Terremoto e neutroni:

Dalla formazione degli oceani alla corretta Dalla formazione degli oceani alla corretta

datazione della Sindonedatazione della Sindone

Alberto CarpinteriAlberto Carpinteri

Dipartimento di Ingegneria Strutturale, Edile e Geotecnica Dipartimento di Ingegneria Strutturale, Edile e Geotecnica

Politecnico di TorinoPolitecnico di Torino

Innovazione e Ricerca:

Nei Sentieri della Materia e dello Spirito

Assisi, 28 Giugno, 2014

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

G. Lacidogna, A. Manuello, O. G. Lacidogna, A. Manuello, O. BorlaBorla for their extensive collaboration for their extensive collaboration

R. Sandrone for his contribution in geological issuesR. Sandrone for his contribution in geological issues

A. Chiodoni and S. A. Chiodoni and S. GuastellaGuastella for their contribution in microfor their contribution in micro--chemical chemical

analysisanalysis

L. L. NegriNegri for his contribution in Planetary Science for his contribution in Planetary Science

D. D. VenezianoVeneziano, A. , A. GoiGoi for their contribution in electrolysis experimentsfor their contribution in electrolysis experiments

WAVELENGTH vs FREQUENCY

EarthquakesEarthquakes HumansHumans InsectsInsects BacteriaBacteria ProteinsProteins

MetreMetre

HertzHertz

101033 101000 1010−−33 1010−−66 1010−−99

10101212101099101033101000 101066

vf λ=

WavelengthWavelength vsvs FrequencyFrequency

3 112

9

10 ms10 Hz

10 m

−

−=

NanoNano--scalescale vs vs TeraHertzTeraHertz

FrequencyFrequency vs Energyvs Energy

16 130.025 eV 6.58 10 eVs 3.8 10 Hz−= × × ×

TeraHertzTeraHertz vs vs VibrationalVibrational

Energy of the Energy of the AtomicAtomic LatticeLattice

E hf=

NEUTRON EMISSION

FROM FRACTURE

AND EARTHQUAKES

• Volodichev, N.N., Kuzhevskij, B.M., Nechaev, O. Yu., Panasyuk M., and

Podorolsky M.I., “Lunar periodicity of the neutron radiation burst and seismic

activity on the Earth”, Proc. of the 26th International Cosmic Ray Conference,

Salt Lake City, 17-25 August, 1999.

NEUTRON EMISSION FROM EARTHQUAKES

• Sigaeva, E., Nechaev, O., Panasyuk, M., Bruns, A., Vladimirsky, B. and Kuzmin

Yu., “Thermal neutrons’ observations before the Sumatra earthquake”,

Geophysical Research Abstracts, 8: 00435 (2006).

• Sobolev, G.A., Shestopalov, I.P., Kharin, E.P. “Implications of Solar Flares for the

Seismic Activity of the Earth”. Izvestiya, Phys. Solid Earth 34: 603-607 (1998).

Neutron flux up to 100 cm–2 s–1 (103 times the background level) was detected

in correspondence to earthquakes with a magnitude of the 4th degree in Richter

Scale (Volodichev N.N., et al. (1999)).

Seismic activity and neutron flux measurements in the period 1975-1987,

Kola Peninsula, Russia (Sobolev et al. 1998).

During a preliminary experimental analysis During a preliminary experimental analysis four rock specimensfour rock specimens were used:were used:

•• two made of two made of CarraraCarrara marblemarble, specimens P1 and P2;, specimens P1 and P2;

•• two made of two made of Luserna graniteLuserna granite, specimens P3 and P4; , specimens P3 and P4;

•• all of them measuring all of them measuring 6x6x106x6x10 cmcm33..

P1 P2 P3 P4

NEUTRON EMISSION FROM ROCK SPECIMENS

P1 P2 P1 P2

P3P4 P3P4

Specimens P1 and P2 in Specimens P1 and P2 in CarraraCarrara marblemarble following compression failure.following compression failure.

Specimens P3 e P4 in Specimens P3 e P4 in Luserna graniteLuserna granite following compression failure.following compression failure.

Load vs. time and cps curve for P1 test specimen of Load vs. time and cps curve for P1 test specimen of CarraraCarrara marble.marble.

Brittle Fracture Experiment on Carrara Marble specimen

Load vs. time and cps curve for P3 test specimen of granite.Load vs. time and cps curve for P3 test specimen of granite.

Brittle Fracture Experiment on granite specimen

Neutron emissions were measured on nine Green Luserna stone Neutron emissions were measured on nine Green Luserna stone

cylindrical specimens, of different size and shapecylindrical specimens, of different size and shape (D=28, 56, 112 mm; (D=28, 56, 112 mm;

λλ= 0.5, 1.0, 2.0)= 0.5, 1.0, 2.0)

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

P9

Von Kármán T., Tsien H.S. (1941) The buckling of thin cylindrical shells under axial

compression, J. Aero. Sci. 8:303-312.

