One more piece (of amateur musing) on an astronomical jigsaw puzzle... aided by borrowing some insight from Mills' CQM ...
First: The study of the isotopes of nickel and iron in meteorites "ought" to provide some insight into the source for the high nickel anomaly. On earth over 90% of iron is 56Fe; whereas almost 70% of Nickel is 58Ni. We assume that this is close to a standard ratio in our solar system, since the density of the two metals and other physical properties is so similar (like peas in a pod) ... but whether that ratio is universal or is striated all the way out to Pluto - is unclear. Ni is "neutron light" comparatively speaking. Cosmologist "want" to find that the nickel in meteorites comes from the decay of 60Fe (which has been increased by an alpha equivalent) because they have a certain model from nuclear physics that tells them that this is possible. Unfortunately - not only do the studies fail to substantiate the "presumed" source of the nickel transmutation, there is a high level of inconsistency in the basic data - such that the whole field is a mess. There are allegations that prior measurements have been influenced by "expectation". Sound familiar? In fact, one widely published Danish author, who could be part of the problem (or not), is actually named Bizzarro. Bizzaro! Anyway, here is an article which can tell you something, although you will find others with differing conclusions. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007GL032431.shtml ... in which one finds a semi-admission of the failure of the general model: We measured nickel isotopes.... No excesses of 60Ni from the decay of the short-lived radionuclide 60Fe were found in any of the samples. Resolvable deficits in 60Ni were observed in five samples. These deficits are inconsistent with the effects from 60Fe decay, given the Fe/Ni ratios... etc. In fact, the most probable route for the transmutation of iron to nickel does NOT involve an alpha particle at all, and may have been relatively recent in time - and probably involves the absorption of two proton equivalents ! This is impossible in standard nuclear physics, so we also can suggest that it "probably" involves LENR in the sense of a new and previously unrecognized type of nuclear reaction which does NOT create much excess energy, and therefore does not involve protracted nuclear decay (beta decay). Instead, this reaction happens in such an "energy neutral" way - that after a short period, there is little residual radioactivity... This could only be due IMHO to the existence of a "transmuton" which provides nuclear change that is most apparent as an increase in the atomic number. It must involve an extremely high threshold of applied pressure, or else it would have been noticed before. This is absolute heresy to the mainstream because there is no model for this in their past education (which is understandable as it requires millions of psi in pressure) ... and therefore the "experts" are convinced that the nickel anomaly cannot be a secondary nuclear transmutation at all, if it does not involve alphas - but instead they now want to say (in their revision of the past revision) that it is an ab initio variation in the formative layers of supernova debris from which the planets formed. Bizarro! (3rd misspelling). It is apparent that the mainstream is grasping at straws now, since the facts do not fit the previous theories. Anyway - one conclusion which (might) best fits the facts, if one does not mind being on the "fringe" of opinion, suggests the reality of a "transmuton". A transmuton is simply a proton which has become stably bound to two electrons at very tight effective orbital, such that the new particle (negative ion) displaces an inner electron of its "host" ... at the exact same energy level (and which reaction must have been under tremendous external pressure for this happen, in the formative stages)... ... and obviously - where the host is naturally limited to elements having resonant electrons, such as iron - which is the most common dense metal found in the core of planets. ... and in further detail, pressurized iron hydride over geologic time (in the core of a planet or planetoid) is poised for a natural conversion of free protons, under high pressure, into transmutons, which can be stored in that fashion (bound with two electrons in tight radii) for billions of years as a deeply redundant ground state ... (the two necessary electrons must be mulitples of the Hartree energy - 27.2 eV). The reason that iron is so favored to do this is that - not uncoincidentally - it just happens to contain electron orbitals which have an IP enthalpy at near 54.4 eV and near 109 eV ! Let me emphasize that this in a personal interpretation of CQM and there is little doubt that R. Mills would be hostile to it, and has never mentioned either a transmuton, nor this method of iron to nickel transmutation, not this kind of formative process, not needing an energy hole. Over geologic time then - and in a non-Millsean manner (no 'energy hole' per se) but with a result ultimately predicted by CQM - protons are first captured inside the iron valence shell (iron is a proton conductor) and then under time+compression are gradually converted into a new stable particle... which itself is then able - following subsequent violent events - to transmute the iron into the next higher "neutron poor" stable element (where QM permits) which is nickel. If cobalt (which essentially is by nature 100% isotopic 59Co) did not have the unusal QM spin of 7/2 which cannot be attained via the proposed route, then it too would probably have been massively increased following the violent planetary impact which is responsible for our "asteroid belt" and for most of the high nickel content debris which occasionally hit our planet... ...which impact, BTW - probably "erased" a large mass object between Mars and Jupiter fairly recently in geologic time (650 years ago). Jones
