Earth's Natural Nuclear Reactor

[Trippy]

Spoken like a true hubristic scientist...

Man is omniscient and knows all. We are never mistaken or in error about any issue. Man is infallible...

Philosophy, epistemology, and science are pointless because man has perfect wisdom: just ask Trippy.

Don't be such a rude dishonest hack.

 

[DwayneD.L.Rabon]

Well, I would say that..... The earth has a lot of radioactive decay and ionzation occuring within its depth.
Radioactive decay appears to be not as common as ionzation, Large heavy elements like Uranium decay rather quickly within the earth and never reach the earths core, or even the half mark of the earths radius. Uranium and other heavy elements are earth crust elements.
The earth could appear radioactive at give times depending on the gravitional compression of the solar system, and mass events of radioactive decay can also occur, mainly occuring in the upper earth and crust.

Uranium comprises about 0.000013239 percent of the earth.

Most elements above Silicon would decay long before they reach the earths core. So the conditions of radioactive decay can actually vary.


DwayneD.L.Rabon

 

[Pronatalist]

I believe that the more Uranium we remove from the Earth, the worse off the planet will be. There is no telling the effects of this.

Here in Utah there are over 100 hot springs scattered about the land. This heat comes from the core. I believe that the temperature of the planet is effected by inner reactions more than most people think.

People need to be more aware of what they are doing to the Earth, especially corporate fatties. Keep those filthy fingers out of the planetary balance!

Actually, the "planetary balance" is not so fragile, and not at all easy to alter. While the heat within the planet is significant enough to explain for seismic activity and vocanos I think, it doesn't even begin to have hardly any effect upon the climate temperature. Any heat leaking to the surface, is miniscue compared to all the heat from the sun, and how quickly heat radiates away into outer space, especially at night where it's more noticable in temperature drop without the sun currently compensating.

A decline of radioactive decay, presumed from depleting mining uranium, just is not going to make any difference, in the temperature of the planet.

But an increasingly populous and modern world, needs a steady and abundant and affordable flow of electricity, for humans to prosper. Not many people appear particularly eager to go back to the old "hard work" days of the horse-and-buggy, and of using animals and slaves to do our work for us. And refrigerators just won't keep our food cold, and electric cookstoves cook, and electric motor powered elevators take us to our desired floor, without electricity.

So we had best be telling those corporate fatties, or whoever it is we can get to do it, to keep mining that uranium, keep drilling that oil, keep digging that coal, whatever it is we need to keep our growing cities running smoothly.

 

[Cthuna]

Well, I would say that..... The earth has a lot of radioactive decay and ionzation occuring within its depth.
Radioactive decay appears to be not as common as ionzation, Large heavy elements like Uranium decay rather quickly within the earth and never reach the earths core, or even the half mark of the earths radius. Uranium and other heavy elements are earth crust elements.
The earth could appear radioactive at give times depending on the gravitional compression of the solar system, and mass events of radioactive decay can also occur, mainly occuring in the upper earth and crust.

Uranium comprises about 0.000013239 percent of the earth.

Most elements above Silicon would decay long before they reach the earths core. So the conditions of radioactive decay can actually vary.


DwayneD.L.Rabon

Dwayne,

WHAT makes you so certain that Uranium is primarily a crust element and not present in the mantle or even the Earths core???
But the bigger question is: What heats the Earth's interior. I have read in multiple sources about the source of the Earths internal heat as the result of natural radioactivity. BTW, Uranium actually DOES have a very long lived isotope, which would be U-238. There is also the even longer lived Thorium-232 isotope present in the mantle. But here's the deal: Provided that radioactivity heats the Earth, I cant help but ask the question as to what other natural processes exist that can convert radioactivity into heat other than Fission? What I suspect is that the fission takes place in the lower layers of the mantle and the Earths solid Iron/Nickel core acts as a neutron absorber.

 

[Pine_net]

Dark Matter at the center of the earth powering the geomagnetic field. I know this is a Zombie thread but still a good read. The nuclear heart of the earth beats on and on. Maybe this is how Mars died.

 

[origin]

Dark Matter at the center of the earth powering the geomagnetic field. I know this is a Zombie thread but still a good read. The nuclear heart of the earth beats on and on. Maybe this is how Mars died.

This is a science section so your speculation about dark matter is not appropriate.

 

[Pine_net]

Science is as science does. Speculation is a large part of my scientific process. Your sectional analysis is not appropriate. If I speculate something to be true and no one else has a better truth or explanation, what is that called? Speculation becomes scientific fact all the time.

 

[exchemist]

Science is as science does. Speculation is a large part of my scientific process. Your sectional analysis is not appropriate. If I speculate something to be true and no one else has a better truth or explanation, what is that called? Speculation becomes scientific fact all the time.

