Jupiter puts out twice as much heat as it recieves

Maast I believe you have it correct, and I think, broadly that is what Hipparchia seemed to be saying. I agree there are still some uncertainties so one might suppose some form of limited fusion might be occuring. However, I think Tortise would have to come up with something better than 'just a feeling' to justify putting it out as a serious hypothesis, when it is probably wholly unnecessary.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Things smolder before they burn. This is a very good analogy because on the atomic quantum level, average kinetic energy between atoms vary enormously - and angles of collisions vary (there are many more collisions then direct collisions) but this matters less and less as heat increases.
This is why things smolder before they burn- because everything has to be perfect for binding to occur at first- some atoms of oxygen and fuel have more kinetic energy then others, and bind before heat increases the likely hood of binding. This is what could happen with gas giants. It's not a stretch - not on the quantum level to imagine this happening.
If you study quantum mechanics at all - this may be one of the least weird things that happen. It's a matter of probabilities, and with the trillions and trillions of collisions that happen every second between all the atoms in Jupiter - you might be an idiot to say that it is impossible - if you knew all the facts.
Now let's use our imagination for a minute: Let's say it was possible to to compress a column of H and He (mostly H) that was one meter sq. at top and just a pin head in area at the bottom - this column is 69,173 km tall - the gravitational field is only 2.53 times what earth's is at the surface, and becomes more diffuse further down - (to where the gravitational pull is in every direction so the net is 0.) Do you really think after 5 billion years you would still be getting more then 50 watts of extra heat energy out of that column because of the original compression? OPEN YOUR MIND This is what you are suggesting if you believe in the latent heat of Jupiter.
50.50 watts of extra energy per m sq. today.
(Jupiter's radius: Equatorial 71,492 km Polar 66,854 km average: 69,173 km)
Now, not only is the gravitational attraction not very impressive - the compression at it's greatest is not much either. Consider that while earth's gravity is pulling down with 2.53 times less energy, the density of the objects per cubic meter is 4x more dense. That means compression is similar in Earth as it is in Jupiter - think about it. - don't confuse Jupiter's high atmospheric pressure with compression under the surface. They are only distantly related. Venus has about 1000 times the atmospheric pressure that Earth does, but we would be remiss to say that compression was significantly greater in the core. Hydrogen evaporates at a lower temperature and pressure then does the prevalent gasses on Earth.
To those who say that it is not necessary to explain the heat coming off of Jupiter I say do linear regression analysis and calculate the total amount of heat that would have had to have been put out by this planet over the billions of years - Realize that when anything is compressed - it only gives out heat once - then that heat dissipates. What we see now would only be a small fraction of the rate of heat put out before - due to cooling that would have had to of taken place.
It doesn't add up. Also inconsistent are the comparisons with other bodies. People try to keep an open mind. We have not arrived at the point where we know all the answers in the universe - we are bound to make new discoveries and find that our old beliefs are not perfectly accurate. We will not look back at year 2006 and say "Damn if they didn't have everything right about the universe that year". This is naive.
Only recently did a woman discover that motion in galaxies - the spiral arms - differ dramatically from how we thought spiral galaxies moved - (the outer part orbits in the same period as the inner part of the arm). Something so seemingly obvious it makes you wonder how people could miss it for so long. This is normal for discoveries - right under our noses. If you think we are even close to even knowing half of the secrets in our own solar system - you might be an idiot.
Annnd now: My best Jeff Foxworthy impression: ahheem
If you think that linear regression is when you lose your place in line at walmart because you forgot your ho hos - you might be an red neck.
If you think that quantum mechanics is what you call the guys that overcharged you 4 times too much for that transmission job - you might be an red neck.
Oh - what is the 5% club - Ophiolite?

