Not to be confused with the fantastic nonsense being pushed by Dr. Tom Chalko and the BANNED Mifletz, UPI recently published a story by Phil Berardelli, "Giant nuke may run Earth's magnetic field."

Also see Andrew Karam's article, "The Natural Nuclear Reactor at Oklo: A Comparison with Modern Nuclear Reactors."

Your thoughts?

How would a 5-mile wide ball of uranium have formed in the first place? I thought uranium was naturally all spread out through Earth's crust, as ore. How, and why, would it all have come together during the planet's formation? Why would uranium be the only element to have come together like that, and not, say, all the planet's chromium, or zinc?

Also, he's apparently extrapolating from the relatively small Oklo reactor, to the existence of a huge planetary core reactor. I don't really understand, from the UPI article, what his evidence for this is.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jigsaw on 2002-06-08 23:21 ]</font>

How would such a reactor be moderated? The only substance I can think of that might work would be sulfur, but we've seen recently that there's growing evidence that there is a tremendous amount of water tied up in minerals in the crust and mantle...what about in the core? Any nuclear physicists who can give us some insights on moderating a 5 mile diameter, molten core, Ni/Fe/S/U reactor?

Also, if the reactor is breeding (presumably Pu), then what happens to its operation over time? In a fluid 'reactor core' with an increasing inventory of fission products and plutonium, what would happen to the power output?

Maybe those Expanding-Earthers have the right idea...just not cataclysmic enough.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: roidspop on 2002-06-09 00:44 ]</font>

The article explains this. Uranium, being heavier/denser than other elements would over time sink down below the liquid core and collect in the center of the Earth. Once large enough quantities gathered it would begin fissioning.

Other elements, being lighter than Uranium would I suppose also cascade out, but not sink as deeply, so there might be layers of different elements above the Uranium core.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

Apparently, Phil Berardelli's story for UPI was not exactly new news. On October 1, 2001, The Dallas Morning News published Tom Siegfried's article, "Natural nuke may explain Earth's magnetic flips."

You can read the article here as posted to the Usenet by Sir Frederick. There are eight other messages in the thread.

Don't tell me. Herndon and Hollenbach are writing a book...

<a name="20020609.2:45"> page 20020609.2:45 aka Magne.nu
MY baINdex
yeah, yeah: why bother ? anyway1: Osmium{sp} `poised to be the most dense
of all the Elements {1960's} [allright 1969]
one of the Pt group.. but they are all heavy
if you use heavy for center{alism} not that i would
but back to the ? Does {i mean IS} there an
undected tie between atomic newClei{sp} and
the local {Earths} Magnetic field.. [why of course]
did i not say yeah, finger it out by 2020 it will even get a mention in Si`Fee the spanish lampoon of French Meter

Say, HUb', are you going to see "2001: A Space Odyssey" next weekend at Cinema 21? I'll be there.

It is not correct to assume that all uranium is distributed through the crust. The inner 82% of the Earth, the lower mantle and the core, is like an enstatite chondrite meteorite. That type of meteorite contains 80% of its uranium in the part that would correspond to the core. That means that about 64% of Earth's uranium is in the core. That uranium is expected to rain out at a high temperature and to eventually collect at the center of the Earth. Why? Because, at the pressures there, density is a function of atomic number and atomic mass. Uranium has the greatest atomic number and atomic mass. The newspaper article does not give all of the details; those are contained in the scientific papers published by the discoverer. Also, a nuclear reactor does not necessarily need a moderator; such a reactor is called a fast neutron reactor.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Earthman on 2002-06-12 09:12 ]</font>

Thanks for the post, Earthman, and welcome to the board.

Because of the pejorative-sounding name for this Bulletin Board, and because some topics really are "way out", I think it is important to point out that this topic is serious science. With thanks to Dr. Herndon for providing these, I am listing his relevant scientific papers on this subject for the benefit of those who wish to learn more.

J. M. Herndon (1992) Nuclear fission reactors as energy sources for the giant outer planets. Published in English in the German journal, Naturwissenschaften, vol. 79, pp 7-14.

J. M. Herndon (1993) Feasibility of a nuclear fission reactor at the center of the earth as the energy source for the geomagnetic field. Published in English in the Japanese journal, Journal of Geomagnetism and Geoelectricity, vol. 45, pp 423-437.

J. M. Herndon (1994) Planetary and protostellar nuclear fission; implications for planetary change, stellar ignition and dark matter. Published in the British journal, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, vol. 445, pp. 453-461.

J. M. Herndon (1996) Sub-structure of the inner core of the earth. Published in the American journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), vol. 93, pp. 646-648.

J. M. Herndon (1998) Composition of the deep interior of the earth: divergent geophysical development with fundamentally different geophysical implications. Published in English in the international journal, Physics of the earth and planetary interiors, vol. 105, p.1-4.

J. M. Herndon (1998) Examining the overlooked implications of natural nuclear reactors. Published in the American journal, Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, vol. 79, no. 38, pp. 451, 456.

D. F. Hollenbach and J. M. Herndon (2001) Deep-earth reactor: nuclear fission, helium, and the geomagnetic field. Published in the American journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), vol. 98, no. 20, pp. 11085-11090.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Earthman on 2002-06-14 14:25 ]</font>

Isn't the core solid? If so... wouldn't heavy elements be unable to sink beyond the solid part's surface? Also, while the mass of a rock remains the same, wouldn't it's weight diminish as it sank lower into the mantle? Also, wouldn't the convection currents of the mantle keep everything mixed? Also, do molten rocks behave like a solution? These questions won't keep me up at night... just curious [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
--Tommy
http://www.tommyraz.com