The only "scientific facts" are reproducible observations of nature. No theory is a fact.

A scientific hypothesis, which is what you claim to be making here, needs to predict some observation that can be put to the test. What would you predict we should be able to observe, in order to validate your hypothesis? Bear in mind that dark matter exerts a gravitational pull, so if you are right, there should be smaller amounts of the elements present in the Earth than are commonly thought to be present. How would you square this with the models we have for the earth's magnetism, say, or the convection we observe in the mantle?

 

[Pine_net]

Traces of He-3 and He-4 exist in volcanic basalt. Helium 4 is not a surprise; it comes from the natural decay of uranium and thorium. No fission need be involved. But helium 3 is a big surprise. It's a fission by-product.

Antineutrino's can also be observed streaming out from the Earths core.

 

[origin]

Science is as science does.

Thanks Forrest.

Speculation is a large part of my scientific process.

Well it's not a large part of the real scientific process.

Your sectional analysis is not appropriate.

Why?

If I speculate something to be true and no one else has a better truth or explanation, what is that called?

A miracle.

Speculation becomes scientific fact all the time.

Like what?

 

[origin]

Traces of He-3 and He-4 exist in volcanic basalt. Helium 4 is not a surprise; it comes from the natural decay of uranium and thorium. No fission need be involved. But helium 3 is a big surprise. It's a fission by-product.

Antineutrino's can also be observed streaming out from the Earths core.

None of which has anything to do with your unfounded speculation about dark matter.

 

[Pine_net]

Dark matter is exotic in nature and is not readily explained. I speculate that planets that still emit a strong magnetic field have, at their core, natural nuclear reactors. The term dark matter should be exchanged with exotic active geothermal reactors. Jupiter, Saturn, Mercury, Uranus, and Neptune may have dark matter at their cores as well. Pythagoras speculated that the earth may possibly be round. Proved later by Magellan who found this to be true.

 

[exchemist]

Dark matter is exotic in nature and is not readily explained. I speculate that planets that still emit a strong magnetic field have, at their core, natural nuclear reactors. The term dark matter should be exchanged with exotic active geothermal reactors. Jupiter, Saturn, Mercury, Uranus, and Neptune may have dark matter at their cores as well. Pythagoras speculated that the earth may possibly be round. Proved later by Magellan who found this to be true.

No it was Eratosthenes who calculated the circumference of the Earth, in about 200BC. Educated people have known it was spherical ever since, and of course it would have been fairly evident to sailors that it was at least curved, due to the behaviour of objects close to the horizon.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

It would not just be Uranium, but Gold, Lead, and other dense elements that would be concentrated in the core. There are articles written about that, which you can find with a little googling.

The fact that earth [and other inner planets] experienced heavy bombardment in its early history [and we had an interesting thread about that a few months ago] raises the question as to whether earth's crust was 'seeded' with heavy elements [such as gold and uranium]. If an outer planet [in the asteroid belt region] shattered or exploded, forming lots of debris to cause bombardments of the inner planets [and this apparently happened several different times in earth's early history, implying several distinct events of planets being shattered], some of that debris would be the cores of those planets/planetoids, with chunks of heavy elements. That's why I suggested that we might someday find a gold meteorite, and not just iron/nickel ones [which are the shattered remnants of the iron/nickel zone of such planet/planetoid].

As to moderation, distance moderation would slow down neutrons also [5 miles of Uranium is a lot of bouncing around of neutrons to slow them down], and a large bolus of uranium should have some slight nuclear fission to add to the energy release from alpha emission.

I don't usually reply to my own quote, but in the light of Pine_net resurrecting his old thread, I thought I'd repeat what I wrote then. I'm still looking for the Gold meteorite. I first speculated about the planetary cores circa 1996, and it seems plausible that all of the planets (that experienced gravitational differentiation, such as large M-type asteroids (such as 16-Psyche) which are the remaining cores of planets that got whittled down over time: ) have dense cores of Uranium, Thorium, etc. inside of (in the center of) the Iron cores. In another thread I've speculated that inner planets (now having very little gaseous component), lost their outer blankets of H/H2 as it as eroded over time by UV from our suns formation, as well as by then-nearby stars formed during out star formation process, but now since drifted away. This left the heavier gases behind on planets and dwarf planets, such as NH3, CO2, H2O, etc. which also left the inner planets due to solar output, unless the gravity was large enough to retain the heavier gases, such as on Earth.

 

[origin]

I speculate that planets that still emit a strong magnetic field have, at their core, natural nuclear reactors.

The evidence shows you are incorrect.

The term dark matter should be exchanged with exotic active geothermal reactors.

Since they are 2 completely different things they should not have the same name.