So you agree that I might be right - It makes sense doesn't it? I think you would have to have a big imagination to think that liquid H and metallic H could insulate that much heat for that long. But now that you mention it, it is "just a feeling" just a feeling that the conventional theory is out of date and that mine makes much more intellectual sense.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Tortise, maybe there is some very minor, accidental fusion going on sporadically in the heart of Jupiter. Maybe.
You seem to be constitutionally unable to accept that basic calculations using simple physical principles established for at least a century or two demonstrate that the release of heat through gravitational contraction is very real. I don't quite understand why you have this blind spot. I reread all your posts. You seem to be declaring those who, like Hipparchia, are wedded to the laws of physics are somehow close minded.
I think you would benefit from looking in a mirror.

The 5% Club is an ironic reference to Bhudda1's claim that 95% of men want to have sex with other men. I seem to be in the small 5% whom Budda1 believes are controlling and manipulating the other 95% to ignore their latent sexual preferences. Weird, huh?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Maybe you're right you guys seem to know it all. Someday I want to be like you and not really come up with anything new, but to shoot down other ideas even if you agree with them

 

Maast:

Good to see you're in the Air Force. You present a good image for the military in general, and your service in particular.

On a highly technical basis, a very small amount of spontaenous fusion would occur. However, this would almost certainly not be enough to account for the energy being given off. For a good article on spontaneous fusion, see the Scientific American article circa 1987 by Stephen Jones of BYU on muon-induced fusion. He used a mixture of Deuterium-Tritium (DT), and also DD I believe, to obtain spontaneous fusion. Normally, spontaneous fusion occurs at such a low rate (circa 1 fusion/1E25 atoms/second), that it is not a viable energy source. Jones was able to get the D-T nuclei to move closer together to increase the rate of fusion. He didn't to this by plasma compression (as in the sun), but rather by introducing muons into a system of room temperature D-T, which muons substituted in for the electrons in the covalent bonds. Because of the much larger mass of the muon (which has -1 electric charge), the covalent bonds shrank whenever a muon was present, moving the nuclei closer together. He found that for every muon introduced into the D-T system, he obtained about 130 fusions before the muon either exited, or decayed. This was essentially the replication of the work of many others, and muon induced fusion was discovered, as I recall, circa the mid 1950s. Jones initially called this "cold fusion".

This was overshadowed by the Pons-Fleischmann 'work' that was well-publicized the following year at the neighboring university (U. of U.), in which they passed an electric current through D-T water, and created gas bubbles at the electrodes, but claimed they were boiling the water from a process they also called 'cold-fusion', thereby giving Jones' work a very bad name in subsequent years.

Many theorists (myself included, though we are in the minority) believe that Jupiter formed much like a star, by gravitational compression of a gas (mostly H, and He) with a small admixture of heavier elements (Fe, Ni, Si, Mg, and all the rest in the same relative abundance as is present in the cosmic rays and in the sun, etc.). As the gas compressed, the pressure increased until eventually the boiling points of elements and compounds was reached, and they rained out, falling to the center of the gaseous cloud to form a sphere of mostly molten Iron, Nickel and other heavier elements, surrounded by a very deep 'sea' of liquid H/He, the lowermost layer of which might be very hot but 'metallic'.

A theory I and a few others have posited is that Earth also formed by that means, but that in the early history of our solar system, nearby high-UV emitting OB star(s) evaporated the H/He from the smaller gas spheres, leaving just their rocky/metallic cores. That would also possibly account for the He/H ratio in Jupiter being triple what is expected otherwise.

So, the question really is, can the radioactive decay of Uranium and Thorium naturally present in the interior of Jupiter account for the excess energy, or do we need to posit another energy source. Some persons have posited that a large body of liquid Uranium in the very interior of Jupiter might also undergo some induced fission, similar to the natural Uranium reactor in Africa, but moderated by the Uranium itself, rather than water as at the African natural reactor.

Anyway, just wanted to keep your minds open.

