Consider hydrogen for Earth's Core

[Turtle]

Gentlemen,

 

Since I live on a hill, I was offered FREE high speed broadband if I would allow a repeater to be installed on my roof; to provide Internet Service to the surrounding neighbors. Offer I couldn't refuse. Now I will be able to review many of the links you have so kindly offered and surf for related information, long since denied by dial-up that was so slow out here on the plains that I could brew a cup of tea while a grandkid's emailed photo was downloading. The difference is amazing! Looking forward to more of your questions.

 

Regards, CharlieO

 

Sweet serendipity Charlie! Welcome to the pipe. :) I take my tea green, and no lumps. :doh:

[HydrogenBond]

Years back I did a lot of research growing synthetic gem stones. One of the techniques is called molten flux, where one uses molten minerals as solvents. The solvent affect increases with temperature and pressure. Once things dissolve in the molten flux, gravity has little impact. The driving force for any phase separation becomes connected to other things like the composition of the flux (growth habit) and thermal gradients.

 

The iron core theory is contingent on the assumption iron can totally resist the molten flux solvent affects inside the earth and just sink like a rock in water. But a possible alternative are the molten fluxes in the mantle and downward, will make iron act like salt sinking in water. The observation that the mantle does not contain the amount of iron expected by solvent affects suggests either iron won't dissolve in molten fluxes or maybe not enough iron passed through the molten flux.

[CharlieO]

TRUTLE: Green tea here as well, no lumps. Great minds think and drink alike.

 

HydrogenBone: Interesting thought, except I can't see intense temperature having much to do with Earth's formation, for reasons expressed earlier; slow condensation within a rotating cloud of elements, with little or no temperature increase from that of space. However, I can't discount your observation either. Seems logical.

 

For now, I'm like a kid at Christmas with High Speed Broadband, after years of being unable to read or download interesting material on dial-up, out here on the Colorado plains. Still reviewing many of you-all's previous comments, which have proved both interesting and educational. Still an Okie at heart with you-all.

 

Regards, CharlieO

[CharlieO]

Been having a great time surfing the Internet with my new HS Broadband. Didn't discover anything new to relate, so I felt it was time for a review: I must admit I really don't know if Earth has a cold core of Hydrogen. However, I’m willing to consider alternative theories when there is physical evidence suggesting such a possibility might exist. Unfortunately, dogmatic believers, like Creationists, usually dismiss any alternatives without thinking. As least some of the Hypography members are more thoughtful and informative and I've learned a lot, thank you.

 

The reason I joined this ‘discussion group’ was due to a book written by Neil B. Christianson; claiming Earth has a cold core of hydrogen. While I do not fully agree with him, I’m at least aware such a theory is not uncommon. There are records before the time of Christ suggesting Earth has LIGHT elements inside and volcanoes are only vents for their gases. Strabo, for example. Hydrogen, by name, was later mentioned by French Scientists as being the most likely element to be found in both Earth's core and the Sun soon after it's physical properties were identified.

 

In the early 1950's, Russian researchers suggested the possibility of metallic hydrogen becoming dense enough under core pressures to be in Earth’s core, but were unable to physically produce it. In the late 1950's, the physical properties of hydrogen, atomic, liquid and gaseous, were researched at Shell (Oil) Development.

 

The Shell results were circulated in the 1970's, drawing little interest. In 1980, Steven Solter reported on his related research at Cornell in THE DEEP EARTH GAS HYPOTHESIS, with Tom Gold. Later, geologist Charles Warren Hunt also published similar articles suggesting Earth had a hydrogen core, as did Neil Christianson.

 

Hydrogen is an interesting element, possibly capable of being both Earth's solid metal inner core and liquid outer core, except for yet to be established density considerations and the yet unknown properties of metallic hydrogen. However, atomic hydrogen from Earth’s core would have no difficulty infusing into the molecules of mantle elements, then rising thru these molecules, eventually effusing as hydrogen molecules between crystal grain boundaries as pressures decreased. This process is called hydrogen embrittlement, a problem in industry to this day.

 

Hydrogen molecules can create intense heat [3200F] and water by exothermic reaction with oxides in crustal layers. OR hydrogen can combine with carbon to form hydrocarbons. These hydrogen compounds are usually vented by volcanos and other means thru Earth's crust. Then, most hydrogen compounds, largely as water and methane gases, with lots of hydrogen sulfide, rise into the stratosphere where atomic hydrogen escapes into space and CO^2 descends to Earth's surface. [Lighter H+O+H and CH^4 becomes heavier CO^2 and escaping H (only) under solar radiation.]

 

All of this has been observed and tested under laboratory conditions, except for the core density problem. However, Neil, former head of the USAF Titan Missel Program, has been working for some time on including horizontal gravitational vectors with vertical vectors for Earth's density. He has just reported the results of his calculations. I’m reprinting a portion of his findings:

 

Now, geodesists contend no lateral gravity exist within the earth—because in their three dimensional analysis of internal forces, all radial vectors are vertical; hence, there can be no lateral (horizontal) vectors. Further analysis showed the flattening of the earth dictates a small moment of inertia. So, earth’s mass must concentrate in her core; which in turn, portends a molten core to allow heavy materials to sink to her center to accommodate a small moment of inertia.