End shorteningN

on

dim

ensi

on

al

axia

lst

ress

The buckling of thin cylindrical shells under axial

compression (Snap-trough and Snap-back instabilities)

Eccentricity

stable

O

peak stress

Axial Strain, ε

Axia

l S

tre

ss,

σ

A

E D

B C

unstable

Post-peak regime

Released Energy

stable

O

peak stress

Axial Strain, ε

Axia

l S

tre

ss,

σ

A

E D

B C

unstable

Post-peak regime

Released Energy

Energy release and stable vs. unstable stressEnergy release and stable vs. unstable stress--strainstrain behaviourbehaviour

Axial Strain, ε A

xia

l S

tress,

σ

ductile

brittle

catastrophic

DUCTILE, BRITTLE AND CATASTROPHIC

BEHAVIOUR

Subsequent stages in the deformation history of a Subsequent stages in the deformation history of a

specimen in compressionspecimen in compression(I) (II)(I) (II)

δ=

c ;cl lE

σδ ε= = ;l w

E

σδ = + c .wδ ≥

(I)(I) Carpinteri, A., Carpinteri, A., ““Cusp catastrophe interpretation of fracture instabilityCusp catastrophe interpretation of fracture instability””, , J. of Mechanics and J. of Mechanics and

Physics of SolidsPhysics of Solids, 37, 567, 37, 567--582 (1989).582 (1989).

(II)(II) Carpinteri, A., Carpinteri, A., CorradoCorrado, M., , M., ““An extended (fractal) overlapping crack model to describe An extended (fractal) overlapping crack model to describe

crushing sizecrushing size--scale effects in compressionscale effects in compression””, , Eng. Failure AnalysisEng. Failure Analysis, 16, , 16, 25302530--2540 2540 (2009).(2009).

(a)(a) (b)(b) (c)(c)

cσ

Stress vs. displacement responseStress vs. displacement response

of a specimen in compressionof a specimen in compression

Normal Normal

softeningsoftening

Vertical Vertical

dropdrop

Catastrophic Catastrophic

behaviourbehaviour

u,cσu,cσ u,cσ

GraniteGranite (Fe (Fe ∼∼ 1.5%)1.5%)

NEUTRON EMISSION FROM CAVITATION IN

LIQUIDS AND FRACTURE IN SOLIDS

BasaltBasalt (Fe (Fe ∼∼ 15%)15%)

MagnetiteMagnetite (Fe (Fe ∼∼ 75%)75%)

MarbleMarble

LIQUIDSLIQUIDS −−−−−−−− CavitationCavitation

NEUTRON EMISSIONNEUTRON EMISSION

Iron chlorideIron chloride

SOLIDSSOLIDS −−−−−−−− FractureFracture

101011 timestimes the Background the Background LevelLevel

2.52.5 timestimes the Background the Background LevelLevel

up to up to

101022 timestimes the Background the Background LevelLevelup to up to

101033 timestimes the Background the Background LevelLevelup to up to

up to up to

Background LevelBackground Level

MATERIALMATERIAL

SteelSteel 2.52.5 timestimes the Background the Background LevelLevelup to up to

The equivalent neutron dose, at the end of the test on basaltic The equivalent neutron dose, at the end of the test on basaltic rock, was 2.62 rock, was 2.62 ±± 0,53 0,53 µµµµµµµµSv/hSv/h

(Average Background Dose = 41.95 (Average Background Dose = 41.95 ±± 0,85 0,85 nSv/hnSv/h).).

Effective Neutron DoseEffective Neutron Dose

Average Background DoseAverage Background Dose≅≅ 5050

Cyclic Loading Experiments on Basaltic Rocks

IRON DEPLETIONvs

CARBON

POLLUTION

(3.8 (3.8 BillionBillion yearsyears ago): ago):

Fe (Fe (−−−−−−−−7%) + Ni 7%) + Ni ((−−−−−−−−0.2%) = 0.2%) =

=Al=Al (+3%) + Si (+2.4%) + Mg (+1.8%)(+3%) + Si (+2.4%) + Mg (+1.8%)

(2.5 (2.5 BillionBillion yearsyears ago): ago):

Fe (Fe (−−−−−−−−4%) + Ni 4%) + Ni ((−−−−−−−−0.8%) =0.8%) =

=Al=Al (+1%) + Si (+2.4%) + Mg (+1.4%)(+1%) + Si (+2.4%) + Mg (+1.4%)

Tectonic plate formationTectonic plate formation

Most severe tectonic activityMost severe tectonic activity

TECTONIC ACTIVITY vs CHEMICAL EVOLUTION

56 27

26 13Fe 2Al 2n→ +

56 28 24

26 14 12Fe Si + Mg + 4n→

(1)

(2)

Conjecture about ferrous elementsConjecture about ferrous elements’’ transformations in transformations in

the Earth Crustthe Earth Crust

59 28

28 14Ni 2 Si + 3n→(3)

(*)(*) World Iron Ore producers. Available at World Iron Ore producers. Available at http://www.mapsofworld.com/minerals/worldhttp://www.mapsofworld.com/minerals/world--ironiron--oreore--producers.html.producers.html.

(**) (**) World Mineral Resources Map. Available at World Mineral Resources Map. Available at http://www.mapsofworld.com/worldhttp://www.mapsofworld.com/world--mineralmineral--map.htmlmap.html. .

