Oak Ridge Nuclear Cavitation Confirmation

July 22, 2013 – By Steven B. Krivit –

This is Part 5 of “2001 Oak Ridge Nuclear Cavitation Confirmation Uncovered.”

This is a New Energy Times Special Report. The first part of this series published on July 18, 2013.

A Surprise in Shapira and Saltmarsh’s Raw Data (December 2001)
The conflict between the Taleyarkhan group and Shapira and Saltmarsh had been going on for six months.

In December 2002, Taleyarkhan thought to look at Shapira and Saltmarsh’s raw data.

“We were going back and forth with Shapira and Saltmarsh and the ORNL administration,” Taleyarkhan wrote. “The July Shapira and Saltmarsh reports were being circulated around. But on my close examination, I saw that their neutron-gamma curves for cavitation-on appeared to be higher than for cavitation-off. It occurred to me to ask to view their raw data.”

Shapira sent the raw data, and when the Taleyarkhan group did the analysis, it found that the Shapira and Saltmarsh raw data confirmed, rather than disconfirmed, the experiment. The data showed a statistically significant excess of neutrons during the one-hour test run that Shapira witnessed with cavitation in chilled deuterated acetone.

“Only after we analyzed it and we found this stunning result, did we confront Shapira and Saltmarsh with the information,” Taleyarkhan wrote. “I wrote to Shapira, and he thereafter went back, re-analyzed the spectra, and confirmed his new analysis to me. As he wrote in his Dec. 20, 2001, e-mail, Shapira’s data do indeed show a statistically significant increase of emissions — something he admitted in writing only after we reviewed his raw data.”

At first, as Shapira says in an e-mail, he sent some numbers to Taleyarkhan in the morning of Dec. 20 and, at the time, told Taleyarkhan that he came up with different numbers than those the Taleyarkhan group had found. Later that evening, Shapira took another look.

“When I got back,” Shapira wrote, “I started looking at the data much more closely and discovered that the numbers I sent this morning were computed on the wrong spectrum … so, with a shaking heart, I went on to calculate the ratios with method 1 and method 2, and thank goodness I did not make another mistake this morning. Wow! The numbers below are with the correct spectrum, and they agree with yours, I hope.”

Taleyarkhan wrote back to Shapira the next day.

“Dan, thank you for the honesty,” Taleyarkhan wrote. “We all make arithmetic mistakes and overlook things. At least you are ethical enough to accept. I did notice that the values you came up with [are] a bit different from mine, but I let it ride since, unlike the factor of 1.13 versus the 1.077 that you came up with previously, which completely negates everything, we [are] now just quibbling about a tiny difference that could be due to the way in which you do the summing starting with a different bin [number]. I just let [this minor difference] pass since we have one more area to [resolve] with you. Let’s now do the same and come to terms for the coincidence crap we’re in.”

Taleyarkhan wanted to work with Shapira to resolve their disagreement about the coincidences issue.

Now, both groups’ neutron singles counts confirmed the Taleyarkhan group’s claim.

Shapira Concedes Neutrons (December 2001)
In response to the newly revealed data from his own detector, Shapira wrote a new internal document of the Taleyarkhan draft paper. Shapira’s review, “Review of Second SL Manuscript,” dated Dec. 19, 2011, acknowledged the positive neutron singles data, as well as the positive tritium data that had been confirmed by Murray.

“The paper presents a convincing case of excess tritium productions when cavitation is induced in cold deuterated acetone,” Shapira wrote. “The methods and procedures in collecting these data have been independently reviewed by a relevant ORNL expert in the field.”

“The [Taleyarkhan group’s] paper also presents data which show excess of nuclear radiation (neutrons/gammas) production when cavitation is induced in deuterated acetone,” Shapira wrote.

With an expert’s confirmation of the tritium data and the neutron singles data, the confidence of ORNL management grew.

