--- Jed Rothwell wrote: > Here is part of a message to me from Tom Barnard > We just started a web site, <http://www.ichaphysics.com>ichaphysics.com
> to put forth a cold fusion theory ... Initial impression: This is interesting, with a glimmer of insight, but sadly incomplete, green ... and worst of all- is derivative of prior hypotheses, but without proper attribution. Most of all: where's the beef ? (where is the falsifiable experiment? or any experiment for that matter). Robin, Mike Carrell and others have suggested for years that the Mills' Hydrino mechanism, or some variant of it - IF that theory (CQM) is correct - MUST also be involved in LENR. The problem there is that Mills, despite his 1000 page tome, has not convinced many independent observers (even those who accept LENR) of the reality of the hydrino. So why does this state of affairs not serve to validate the Barnard approach? Many of us are fence-sitters, wrt the hydrino (as being a long-lived entity) but NOT as being the LENR catalyst of choice for fusion. This would be the far end of the shrunken orbit (redundant ground state) condition, but in the role of having a lifetime far longer than the muon but far shorter than Mills conception. IOW that was the "middle ground" prior to Barnard. A few pages of similar ramblings from Barnard based on helium alone, in not likely to gather even a fraction of the support which Mills enjoys (or lacks, as the case may be).. Of course Muon catalyzed fusion is reality for even the mainstream, and there is a slight overlap there for an electron in a Mills' shrunken radius orbit to "appear to be" a longer-lived muon. In fact he demonstrated this to his own satisfaction as much as 18 years ago. Mills so-called "independent" verification however, is not there. Barnard seems to have altered that observation, yet without any ground-breaking experimental basis of his own. The Mills' hydrino-hydride (Hy-) as a potential fusion catalyst, seems obviuos to almost anyone not tied to a particular agenda, even if Mills himself has chosen to stay far away from the fray of LENR. Barnard tries to fill-in that gaps in an alternate way, but without the leg-work (experiment) nor without recourse (or attribution) to the historical evolution of these ideas. He says, "Let us suspend disbelief for a moment and assume there is an electron bond between two deuterons, in the palladium lattice, on the order of tens of thousands of electron volts. If this could be true, then, according to the uncertainty principle, the electron would be contained to an average radius of ~0.01 angstrom, and the deuterons would have an average bond length on the order of ~0.001 angstrom." [At this point TB calls it an "electron" and later pushs the identity towards the muon, then towards He. For others, it could as easily (more cogently) be identified as Hy- (the hydrino hydride). First requisite there is to take the time to study Mills' CQM. TB: "This would be sufficient for the deuterons to react in short order. How could this possibly happen? Although at first glance appearing preposterous, the mechanism will be shown as straightforward electron physics that has been accepted and practiced since the inception of quantum mechanics; true alchemy. We will show how helium, the high energy by product of fusion, catalyzes the fusion chain reaction" END IMHO - Many of us have used the phrase "chain reaction" in the NAE going back many years, so that is derivative. Mills has already (1989) shown how Helium catalyzes further hydrino formation, in a chain reaction like way ... which as it hydrides in a tight matrix can provide the electron charge and at the identical radius where it can appear to be a muon. This and Mills' massive amount of mathematical backup, even if slightly inaccurate to some in the mainstream, will likely be far more satisfying to many open-minded observers than the kludge of using Helium as a catalyst w/o such negative charge appearing in the right place and at the right time. Huge gap here for Barnard. OTOH there does appear to be a place for this theory to open new ground in that direction if it becomes more complete and falsifiable. Now it is "not even green" (in the sense of premature delivery ;-) And that is why, for this observer at least, and on first reading, that it is very unsatisfying ... despite that glimmer of hope. After 5 years of effort, as Barnard has prefaced in his introduction, the details he is able to deliver are still at an almost trivial level, and one would have thought there would be far more ... Jones