 

I didn't see your post Maast. That's interesting. I believe the truth is that both, and all of the above are happening. Fission in the core, latent heat of formation, and limited fusion. I don't think this is an unreasonable stand. I never said that fusion was responcible for all the heat. Of course this is not true. I'm just trying to make an argument for limited fusion - and am a little defensive because of the personal attacks. Thanks for your post Wagner. I don't know why people insist on personal attacks insted of arguing based on merrits. Now I've become defensive - and don't really enjoy posting here anymore. I don't think this is how it should be. But like I said - I have become as bad as anyone.

 

Tortise:

Here's a problem for you.

My Chart of the Nuclides shows H-2 (D for Deuterium) to be 0.015% of Hydrogen (the rest is H-1 (H for Hydrogen-1).

If we assume there is virtually nil H-H spontaneous fusion, and virtually nil H-D spontaneous fusion, compared to any potential D-D spontaneous fusion, then please calculate the percent of the hydrogen in Jupiter that is D-D hydrogen, and how many total atoms this represents.

If we assume that the spontaneous fusion rate of D-D fusion is on the order of 1 fusion for every 1E27 D-D molecules/second (a liter of D-D-O water, or a liter of liquified D-D, having about one fusion per second - barely measureable by the fusion gamma that is released, compared to the background noise), then what is the total spontaneous fusion rate occurring in Jupiter? Using that as a basis of energy, what percent of the excess energy given off by Jupiter could be accounted for by natural spontaneous fusion of D-D? We might surprise ourselves, and find it as an appreciable percentage.

Anyway, that should be an easy and fun mathematical exercise for you.

BTW, I posit that the spontaneous fusion of D-D-O water is about one fusion per liter per second. I do NOT have hard evidence for the exact rate, so you could calculate the energy production in Jupiter, and how that estimate would be affected by the actual spontaneous fusion rate.

As mentioned, the substantial evidence I do have for spontaneous fusion comes from Steve Jones et al, and their work on spontaneous fusion of D-D and D-T (T for Tritium, which is not present in Jupiter because it has a half-life of only 12.3 years), which they enhanced tremendously by substituting in those muons to replace electrons in the covalent bonds.

We know that the D-T molecule releases more energy than the D-D molecule, upon fusing, and that therefore the spontaneous fusion rate of D-T is the highest, with that for D-D being not too far behind. H-H spontaneous fusion should be way less, as should H-D, because they release much less energy compared to D-D and D-T fusion. This is standard nuclear physics, based on the rest-masses of the isotopes and their fusion products. The spontaneous fusion rate is so low, that we essentially say that it does not exist as a practical matter.

The other question then becomes: Under the high internal pressures of Jupiter, squeezing the covalent bonds of the D-D that is present, how much closer together are the nuclei squeezed, and how does that affect the spontaneous fusion rate, compared to the near STP set-up such as used by Jones, et al. Squeezing of the electronic covalent bonds by gravitational pressure doesn't change the nuclei separation by much (only a tiny fraction of 1% closer together, I suspect), but it might be enough to make a measurable increase in the spontaneous fusion rate.

Finally: Could we form D-T gas in the laboratory, pressurize it until it becomes metallic, and measure the change in the spontaneous fusion rate? (Which, as indicated, at STP such spontaneous fusion would be barely measureable, on the order of 1 fusion per liter/second). [Caution: this would be highly radioactive due to the high specific activity of tritium, and would require a radioactive materials license. However, the weak beta of Tritium makes it a hazard only if internally ingested. Don't let the pressure vessel explode without a containment structure around it!]

BTW, that is essentally what Pons-Fleischman were purporting to do, when they claimed to be bringing D and T nuclei close together in a metallic matrix of their electrodes, so be careful. Don't call it 'cold fusion' for example, or you'll be labelled a wacko.

Anyway, this might make for some nice papers, and DOE funding?! The DOE funded lots of the muon-induced spontaneous fusion, until Pons-Fleischmann changed all that, and all such funding ceased. Times have changed, and the DOE might well be interested again in reviewing that field, should a proper research initiative be made through a reputable University program.

Why not share this with some academic advisers in physics at various Universities.

Cheers.

