Home > Article, Image Theory, Science > Retracted Papers

Retracted Papers

April 21, 2015

clip_image001Remember all those posting in this blog about Alberto Carpinteri and his Piezonuclear something-or-other ideas about the shroud:

Piezonuclear What?

Aftershock of the Maybe-An-Earthquake-Did-It Earthquake

Jerry Coyne Pounces on the Earthquake Hypothesis

Some Perspective on Alberto Carpinteri

Breaking News: Another Day, Another Solution to the Image and the Carbon Dating

Full Disclosure: Author of ‘Earthquake’ paper is also editor of journal that published paper


Well, it turns out that Meccanica, an International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, has retracted several articles in which Carpinteri was involved. Reason given:

This article has been withdrawn by the Publisher and the Society in agreement with the Editor-in-Chief due to conflict of interest reasons. In a commitment to scientific integrity we decided to withdraw the article as the editorial process had been compromised.

They didn’t know that? Read Full Disclosure.

More likely, it has something to do with the St. Louis Conference paper, Earthquake-Induced Piezonuclear Reactions and the Image on the Shroud of Turin: Critical Remarks by Diana Fulbright and Paolo Di Lazzaro. Here is an abstract from the conference site:

Neutrons produced by hypothetical “piezonuclear” fission reactions have been proposed as causative for the formation of the image on the Shroud of Turin1.  According to this hypothesis, compressing solids can provoke nucleus-splitting reactions without emitting γ-rays or producing nuclear waste.  This involves an exponentially accelerated decay rate of a thorium isotope, according to results presented in 2.  The decay rate of the isotope 228Th in a water solution, compared with its natural decay rate, is said to be increased by a factor of 104 when exposed to cavitation, i.e., sound waves at 20 kHz and 100W, as might be produced by a very high-magnitude earthquake.  This claim has been disputed as not substantiated by the experimental evidence presented.

The Shroud image is said to have been formed by a hypothetical flux of thermal neutrons directed into the Shroud, which in turn interacts with atmospheric nitrogen to generate both protons (which are absorbed by the linen cellulose, producing a superficial coloration) and additional isotopes of 14C, captured by cellulose of the linen cloth, as proposed by Rinaudo4, thus skewing the radiocarbon dating of 1988.

However, Rinaudo posited the body as the source of the neutron-proton flux, producing the very superficial image on the inside of the cloth.  On the contrary, in the piezonuclear ssion hypothesis, the source of neutrons are rocks of the walls of the tomb. Therefore the flux of neutrons (and of secondary protons) is directed to the outside surface of the linen cloth.  As a consequence, the image would be on the outside of the cloth, in contradiction with the detailed results of STuRP studies.

The unique earthquakes in the Gospel of Matthew (27:51, 28:2), absent from the other Gospels, are subsumed into the piezonuclear hypothesis.  But they are completely unattested by any known independent historical source.   References to earthquakes at the time of the Crucifixion and/or the Resurrection, such as attributed to the unknown historian Thallos, The Narrative of Joseph of Arimathea and Dante’s Divine Comedycan scarcely be considered to support historical authenticity, as their source is none other than the Gospel of Matthew.

Moreover, image formation via the neutron flux-proton interaction hypothesis is said to have required an earthquake of 8 – 9 ML magnitude1 “which “should have razed Jerusalem to the ground”5, and could not have gone unnoticed by contemporary or later historians – i.e., Pliny, Josephus, Philo, Tacitus, not to mention the letters of Paul or Acts, which portrays the apostles openly teaching in the Temple (3:1 ff.) following the death of Jesus.

The premise that the earthquakes of Matthew may somehow have been involved in formation of the Shroud body image may be untenable, as neither occurred, according to the Evangelist, when the shroud could have been in contact with the body.

  1. April 21, 2015 at 5:54 am

    Odd. Why wasn’t the Fulbright and Di Lazzaro paper published? All the other St. Louis papers were published at shroud.com.

    • April 21, 2015 at 3:45 pm

      Sadly, Diana Fulbright is extremely ill and has been unable to get us the paper to include on the page. Perhaps Paolo can send it to us?

