Editing Bubble fusion (section)

== ''Nature'' report ==
In March 2006, ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' published a special report that called into question the validity of the results of the Purdue experiments.<ref name="silencing">{{cite journal
  |date    = 8 March 2006
  |title   = Bubble fusion: silencing the hype
  |journal = Nature News
  |doi     = 10.1038/news060306-1
|s2cid = 211730340
 }}</ref> The report quotes Brian Naranjo of the [[University of California, Los Angeles]] to the effect that neutron energy spectrum reported in the 2006 paper by Taleyarkhan, et al.  was statistically inconsistent with neutrons produced by the proposed fusion reaction and instead highly consistent with neutrons produced by the radioactive decay of [[Californium|Californium 252]], an isotope commonly used as a laboratory [[neutron source]].<ref name="chronicle" /><ref name="Naranjo">{{cite journal
  |last    = Naranjo
  |first   = Brian
  |date    = 3 October 2006
  |title   = Comment on 'Nuclear Emissions During Self-Nucleated Acoustic Cavitation'
  |journal = [[Physical Review Letters]]
  |volume  = 97
  |issue   = letter 149403
  |doi     = 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.149403
 | page = 149403
|bibcode=2006PhRvL..97n9403N
|arxiv = physics/0603060
  |pmid=17155298|s2cid = 31494419
 }}</ref>

The response of Taleyarkhan ''et al.'', published in ''Physical Review Letters'', attempts to refute Naranjo's hypothesis as to the cause of the neutrons detected.<ref name="Taleyarkhan-2006-10-03">{{cite journal
  |last    = Taleyarkhan
  |first   = R. P.
 |author2=R. C. Block |author3=R. T. Lahey, Jr |author4=R. I. Nigmatulin |author5=Y. Xu
  |date    = 3 October 2006
  |title   = Taleyarkhan et al. Reply
  |journal = [[Physical Review Letters]]
  |volume  = 97
  |issue   = letter 149404
  |doi     = 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.149404
 | page = 149404
|bibcode=2006PhRvL..97n9404T
}}</ref>

Tsoukalas, head of the School of Nuclear Engineering at Purdue, and several of his colleagues at Purdue, had convinced Taleyarkhan to move to Purdue and attempt a joint replication. In the 2006 ''Nature'' report they detail several troubling issues when trying to collaborate with Taleyarkhan. He reported positive results from certain set of raw data, but his colleagues had also examined that set and it only contained negative results. He never showed his colleagues the raw data corresponding to the positive results, despite several requests. He moved the equipment from a shared laboratory to his own laboratory, thus impeding review by his colleagues, and he did not give any advance warning or explanation for the move. Taleyarkhan convinced his colleagues that they should not publish a paper with their negative results. Taleyarkhan then insisted that the university's press release present his experiment as "peer-reviewed" and "independent", when the co-authors were working in his laboratory under his supervision, and his peers in the faculty were not allowed to review the data. In summary, Taleyarkhan's colleagues at Purdue said he placed obstacles to peer review of his experiments, and they had serious doubts about the validity of the research.<ref name="silencing"/><ref name="hot air">{{cite journal
  |date    = 8 March 2006
  |title   = Is bubble fusion simply hot air?
  |journal = Nature News
  |doi     = 10.1038/news060306-2
|last1   = Reich
  |first1   = Eugenie Samuel
  |s2cid = 119514837
 }}</ref>

''Nature'' also revealed that the process of anonymous peer-review had not been followed, and that the journal ''Nuclear Engineering and Design'' was not independent from the authors. Taleyarkhan was co-editor of the journal, and the paper was only peer-reviewed by his co-editor, with Taleyarkhan's knowledge.<ref name="hot air"/>

In 2002, Taleyarkhan  filed a patent application on behalf of the United States Department of Energy, while working in Oak Ridge. ''Nature'' reported that the patent had been rejected in 2005 by the US Patent Office. The examiner called the experiment a variation of discredited [[cold fusion]], found that there was "no reputable evidence of record to support any allegations or claims that the invention is capable of operating as indicated", and found that there was not enough detail for others to replicate the invention. The field of fusion suffered from many flawed claims, thus the examiner asked for additional proof that the radiation was generated from fusion and not from other sources. An appeal was not filed because the Department of Energy had dropped the claim in December 2005.<ref name="hot air_2">{{cite journal
  |date    = 8 March 2006
  |title   = A sound investment?. Rejection leaves bubble-fusion patent high and dry.
  |journal = Nature News
  |doi     = 10.1038/news060306-4
|s2cid = 177029221
 }}</ref>