Re: [Vo]:Another strange effect
I remmeber that the same kind of critics was done for similar claim about thunder, and the latest experiments addressed that critics by using multiple detectors at different positions, to separate the effect of EM field from neutrons. was it done there in a credible way? 2012/6/11 > 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 > >Earth’s 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 > >
Re: [Vo]:Another strange effect
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 6:33 PM, wrote: > 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. The two kinds of dectors work differently, so it reduces the likely hood that the data were just artifacts. One criticism leveled against the bubble detector was that the signature bubbles were produced by sound/vibrations at the moment of fracture rather than neutrons. However, in my opinion this is *very* unlikely because not every sample that was fractured produced bubbles, only ones of certain chemical composition. Also the He3 detected neutrons in the same test samples as the bubble dector. Then there is also the evidence of a change in chemical composition at the fracture surfaces. harry Harry > >>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 >>Earth’s 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 >
Re: [Vo]:Another strange effect
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
[Vo]:Another strange effect
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 Earth’s 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
