English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Recent studies of the structure of antigorite by Capitani and Mellini (2004, 2005) and by us (Dódony et al. 2002; Dódony and Buseck 2004a) produced contradictory results. The main point of contention is whether 4- and 8-membered rings of tetrahedra occur at the positions where the tetrahedra in the tetrahedral sheets reverse their orientation. We analyzed electron diffraction patterns and transmission electron microscopy images in the paper of Capitani and Mellini (2005) and found no evidence for 4- and 8-membered rings of tetrahedra. On the contrary, we show that their TEM data confirm our antigorite model (Dódony et al. 2002) for the m = 16 structure. The significance of this debate goes beyond the subtleties of the structure of antigorite and highlights ambiguities in interpretation of HRTEM images as well as problems that can arise during image processing.

Does antigorite really contain 4- and 8-membered rings of tetrahedra?