Jupiter, Saturn, Mercury, Uranus, and Neptune may have dark matter at their cores as well.

Unevidenced wild assed conjecture.

Pythagoras speculated that the earth may possibly be round. Proved later by Magellan who found this to be true.

The ancients hypothesized that the earth was a sphere based on observations and evidence.

Stop just making stuff up.

 

[billvon]

Your sectional analysis is not appropriate. If I speculate something to be true and no one else has a better truth or explanation, what is that called?

Sounds like unfounded speculation. In engineering terms a WAG (wild ass guess.) Although most WAGs are based on something; your theory is not.

Speculation becomes scientific fact all the time.

After a lot of work, research and verification.

 

[river]

Discover Magazine

Is there a five-mile-wide ball of hellaciously hot uranium seething at the center of the Earth? If so, how is this Natural Nuclear reaction set off? Could dark matter actually be huge spheres of matter that just couldn't get that fire started?

Click here to find out what I found.

Its not a Nuclear reaction , fission bomb , etc.

It is the decay of nuclear material .

Think Nuclear reactors , heat is created from fission dynamics . This dynamic can't be stopped on a dime . Hence the importance of a continuence coolant . Water .

The decay of nuclear material provides an enormous amount of heat .

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

Its not a Nuclear reaction , fission bomb , etc.

It is the decay of nuclear material .

Think Nuclear reactors , heat is created from fission dynamics . This dynamic can't be stopped on a dime . Hence the importance of a continuence coolant . Water .

The decay of nuclear material provides an enormous amount of heat .

Yes, the very densest materials should settle 'at the bottom', which in this case is the very center of the earth's core. Uranium and Gold have similar densities (about 19), but I suspect there is more Uranium. In any event, there should be some occasional fission of both isotopes (U-238 and U-235), with the U-235 happening more frequently. Whether this produces more energy, or significantly less energy, than the radioactive decay chain energy production, which is well known and independent of the amount of material, is the question.

On our planet's surface, Uranium is never present in amounts greater than a few meters in thickness. Since the neutrons from fission (both lesser amounts of U-238 and far greater amounts of U-235) are very fast when produced and not very good at fissioning Uranium atoms, they need to slow way down in order to be good at fissioning. (This might seem counter-intuitive to some, but in nuclear parlance, the cross-section for fission increases as the speed of the fissioning neutron decreases.)

On our surface, to get around this obstacle and establish a continuous fission reaction, we add materials that will make the speeds of the neutrons more moderate (slower, down to thermal speeds), called moderators. Water is a common one, and can double as a heat-extractor. Carbon also works.

In the center of the earth, if there is a large bolus of Uranium, simply the long distance from side to side of the bolus (miles?) could serve to moderate fast neutrons into slow ones. But it is not known if there is a large abundance of poisons in the bolus that would greatly slow or stop the reaction completely.

 

[river]

The only "scientific facts" are reproducible observations of nature. No theory is a fact.

A scientific hypothesis, which is what you claim to be making here, needs to predict some observation that can be put to the test. What would you predict we should be able to observe, in order to validate your hypothesis? Bear in mind that dark matter exerts a gravitational pull, so if you are right, there should be smaller amounts of the elements present in the Earth than are commonly thought to be present. How would you square this with the models we have for the earth's magnetism, say, or the convection we observe in the mantle?

As of yet , dark matter is yet to be proven .

How does gravity " pull " anything ?

 

[ajanta]

Yes, the very densest materials should settle 'at the bottom', which in this case is the very center of the earth's core. Uranium and Gold have similar densities (about 19), but I suspect there is more Uranium. In any event, there should be some occasional fission of both isotopes (U-238 and U-235), with the U-235 happening more frequently. Whether this produces more energy, or significantly less energy, than the radioactive decay chain energy production, which is well known and independent of the amount of material, is the question.

On our planet's surface, Uranium is never present in amounts greater than a few meters in thickness. Since the neutrons from fission (both lesser amounts of U-238 and far greater amounts of U-235) are very fast when produced and not very good at fissioning Uranium atoms, they need to slow way down in order to be good at fissioning. (This might seem counter-intuitive to some, but in nuclear parlance, the cross-section for fission increases as the speed of the fissioning neutron decreases.)

On our surface, to get around this obstacle and establish a continuous fission reaction, we add materials that will make the speeds of the neutrons more moderate (slower, down to thermal speeds), called moderators. Water is a common one, and can double as a heat-extractor. Carbon also works.

In the center of the earth, if there is a large bolus of Uranium, simply the long distance from side to side of the bolus (miles?) could serve to moderate fast neutrons into slow ones. But it is not known if there is a large abundance of poisons in the bolus that would greatly slow or stop the reaction completely.

About possible generation of heat in Earth’s inner core.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep37740