  2. Hugh Farey
    April 21, 2015 at 7:01 am

    “More likely, it has something to do with the St. Louis Conference paper, Earthquake-Induced Piezonuclear Reactions and the Image on the Shroud of Turin: Critical Remarks by Diana Fulbright and Paolo Di Lazzaro.” I doubt if the St Louis conference itself was as important as the several detailed papers (albeit referenced by di Lazzaro) detailing attempts to replicate Carpinteri’s results, which failed to do so.

    • Dan
      April 21, 2015 at 7:47 am

      Yeah, you’re right.

    • piero
      April 21, 2015 at 8:18 am

      “… detailing attempts to replicate Carpinteri’s results, which failed to do so.”
      Perhaps I have a linguistic problem.
      So, I ask your help…
      Indeed Carpinteri does not seem to have failed when he measured
      the neutron radiation, an interesting question if you really relate
      that strange phenomenon to the possibility for nuclear fission of Iron atoms …
      But we can not just start from this fact and then immediately move
      to say other particular things (specifically concerning the formation of the
      Image on the Shroud) …
      I think that there is a gap to be filled with the most appropriate studies.
      Where are ?

      Apart the studies done by De Liso (… and she is not a nuclear physicist)
      we have not the inherent data…

  3. piero
    April 21, 2015 at 7:59 am

    Here I do not want to discuss whether Carpinteri
    [who is a Griffith Medal for Fractural Mechanics, ESIS (2008)
    link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Carpinteri ]
    was out the field of the reason with the fact of going well beyond
    his own research on piezonuclear fissions occurring in rocks
    containing iron (as phengite and biotite) which is transformed
    into aluminum (with emission of 2 neutrons) or silicon and magnesium
    (with emission of 4 neutrons) in these piezonuclear reactions [involving the fission of iron].

    See also:
    “Geomechanical and Geochemical Evidence of Piezonuclear
    Fission Reactions in the Earth’s Crust”
    A. Carpinteri and A. Manuello


    Here an excerpt from the Abstract: 
    >Piezonuclear reactions, which occur in inert and non-radioactive elements, are induced by high pressure and, in particular, by brittle fracture phenomena in solids under compression. These low-energy reactions generally take place in nuclei with an atomic weight that is lower or equal to that of iron (Fe). The experimental evidence, obtained from repeatable measurements of neutron emissions [Strain 45, 2009, 332; Strain (in press); Phys. Lett. A. 373, 2009, 4158], can be also recognised considering the anomalous chemical balances of the major events that have affected the Earth’s crust, oceans and atmosphere, over the last 4 billion years. … etc. … …. etc. …. .

    Instead I believe that “Meccanica, an International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics” should publish some new researches based on nanotechnologies
    (AFM, AFM three-points bending tests, MEMS, etc.) for the controls of linen fibrils
    as often I wrote in this blog.
    — —
    However Carpinteri was pelted (along with other sindonologists)
    from the “historical researcher” Andrea Nicolotti in his book published by Einaudi …
    — —
    Prof. Carpineri was director of the Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica (= INRiM) in Turin. The worst thing was the fact the “commissariamento” (= compulsory administration)
    for the INRIM…




    >The Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica (INRIM) is a public body under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education, Universities and Research. INRIM is devoted to the study of the science of measurements and to research into materials; furthermore it works on developing innovative technologies and devices.

    — — —
    As I think you may well understand, research on the degree of polymerization of the cellulose and research about the flexural test of the linen fibrils have enough to do with metrology…

    For example, see in this blog:

    New Italian Book: The Mystery of the Shroud by Giulio Fanti and Saverio Gaeta
    (March 26, 2013)

    >… …Do you know Structural Mechanics ?
    >There is the three-point bending test with an AFM apparel
    that is an interesting way to use.
    >In my opinion this is the way to know the answer
    from the linen fibrils.

    and also:
    >… …In my opinion we have to do a good survey, testing both the areas : the safe
    and the (presumed) contaminated areas.
    >The AFM and the Raman analyses can show the truth.


