finance to do more thorough isotope analysis... mass balances..etc
definitely impressive team assembly communication work from Professor Huang
He's not just an engineer
will be a bit of redemption
Maybe not... some character flaws need more repair..
Maybe not... some character flaws need more repair..
If character flaws were disqualifying, we would have to shut the forum down, and LENR would have withered on the vine long ago. And really...only 7 of his students over a 3 1/2 year period bothered to comment on his teaching strengths. And they rated him average, which IMO is not bad considering he was publicly hung out to dry by his colleagues.
If character flaws were disqualifying, we would have to shut the forum down, and LENR would have withered on the vine long ago. And really...only 7 of his students over a 3 1/2 year period bothered to comment on his teaching strengths. And they rated him average, which IMO is not bad considering he was publicly hung out to dry by his colleagues.
I have taught "residual water treatment" for one semester at the local university, and I was very dissapointed with the quality of the alumni (I would have sent most of them back to high school, they lacked basic arithmetic skills), so I would not even consider anything they would have say negative about me.
I am realizing that the paper is almost impossible to fully appreciate and comprehend without the whole background it entails, meaning the previous ICCF papers from bjhuang and all the related videos of the MFMP, including those posted recently on this thread. I often forget how much context other people may be missing, as I have been following this research as closely as possible since ICCF 20, and perhaps my excitement with this publication seems funny to other people. As an example, the presence of O17 (acknowledged and verified in the paper) is only fully appreciated in its relevance when one knows that the water recovered from the reactor after its operation has been observed to have up to 3% increase in density, which led to the enquiry on isotopic changes, Water with 100% O17 has 4.4% higher density, so 3% higher means this water can contain quite a high % of O17, which inmediately becomes evidence of nuclear rearrangement, as the natural abundance of O17 is very scarce (0,038%).
All of this made me realize that the peer review of this paper must have been a really interesting space to watch, and I asked Bob if he can request all of it for us to peruse. Hope this becomes available.
All of this made me realize that the peer review of this paper must have been a really interesting space to watch, and I asked Bob if he can request all of it for us to peruse. Hope this becomes available.
Was thinking the same thing. It must be good reading. I am also curious how much a role BG had in the idea of looking for Ne22. They say in the paper he suggested looking for it (Ne) when there is XH, so started searching. Huang also credits BG's video from 2 years ago in the reference. It is long winded though, and don't have the time to watch to see how it fits in.
Hoping this gets some serious attention from the outside. Reminds me somewhat of the LK-99 story, but with even bigger implications to humanity.
so 3% higher means this water can contain quite a high % of O17,
Or a lot of copper ions floating around.Only the energy balance can tell the maximum of 17OH2 we can expect.
Or a lot of copper ions floating around.Only the energy balance can tell the maximum of 17OH2 we can expect.
The first thing I asked was if they had measured TDS.
He's not just an engineer
And that, folks, is why engineers hate scientists...
Academia is riddled with snobbery, theoreticians tend to despise experimenters who disprove their theories and experimenters laugh at the ineptitude of theoreticians who don't know how to change a light bulb -except in theory. And they all dislike people they suspect are smarter than they are, being smarter than many is a bit like being 'the fastest gun in the West - they al want to shoot you down.'
Just a little reminder of the 1973 patent for the Carl Schaefer device.
US3791349A - Steam generator - Google Patents
(Note that Jim Griggs cites this, as prior art, in his patent.)
Some important clarification:
Bob made me aware I missinterpreted the point of up to 3% change in density of the water, it was in both senses (increase and decrease) but apparently the higher values showed as a decrease. Now I have to admit this really baffles me because I can understand water with increased density, but with lower density is hard for me to understand how it could be (gases dissolved in a stable manner?)
(Note that Jim Griggs cites this, as prior art, in his patent.)
Schaefer's daughter told me she thought Griggs took the whole idea from Schaefer, with nothing original added.
Schaefer's daughter told me she thought Griggs took the whole idea from Schaefer, with nothing original added.
Most people probably would agree, Griggs main innovation was the holes in the rotor, but the underlying mechanism is the same.
I am a bit amused / baffled to have become aware through Bob Greenyer that bjhuang received a message from Nature Scientific Reports editor asking to clarify the conflict of interest statement as someone apparently complained about a part of the team members “belong to commercial entities”. I had noticed that the affiliation of some of the members was a manufacturing company and I assumed they were manufacturers of heat exchange equipment, and that were in charge of building and operating the reactor prototypes. I really don’t see any conflict of interest there as is logic one might want to do research of this kind with someone skilled in building this kind of machines. But apparently someone thinks this is “shady”. Just to be clear, me being a bit baffled about this is precisely because it baffles me that someone would take the pain of complaining to Nature for something as irrelevant.
This is a page with a description of what ATD Inc. does. bjhuang has a history of collaboration and funding coming from this company. They are mainly LED light developers, but also thermal exchangers for aerospatial industry is listed.
“belong to commercial entities”.
that would disqualify a lot of scientific research..
#
Loop heat pipe is thought as an expensive heat transfer device only used in aerospace. We have shown that using a novel evaporator design associated with simple manufacturing process, the cost can be brought down dramatically for commercial applications. The cost of a 100 W LHP less than 20 USD in mass production is achieved in the present study.
In case anyone is interested, there’s a Pubpeer page where the recent paper of bjhuang is being exposed to a sort of open peer review by anonymous participants. I took a look and it caused me a significant amount of disgust, Bob has already engaged this discussion and has been able to keep a level head, in spite of the patronizing and poorly disguised bad will of all the commenters so far.
PubPeer - Water can trigger nuclear reaction to produce energy and iso...
