Keep in mind that spontaneous fission of uranium IS radioactive decay.
Earth's Natural Nuclear Reactor
- Thread starter Pine_net
- Start date
Seems far-fetched. From the article: "However, if DHO sinks to the inner regions of Earth, DHO would be converted to D2O during the gravitational separation of D2O and H2O and then decomposed to D and O atoms" (bold added for emphasis)
That's a might big IF. Water doesn't normally sink down into denser materials.
But an interesting read, nonetheless.
The author also presupposes that there is little Uranium in the Earth's core, based on iron meteorites having little uranium. But the author apparently mis-understands that iron meteorites are formed from iron internal-planetary structures AFTER stratification has occurred, in which the Uranium has sunk to the core, leaving mostly less-dense iron surrounding that innermost core, which is what our iron-meteorites come from (shattered remnants of a stratified planet).
Finally, I believe that during the rain-out process of hot gases cooling and forming a rain of molten metals falling to the center of the cooling gas-giant that became Earth (not an accretion of iron meteorites; nor an accretion of small pebbles which then melted to form a molten core, which is the prevailing view), the heaviest metals would have sunk to the inner-most core almost ab-initio. In other words, uranium oxide has a much higher boiling point than iron/nickel oxides (or iron/nickel) and would have formed drops of liquid oxide ('rain') as it cooled, falling preferentially to the center of the incipient earth before the lighter metals such as iron/nickel. Thereafter, other metals such as iron/nickel would have formed liquid drops, falling as a 'rain' and surrounding the growing core.
Last edited:
Spontaneous fission is very small percentage of energy release, and is not usually considered radioactive decay along the lines of well-known decay-chains.
What do you think the difference is between spontaneous fission and radioactive decay in atoms of high atomic mass?
This element (#102) No-256, has SF listed at .53%; most elements don't have it listed because it is way too small. Please note that No does not exist in nature. See here: http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/chart/reCenter.jsp?z=102&n=154
The SF rate for U-238 is 5.4 X 1o^-5 %. Way small. http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/chart/reCenter.jsp?z=92&n=146
For U-235, even less. http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/chart/reCenter.jsp?z=92&n=143
I agree, which is why depleted uranium is often used for (non-nuclear) munitions.
Now, again, what is the difference between that rate and the rate of spontaneous decay in U-238?
T-1/2 for U-238 is 4.468E9 years, from that same chart. If you are looking for the specific activity, you can use the information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_activity
For every roughly 20,000,000 million alpha decays, there would be one SF (giving the 5.4E-5% from above). A negligible amount.
(Technically, alpha emissions is a type of 'fission' in which the atom splits into He and an element 2 atomic #s lower.)
OK, that's the distinction you are making. In that case I agree.
Conclusions
A steady-state, planetary-scale reactor, continuously operating throughout geologic time, was maintained in the numerical simu- lation through the instantaneous removal of fission products. In a reactor deep inside the Earth, one would expect fission products, having an average density about 60% that of actinides, to diffuse radially outward as the fuel reconcentrates radially inward because of gravity. Variable andor intermittent reactor operation would be the natural and expected consequence. Nuclear fission reactor variability, we suggest, is evidenced by the observed reversals of direction and changes in intensity of the geomagnetic field (2). Preliminary results suggest that, during the first 1.5 billion years after the formation of the Earth, geomagnetic reversals might have been less prevalent than in recent times. Clearly, further investiga- tions, both nuclear and paleomagnetic, are necessary for a more precise characterization.
Nuclear fission, as shown in the present paper, provides a viable mechanism for the deep-Earth production of 3He, rather than the assumed origin from a yet non-degassed part of the Earth. The helium observed in such geological samples, the authors suggest, may be evidence of deep-Earth nuclear fission. The absence of cross-section data for neon, the next lightest noble gas, precluded calculating fission and decay yields for this element. Comparison of calculated and measured results for neon may provide further evidence. Detection of 10Be in rock originating from deep-mantle magma would provide strong evidence of deep-Earth nuclear fission because of its relatively short half-life and the fact that the only other significant mechanism for 10Be production takes place in the upper atmosphere.
In terms of energy production, a nuclear fission geo-reactor is clearly an acceptable alternative to previously postulated energy sources for the geomagnetic field, mainly, the latent heat of fusion presumably released during the assumed growth of the inner core (31). But unlike release of the latent heat of fusion from inner core growth, nuclear fission geo-reactor output can be variable andor intermittent, a fact that is quite consistent with the observed variability of the geomagnetic field.