  4. Hugh Farey
    April 21, 2015 at 9:18 am

    “Indeed Carpinteri does not seem to have failed when he measured the neutron radiation.” On the contrary, Piero; Carpinteri’s experiment, his data and his conclusions have been examined in detail and found hopelessly wanting. His neutron radiation has been discredited. You might try the following for evidence: “http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960110009515” and there are several similar papers.

    • piero
      April 21, 2015 at 11:27 am

      First of all: the paper you previously mentioned
      (= Remarks on “Piezonuclear neutrons from fracturing of inert solids”, by Antonio Spallone, Odoardo Maria Calamai, Paolo Tripodi) is dated 2010, an old paper …

      Instead there is a study by Carpinteri and Manuello dated 2012 titled:
      “An indirect evidence of piezonuclear fission reactions:
      Geomechanical and geochemical evolution in the Earth’s crust.”

      Then, see also:
      “Piezonuclear fission reactions triggered by fracture and
      earthquakes: From the chemical evolution of our planet to the
      so-called cold fusion”
      Alberto Carpinteri Politecnico di Torino

      Here an excerpt :
      >Piezonuclear reactions are fissions of non-radioactive, relatively light elements (iron or lighter ones) that split without a concomitant generation of gamma radiation or radioactive waste but give rise to neutron emissions. As evoked by the Greek root of the word, they are caused by pressure waves, in both liquids and solids. The salient results, which have already appeared in authoritative international journals of experimental physics or mechanics, provide direct and indirect evidence of the occurrence of piezonuclear reactions. Indirect evidence includes the neutron emissions that have been detected in a regular and reproducible fashion using different types of detector. Direct evidence of piezonuclear reactions was obtained through a brand-new spectroscopic technique,
      EDS, which, by comparing a statistically significant number of spots lying on the outer surface or the fracture faces of the granite specimen, and aiming directly on the only two iron ores present – Phengite and Biotite – was able to ascertain that iron, on average, was locally reduced by 25% and was replaced with atoms of aluminium (atomic number =13, half that of iron), silicon (atomic number =14) and magnesium (atomic number =12). Thus, the split was symmetrical in the case of aluminium, asymmetrical in the other instances.
      If these reactions can take place in a laboratory, where pressure and temperature conditions are much lower and, especially, the masses at play are much smaller than those found in the deep layers of the earth’s crust, they are bound to take place on a much larger scale within the latter, triggered by fracturing and crushing phenomena of seismic and tectonic origin. On the other hand, neutron fluxes up to a thousand times the natural background level may be detected before and during earthquakes, including medium magnitude ones. … … etc. … … etc.

      — — —
      I want to emphasize that I am not a fan of science fiction or pseudoscience,
      I just want to see what’s true around the world …
      If someone tells me that there are “chemical proofs” that confirm the piezonuclear transformation of biotite and phengite, then I can believe what he says.
      Instead if I was duped by false chemical tests, then this is another question …
      These are the terms of the problem, IMO.
      — —
      Then we have to read the following paper:
      “Comments on ‘Geomechanical and Geochemical Evidence of Piezonuclear Fission Reactions in the Earth’s Crust’ by A. Carpinteri and A. Manuello”,
      U. Bardi and G. Comoretto
      This was an article first published online: 7 Nov 2013

      >In ‘Geomechanical and Geochemical Evidence of Piezonuclear Fission Reactions in the Earth’s Crust’ [Carpinteri and Manuello, Strain (2011) 47(2), 267], the authors claim that the composition of the Earth’s crust and of its atmosphere can be explained by hypothetical piezonuclear reactions. We argue that these claims are contrary to the known experimental evidence of the energy balance of the nuclear reactions involved, and we report a detailed criticism of the claims of the paper.
      — —
      So … Where is the truth?
      I am not a lawyer…
      — —
      At the end I have to admit that I have found the following words:
      “Controversial Italian scientist loses 11 papers from journal he used to edit”
      (a note written by Cat Ferguson, April 16th, 2015 at 3:26 pm)

      under the address:

      >… …Carpinteri was also editor in chief of the journal Meccanica until 2014, when Luigi Gambarotta took over. Now, Meccanica is retracting 11 of its former EIC’s papers, including the one on the Shroud, and a number on piezonuclear fission, which Wired Italy put on their list of “most famous science hoaxes.” The reason? According to the notice, “the editorial process had been compromised.” …