Iron reservoirs

More than 40 Mt/year

from 0 to 40 Mt/year

Iron reservoirs

More than 40 Mt/year

from 0 to 40 Mt/year

Localization of iron minesLocalization of iron mines

from 10 to 40 Mt/year

(*)(*) World Iron Ore producers. Available at World Iron Ore producers. Available at http://www.mapsofworld.com/minerals/worldhttp://www.mapsofworld.com/minerals/world--ironiron--oreore--producers.html.producers.html.

(**) (**) World Mineral Resources Map. Available at World Mineral Resources Map. Available at http://www.mapsofworld.com/worldhttp://www.mapsofworld.com/world--mineralmineral--map.htmlmap.html. .

Localization of Localization of AluminumAluminum minesmines

Map of the salinity level in the Mediterranean Sea expressed in Map of the salinity level in the Mediterranean Sea expressed in p.s.up.s.u. .

The Mediterranean basin is characterized by the highest sea saliThe Mediterranean basin is characterized by the highest sea salinity level in the nity level in the

WorldWorld..

Salinity level in the Mediterranean SeaSalinity level in the Mediterranean Sea

Map of the major earthquakes in the last fifteen yearsMap of the major earthquakes in the last fifteen years

59 23 35

28 11 17Ni Na + Cl + 1n→Nickel Depletion:Nickel Depletion:

Magnesium depletionMagnesium depletion and Carbon concentration in and Carbon concentration in

the primordial atmospherethe primordial atmosphere

The estimated Mg increase (∼∼∼∼3.2%) is equivalent to the Carbon content in the

primordial atmosphere:

Assuming a mean density of the Earth Crust equal to 3.6 g/cm3 and a thickness of

~60 km, the mass increase in Mg (∼∼∼∼3.5×1021 kg), and therefore in C, implies a very

high atmospheric pressure.

Primordial atmospheric

pressure due to C increase

= ∼∼∼∼660 atm

Primordial atmospheric

pressure reported by other

authors = ∼∼∼∼650 atm

(Liu, 2004)

24 12

12 6Mg 2C →

56 24 28

26 12 14Fe Mg + Si + 4n→

Liu, L., Liu, L., ““The inception of the oceans and COThe inception of the oceans and CO22--atmosphere in the early history of the Earthatmosphere in the early history of the Earth””.. Earth Earth

Planet. Sci. Planet. Sci. LettLett.,., 227, 179227, 179––184 (2004) 184 (2004)

Friday 8 March 2013 10.55 GMT

““What is disturbing scientists is he acceleration What is disturbing scientists is he acceleration

of COof CO22 concentrations in the atmosphere, concentrations in the atmosphere,

which are occurring in spite of attempts by which are occurring in spite of attempts by

governments to restrain fossil fuel emissionsgovernments to restrain fossil fuel emissions””

CALCIUM

DEPLETIONvs

OCEAN

FORMATION

3.8 3.8 BillionBillion yearsyears ago: ago:

Ca (Ca (−−−−−−−−2.5%) + Mg(2.5%) + Mg(−−−−−−−−3.2%) = 3.2%) =

= K (+1.4%) + = K (+1.4%) + NaNa (+2.1%) + O (+2.2%)(+2.1%) + O (+2.2%)

2.5 2.5 BillionBillion yearsyears ago: ago:

Ca (Ca (−−−−−−−−1.5%) + Mg(1.5%) + Mg(−−−−−−−−1.5%) = 1.5%) =

=K=K (+1.3%) + (+1.3%) + NaNa (+0.6%) + O (+1.1%)(+0.6%) + O (+1.1%)

Great Oxidation Event

&&&& Origin of Life

Alkaline &&&&Alkaline-Earth

Elements

(1)24 23 1

12 11 1Mg Na + H→

24 16 1 4

12 8 1 2Mg O + 2H +He 2n→ +

40 39 1

20 19 1Ca K + H→40 16 1

20 8 1Ca 2O + 4H + 4n→

(3)

(4)

(2)

Conjecture about AlkalineConjecture about Alkaline--Earth elementsEarth elements’’

transformationstransformations

Conjecture about AlkalineConjecture about Alkaline--Earth elementsEarth elements’’

transformationstransformations

(1)24 23 1

12 11 1Mg Na + H→

24 16 1 4

12 8 1 2Mg O + 2H +He 2n→ +

40 39 1

20 19 1Ca K + H→40 16 1

20 8 1Ca 2O + 4H + 4n→

(3)

(4)

(2)

Ocean Ocean

FormationFormation

Calcium depletionCalcium depletion and ocean formationand ocean formation

Global decrease in Ca ( –4.0%) is counterbalanced by an increase in K (+2.7%) and

in H2O (+1.3%).

40 39 1

20 19 1Ca K + H→40 16 1

20 8 1Ca 2O + 4H + 4n→

Assuming a mean density of the Earth Crust equal to 3.6 g/cm3 and a thickness of

~60 km, the partial mass decrease in Ca due to the second reaction is about 1.40

×1021 kg.