 

(Jupiter is about 90% hydrogen and 10% helium (by numbers of atoms, 75/25% by mass)

1.900e27 kg times .75 = 1.425e27 kg = kg of H on Jupiter
1.425e27 * .00015 = 2.1375e23 kg H-2 2.137e26 grams times 6.023 x 10^23 atoms / gram = total number of H-2 atoms.

This seems to be the critical data to figure the rest. As you suggested I could work from the heat backwards to figure how much heat is missing. There are so many variables, I don't know where I would get the data - even how much heat compressed H would put out (this is critical)
We have made metalic H in the lab, but I don't have access to that data.


Hydrogen at Extremely High Pressures
"If the Livermore results are correct, then there is more metallic hydrogen in Jupiter's interior than previously thought and it is easier than expected to trigger self-sustaining nuclear fusion in deuterium fuel pellets, since they would be more compressible" - Note deuterium is the heavy isotope of hydrogen containing one proton and one neutron (almost certainly exists in jupiter's hydrogen layers)
The preceeding is by a little outfit called the American Institue for Physics
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2002/split/587-2.html

"Several new studies, attempting to simulate a small sample of Jupiter here on earth, suggest that current theories of the Jovian interior may have to be revised." - American Institute of Physics
http://www.aip.org/pnu/1995/split/pnu240-2.htm

"the formation of metallic hydrogen is of interest to fusion scientists who need to know what hydrogen does at high pressures, and to astronomers who model the interiors of gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn, which are expected to harbor vast reservoirs of metallic fluid hydrogen." - American Institute of Physics
http://www.aip.org/pnu/1996/split/pnu263-1.htm

"Understanding hydrogen's behavior under such extreme conditions answers questions about the interior of Jupiter, provides coveted information on designing optimal fuel pellets for fusion energy"- American Institute of Physics
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2002/split/587-2.html

 

Here is an article about a possible explanation put forward by an astrophysicist.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/earth-03k.html

The Nuclear Heart of the Earth.

The science behind 'The Core' including
an interview with J. Marvin Herndon, Ph.D.
by Wayne Smith

Excerpt(with permission):

 

J. Marvin Herndon, Ph.D. said:

- this is what I was saying. Jupiter doesn't have the insulative properties to retain the heat energy for nearly long enough.



Well, an article in American Institute for Physics implies that there is not enough heat energy produced by the compression of H to explain the heat. They arrived at this by actually compressing H to metallic form.
http://www.aip.org/pnu/1995/split/pnu240-2.htm
Thank you UNIVERSE TODAY. I didn't think it was that insane of an argument as some would have you believe, and evidently some others with letters behind their names - including experimentalists think the same. As Jupiter has the smallest core in relation to it's size, this argues strongly for fusion, and not for fission. - Most likely both contribute to the heat. So to all those who harassed me for daring to question their delicate belief systems - I say kiss my metallic hydrogen ass - Although Herndon, Ph.D. argues for fission, he and I both agree that it makes no sense that the heat energy is latent heat of formation.

Consider Uranus' atmosphere: About 83% hydrogen, 15% helium and 2% methane and is cold - I guess it could be equally likely that the planet burned all of it's fusionable matterial then all of the fissionable matterial (or both). Whatever the case, It doesn't put out more energy then it gets from the sun.

My only argument for a greater amount of fusion over fission would be that Jupiter would have to have many times the concentration of fissionable matterial then other planets because of the ratio of Jupiter's core to the other planet's. This seems unlikely. Jupiter's relatively small core almost certainly contains vast amounts of rock.

J. Marvin Herndon, Ph.D. said:

Hmmmmmm

- Galileo

 

Tortise:

I did some more checking, looking up the masses of H and D, and my Chart of the Nuclides doesn't have it for T (I wanted to get the exact mass-descrepancies upon fusion, to calculate the exact amounts of energy release).

I looked under Wikipidea, under Tritium, and it too did not have the H-3 mass, but it reads that Brown Dwarfs cannot fuse Hydrogen (H-1) like stars (which is via a well-detailed Carbon cycle), but that they do fuse Deuterium (D).

