The R E V I E W
to article of Smorodov's E.A., Galiakhmetov's R.N. "About an opportunity of initiation of reaction of nuclear synthesis at pulsations of gas spheres in a liquid", presented to an editorial board of magazine "The news of HIGH SCHOOLS: Problems of the energy engineering" .
The theme of presented article corresponds to a objective of magazine.
At preparation of work in brackets the second working name of article is specified: "The experimental detection of neutrons at shock compression deuterium bubble in a viscous liquid".
In such a way authors wish to draw attention of a researchers to a consider problem.
In work the authors enumerate of the supplemental data on reaction of synthesis, say about the some methods, which allow to do of the such reactions. Further the basic attention in article is given to the description of non-stationary movement of border of liquid and gas phases. One can notice, that the mentioned equation is fair at the strong physical restrictions imposed on a choice of mathematical model as of a liquid, so and of the gas. To the description of a problem of reaction of nuclear synthesis these equations are of little use. In the conclusion of the article we are given the schematical description of experimental installation. To the presented work there are remarks:
1.. In article the equation (1) on page 6 named to as equation of Nolting-Neppiras. In the scientific literature this equation is known as equation of Rayleigh-Lamb-Plesset's. There are many works devoted to a numerical method of integration of this equation and discussion of results of calculation for different approximations the equations of a condition of gas. In opinion of the reviewer, authors of article were not engaged in the numerical decision of this task.
2. The equation (1) describes non-stationary movement of boundary of a liquid and gas phase. It is written down in the assumption, which not can executed in physical model of process. Borders of liquid area are flat surfaces, thus it is impossible to provide a condition of sphericity of process. At strong impacts the boundary of two environments at once loses the spherical form.
3. The authors of work employ of the Van der Waals equation for the description of the equation of a condition of real gas. However, how it is known, this equation is unsuitable for calculations of thermodynamic parameters at great values of pressure, it only qualitatively reflects real processes.
4. Reasonings in article concerning limits of applicability of the molecular-kinetic theory have no real substantiation. Only the molecular-kinetic theory gives a full explanation of all existent processes.
5. Judge by the name, this work is devoted to condemnation *) of the results of experiment. However in article the schematical description of experimental installation is given, there is no discussion of a series of experiments.
I suppose, that the presented article of the Smorodov's E.A., Galiakhmetov's R.N. "About an opportunity of initiation of reaction of nuclear synthesis at pulsations of gas spheres in a liquid" does not contain new scientific data. Work is not recommended to the publication in scientific magazine "News of HIGH SCHOOLS. Problems of the energy engineering".
*) It so directly and is written. A significant misprint
The such full and irrevocable refusal. Soon we shall receive similar of UFN (the russian magazine "Advances in Physical Sciences") and we shall necessarily place his on a site.
Our comments
"To the description of a problem of reaction of nuclear synthesis these equations are of little use".
About it we write on the main page of a site. We shall not repeat, that the "suitable" equations no exist in general.
The remark 1.
" this equation is known as equation of Rayleigh-Lamb-Plesset's". A crushing argument - we named not so of the equation.
However look, how his names in UFN. The reference to review of M.A. Margulis's is in the end of our article.
"In opinion of the reviewer, authors of article were not engaged in the numerical decision of this task". In article we
showed the results of calculations and the detailed algorithm of the numerical decision of the equation . In Excel even
the schoolboy can make it, if he not play truant lessons of computer science.
The remark 2.
"At strong impacts the boundary of two environments at once loses the spherical form".
The reviewer have such profound physical intuition! As Kurchatov! Loses the spherical form, and all here, though you
knock by the head in a brick wall.
And as regards of the flat borders (the piston and a bottom of the cylinder) in article it is told, that the radius
of bubble should be much less than geometrical sizes of the cylinder, it and has been considered in experiments.
Eventually, the piston and a bottom can be made in the form of hemispheres, but it is non-technological and also
will change nothing.
The remark 3.
"The authors of work employ of the Van der Waals equation for the description of the equation of a condition of real gas". There is a question: whether the reviewer read article? Where he there has found it?
The remark 4.
"Only the molecular-kinetic theory gives a full explanation of all existent processes". Eureka! It and will the universal decision! Dear academicians Velihov and Altshuler, you are not right
The remark 5.
"However in article the schematical description of experimental installation is given, there is no discussion of a
series of experiments.". In article the scheme of installation even with the sizes within millimeter is given.
With help the such "the schematical description" craftsman's from Iran or any Al-Qaeda easily will collect a
bomb on knee.
"The series of experiments" we too have. Yes only "the opening by means the statistics" is necessary for those,
which do experiments so, that the effect is shown on the verge of sensitivity of devices or hide by noise, how it was
in experiments of the group of the academician R.I. Nigmatulin's.
Conclusion
"I suppose, that the presented article ... does not contain new scientific data". But Ben Laden does not know about it.
J
. A joke, certainly. Up to a bomb still far.
But after all, the Ben Laden the obstinate man , he can and to invent. Therefore we need make something.
In order to avoid.
By the way, researches of "ultrasonic nuclear fusion" in the USA subsidizes very much and very serious organization,
Management of perspective defensive research projects of the Ministry of Defence of the USA (see materials
http://www.chemport.ru/datenews.php?news=30).
In my opinion, the irony of the Smorodov's and Galiahmetov's be absolutely correct and here already difficult anything is adding.
Practically the opponent speak: "The authors of an article is named incorrectly of the formula, therefore we not recommend to print their article" - it already the full absurdity!
If you, Evgenie Pavlovich, so overscrupulous in questions concerning authorship of formulas, then could simply recommend Smorodov and Galiahmetov to correct their mistake and to agree to print their article.
But. no! You do not recommend publication of their article!
It is absolutely obvious, what the academician Velihov, having the authority, do tries, and rather clumsy, "to press down" of the competitive cavitational mode of the decision of problem CNS.
You, Evgenie Pavlovich, strangle the rivals? Certainly, I understand you: if to give road to the cavitational nuclear synthesis, then TOKAMAK's will be possible to throw out on a dump.
(There, in the TOKAMAK, probably, is a lot of copper - someone will earn the many money, when will hand over it in item of reception of a non-ferrous metals scrap!)
The paradox, Evgenie Pavlovich, however consists in that, what when you write in the own review of a phrase: "the article does not contain new scientific data", you thereby have recognized existence of nuclear reactions in the cavitational processes, and, hence, and the potential opportunity of realization of the cavitational controlled nuclear synthesis!
And I congratulate you with it!
Really, let's ratiocinate, dear sir Velihov:
Smorodov and Galiahmetov asserts, that they on rather primitive installation have received neutrons in process of the collapse of the gas bubble, i.e. they have received nuclear reactions.
But you in the own review to their work write, what the article does not contain new scientific data, i.e. if speaking in other words, you asserts, that you already know, that cavitational processes are accompanied by nuclear reactions.
Thus, you recognize a potential opportunity of the decision of problem CNS by means of cavitation. Paradox: you recognize existence of the phenomenon by means of its denying!
You wished to hide the information on an opportunity of cavitational synthesis, but have made it so awkwardly, what you involuntarily confirm opportunity of realization of nuclear synthesis by the cavitational processes, and besides, you have put itself now in rather comical position.
You, Evgenie Pavlovich, now can take courage and recognize publicly of the this fact - is necessary to muster the press conference, to invite there of the correspondents of TV, radio, newspapers. Declare to journalists: "The TOKAMAK's is a unpromising, dead-end line of investigation of problem CNS. The problem of the controlled nuclear synthesis will be solved by means of cavitation!"