A nuclear reactor actinide subcore, surrounded by a subshell, possibly fluid or slurry, composed of fission products and lead from radioactive decay is expected to exist at the center of the inner core of the Earth (6). Moving charges create magnetic fields. A nuclear fission geo-reactor will produce a plethora of charged particles and copious amounts of ionizing radiation. One might wonder whether the geomagnetic field might origi- nate, in some yet unspecified manner, from this assemblage rather than from fluid motions in the main core of the Earth.
This research was performed at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, managed and operated by UT-Battelle, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy under contract No. DE-AC05– 00OR22725.
Hollenbach and Herndon
A steady-state, planetary-scale reactor, continuously operating throughout geologic time, was maintained in the numerical simu- lation through the instantaneous removal of fission products. In a reactor deep inside the Earth, one would expect fission products, having an average density about 60% that of actinides, to diffuse radially outward as the fuel reconcentrates radially inward because of gravity. Variable andor intermittent reactor operation would be the natural and expected consequence. Nuclear fission reactor variability, we suggest, is evidenced by the observed reversals of direction and changes in intensity of the geomagnetic field (2). Preliminary results suggest that, during the first 1.5 billion years after the formation of the Earth, geomagnetic reversals might have been less prevalent than in recent times. Clearly, further investiga- tions, both nuclear and paleomagnetic, are necessary for a more precise characterization.
Nuclear fission, as shown in the present paper, provides a viable mechanism for the deep-Earth production of 3He, rather than the assumed origin from a yet non-degassed part of the Earth. The helium observed in such geological samples, the authors suggest, may be evidence of deep-Earth nuclear fission. The absence of cross-section data for neon, the next lightest noble gas, precluded calculating fission and decay yields for this element. Comparison of calculated and measured results for neon may provide further evidence. Detection of 10Be in rock originating from deep-mantle magma would provide strong evidence of deep-Earth nuclear fission because of its relatively short half-life and the fact that the only other significant mechanism for 10Be production takes place in the upper atmosphere.
In terms of energy production, a nuclear fission geo-reactor is clearly an acceptable alternative to previously postulated energy sources for the geomagnetic field, mainly, the latent heat of fusion presumably released during the assumed growth of the inner core (31). But unlike release of the latent heat of fusion from inner core growth, nuclear fission geo-reactor output can be variable andor intermittent, a fact that is quite consistent with the observed variability of the geomagnetic field.
A nuclear reactor actinide subcore, surrounded by a subshell, possibly fluid or slurry, composed of fission products and lead from radioactive decay is expected to exist at the center of the inner core of the Earth (6). Moving charges create magnetic fields. A nuclear fission geo-reactor will produce a plethora of charged particles and copious amounts of ionizing radiation. One might wonder whether the geomagnetic field might origi- nate, in some yet unspecified manner, from this assemblage rather than from fluid motions in the main core of the Earth.
This research was performed at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, managed and operated by UT-Battelle, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy under contract No. DE-AC05– 00OR22725.
Hollenbach and Herndon
Herndon also has done some super-duper work on chemtrails.
Just for the record:
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/20/11085.long
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Marvin_Herndon
https://www.geol.umd.edu/~mcdonoug/KITP Website for Bill/papers/Measurements/Bellini_etal_(PLB_10).pdf ("We set an upper bound for a 3 TW geo-reactor at 95% C.L")
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/20/11085.long
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Marvin_Herndon
https://www.geol.umd.edu/~mcdonoug/KITP Website for Bill/papers/Measurements/Bellini_etal_(PLB_10).pdf ("We set an upper bound for a 3 TW geo-reactor at 95% C.L")
Last edited:
Herndon also has done some super-duper work on chemtrails.
Found this interesting patent on how to spread oxides in the atmosphere for climate modification:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...50&s1=5003186.PN.&OS=PN/5003186&RS=PN/5003186
see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsbach_seeding
(Note: 'Welsbach' materials were investigated by Carl Auer von Welsbach, who developed the Welsbach mantle using ThO2. It found widespread use in the late 1900s and early 20th century, and was adopted by the Coleman company for their earliest lantern mantles. Later, it was determined that their usage released radio-daughters into the atmosphere, and they were replaced with non-radioactive materials that cost less and shone brighter.)