      Then it would be really interesting to see how
      the “phantomatic/ghost neutrons” jumped out …
      — — —
      In Turin, back in 1998, I underlined the need to improve researches
      on the Shroud with the use of advanced microscopies:
      AFM, SNOM and CFM …
      I never made extravagant claims about nuclear emissions
      … indeed: in 2005, my paper for Dallas (where I pointed to the idea of
      exposing in parallel with linen samples [during the inherent and
      careful experiments] the Solid State Nuclear Track Detectors = SSNDT),
      was rejected…
      And see also the words by Eng. Gonella (during the meeting of Villa Gualino, year 2000).

  5. Hugh Farey
    April 21, 2015 at 12:17 pm

    I’m not how all that ends up, Piero, except that from Carpinteri’s first experiments in 2009 until his latest submission to Meccanica in January 2014, his work has been challenged sufficiently to doubt whether any of it should have been included in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. An article at “http://retractionwatch.com/2015/04/16/controversial-italian-scientist-loses-11-papers-from-journal-he-used-to-edit/” says that “In 2012, more than 1,000 scientists signed a petition asking the Italian National Institute of Metrological Research (or INRIM, of which Carpinteri was director at the time) not to fund piezonuclear fission.” This does not suggest universal confidence in Carpinteri’s ideas.

    It is interesting to revisit “https://shroudstory.com/2014/02/12/breaking-news-another-day-another-solution-to-the-image-and-the-carbon-dating/” to see what we all thought of Carpinteri three years ago.

    • piero
      April 22, 2015 at 9:37 am

      First of all, I want to underline that your address:
      is the same with respect the other :
      that I have indicated (more shortly written).

      I was curious to see what were the results
      from the application of Solid State Nuclear Track Detectors
      (= SSNTDs) in experiments about Image Formation
      (then: included neutron dosimetry …), but I didn’t believe
      in this particular way as explanation for the mysterious Image.

      Perhaps we can try to simulate an “AFM (Atomic Force Microscopy)
      inspection on exposed SSNTD” model with Comsol Multiphysics.

      See also the useful “personnel neutron dosimetry” in nuclear plants.
      For this question I have found the following study:
      “Different etching processes of damage track detectors for personnel neutron dosimetry”
      L. Tommasino, G. Zapparoli, P. Spiezia, R.V. Griffith, G. Espinosa
      (It is available online since 29 August 2002)

      >The advantages and limitations of different etching processes of CR-39 detectors for personnel neutron dosimetry are analysed. The chemical etching can be considered the converse of the electrochemical etching, since the former provides very poor response to low energy neutrons, while the latter greatly simplifies the registration of these neutrons. A foil of CR-39 etched electrochemically results in a simple and sensitive neutron dosimeter with a response proportional to the dose over the entire energy range of interest.
      — —
      Here the explanation about CR-39, or allyl diglycol carbonate (ADC):
      >It is a plastic polymer commonly used in the manufacture of eyeglass lenses…
      >… An alternative use includes a purified version that is used to measure neutron radiation, a type of ionizing radiation, in neutron dosimetry. …

      — — —
      Carpinteri claimed the fission for Iron atoms,
      but I have never seen the use of SSNTD in the inherent experiments.
      Carpinteri believed in normal EDS (Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy)

      See also:
      Energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy analysis on rock samples
      subjected to piezonuclear tests.
      by A. Carpinteri, A. Chiodoni, A. Manuello, R. Sandrone

      Reading the inherent abstract we can see the absence of SSNTD:

      >In the present paper, Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (EDS) was performed on different samples of external or fracture surfaces coming from specimens used in piezonuclear tests [1,2]. For each sample, different measurements of the same crystalline phases (phengite and biotite) were performed in order to get averaged information of the chemical composition and to detect possible piezonuclear transmutations from iron to lighter elements. The results of EDS analyses show that, in the fracture surface samples, a considerable reduction in the iron content (~25%) seems to be counterbalanced by an increase in Al, Si, and Mg concentrations.