Considering a global ocean surface of 3.61 ×1014 m2, and an average depth of

3950 m, we obtain a mass of water of about 1.35 ×1021 kg

Partial decrease in Ca

1.40 ×1021 kg

Mass of H2O in the

oceans today

1.35 ×1021 kg

CHEMICAL

COMPOSITION

CHANGES AT THE

LABORATORY

SCALE

ENERGY DISPERSIVE X-RAY SPECTROSCOPY:

COMPOSITIONAL ANALYSIS OF PRODUCT

ELEMENTS

Two different kinds of samples were examined: (i) polished thin Two different kinds of samples were examined: (i) polished thin

sections from the external surface; (ii) small portions from thesections from the external surface; (ii) small portions from the fracture fracture

surface.surface.

56 2726 13Fe 2Al 2n→ +

PhengitePhengite (Granite)(Granite)

56 28 24

26 14 12Fe Si Mg 4n→ + +

BiotiteBiotite (Granite)(Granite)

56 2726 13Fe 2Al 2n→ +

56 28 24

26 14 12Fe Si Mg 4n→ + +

Olivine (Basalt)Olivine (Basalt)

MagnetiteMagnetite

56 2726 13Fe 2Al 2n→ +

56 55 126 25 1Fe Mn H→ +

56 28 16 426 14 8 2Fe Si O 2He 4n→ + + +

He3CCa42

126

4020 +→

24 12

612Mg 2C→

HeCO4

2

12

6

16

8+→

CarraraCarrara MarbleMarble

SHROUD IMAGE

FORMATION AND

DATING

EVALUATION

After the first photographs of the Shroud, taken by Mr. Mr. SecondoSecondo PiaPia during the

Exposition of 18981898 in Turin, a widespread interest has been generated among

scientists and curious to explain the image formation and to evaluate its to explain the image formation and to evaluate its

dating.dating.

HYSTORICAL DEBATE

The image seems to be formed with lights and shades reversed in a sort of negative a sort of negative

photography.photography. VignonVignon (M. Vignon’s researches and the “Holy Shroud”. Nature 66, 13-14

(19021902)) asserts that the image was produced by radiographic actionradiographic action from the body

which, according to ancient texts, was wrapped in a shroud impregnated with a

mixture of oil and aloes.

Further studies have focused on the Shroud dating, especially since 19861986, when the

Roman Catholic Church declared that pieces of the Shroud of Turin had been sent to

seven laboratories around the world, later reduced to only threeseven laboratories around the world, later reduced to only three, for , for

radiocarbon dating.radiocarbon dating.

In 19881988 Dickman (Dickman S. Shroud a good forgery. Nature 335, 663 (1988)) declares that

the official carbon dating resultsofficial carbon dating results for the Turin Shroud were released in Zurich.

The results provide evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin should be the linen of the Shroud of Turin should be

medieval, dated between 1260 and 1390.medieval, dated between 1260 and 1390.

PhillipsPhillips in the paper “Shroud irradiated with neutrons?” (Nature 337, 594 (19891989))

supposes that the Shroud may have been irradiated with neutrons which would have

changed some of the nuclei to different isotopes by neutron capture.

However, HedgesHedges (Hedges, R.E.M. Replies to: Shroud irradiated with neutrons?. Nature 337, 594

(19891989)) asserts that the integrated flux proposed by Phillips is excessively high and

«« including the neutron capture by nitrogen in the cloth, an inteincluding the neutron capture by nitrogen in the cloth, an integrated grated

thermal neutron flux of 2 thermal neutron flux of 2 ×× 10101313 would be appropriate would be appropriate »» for the apparent

radiocarbon dating of the Shroud.

In particular, Phillips assumes that some nuclei could have generated from ,

and that an integrated flux of 22××10101616 thermal neutrons cm−2 could have produced an

apparent carbon-dated age of just 670 years.

14

6C 13

6C

Also RinaudoRinaudo (Rinaudo, J.B. Image formation on the Shroud of Turin explained by a protonic

model affecting radiocarbon dating. III Congresso Internazionale di Studi sulla Sindone, Torino, Italy,

5-7 June 19981998) evaluates that simultaneous fluxes of protons and neutrons could

explain at the same time the imprint on the cloth (by protons) and the 13-century slip

of time of the nuclei (by neutrons).

THE NEUTRON IRRADIATION HYPOTHESIS

NEUTRON EFFECTS

ON LINEN FIBRES

Neutron imaging is a XNeutron imaging is a X--rayray--like radiography technique.like radiography technique. The most important

detection reaction, used in neutron imaging, for thermal neutrons is:

in which a converter material (i.e. gadolinium) captures neutrons and emits

secondary charged particles that reproduce the irradiated object on Neutron Imaging

Plates (NIP). Usually, a thermal neutron flux of 10thermal neutron flux of 1055 neutrons cmneutrons cm−−2 2 ss−−11 is

employed, with an irradiation time of few minutes for a total integrated flux of integrated flux of

101088 neutrons cmneutrons cm−−22, with typical NIP enriched for more than 20% in weight of

Gd2O3.

