Reply To: NIMBY FUD

[Joeviocoe]

BSFusion wrote: I should point out that, none of these 15 are obstacles to Bubble-confined Sonoluminescent-laser Fusion (BSF).[/strong]

(continued from…)
https://focusfusion.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/378/

———————————————

The true obstacles are not even known yet since your approach to Bubble sonofusion has not even be tested in any way yet. It only exists on paper, and not even a peer-reviewed paper.
http://home.centurytel.net/bubbles/bubbles.htm
It is very likely that, although your approach is somewhat different, any device based on this would suffer the same problems as conventional bubble sonofusion that Professor Andrea Prosperetti of Johns Hopkins had encountered.

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Sonoluminescence_-_Mechanism_of_phenomenon/id/2110704
http://www.me.jhu.edu/MENewsletter2012.pdf
http://pre.aps.org/abstract/PRE/v67/i5/e056310
http://groupsites.ius.edu/physics/~kyle/P310/articles/sonolumin.pdf

Laser ICF projects like NIF have at least achieved fusion on some level… although it is doubtful they will ever get a complete and symmetrical burn of the fuel pellet. They are, at the very least, way beyond theoretical and hypothetical pondering.

It is VERY premature to start pointing out dozens of problems with Laser ICF, which as significant scientific credibility, actually achieves consistent results, and may have practical applications for nuclear weapons stewardship… and then try to present your own personal, untested, and highly speculative hypothesis that has more in common with discredited work than with real world research… and claim that it has none of the problems associated with devices that have actually been built, tested, and reviewed.

Sorry if that sounded harsh, but there is a cold reality that every innovator must face. And that reality is that you must have your own house in order and follow the scientific method, before trying to elevate your own theory above others.

I know you hate the comparison, but it is still a fair comparison… The scientific method is designed to weed out unsubstantiated claims. And bubble sonoluminescence has already one (once credible) scientist fail at the proper method for research and thus, his work was discredited.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/19/science/sci-misconduct19
So any sonoluminescence fusion concept, even if the approach is significantly different, must provide extraordinary evidence to be taken seriously.