Since Jupiter is nearly a Brown Dwarf, with internal pressures near what are present in Brown Dwarfs, it makes sense that such D-D fusion is indeed taking place, and is likely a significant portion of the excess energy being emanated.

My mass discrepancy for the D-D fusion (difference between the sums of 2 Ds, and He-4) is about 0.02560036 amu, which is roughly about 23 MeV (using one proton mass being about 0.9 GeV, or 900 MeV. This is somewhat anomalous, however, because the Wikipedia shows the D-T fusion, which it also says is the most energetic, is about 17 MeV/fusion, and asserts that the D-D fusion is about 4 MeV. I'll need to check into that further.

In any event, since the fraction of the hydrogen in Jupiter which is D is 1.5E-4, the fraction which is D-D is 2.25E-8 I am positing that the H-D fusion is miniscule compared to the D-D fusion because of the much lower energy release, meaning the energy well is very shallow, and hence the spontaneous fusion rate is very low, compared to the D-D fusion.

Using your figure that there are 1.4E30 grams of hydrogen in Jupiter, then the fraction of the D which are found in the immediate vicinity of another D (as opposed to being in the vicinity of a H) would be roughly 3E22 grams. [If it is metallic, I suppose it no longer makes sense to refer to covalent bonds, since the electron is free to move from one nucleus to another as occurs in metals for the outermost electron]

That translates into roughly 1E46 D-pairs in Jupiter [6.025E23 atoms/gram] that could undergo spontaneous fusion. If the spontaneous fusion rate is on the order of 1 fusion/1E27 D-pairs/second [as discussed earlier], then the energy release would be on the order of 23E19 MeV/second. So, how does that figure compare with what you've read about for Jupiter putting out twice as much energy as it receives.

If it exceeds that value, then clearly I have the spontaneous fusion rate set too high.

In any event, this looks to me like an area that should develop a lot of interest. Particularly if metallicized D-D in the laboratory could be shown to have a significant increase in the normally exceptionally low spontaneous fusion rate of about 1 fusion per liter of D-D liquified gas (or liter of D2O water)/second.

Since we see a HUGE increase in the spontaneous fusion rate simply by moving the D-D nuclei closer slightly closer together with the addition of a muon in place of an electron in a STP covalent bond, during muon-induced spontaneous fusion, then perhaps the very slightly closer spacing of the D-nuclei in metallicized D-D would behave similarly. [Actually, as I recall, Jones et al. used about 700 degrees Celsius pressurized water; still relatively at STP, however.]

If nothing else, such research would help elucidate Brown Dwarf fusion of Deuterium, and might lead researchers in a direction for other ways to tweak Deuterium nuclei spacing to enhance the spontaneous fusion rate.

ANyway, thanks for the thought stimulation, and why not print this thread and share it with interested parties.

 

230 000 000 000 000 000 000 megaelectronvolt = 36 850 077.9 wattsecond (per sec. of energy calculated by you as an estimate of energy on Jupiter due to fusion)

1,514,558,053 sq. km x 50.50 watts of extra energy per m sq. = 76,485,181,679. watts of extra energy radiated from Jupiter every second

Jupiter's radius:
Equatorial 71,492 km
Polar 66,854 km
average: 69,173 km

surface area = 4pr2 = 64,195,492,163.84 sq.km
(but to use formula for area of a circle might be more accurate, because the sun upon a sphere would transfer energy much like upon a circle)
64 195 492 163.84 square kilometer = 64 195 492 163 840 000 square meter

Solar irradiance (W/m2) 50.50 (Jupiter radiates this amount of extra energy back into space)

64 195 492 163 840 000 square meter x 50.50 (W/m2) = 3,241,872,354,273,920,000 (or 3.241e18) Watts per sec. of extra energy from Jupiter.
compared to 36 850 077.9 (or 3.685e7) wattsecond that was calculated.

 

The most remarkable example of selective examination of evidence I have seen for some time.

Thank you for that display.