MeV)(8.5 electrons conversiongammaGdnGd 158

64

1

0

157

64 ++→+

The most important nuclear reaction of thermal neutrons on nitrogen nuclei is

represented by:

that is liable of radiocarbon formation also in the atmosphere.

1

1

14

6

1

0

14

7 HCnN +→+

OLD JERUSALEM

HISTORICAL

EARTHQUAKE

Scientific data of the historical earthquake occurred in 33 A.D.Scientific data of the historical earthquake occurred in 33 A.D. in in

Jerusalem are mentioned in the Jerusalem are mentioned in the ““Significant Earthquake DatabaseSignificant Earthquake Database”” of the of the

American Scientific Agency NOAA (National Oceanic and AtmospheriAmerican Scientific Agency NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric c

Administration).Administration). In this database the “Old Jerusalem” earthquake is classified as

an average devastating seismic event.

Moreover, if we assign the image imprinted on the Shroud to the Man who died

during the Passover of 33 A.D., there are at least three documents in the three documents in the

literature attesting the occurrence of the disastrous earthquakeliterature attesting the occurrence of the disastrous earthquakes during s during

that event.that event.

•A historian named ThallosThallos has left mention of events occurred on the Christ’s death

day: the darkening of the sky and the happening of an earthquake (Rigg, H. Thallus: The

Samaritan?. Harvard Theological Review 34, 111-119 (1941)) ;

••MatthewMatthew wrote that there was a strong earthquake at the moment of Christ’s death:

«When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw

the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, “Truly this

was the Son of God!”.» (Matthew 27: 54) ;

•That event is also mentioned by Dante AlighieriDante Alighieri, XXI Canto, Inferno, as the most

violent earthquake that had ever shaken the Earth (Inferno, XXI Canto:106-114).

OLD DOCUMENTS VERSUS MODERN DATABASES

Taking into account the historical sources attesting the occurrence of a disastrous

earthquake in 33 A.D., and assuming a hypothetical magnitude of theassuming a hypothetical magnitude of the 9th 9th

degree in the Richter scaledegree in the Richter scale (Ambraseys, N., “Historical earthquakes in Jerusalem – A

methodological discussion”, Journal of Seismology 9: 329-340 (2005)), it is possible to provide

an evaluation of the consequent neutron flux.

The Richter scale is logarithmic (base 10). This means that, forThe Richter scale is logarithmic (base 10). This means that, for each each

degree increasing on the Richter scale, the amplitude and the acdegree increasing on the Richter scale, the amplitude and the acceleration celeration

of the ground motion recorded by a seismograph increase by 10 tiof the ground motion recorded by a seismograph increase by 10 times.mes.

From a displacement or acceleration viewpoint, an earthquake of From a displacement or acceleration viewpoint, an earthquake of the 9th the 9th

degree in the Richter scale degree in the Richter scale is is 101055 times more intense than times more intense than aa 4th 4th magnitudemagnitude

degreedegree. On the . On the otherother handhand, , fromfrom the the energyenergy viewpointviewpoint, , itit is 10is 101010 timestimes

more intense more intense thanthan the the samesame referencereference eventevent..

ENERGY RELEASE INCREASE BY 102

FOR EACH RICHTER SCALE DEGREE

Assuming a typical environmental thermal neutron flux background of about 10–3

cm–2 s–1 at the sea level, in correspondence of appreciable earthquakes with a earthquakes with a

magnitude of the 4th degree, an average thermal neutron flux up magnitude of the 4th degree, an average thermal neutron flux up to 10to 1000

cmcm––2 2 ss––1 1 should be detected, that is 1000 times higher than the natural background (Antonova, V. P., Volodichev, N.N., Kryukov, S.V., Chubenko, A. P. & Shchepetov, A.L. Results of

Detecting Thermal Neutrons at Tien Shan High Altitude Station. Geomagnetism and Aeronomy 49,

761-767 (2009) and Pfotzer, G. & Regener, E. Vertical intensity of cosmic rays by threefold

coincidence in the stratosphere. Nature 136, 718-719 (1935).

Thus, an earthquake of the 9th degree in the Richter scale9th degree in the Richter scale could provide a

thermal neutron flux ranging around 10thermal neutron flux ranging around 101010 cmcm––2 2 ss––11, if proportionality , if proportionality

between released energy and neutron flux holds.between released energy and neutron flux holds. A similar event could have

produced chemical and/or nuclear reactions, contributing both to the image formation

and to the increment in the linen fibres of the Shroud, if it had lasted for at least 15

minutes.

In this way, an appropriate integrated thermal neutron flux of about 10integrated thermal neutron flux of about 101313

neutrons cmneutrons cm−−2 2 is obtained, as assumed by Hedges is obtained, as assumed by Hedges (Hedges, R.E.M. Replies to:

Shroud irradiated with neutrons?. Nature 337, 594 (1989) ).