      Reading what is able to do EDS we can turn perplexed
      about what really happened in the experiments by Carpinteri :

      >Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS, EDX, or XEDS), sometimes called energy dispersive X-ray analysis (EDXA) or energy dispersive X-ray microanalysis (EDXMA), is an analytical technique used for the elemental analysis or chemical characterization of a sample. It relies on an interaction of some source of X-ray excitation and a sample. Its characterization capabilities are due in large part to the fundamental principle that each element has a unique atomic structure allowing unique set of peaks on its X-ray emission spectrum. …

      — —
      What happened? Another question similar to the “C14 1988”?
      I don’t know…
      Were the results of EDS analyses a wrong approach?
      Were the EDS analyses wrong?
      These things seem to be incredible.
      — —
      Perhaps the use of an exposure (in parallel to the fracturation)
      to the SSNTD samples was a better solution (in theory),
      but in practice this was a bit difficultt to obtain …
      — —
      What is your idea?
      — —
      Perhaps I have lost the exact point of the matter:
      So, where is the problem?
      Really Carpinteri results were not replicated?
      Zero neutrons?
      Attention, please:
      as you can see, I am not referring to gamma rays,
      I only refer to the strange neutron emissions.

      In the article by Spallone, Calamai and Tripodi
      (published online in August 2010)
      we can read:
      >Mistake in the analysis of neutron detection due
      to intense acoustic signal or charged particle emitted
      in fractoemission phenomena is suggested.

      But EDS analyses were not mentioned…
      Unfortunately I have not read the entire article (only the abstract).
      So, the results obtained from the EDS analyses
      is still a point to clarify … (in my opinion)…
      [taking apart the question of numerous signatures against Carpinteri
      that “in itself” are “meaningless” (IMO)].
      — — —
      Now (unfortunately) I have to stop with these stories
      on “piezonuclear cancer” (and here I didn’t discuss the strange
      “earthquake” in Jerusalem, that is another problem to solve
      […and we have not the inherent informations. See also:
      the tunnel of Ezekia and the presence or absence of useful signs
      for the past earthquakes, etc.])…
      Instead what was important (in my idea) is the analysis of
      Structural Mechanics, in order to properly discuss the AFM bending tests!

      • piero
        April 22, 2015 at 11:20 am

        In my opinion a “key-paper” (published in 2012) to discuss (about the problem for EDS analyses, the point to clarify as I
        previously wrote…) is the following:

        Comment on “Compositional and Microchemical Evidence of Piezonuclear Fission Reactions in Rock Specimens Subjected to Compression Tests” [Strain 47 (Suppl. 2),
        282 (2011)]
        G. Amato, G. Bertotti, O. Bottauscio, G. Crotti, F. Fiorillo, G. Mana, M. L. Rastello, P. Tavella, and F. Vinai

        INRIM – Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica, Turin

        — —
        Short summary:
        >it is shown that the chemical composition data published by Carpinteri et al. in the article “Compositional and Microchemical Evidence of Piezonuclear Fission Reactions in Rock Specimens Subjected to Compression Tests” [Strain 47 (Suppl. 2), 282 (2011)] cannot be the result of independent measurements as claimed by the authors.
        >Therefore, no conclusion can be drawn from them about compositional modifications induced in the stone by hypothetical piezonuclear reactions taking place during catastrophic failure of the material at fracture.
        — — —
        In other words, the EDS compositional analysis was challenged by INRIM researchers …
        The comments concerned the phengite data only.
        Nothing was said about the biotite data.
        In the case of the phengite phase, EDS spectra were collected at 30 sites on polished thin sections of the uncracked external surface, and at 30 sites on small portions of the fracture surface.

        Here the problem:
        >The relative precision of semiquantitative standardless EDS analysis is of the order of some percent for homogeneous test specimens with carefully prepared polished surface. Data generated on casual surfaces, such as fracture surfaces, are of signicantly lower precision with unpredictable variation…

        … and after other important considerations
        (… here omitted …), the negative conclusion about the analyses on chemical composition data published by Carpinteri et al. was that:
        > the work done by Carpinteri et al. cannot be the result of independent measurements.