“After Shapira’s admission of his error with the neutron counts that he measured with his own detector,” Taleyarkhan wrote, “the scenario with ORNL management changed. They realized that the Shapira and Saltmarsh measurements were also showing support for the essence of our claim: nuclear emissions with cavitation on versus off.”

But Shapira’s concession came with a twist.

In Shapira’s document, after he confirmed the neutron singles and tritium, he reintroduced the coincidence demand that he had made back in the summer with his and Saltmarsh’s July 2001 internal reports.

“The authors should point out, in their [forthcoming Science] paper, that a proper coincidence experiment, which tries to associate the nuclear radiation with light coming from the bubble collapse, which occurs about 60 microseconds after the pulsed neutron generator burst, is needed for further proof of their assertion/model,” Shapira wrote.

It is not clear how many sets of coincidences Shapira and Saltmarsh demanded for satisfactory proof, but the Taleyarkhan group was able to show some. The figure below is from the Taleyarkhan group’s Science paper and shows the coincidence between the nuclear radiation (Scintillator) and the (SL) light flash from the bubble collapse, followed by the acoustic shock wave. The scintillator and SL flash signals occur within several nanoseconds.

Representative time sample showing signal of SL flash, the scintillator nuclear signal, and microphone shock trace signals (C3D6O cavitation experiments at 0 degrees C). (Science 2002)

ORNL Conflict Continues (January 2002)
However, some ORNL administrators still thought that Shapira and Saltmarsh’s concern was valid.

“Regardless,” Taleyarkhan wrote, “Shapira, Saltmarsh and Roberto had solidified their negative positions about our claim, and it appeared that they had conveyed their opinions externally, including to staff at the Department of Energy.”

On Jan 28, 2002, Shapira wrote another internal document, “Evaluation of Discrepancy Between Coincidence Measurements Performed by P.D. And E.T.D.”

By this time, even though he had conceded that the tritium was real, and that both the Engineering Technology Division detector and the Physics Division detectors confirmed the excess neutrons, he was still trying, in this paper, to dispute the claim, using his demand for coincidence measurements.

In the quote below, Shapira’s comment about a “PD experiment” is the first time he implies that the pair of one-hour runs of the Taleyarkhan group’s experiment, in the Taleyarkhan group’s lab, when he measured neutrons, was Shapira’s (PD’s) experiment.

“Both [ETD and PD] experiments agree as far as the existence of enhancement in the [neutron] singles data,” Shapira wrote. “The enhancement seen in the singles neutron-gamma counts when cavitation is turned on is observed in both [sets of] experiment[s.]”

“With regard to the coincidence data, the two measurements completely disagree,” he wrote.

“In the PD experiment, we DO SEE an increase in the coincidence rate when we turn on cavitation,” Shapira wrote. “A careful examination of the time distribution of coincidence, neutron-gamma singles and light signals during the time duration between PNG pulses was carried out in the same experiment.

“The data show that the coincidences seen when cavitation is turned on are due to random coincidences between light signals and nuclear radiation (neutron-gamma). With cavitation turned off, the coincidence rate decreases dramatically, but also the expected random rate is near zero because there are almost no light signals detected after the PNG pulse subsides.”

In this document, Shapira wrote that, during the July 24, 2001, run in which he took data from the Taleyarkhan group’s experiment (which he calls the “PD experiment”), he saw coincidences. But he came up with an explanation for the coincidences appearing only when cavitation is on: an undefined random phenomenon. This was the first alternative hypothesis that Shapira proposed.

In the paper, Shapira’s conclusion is very confusing and seems to have some logic gaps. The emphasis is his.

“At present, I do not find any reason to discard the results of the coincidence experiment done with the PD detector. I cannot see any reason why we should not have seen the same coincidences seen with the ETD detector. This leaves only the last explanation for the discrepancy: The coincidences that they see in the ETD experiment OCCUR DURING THE TIME THAT THE NEUTRON GENERATOR FIRES.”

Despite Shapira’s emphatic conclusion, his thesis is contradicted by the control experiments during which the neutron generator also fires.

