----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 1:37
PM
Subject: RE: FW: [cdn-nucl-l] Re: giant
natural nuclear reactor at the ce nter of the Earth
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.
"Franta, Jaroslav" <frantaj@AECL.CA> wrote:
Of course, none of these people are geophysicists.
- - - - - - -
Hi John,
That seems like an odd thing to say ....or are you
just refering to the ORNL & AECL people ? ......surely you don't expect
to find "nuclear geologists" ? ....that's what I meant by
"interdisciplinary."
Otherwise, the other people mentioned in the article
obviously include geologists -- for example David Deming, associate
professor of geology and geophysics, Hatten Yoder, director emeritus of the
Geophysical Laboratory of the Carnegie Institution of Washington,
etc.
As for the articles on Venus and Mars, its odd that for Mars
they say that "The dynamo theory of planetary magnetism indicates that Mars
may have had a dipole moment of about one-tenth of Earth's when it was first
formed..... The rotation rate Of Mars is approximately that of Earth and is
thus sufficient for the operation of this initial dynamo. "
.....but for Venus, they claim that "It is important to note
that, contrary to popular belief, dynamo theory does not credit the
smallness of the magnetic moment to the slow rotation of Venus (a Venus day
of ~ 243 Earth days is almost equal to the length of its year of ~ 224 days,
and its sense of rotation is retrograde)."
WHICH IS RIGHT ? Maybe it takes BOTH an energy (heat) source
AND a certain minimum rotation rate ? (another interesting case is that of
Uranus, whose magnetic field is perpendicular to its axis of rotation --
some say its on its way to reversing polarity....)
. . .
-- John
John Jacobus,
MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo!
Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live
on your desktop!