        Then, the verdict by Amato, Bertotti, Bottauscio, Crotti, Fiorillo, Mana, Rastello, Tavella, and Vinai,
        was the following:
        >Consequently, no conclusion can be drawn about compositional modifications induced by hypothetical piezonuclear reactions taking place during
        catastrophic failure of the material at fracture.
        — — —
        In any case this strange question about the Iron minerals
        (= phenigite and biotite) and the rejected “piezonuclear reactions” [which caused a rift within the Italian institution of research (= INRIM), who later was in a critical position for these troubles…] was very far from the positive contribution in order to solve the interesting problem of “advanced textile analyses on linen fibrils of the Holy Shroud”, already sketched in 1998 by myself…

  6. April 21, 2015 at 3:53 pm

    In June 2014 we published several articles relating to the Carpinteri paper. Here’s the link to our article: http://www.shroud.com/late14.htm#quake. It includes further links to papers by archaeologist Jeff Williams and Shroud researcher John C. Iannone. Williams’ paper was originally published in 2011 in International Geology Review and can be found on Academia.edu at this link: https://www.academia.edu/6108262/Quake_Article. Iannone’s paper is at: http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/iannoneearthquake.pdf.

  7. anoxie
    April 22, 2015 at 11:28 am

    At least meccanica has retracted the articles.

    Two years ago Scientific Research and Essays published a bunch of shroud articles: https://shroudstory.com/2012/08/04/special-shroud-of-turin-issue-of-scientific-research-and-essays-journal/

  8. piero
    April 24, 2015 at 8:59 am

    Yesterday I tried to send the following message:

    In the past I wrote about the:

    >Iron minerals (= phenigite and biotite) and the rejected “piezonuclear reactions”

    (but my previous definition about phenigite and biotite as “Iron minerals”
    was a bit wrong because: “Phengite is a series name for dioctahedral micas
    of composition K(AlMg)2(OH)2(SiAl)4O10, similar to muscovite
    but with addition of magnesium. …” and “Biotite is a common
    phyllosilicate mineral within the mica group, with the approximate
    chemical formula K(Mg,Fe)3AlSi3O10(F,OH)2” …)

    and this question can be easily connected with the last note of the study
    by G. De Liso, C. Fidani and A. Viotto (published in “Earth Science”,
    February 2014):
    “Unusual animal behaviour before earthquakes and multiple
    parameter monitoring in Western Piedmont.”

    This note indicated the study by:
    Carpinteri A, Lacidogna G, Manuello A, Borla O.
    “Piezonuclear Transmutations in Brittle Rocks under Mechanical Loading:
    Microchemical Analysis and Geological Confirmations”. In Symposium on Recent Advances in Mechanics, Academy of Athens, Athens, Greece, 17-19 September, book part III: 361-382, Editors Anthony N. Kounadis, Emmanuel E. Gdoutos, Editors Affiliations: Academy of Athens, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace; 2009

    Therefore De Liso and the other researchers of that study
    had chosen a rather special support (prof. Carpinteri and his
    particular piezonuclear claims) that now seems in doubt weight …
    unless extraterrestrial beings have really suggested to De Liso
    the right way in order to go towards the Truth …

    In the past De Liso was defined by Garlaschelli
    (link: http://www.uaar.it/news/2014/02/17/sindone-terremoti-intervento-luigi-garlaschelli/
    as “soprano, painter, former sighting of aliens, now become
    experimental sindonologist…”
    (Italian words = “soprano, pittrice, ex-avvistatrice di alieni, ora diventata
    sindonologa sperimentale”…).
    Now I want to clarify that I do not want to judge a researcher
    (Giovanna De Liso) for her claims about UFOs, abductions, etc.
    Unfortunately I had only exchanged few words with her in 2002
    (near Paris). I have only taken note of what was written by
    prof. Luigi Garlaschelli (and then echoed by Nicolotti)…

    Was (an is) our humanity driven by extraterrestrial beings?
    Maybe it was better to believe the good angels,
    them there were not deceiving.
    However I think it would be better not come to confusion between extraterrestrials and angels (= pure spirits) … these are special topics.

