In reply to Guenter Wildgruber's message of Sun, 10 Jun 2012 12:04:57 +0100 (BST): Hi, [snip]
Piezoelectric effects could also create EM radiation that might affect the electronics of the detectors. >is making the rounds: >"Piezonuclear Fission Reactions in Rocks" >( A. Carpinteri G. Lacidogna A. Manuello O. Borla) > >http://theatomunexplored.com/wp-content/docs/Carpinteri_Rock_Mech_Eng.pdf > >... >Abstract: > Neutron emission measurements, by means of >He3 devices and bubble detectors, were performed during >three different kinds of compression tests on brittle rocks: >(1) under monotonic displacement control, >(2) under cyclic loading, and >(3) by ultrasonic vibration. >... >It is also interesting to emphasize that the anomalous >chemical balances of the major events that have affected >the geomechanical and geochemical evolution of the >Earths crust should be considered as an indirect evidence >of the piezonuclear fission reactions considered above. >... >Conclusions: >Neutron emission measurements were performed on Luserna >Stone specimens during mechanical tests. From these >experiments, it can be clearly seen that piezonuclear >reactions giving rise to neutron emissions are possible in >inert non-radioactive solids under loading. In particular, >during compression tests of specimens with sufficiently >large size, THE NEUTRON FLUX WAS FOUND TO BE OF ABOUT ONE >ORDER OF MAGNITUDE HIGHER THAN THE BACKGROUND LEVEL AT THE >TIME OF CATASTROPHIC FAILURE. >... > >This is from a peer reviewed Springer Journal by some respected scientists. > >Now what does that mean, besides making your head spin? > >That, under certain natural conditions something like cold fusion occurs. >Which is especially interesting for countries exposed to earthquakes like >Italy or Japan. > >( which are, in an epistemic sense, --please allow me this departure-- exposed >to environmental irregularities, and not like us Germans which constructed a >crystallized regular society and having very begnign environment like >autobahns and moderate climate. Nothing unexpected happening here, Except: >some explosions every 100yrs. But this is another story) > >One of the riddles is -and here we are again at the ominous 'reliability' >issue, that there are some diffuse prewarnings, detected by organisms, which >is considered quack science by most, because, well, it is so unreliable. > >As to be expected, the publication is received with utter suspicion, although >the methodology, as far as I can see, is far above standard. > >As Abd Ul and others have claimed, extraordinary findings do NOT require >extraordinary proof. >An experimental finding, produced with state of the art methodology, is just >that: a finding! > >The burden of proof is on the other side! >Theoreticians nowadays seem to be utterly detached from the material >conditions of experimentation. Instruments nowadays are so sophisticated that >often they need their own theory of operation. >Theoreticians overwhelmingly refuse that fact, that they are involved in this! > >The objections could be >a) ad hominems ( sometimes justified, see rossi) >b) questioning the methodology (see above) >c) questioning the basics (ask the theoreticians WRT their axioms ) > >where (c) is the most interesting one. > >Actually this paper is eventually en par with Alfred Wegeners continental >drift hypothesis, in that it questions the origin of the composition of the >earth crust, which is, by conventional thinking the sole result of supernova >explosions, which produced a certain composition of heavy elements in the >planets (the stardust hypothesis, so to say) > >This is no easy matter, so to say. > >Guenther Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