Next Part: Science Accepts Nuclear Cavitation Paper

Oak Ridge Nuclear Cavitation Confirmation

July 20, 2013 – By Steven B. Krivit –

This is Part 3 of “2001 Oak Ridge Nuclear Cavitation Confirmation Uncovered.”

This is a New Energy Times Special Report. The first part of this series published on July 18, 2013.

Nuclear Cavitation Evidence
The Taleyarkhan group’s criteria for the successful observation of nuclear cavitation was based on its analyses of tritium, as well as neutrons, above background. In one of the internal ORNL reviews, a member of the management staff referred to the tritium evidence as the smoking gun. The reason for this is that tritium is unambiguous evidence of a nuclear reaction. It is unstable, and because of its short half-life, any measured tritium can have come only from a man-made device.

The Taleyarkhan group measured excess tritium and excess neutrons only when cavitation was on and only during experiments that used chilled deuterated acetone, thus clarifying the cause-and-effect relationship. In their Feb. 20, 2002, document, Shapira and Saltmarsh glossed over the measured excess tritium and neutrons and instead created a new criterion. Neither Shapira nor Saltmarsh had any experience in any aspect of cavitation, including sonoluminescence.

According to Shapira and Saltmarsh’s new criterion, the valid test for nuclear cavitation should confirm that, for each neutron detected, researchers should be able to match the coincidences of each neutron, within a few nanoseconds, to each associated sonoluminescence (SL) flash for each bubble implosion. This is the time a 2.45 MeV neutron would take to reach the detector from the center of the flask.

Shapira and Saltmarsh, by ignoring the valid criteria, creating a dubious criterion, and inflating and promoting the importance of their new criterion, succeeded in convincing most people that the Taleyarkhan group’s experiment failed.

According to Shapira and Saltmarsh, confirmation of the coincidences was required to prove that the neutrons were coming from the reactions. Shapira and Saltmarsh implied that the Taleyarkhan group lacked the ability to discern the precisely timed bursts of neutrons emitted from the pulse neutron generator (PNG) from the neutrons created and emitted from the nuclear cavitation reaction. Despite the fact that the PNG was on during all runs, active as well as control runs, excess neutrons were detected only when cavitation was on, only when deuterated acetone was used, and only when it was chilled.

The Taleyarkhan group’s experiment used multi-bubble sonoluminescence rather than single-bubble sonoluminescence. Neutron-nucleated MBSL, as opposed to SBSL, produces hundreds of neutrons at a time as they collectively implode over many microseconds. Additionally, light flashes from inside the bubble cloud may not even emanate because of absorption or scattering. The Taleyarkhan group looked for general time-correlated signals but never relied on nanosecond coincidences as an essential part of its success criteria. Coincidence measurements were possible but unrealistic, as Richard T. Lahey and Colin West explained to New Energy Times.

“The timing issue is a red herring,” Lahey wrote, “because, in our bubble fusion work, we do NOT have a single bubble collapsing, as [other researchers have in [their] sonoluminescence experiments. Rather, we have a cluster of bubbles collapsing where the interior bubbles can emit … neutrons at different times.”

Despite the valid tritium and neutron singles counts (singles are neutron counts alone as opposed to neutron and SL flash coincidence counts) in the Taleyarkhan group experiment, Shapira and Saltmarsh made it appear in their Feb. 20, 2002, and March 1, 2002, critique of the Taleyarkhan group’s work that the group’s claim wasn’t real.

“We conclude that there is no evidence of any real coincidences in this experiment,” Shapira and Saltmarsh wrote.

Shapira and Saltmarsh Knew (Spring 2002)
At that time, Feb. 20, 2002, most of the insiders knew that the Taleyarkhan group had measured statistically significant excess tritium and/or neutron singles. Most outsiders did not. Outsiders also knew nothing about the checks and controls the Taleyarkhan group had used. They also had no idea that the Taleyarkhan group’s claim was not primarily based on coincidences. With the exception of specialists, most outsiders had little, if any, awareness of the crucial distinctions between the neutron singles data and the neutron coincidence data.

