Who here thinks it's possible that, despite the dilution and unrefined state of any radioactive isotope in natural rocks, there exists an environment within our planet which approximates the conditions of an atomic power plant? :bugeye: Here's 1 man, at least, who does. http://www.nuclearplanet.com/index.html The implications for larger bodies than Earth could be signficant, providing a new model for the internal heat generation of Jupiter et. al. It might also have a major part to play in the life history of brown dwarfs, and even lower the minimum mass threshold for true stars. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It is good to see someone else has reached a conclusion simular to mine (as I posted it below about the origens of oil). The nuclear reaction in the center of the earth is also the origen of petroleum, as evidenced by the presence of the nobel gases (helium, neon, argon, krypton, and radon) in natural gas. The nobel gases, being chemically inert, have only one origen and that is nuclear reaction. Both the nobel gases and the hydrocarbons that become natural gas (and ultimately condense into oil) are formed in the nuclear reaction that is in the center of the Earth. The nuclear reaction is also the source of the heat that keeps the interior of the Earth molten.
I dont really know much about all this nuclear stuff (im still in school etc) but wouldnt it have gone critical by now and made up all go "Bang" and so on and so forth. Can you explain? More.?
@ Erring Flatley: if the georeactor is the source of petroleum, do you then believe that there is far more petroleum in the Earth than mainstream geologists accept? It would, after all, be present in pockets extending right down tothe core,a nd gradually working their way up - not just in the crustal sediments, as the fossil fuel formation mechanism dictates. Maybe the World's imminent "oil crisis" is not going to happen after all..? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! @ Logically Unsound: the georeactor could not "go critical" unless its uranium were concentrated in a refined state, enough for a runaway chain reaction. In the Earth's core, the uranium will be alloyed with iron & nickel. In fact, contrary to popular alarmism, a manmade nuclear power plant CANNOT explode like an atom bomb! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If it overheats, it simply melts down and releases a cloud of fallout, as Chernobyl did.
Petroleum forms in the crust and the crust is only a skin on the planets magmasphere. Light density elements and molecules accumulate below the crust, pricipally around the oceanic basins, then work their way up into the crustal voids where they chemically condense into natural gas and then oil and then coal. (Yes, the very oldest such deposites are coal and give evidence of the oldest oceanic basins.) Around the Pacific basin and a few other places, the gases accumulate fast enough that the gases power volcanoes. Theory predicts there should be more oil than we know about. The current "oil and CO2 crisis" is real. We are probably using oil faster than it forms and are we using it responsibly? From theory and data we ought to be able to estimate the rate of formation of natural gas and what percentage of this we can harvest. And we need to decide how to use it responsibly from a CO2 perspective.
Erring Flatley, That oil and gas can form abiogenically I could just about stretch to maybe possibly thinking about believing, but coal is most certainly the product of the accumulation and burial of plant matter under anoxic conditions. Your model must explain the occurrence of coal seams in repeating cycles of shale, sandstone and ancient soils, and also why coal frequently contains recognisable plant remains.
Erring originally stated that the georeactor is the source of petroleum, as evidence by the presence of various noble gases in oil. These are only trace constiuents, however - oil, of course, is mostly hydrocarbons. How would a natural nuclear reactor form these? As for coal: I doubt anyone believes it is anything other than plant fossils.
Natural gas is the source of all our commercial supplies of nobel gases. The helium in ballons is from natural gas. Some natural gas wells are termed helium rich in that they contain as much as 4% helium. The nobel gases are a significant percentage of natural gas and they can only be formed by nuclear reactions. All of the lighter elements are formed in the chaos of the Earth's core. Once produced they form simple molecules and these find their way to the underside of the Earth's crust. The gases put forth by volcanoes like Saint Helen, are closest to the gases as they accumulate. These simpler molecules are not chemically stable but chemically condense into hydrocarbons. At first they form natural gas, then this continues the process into heavier hydrocarbons as oil and finally into coal.