NEUTRON FLUX PROPORTIONAL TO ENERGY RELEASE

CHEMICAL

EVOLUTION IN

THE PLANETS OF

SOLAR SYSTEM

MARS: THREE INDEPENDENT

INVESTIGATIONS

MarsMars OdisseyOdissey, Nasa 2001, Nasa 2001

MarsMars Global Global SurveyorSurveyor, Nasa 1996, Nasa 1996

1. Knapmeyer M. et al. “Working Models for Spatial Distribution and Level of Mars Seismicity”

J. of Geophys. Res., 111, E11006,, (2006).

1. Hahn, B., McLennan, S., “Gamma-Ray Spectometer Elemental Abundance Correlation with Martian

Surface Age: Implication for Martian Crustal Evolution”. Lunar and Planet. Sci. 37,1904 (2006).

Elemental Abundance

Neutron Emissions

Seismicity

1.Mitrofanov, I. et al., “Maps of Subsurface Hydrogen from the High Energy Neutron Detector, Mars

Odyssey”, Science, 297, 78-81, (2002).

Faults

Iron

(≥ 15%)

Neutrons

(> 0.18 cps)

Faults

Neutrons (> 0.18 cps)

Faults vs Neutrons

Faults vs Iron

Faults

Iron (≥≥≥≥ 15%)

Iron (≥≥≥≥ 15%)

Neutrons (> 0.18 cps)

Iron vs Neutrons

59 56 1

28 26 1N i Fe 2 H 1n→ + +

Element evolution: NiElement evolution: Ni--Fe transformationFe transformation

1.Hahn B. C., McLennan S. M. (2006) Gamma-Ray Spectometer Elemental Abundance Correlation with

Martian Surface Age: Implication for Martian Crustal Evolution. Lunar and Planetary Science XXXVII.

Ni decrease ∼∼∼∼ Fe increase ∼∼∼∼ 1.0%

39 35 119 17 1

K C l 2H 2n→ + +

Element evolution: KElement evolution: K--ClCl transformationtransformation

K decrease ∼∼∼∼ Cl increase ∼∼∼∼ 0.1%

39 36 1

19 18 1K Ar H 2n→ + +

A small quantity of the K decrease may be responsible for the Ar concentration

evolution in the Mars athmosphere.

Element evolution: KElement evolution: K--ArAr transformationtransformation

The composition of MercuryThe composition of Mercury’’s crust is poor in Al, and Ca, and is rich in Mg and s crust is poor in Al, and Ca, and is rich in Mg and

S. At the same time, the atmosphere is rich in Na.S. At the same time, the atmosphere is rich in Na.

27 24 1

13 12 1Al M g H 2n→ + +

MERCURY: CRUST AND ATHMOSPHERE

27 23 4

13 11 2Al N a H e→ +

40 32 4

20 16 2C a S 2H e→ +

Nittler L. R. et al. (2011) The Major-Element Composition of Mercury's Surface from

MESSENGER X-ray Spectrometry. Science 333, 1847 – 1850.

Paral J. et al. (2010) Sodium ion exosphere of Mercury during MESSENGER flybys.

Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 37.

Messenger, Nasa 2004Messenger, Nasa 2004

JUPITER: GREAT RED SPOT

On Jupiter, the dynamic flow KelvinOn Jupiter, the dynamic flow Kelvin--Helmholtz instabilities observable in the Helmholtz instabilities observable in the

Great Red Spot (GRS) are similar to those observed in the EarthGreat Red Spot (GRS) are similar to those observed in the Earth’’s atmosphere.s atmosphere.

14 4 1

7 2 1N 3H e H 1n→ + +

Leigh N. Fletcher et al. (2010) Thermal structure and composition of Jupiter’s Great Red Spot

from high-resolution thermal imaging. Icarus. 208, 306 – 328.

Nezlin M. V. et al. (1982) Kelvin – Helmholtz Instability and the Jovian Great Red Spot.

GRS poor in GRS poor in NytrogenNytrogen

Very high Neutron flux from GRSVery high Neutron flux from GRS

Pioneer 11, Nasa 1995Pioneer 11, Nasa 1995VoyagerVoyager 1, Nasa 19771, Nasa 1977

In the Sun, Li and Be are much less abundant than predictedIn the Sun, Li and Be are much less abundant than predicted

KelvinKelvin--Helmholtz instabilities take place in the solar corona. Helmholtz instabilities take place in the solar corona.

9 4

4 2Be 2H e 1n→ +

9 6 1

4 3 1Be Li H 2n→ + +

6 4 1

3 2 1Li H e H 1n→ + +

THE SOLAR CORONA

Blöcker T. et al. (1998) Lithium Depletion in the Sun: A Study of Mixing Based on Hydrodynamical

Simulation. Space Science Reviews, 85; 105 – 112.

Israelian G. et al. (2009) Enhanced lithium depletion in Sun-like stars with orbiting planets.

