Terremoto e neutroni: Dalla formazione degli oceani alla ... · Terremoto e neutroni: Dalla...
Transcript of Terremoto e neutroni: Dalla formazione degli oceani alla ... · Terremoto e neutroni: Dalla...
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