Natural gas and oil form in the voids of the Earth's crust. These voids are often to be found containing water which is then replaced by gas. The voids are often found in crust material that is loose and porous, not only hollow. In the ancient sea beds, silt, quartz sand, and coral sand metamorphosed into shale, sandstone, and limestone. These formations which have been been bent and twisted by time, are often porous and it is there that natural gas accumulates moreso than in solidified magmas. As for there being fossils in coal, I have never seen such. Fossils may be found in limestone, sandstone, and shale, as these can be of formation during the biological life of the Earth.
I seem to remember reading about this somewhere. In the theory presented, the uranium or whatever was not all in contact at the same time. It's more like a bunch of reactors. Some starting up as others are dying down. Don't have a clue where I read this at. Somewhere on the net I'm sure. Hell, might have been the link in the original post. I remember the contention about this theory had to do with amounts of radioactive isotopes in the earth. I think that the mainstream theory about where the uranium comes from is meteoric impacts. Could be wrong on this. So this explains why the uranium is found in the crust as opposed to sinking to the core. But, if the uranium was deposited when the earth was still molten, then it would sink to the core. edit: Just checked the site and it answered my question as to where I read about it. Discover magazine.
Whether the georeactor is a multiple phenomenon or not, it would need a constant renewal of its uranium supply. Uranium may be still differentiating within the Earth, an ongoing phase of the planet's formation. If a little more reaches the inner core each year, it could keep your "bunch of reactors" ticking over, starting new ones as old ones expire.
Well, imagine that. I just went through my stack of old magazines. Guess which one I'm missing? Wonder where it is? I guess I could plow through his website to find his original paper on how he describes it. The article did a pretty good job, I thought. Pity.
Remember that the Earth was once completely molten. The heavier components form the centre of the spherical density system, so you thoughts are consistent. The centre would then be hot, nuclear hot, until the fuel ran out and the core solidified and became cold... and cracked apart... Jupiter certainly shows more heat out than in, and both the earth and Jupiter are gamma ray sources. Certainly carbon-hydrogen bonds are stable and gas so formed would perculate outwards, polymerising under the heat and pressure until large molecules are formed. Makes one think how much gold there must be.... and which piece of the asteroid belt was once a part of the core ?
I only ever got 2 issues of "Discover": it was mailed as a replacement to my subscription of "Earth," after that magasine was scrapped. "Discover" seemed a little too commercial and shallow for me, though I'm sure the content is always of high credentials. What other magasines do you buy? Ever tried "Focus" or "Astronomy"?
I got discover when I signed up to fileplanet a long time ago. I imagine the articles are suspect for discussion among "real" scientists, but it has a variety of things. I usually find interesting things to whet my whistle. Sometimes they even come out with stuff before Scientific American, which is really the only other scientific magazine I read. No subscription though, just pick it up at the store every now and again. Never read Focus or Astronomy. What's Focus about? General science?
Here we go. Found an online copy of the article. I knew it had to do with meteorites somehow, I was a bit confused as to the exact mechanism, though. The meteorites merely show a time of less oxygen which means the uranium won't bond with the silicates. His biggest bit of evidence seems to be the ratio of Helium 3 to Helium 4 found in Hawaiian basalt. Helium 4, it says, is a result of natural decay of uranium and thorium. Helium 3 is a product of nuclear fission. It seems from the article that there isn't much debate about his theory, it's just being ignored. The silence is deafening as they say.
No, I do not believe any "fossil" fuels are of biological origen. As to how the reaction in the core keeps going: There is a convective current in the magmasphere. So the contents of the core are constantly being stired. The more the heaviest elements concentrate in the core the hotter the reaction becomes and the hotter the core the greater the convective current, and the greater the convective current the more stirring and the more diluting of the core. So the reaction is self limiting. Evidence of this is the volcanoe Kilauea, in Hawaii. It is formed by a hot plume of magma that rises from the core to the underside of the crust and melts through the crust. Kilauea is not powered by subcrust gases like other volcanoes. That is why it never "fizzles" out. It has been going in this most recent eruption for over 20 years. And It has formed the entire Hawaiian Island chain over the eons of the life of the crust. The convective current has been dampening the reaction for the entire history of the Earth, never letting it become too great.
Focus is a general science and technology magasine, yes. It does sometimes put a bit too much emphasis on extreme sports or adventure technology, but is mostly pretty good for the layman.