Nature, 462; 189 – 191

Two Two piezonuclearpiezonuclear fission reaction jumps typical of the Earth Crust:fission reaction jumps typical of the Earth Crust:

26 27 28 12 13 14 6 7 8Fe , Co , Ni Mg , Al , Si C , N , O→ →

Explanation for:Explanation for:

STEPSTEP--WISE TIME VARIATIONS in the most WISE TIME VARIATIONS in the most

abundant elements (including Naabundant elements (including Na1111, K, K1919, Ca, Ca2020))

Great Oxidation Event (2.5 Billion years ago), Great Oxidation Event (2.5 Billion years ago),

OCEAN FORMATION and origin of lifeOCEAN FORMATION and origin of life

Very high CARBON content in the Very high CARBON content in the

primordial atmosphereprimordial atmosphere

Production of NEUTRONS (Production of NEUTRONS (RnRn, CO , CO ) )

during earthquakesduring earthquakes22

CONCLUSIONS

SPACE LOCALIZATION of the resources on SPACE LOCALIZATION of the resources on

the Earththe Earth’’s Crusts Crust

Evolution of the planets of the SOLAR Evolution of the planets of the SOLAR

SYSTEM: Mercury, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn (and SYSTEM: Mercury, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn (and

the Sun itself)the Sun itself)

The so-called COLD NUCLEAR FUSION may

be explained by piezonuclear fission reactions

occurring in the electrodes and due to

HYDROGEN EMBRITTLEMENT, rather

than by fusion of hydrogen isotopes

Forerunning and monitoring of Forerunning and monitoring of EarthquakesEarthquakes

Production of Clean energy Clean energy (?)(?)

Correct evaluation of Correct evaluation of Carbon PollutionCarbon Pollution & & Climate ChangesClimate Changes22

POSSIBLE APPLICATIONS

HYDROGEN HYDROGEN

EMBRITTLEMENT, EMBRITTLEMENT,

MICROMICRO--CRACKING, CRACKING,

AND FRACTURE AND FRACTURE

IN IN ““COLD FUSIONCOLD FUSION””

EXPERIMENTSEXPERIMENTS

CHARACTERISTIC PHENOMENA IN THE SO-

CALLED COLD FUSION (CF)

1989 - Fleishman & Pons

1998 - Mizuno

2008 - Mosier-Boss et al.

Heat Generation

Heat Generation

Neutron Emission

Compositional changes

Heat Generation

Neutron Emission

Compositional changes

Alpha particle emissions

Mizuno, 1998. Infinite Energy Press.

Fleischmann, Pons, Hawkins, 1989. J. Electroanalitical Chemistry

Mosier-Boss, P.A., et al., 2008. Eur. J. of Applied Physics

Is there a relation between the experimental evidence of the so-called “Cold

Fusion”, observed during the last two decades, and the Piezonuclear evidence

recently observed from fracture of inert and nonradioactive materials?

Neutron

EmissionCompositional

Changes

Alpha

Emission

Cold Fusion vs Piezonuclear Reactions

“A unified interpretation and theory of these phenomena has not been accepted and their

comprehension still remains unresolved” (Preparata 1991)

Phenomena in common :

Micro-cracking

and Fracture

Experimental Set-up

Electrolytic Cell Electrodes

Co-Cr

Instantaneous Neutron Emissions between 4 and 10 times the background level

Neutron Emissions

AlphaAlpha ParticleParticle EmissionsEmissions

CELL OFF: 0.015 CsCELL OFF: 0.015 Cs--11((meanmean valuevalue))

Total acquisition time: 1 hour

Time (sec)

Total acquisition time: 1 hour

AlphaAlpha ParticleParticle EmissionsEmissions

CELL ON: 0.030 CsCELL ON: 0.030 Cs--11((meanmean valuevalue))

Time (sec)

Cumulative Cumulative CurvesCurves forfor the the AlphaAlpha EmissionsEmissions

Time (sec)

Ni-Fe Electrode : Compositional Changes

58 28

28 14Ni 2Si + 2n→

58 24 4

28 12 2Ni 2Mg + 2He + 2n→

Ni (Ni (−−−−−−−−8.6%) = Si (+3.9%)8.6%) = Si (+3.9%) +Mg+Mg (+4.7%)(+4.7%)

Ni-Fe Electrode : Compositional Changes

58 28

28 14Ni 2Si + 2n→

58 24 4

28 12 2Ni 2Mg + 2He + 2n→

56 52 4

26 24 2Fe Cr + He →

Ni (Ni (−−−−−−−−8.6%) = Si (+3.9%)8.6%) = Si (+3.9%) +Mg+Mg (+4.7%)(+4.7%)

Fe (Fe (−−−−−−−−3.2%) = Cr (+3.0%)3.2%) = Cr (+3.0%)

59 56 1

27 26 1Co Fe + H + 2n→

Co (Co (−−−−−−−−23.5%) = Fe (+23.2%)23.5%) = Fe (+23.2%)

Co-Cr Electrode : Compositional Changes

59 56 1

27 26 1Co Fe + H + 2n→

52 39 4 1

24 19 2 1Cr K + 2He + H + 4n→

Co (Co (−−−−−−−−23.5%) = Fe (+23.2%)23.5%) = Fe (+23.2%)

Cr (Cr (−−−−−−−−8.1%) + K8.1%) + K22COCO3 3 ((−−−−−−−−4.3%) = K (+12.4%) 4.3%) = K (+12.4%)

Co-Cr Electrode : Compositional Changes

CompositionalCompositional AnalysisAnalysis ofof thethe ElectrodesElectrodesCo-Cr electrode surface BEFORE the test

