Link to an interesting article about a nuclear fission reactor (5 miles in diameter!) which is hypothesised to exist in the core of the Earth and other planets.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/earth-03k.html
Near the end of the article, there is also some speculation on the implications of this for the ignition of fusion reactions in the cores of stars.
Nuclear Fission Reactor in the Earth's Core
Re: Nuclear Fission Reactor in the Earth's Core
Pretty interesting idea there.
One thing, i dont quite understand as to how he proposes that a star and a hydrogen bomb are even remotely similar. (Aside from that fusion thing) So what if a fission bomb is used in a hydrogen bomb, the fission isnt the key, its the x/gamma rays that are the key. A star lives billions of years, the fusion in a hydrogen bomb lasts nanoseconds.
One thing, i dont quite understand as to how he proposes that a star and a hydrogen bomb are even remotely similar. (Aside from that fusion thing) So what if a fission bomb is used in a hydrogen bomb, the fission isnt the key, its the x/gamma rays that are the key. A star lives billions of years, the fusion in a hydrogen bomb lasts nanoseconds.
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15032
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: Nuclear Fission Reactor in the Earth's Core
That there might be a fission reactor at the core of the earth has always been in my thoughts. It appears that this scientist has fleshed it out a bit more. There is probably also some limited fusion going on as well, but has no real impact on the energy supplied by the fission reaction.
As to stars requiring fission products to ignite, this is relatively ridiculus. What started the first stars up way back in the begining? Gravity and gravity alone did it. What is more likely is that newer stars are, indeed, coalescing from older stellar debris and that would surely contain some actinides which might make stars able to ignite at lower acreted masses than in the distant past. There is little doubt, I feel that the overall "running" power of a star is purely fusion based. It should be remembered that even when a star is near death and goes nova, it is still mostly unburned hydrogen! So, most stellar nova debris is hydrogen and helium with just a slight admixture of all the other elements becoming lesser and lesser in percentage as the atomic number increases. The business about star burning ending at iron might be correct on the massive scale, but I believe that elements far beyond iron are created long before the later cycles of burning in old stars. It is just that their creation is speeded up near the end and might be totally endothermic.
Finally, I am sticking by my guns that it is neutron formation in the cores of stars that starts atom building, not P-P fusion. I am also willing to entertain the idea that there is no such thing as a neutron in an atom, per se! No one has ever seen one there. (Nor will they ever, most likely.)
It is just possible that the neutron is a condensate from a radically disturbed nucleus made up of just specially bound proton electron systems. Who knows? The fact that the neutron is unstable indicates its formation is obviously associated with a stellar creation process and atom building. Once the atom is assembled in a star, be it with neutrons and protons or with protons and electrons doing a special dance, it appears the atom is then stable against casual destruction. Neutrons seen excreted from violently distrubed atoms have a short life (observed fact). Thus neutrons are not part of the universe as a naked particle. The only readily detected and regularly encountered, naked matter particles allowed in the universe appear to be electrons and protons.
Richard Hull
As to stars requiring fission products to ignite, this is relatively ridiculus. What started the first stars up way back in the begining? Gravity and gravity alone did it. What is more likely is that newer stars are, indeed, coalescing from older stellar debris and that would surely contain some actinides which might make stars able to ignite at lower acreted masses than in the distant past. There is little doubt, I feel that the overall "running" power of a star is purely fusion based. It should be remembered that even when a star is near death and goes nova, it is still mostly unburned hydrogen! So, most stellar nova debris is hydrogen and helium with just a slight admixture of all the other elements becoming lesser and lesser in percentage as the atomic number increases. The business about star burning ending at iron might be correct on the massive scale, but I believe that elements far beyond iron are created long before the later cycles of burning in old stars. It is just that their creation is speeded up near the end and might be totally endothermic.
Finally, I am sticking by my guns that it is neutron formation in the cores of stars that starts atom building, not P-P fusion. I am also willing to entertain the idea that there is no such thing as a neutron in an atom, per se! No one has ever seen one there. (Nor will they ever, most likely.)
It is just possible that the neutron is a condensate from a radically disturbed nucleus made up of just specially bound proton electron systems. Who knows? The fact that the neutron is unstable indicates its formation is obviously associated with a stellar creation process and atom building. Once the atom is assembled in a star, be it with neutrons and protons or with protons and electrons doing a special dance, it appears the atom is then stable against casual destruction. Neutrons seen excreted from violently distrubed atoms have a short life (observed fact). Thus neutrons are not part of the universe as a naked particle. The only readily detected and regularly encountered, naked matter particles allowed in the universe appear to be electrons and protons.
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Re: Nuclear Fission Reactor in the Earth's Core
The authors theories on fuiosn initiation in stars certainly leads to a chicken and egg situation. But if the observation that density is simply dependent on atomic number holds up under the conditons of a stars core, then the biggest lump of metal in the solar system must be in the center of the Sun!.
If modern stars have such metal cores, does this have any effect on the fusion reactions occuring there?. And what state would the this core be in (e.g "solid", "liquid", metal plasma, or something like a white dwarf?)
If modern stars have such metal cores, does this have any effect on the fusion reactions occuring there?. And what state would the this core be in (e.g "solid", "liquid", metal plasma, or something like a white dwarf?)