Experimental detection of neutrons during shock compression of a
    deuterium bubble in a viscous liquid

    by E.A. Smorodov and R.N. Galiakhmetov

 

This manuscript makes the extraordinary claim that d-d fusion has been achieved in a simple apparatus, but presents very little evidence to support this claim. If the authors' claim was true, it would be very exciting, especially because their apparatus does not include an external source of neutrons. To be acceptable for publication in PRL, this manuscript needs to be improved in several ways. The manuscript seems so far from being acceptable for publication and there are so many problems, that I list only a few.

First, a much better description of the experiment and more convincing evidence that fusion has been attained are needed. Fig. 2, which presents the evidence that fusion has been achieved, leaves much to be desired. At the very least, this figure should show data points with error bars and the text should explain how these points and their errors were calculated. It is far from clear what the bars in Fig. 2 represent.
Do they represent, for example, the range of counts detected? What is meant by fractional counts? There are many other questions regarding the experiment that also should be addressed. For example, what was the background rate? How long was the counting period and how was it initiated? What threshold was used and how does it compare to signals caused by neutrons? How many "shots" were undertaken with no bubble, with an air bubble, and with a deuterium bubble? To what pressure were the helium counters filled and what does "CNM-56" mean? The estimation of the number of neutrons generated is very unconvincing. At the very
least, the authors should present the results of a Monte Carlo calculation and/or of a measurement with a neutron source at the location of the bubble where the fusion supposedly is occurring.

Second, the analysis in section 2 is poorly done and left me unconvinced that the mechanism employed was likely to achieve conditions sufficient for fusion to occur. References should be given for the sources of Eqs.2 and 3. The symbols used in Eq. 3 should be defined.

Third, the presentation is very poor. The grammar, etc. needs to be improved -- it often is so bad that it is difficult to guess the authors' meaning. The unit "sm" is used in several places to indicate both lengths and an area. Although I have access to extensive paper and electronic libraries, I could locate only three of the eleven references.
In summary, the technique the authors have devised to overcome a main problem (the external neutron generator) in previous "bubble fusion" experiments is very intriguing, but the evidence they present falls far short of what is needed and the presentation itself needs substantial improvement.

 

Наш комментарий:

К сожалению, здесь все вопросы обоснованы.

По мере наших возможностей,

мы переделали часть экспериментов, иначе построили изложение, привели новые данные по счетчику нейтронов и т.д.

Статья разбита на две взаимосвязанные части.

Последний вариант доступен на главной страничке.