Micro-cracking

after 38 hours

CompositionalCompositional AnalysisAnalysis ofof thethe ElectrodesElectrodesCo-Cr electrode surface AFTER the test

APPENDIX AAPPENDIX A

PhengitePhengite (Granite)(Granite) : Fe concentrations: Fe concentrations

External Surf.:

Fe content = 6.2%

Fracture Surf.:

Fe content = 4.0%

––2.2%2.2%

Fe content decrease

External Surf.:

Al content = 12.5%

Fracture Surf.:

Al content = 14.5%

++2.0%2.0%

Al content increase

PhengitePhengite (Granite)(Granite) : Al concentrations: Al concentrations

No appreciable variations can be recognized between the average No appreciable variations can be recognized between the average valuesvalues

PhengitePhengite (Granite)(Granite) : Si, Mg and K concentrations: Si, Mg and K concentrations

56 2726 13Fe 2Al 2n→ +

PhengitePhengite (Granite)(Granite)

BiotiteBiotite (Granite)(Granite): Fe concentrations: Fe concentrations

External Surf.:

Fe content = 21.2%

Fracture Surf.:

Fe content = 18.2%

––3.0%3.0%

Fe content decrease

Fracture Surf.:

Al content = 9.6%

++1.5%1.5%

Al content increase

External Surf.:

Al content = 8.1%

BiotiteBiotite (Granite)(Granite) : Al concentrations: Al concentrations

Fracture Surf.:

Si content = 19.6%

++1.2%1.2%

Si content increase

External Surf.:

Si content = 18.4%

BiotiteBiotite (Granite)(Granite) : Si concentrations: Si concentrations

Fracture Surf.:

Mg content = 2.2%

++0.7%0.7%

Mg content increase

External Surf.:

Mg content = 1.5%

BiotiteBiotite (Granite)(Granite) : Mg concentrations: Mg concentrations

56 28 24

26 14 12Fe Si Mg 4n→ + +

BiotiteBiotite (Granite)(Granite)

56 2726 13Fe 2Al 2n→ +

External Surf.: Fe content = 18.4%

Fracture Surf.: Fe content = 14.4%–– 4.0%4.0%

Fe content decrease

Olivine (Basalt): Fe concentrationsOlivine (Basalt): Fe concentrations

External Surf.: Fe content = 18.3%

Fracture Surf.: Fe content = 20.5%

+ 2.2%+ 2.2%

Si content increase

Olivine (Basalt):Olivine (Basalt): Si concentrationsSi concentrations

External Surf.: Fe content = 21.2%

Fracture Surf.: Fe content = 22.8%

+ 1.6%+ 1.6%

Si content increase

Olivine (Basalt):Olivine (Basalt): Mg concentrationsMg concentrations

56 28 24

26 14 12Fe Si Mg 4n→ + +

Olivine (Basalt)Olivine (Basalt)

External Surf.: Fe content = 64.8%

Fracture Surf.: Fe content = 36.9%−−−−−−−− 27.9%27.9%

Fe content decrease

Magnetite:Magnetite: Fe concentrationsFe concentrations

++ 10.1%10.1%

Al content increase

Magnetite:Magnetite: Al concentrationAl concentration

External Surf.: Al content = ∼∼∼∼0.0%

Fracture Surf.: Al content = 10.1%

External Surf.: Mn content = 0.0%

Fracture Surf.: Mn content = 2.2%

++ 2.2%2.2%

Mn content increase

Magnetite:Magnetite: MnMn concentrationconcentration

External Surf.: Si content = 1.6%

Fracture Surf.: Si content = 10.3%

++ 8.7%8.7%

Si content increase

Magnetite:Magnetite: Si concentrationSi concentration

External Surf.: Fe content = 31.8%

Fracture Surf.: Fe content = 38.5%

++ 6.7%6.7%

O content increase

Magnetite:Magnetite: O concentrationO concentration

MagnetiteMagnetite

56 2726 13Fe 2Al 2n→ +

56 55 126 25 1Fe Mn H→ +

56 28 16 426 14 8 2Fe Si O 2He 4n→ + + +

CarraraCarrara Marble: Ca concentrationsMarble: Ca concentrations

External Surf.:

Ca content = 13.4%

Fracture Surf.:

Ca content = 9.8%

––3.6%3.6%

Ca content decrease

CarraraCarrara Marble: Mg concentrationsMarble: Mg concentrations

External Surf.:

Mg content = 0.7%

Fracture Surf.:

Mg content = 0.3%

––0.4%0.4%

Mg content decrease

External Surf.:

O content = 45.8%

Fracture Surf.:

O content = 36.8%

––9.0%9.0%

O content decrease

CarraraCarrara Marble: Marble: O concentrationsO concentrations

XX--ray Photoelectron Spectroscopyray Photoelectron Spectroscopy

CarraraCarrara Marble: C concentrationsMarble: C concentrations

External Surf.:

C content = 40.1%

Fracture Surf.:

C content = 53.1%

+13.0%+13.0%

C content increase

He3CCa42

126

4020 +→

24 12

612Mg 2C→

HeCO4

2

12

6

16

8+→

CarraraCarrara MarbleMarble

APPENDIX BAPPENDIX B