    What drove Carpinteri to pursue a nuclear physics research deemed
    impossible by the rest of the scientific community in no time losing
    the authority conquered in a good career?
    The piezonuclear question seemed to be very controversial
    also because De Liso said (in an italian webpage),
    in a letter published in November 15, 2012 :
    “… we have seen neutron detectors, which marked the presence
    of neutrons at the time of rupture of gneiss …


    … and I have read on the Web that Giovanna de Liso
    was also named as an expert in ufology and collaborator
    of CUN (a Italian National “UFO Center”).

    In any case the Luserna Stone (Pietra di Luserna)
    >is a leucogranitic orthogneiss, characterized by a micro-Augen texture, with a marked foliation that is mostly associated to a visible lineation: it geologically pertains to the Dora-Maira Massif, and outcrops in a quite large area (approximately 50 km2) of the Cottian Alps, on the border between the Turin and Cuneo provinces (Piemonte, Italy)…

    I remember that years ago I have read a study about:
    “Fine atomic image of mica cleavage planes obtaiend with an atomic force microscope (AFM) and a novel procedure for image processing”

    >Potassium layers and basal oxygen layers in muscovite and biotite cleavage planes were clearly discerned by an atomic force microscope (AFM) with a novel procedure for image processing. Unit cell sizes of muscovite and biotite determined by this procedure were in good accordance with those determined by X-ray structural analysis. Expected differences in the structures of muscovite and biotite, that is, the atomic arrangement of oxygen in the tetrahedral sheet, were clearly demonstrated from the processed images.

    Now I doubt that this technique may serve to then be able to gain more control over what is left after the fracturing process…

    Perhaps one can try to do some new controls on biotite cleavage planes
    in order to better investigate the negative problems already seen with EDS.

    Here another question about the use of microscopy…
    but about Charles Freeman and
    not regarding De Liso or Carpinteri:
    I think Charles should consider the following fact: Prof. P. L.
    Baima Bollone says that Grazia Mattutino, a leading criminologist,
    helped him to do a new examination (using electron microscopy) of the stubs of 1978
    — —
    Here an explanation about the word “stub”:
    >… All samples must also be of an appropriate size to fit
    in the specimen chamber and are generally mounted rigidly
    on a specimen holder called a specimen stub.


    • piero
      April 24, 2015 at 9:52 am

      Do you know the Rietveld method applied to quantitative phase
      analysis of minerals containing disordered structures?

      Under the address :

      I have found the following explanations:
      >Invented by Hugo Rietveld, Whole Pattern Fitting Structure Refinement is now widely accepted to be an exceptionally valuable method for structural analysis of nearly all classes of crystalline materials not available as single crystals. For the X-ray diffraction (XRD) technique, Rietveld Analysis is analogous to the Fundamental Parameters technique for X-ray fluorescence (XRF). …
      >…The process of refining the pattern is computationally intensive, requiring several minutes to calculate results for a multi-component mixture. Rietveld Analysis has the advantage, over conventional quantitative methods, that no standards are required to achieve accurate results to within ±1%. … …

      Other links:




      — — —
      I am an old dyer who ended up in a problem of mineralogical analysis! …
      Then I ask for your help in order to solve the issue, because
      I have previously indicated the AFM analyses and after another way:
      the Rietveld method.
      Then I have some doubt about the XRD analyses on fractured mineral materials.
      So… the last thing that I have found is the following:
      “High Angle Annular Dark Field (HAADF) STEM Tomography”

      HAADF = High angle annular dark field
      STEM = Scanning Transmission Electron Microscopy

      >This imaging technique proves ideal for tomographic reconstruction
      as it generates strong contrast that has a fully monotonic relationship
      with thickness.

      But I believe it can be extremely long (= time consuming)
      the fact of having to work with this system on fractured mineral.
      Am I wrong?
      Besides the primary purpose of the analysis would be to identify a change in the atomic composition (after the alleged piezonuclear fission) … and also this way does not seem to offer a great confidence. Am I wrong another time?
      — —

      Is it possible to do these analyses ?

  1. July 11, 2015 at 5:34 am
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: