Hi Robin,
> What's the real difference between your transmuton and Hydrinohydride? Well - first off it is not 'mine', but a composite of various conceptions, including yours, pieces borrowed from Mills, Horace and others - which have been floating around for some time in various guises. In fact, it is evolving still, and I will try to make full atrribution once it becomes vetted (unless it is abandoned first). I see this particle's formation as been related to "pressure over time" in a statistical sense - with no "hole" required, and no energy release. Probably it is endothermic and not an exothermic in the foramtive stage. Therefore it is not Millsean except in the values of electron displacement and the reliance on the Hartree energy. Pressure can be externally supplied by gravity and possibly the Casimir (correction- perhaps not the Casimir force per se, but more likely a correlate that operates at a lower hierarchy of aether- aka Grimer's gamma-aether). It could be that there are a number of DIFFERENT routes to attaining this state, of which the Mills hydrino is but one. > Consider also that a Hydrino molecule would also nicely "fill the bill", supplying the required 2 protons in one hit, and being essentially neutral such as to possibly allow it to penetrate the electron shells of the Fe, much as would a neutron. Yes. My composite version (of an agent for transmutation) was never intended to be seen as either/or. Despite Occham, there could be several things going on - in addition to "mainstream" physics reactions, once there is enough energy built-up at the moment of impact in what must have been a massive catastrophe, which affected earth as an extinction event. However, I think that the massive transmutation which is evidenced today in the 'nickel anomaly' in these meteorites - definitely did follow from a direct celestial impact, and was NOT some kind of inherent instability nor is it based on a stratification of 4.5 billion year-old nickel- as is one of the new mainstream rationalizaiotns. Jones
