RE: FW: [cdn-nucl-l] Re: giant natural nuclear reactor at the ce nter

I appreciate your comments, though I do not know why you think my statement was perculiar. (It was due to a lack of clarity in my initial response.) Of course, nuclear engineers can contribute to the arguement. However, my concern is the giant leap of faith that comes with "yes, it possible" to "of course, there a nuclear reactor could be at the center of the earth." It certainly is possible to compute how big the uranium would have to be, heat generated, etc. Even the creation of He-3 in nuclear reactions can be computed with the proper input parameters.

I would rather ask what are the objections to this hypothesis? How does it compare to what we see in other places in the universe? As I understand it, the only direct evidence Marvin Herndon presents is the changes in He-3 to He-4 ratios. What are other sources of He-3? You point out the articles that appeared in PNAS. Have you seen any that contradict them? (Eventually, I will probably sit down and read more on this subject.)

I also wonder about Herndon's statement that the magnetic field is what prevents the atmosphere from being stripped from the Earth. Venus has practically no magnetic field, yet has an atmosphere. Also, statements like

"The dramatic part is when the magnetic field starts collapsing," said Herndon, who offered the filmmakers some post-production scientific advice. "Birds start flying into buildings, pacemakers in heart patients fail all at once, bridges shake with electrical currents. . . ." sounds like hyperbole to me. Birds fly into skyscapers all the time.

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

jim.dukelow@pnl.gov

These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by my management or by the U.S. Department of Energy.

-----Original Message-----
From: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 1:37 PM
To: Franta, Jaroslav; 'John Jacobus'; Radsafe (E-mail)
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.

<snip>