[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: FW: [cdn-nucl-l] Re: giant natural nuclear reactor at the ce nter of the Earth
John's
ad hominem comment about geophysicists is peculiar. Leaving aside the
moviemakers, everyone quoted in the article is a geologist or geophysicist,
except for Jaro and Dan Hollenbach, who are nuclear engineers. Since we're
talking about a possible nuclear reactor, the nuclear engineers may have
something to contribute.
The
simple potential answer to the John's Mars/Venus conundrum is that Mars and
Venus are smaller than the Earth. Their proto-reactors may never have gone
critical or may have run for a while and then shutdown. Whether a reactor
starts up and how long it runs will be a function of the radius of the spherical
"core" and the composition of the uranium and the presence of neutron
poisons in the core. Venus and Mars may not be big enough for their
uranium cores to ever go critical or they may have operated for a while and then
shut down, just as Herndon is predicting that the reactor at the core of the
Earth will shut down eventually.
I seem
to recall having read that we have some data from Martian rock suggesting
remnant magnetism from a short-lived magnetic field, but I don't have a similar
memory of data suggesting whether or not Venus ever had a magnetic
field.
Rather than reading what United Press reports that various people said,
those interested should go to www.nas.edu, click on "publications", click on "PNAS Online",
and do a Search on "Herndon". That will turn up at least two interesting
papers that lay out the theory and the empirical evidence that appears to
support it.
As a
nuclear engineer, my reaction to reading the Herndon and Hollenbach 5 Sept 2001
PNAS paper was -- "Of course". The theory is plausible, has
empirical support, and explains several inconvenient observations that have not
had satisfactory explanations previously. Living in the Northwest, I am
sensitized to the ability of the geological establishment to fight off new
pardigms until the accumulated evidence is simply too embarassing.
Everyone has heard about the Wegener and Continental Drift, but in the NW, we
are familiar with J. Harlen Bretz' 30-40 year battle to get the establishment to
accept the reality of massive floods in the Columbia River Valley at the end of
the last ice age.
Best
regards.
Jim
Dukelow
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Richland, WA
These
comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by my management or
by the U.S. Department of Energy.
Jaro,
Yes, I meant that the people from ORNL and AECL are not geophysicists.
I am glad you picked up on my questions regarding the inconguency with regard
to which planets have magnetic fields and which don't. (If the physics
works here, why doesn't it work there?) Of course, since they really do
not know how the magnetic fields were created or continue to exists, all of the
comments about the planets are speculations.
I think the idea of a reactor at the center of the Earth is intriguing, but I
would like to see more data. It seems to me that there should be a way to
detect such nuclear reactions, such as by direct detection of the neutrino that
result from the nuclear reactions.
<snip>