Under these circumstances, Shapira and Saltmarsh’s premature release of their paper — which was supposed to publish concurrently with the Taleyarkhan group’s paper in Science — successfully accomplished the mission of its authors.

In their documents, Shapira and Saltmarsh wrote that the Taleyarkhan group’s experiment showed “no evidence of any real coincidences.” In talking with the media, however, Shapira and Saltmarsh said that the Taleyarkhan group’s experiment showed “no real neutrons.” Non-specialists would not have recognized the difference. It was a crucial distinction, as important as, for example, the difference between speed and acceleration.

Not only did most science journalists miss the distinction, but so did the ORNL science writers who produced a press release on the Taleyarkhan group’s forthcoming Science paper.

Shapira and Saltmarsh’s pre-release of their critique went out before Science published the Taleyarkhan group’s paper. According to Shapira and Saltmarsh, they had disproved the Taleyarkhan group’s claim.

Not only was there excess tritium production in the Taleyarkhan group’s experiment, checked by a resident ORNL expert, but also Shapira and Saltmarsh knew it.

Not only were there excess neutrons in the Taleyarkhan group’s experiment, but also Shapira and Saltmarsh knew it.

Not only was there excess neutron production only when cavitation was on and only during experiments that used chilled deuterated acetone in the Taleyarkhan group’s experiment, but also Shapira and Saltmarsh knew it.

Not only had the Taleyarkhan group measured excess neutrons with its detector, but so did Shapira and Saltmarsh, independently with their own detector.

Several months after the Taleyarkhan group’s paper published in Science, Shapira and Saltmarsh published their own peer-reviewed paper in Physical Review Letters. They wrote that they had “repeated the experiment of Taleyarkhan et al.” and that their experiment didn’t work. As New Energy Times learned last year, they never performed their own experiment. Rather, they took measurements – in fact only neutron measurements – from one of the Taleyarkhan group’s experiments during a two-hour period in Taleyarkhan’s lab on July 24, 2001.

Even if Shapira and Saltmarsh had performed their own experiment and failed to obtain positive results, one failure to replicate does not negate another researcher’s positive claim. Only specific findings of experimental or analytical error of an originator’s experiment can negate a positive claim.

Next Part: The Discovery Team

Oak Ridge Nuclear Cavitation Confirmation

July 18, 2013 – By Steven B. Krivit –

This is Part 1 of a New Energy Times Special Report

This report discusses the scientific research and associated conflict experienced by a team of six researchers, led by Rusi Taleyarkhan, a nuclear engineer and a professor in the Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering. This phase of the group’s research took place between 1999 and 2002, while Taleyarkhan was a research scientist at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tenn. Taleyarkhan’s group was part of the Oak Ridge Engineering Technology Division.

Since 1982, when inventor Hugh Flynn was issued a U.S. patent for a “Method of Generating Energy by Acoustically Induced Cavitation Fusion and Reactor Therefor,” researchers have been attempting to create conditions with sonoluminescence to achieve nuclear reactions. In the past, this research has also been called acoustic inertial confinement fusion, bubble fusion or sonofusion. Some researchers hope that eventually nuclear cavitation can lead to a new source of clean nuclear energy.

The Taleyarkhan group got there first, but between 2001 and 2002, two researchers in the Oak Ridge Physics Division, Dan Shapira and Michael Saltmarsh, discredited the Taleyarkhan group’s discovery.

Shapira and Saltmarsh ignored the two scientific criteria – excess tritium and excess neutrons – used by the Taleyarkhan group. Instead, the two researchers made up their own criterion, called “coincidences.” Unlike the data obtained by the Taleyarkhan group, the data available for Shapira and Saltmarsh’s criteria did not support the Taleyarkhan group’s claim. The two researchers then told the scientific community and the public that they had disproved the Taleyarkhan group’s claim.

Dan Shapira and Michael Saltmarsh

Continue reading »