I see, to be honest I have not checked how clean it actually is. It is visually transparent, as opposed to the used one, but you are probably correct.

What I do is just expose the dirty isopropanol to sun or UV in general - the resin will precipitate. Then just filter it out and you have clean isopropanol.

That is only sort of true - this image is not made of electrons reflected by the nuclei. These are results from TEM imaging, so Transmission Electron Microscopy. The electron detector is placed behind the sample.

What you are describing is SEM - Scanning Electron Microscopy - in that case, the detector can be placed above the sample, for example (but not limited to) circularly around the beam to measure the backscattered electrons

In TEM the samples are cut into very thin slices (in the picture you posted it is said to be between 0.8nm - 30nm) and the crystal lattice acts as a diffraction grating for the electron beam. The diffraction pattern can be then used to reconstruct the crystal lattice structure.

They look like air bubbles to me, but it is weird they only come out after the bath. Could be they were already inside, but only covered by a thin wall of resin.

I usually use Isopropanol for bath not Ethanol, so I am not sure how your resin reacts with that. The bath should also be rather short, like 1min or something.

A few things to try:

• If you are shaking your resin before print, then give it like 10 minutes after you pour it into the vat, so all bubbles come out and pop
• lower the print speed
• add wait times between the end of lowering the plate and light on
• try to hollow out the model if possible, so there is less printing volume

My point was that if they would be trying to forge the results, they would likely write a better paper. Like, I have never seen nor would I use a phrase like:

Humankind has long learned that the properties of matter stem from its structure.

or

It is the superconductor with the same color as typical superconductors.

in the results section. It just reads like a student report.

So while it does not prove whether it is correct or not, it, at least in my understanding, indicates that it is genuine. The explanation might be off, the important step of the synthesis might include adding a teaspoon of luck, but the observations/measurements part I believe. Which is what I meant by the comment.

Climate Town tackled carbon capture very well in this video. In short, hardcore greenwashing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwP2mSZpe0Q

Considering the two studies which claim that no effect was observed, I believe the original authors observed the effect but they don’t fully understand the origin.

The original paper is so naively unprofessional in some places that it is really hard for me to think it is not genuine.

say whaaaat. I wanna see it reproduced, but if true this is huge.

Wow the original article data analysis is gorgeous. Someone has spent a lot of time on those graphs. Open access apparently, if you click from the article linked in the post.