 

In reviewing their mathematics, I discovered they only used the vertical attraction of gravity at the earth’s equator in their calculation. However, if horizontal gravity is considered, as an additional force to be overcome, then the moment of inertia of a condensed, cold-core cross section, last taught by Rene Descartes, becomes a viable alternative.

 

If you want to pursue my logic go to: http://members.cox.net/nchristianson3/part0.ppt

 

By: Neil B. Christianson, Author of: “EARTH HAS A COLD HEART’ (1989) and “TWO HUNDRED YEARS ASTRAY” (2005).

 

Of course, some of you may already know of laboratory experiments which clearly indicate Iron becomes too dense at core pressures to be Earth’s primary core material. Among others: 1980, May 9, United Press International news release: "One of the initial results of the high pressure apparatus at the Carnegie Institute of Washington was to squelch the long held idea that Earth's core consisted of an alloy of iron and nickel. Dr Ho-Kwang Mao was the first to show that an IRON-NICKEL mixture COULD NOT EXIST IN THE CORE because the alloy changes density under great pressure and would become far too dense to exist in Earth’s core."

 

Meanwhile, I am but one of many individuals interested in a more logical alternative for Earth's ‘Hot Iron Core.’ Many others, extending back hundreds, perhaps thousands of years, have been steadfast in their belief of Earth having a hydrogen core, like the Sun, from the beginning of its formation. Unfortunately, the existence of Earth's magnetic field led others, ignorant of the magnetic property of metallic hydrogen, to ASSUME Earth’s core must only be of ferromagnetic metals. Thus, the now popular, albeit illogical, theory that an enormous excess of Iron somehow sank thru a molten Earth to form its core was born; as if other, heavier elements would have stood still for this. Gold core anyone?

 

This might be fine if Earth were static, as seen in classrooms which teach such dogma and ignore centrifugal force. In fact, Earth rotated very rapidly in the past; to the extent it was initially disk shaped, as are today other galactic bodies in the process of formation. This explains why ‘normal’ proportions of Iron and other heavier elements are found in continental layers and not in oceanic layers; with none left over to 'sink' into a spinning ‘molten’ Earth and form its core.

 

Later, scientists realized a Tcurie of 580C made it impossible for Earth's supposedly intensely heated inner Iron core to be magnetic, even less possible for a 5,000C molten outer core. So, the same seismic recordings used to 'prove' molten plumes of ‘magma’ were rising from the core, were then used instead to 'prove' Earth’s inner core was spinning inside a molten outer core and thus generating Earth's magnetic field. Problem is, the latest ‘interpreted’ seismic movement of Earth’s inner core is 2 Km per year, about that of a snail on a cold day. If the concept of anything spinning inside Earth's core, under core pressures, isn't dumb enough, the current rate of seismic movement should prove it.

 

Interestingly, 2 Km per year is close to the rate at which I personally infused hydrogen atoms into a variety of materials in the 1950's, so the observed seismic movement may be only hydrogen infusion. Now, hydrogen atoms don’t move very fast thru other molecules, but one hellava lot could pass thru Earth’s mantle from the core during the past four plus billion years and created a hellava lot of water. Obviously, they still do as the hydrogen escaping into space every day has to come from somewhere.

 

Meanwhile, metallic hydrogen was produced in the US only recently. From this, others, including myself, hope to use its physical properties in experiments and calculations which may, repeat may, prove that metallic hydrogen is the most likely core material; especially since Iron cannot be, by laboratory tests made many years ago. Something which doesn't seem to have 'sunk in' yet for many Hot Iron Core believers.

 

Best regards, CharlieO

[freeztar]

Charlie, what are your opinions of anisotropy of an iron core? It seems to address some of the issues you have with an iron-core theory.

 

CRYSTAL AT THE CENTER OF THE EARTH: Anisotropy of Earth's Inner Core

[Turtle]

Been having a great time surfing the Internet with my new HS Broadband. Didn't discover anything new to relate, so I felt it was time for a review:

.

.

.

Meanwhile, I am but one of many individuals interested in a more logical alternative for Earth's ‘Hot Iron Core.’ Many others, extending back hundreds, perhaps thousands of years, have been steadfast in their belief of Earth having a hydrogen core, like the Sun, from the beginning of its formation. Unfortunately, the existence of Earth's magnetic field led others, ignorant of the magnetic property of metallic hydrogen, to ASSUME Earth’s core must only be of ferromagnetic metals. Thus, the now popular, albeit illogical, theory that an enormous excess of Iron somehow sank thru a molten Earth to form its core was born; as if other, heavier elements would have stood still for this. Gold core anyone?

Best regards, CharlieO

 

The fact of Hydrogen or Iron core aside a moment, I find this a misrepresentation of the Earth's formation in general. I understood it began as dust/rubble and slowly accumulated over time. Heating occured as mass is added both from increasing pressure at depths, as well as impact events. I further think 'assume' is the wrong term, and better substituted with 'deduce' in regard to the conclusion of an Iron core.

 

;) :hihi:

[Pyrotex]

...Unfortunately, no one has yet offered an understandable explanation of the primary issue: IF Gravity is the dominate factor in Earth's formation and present composition, WHY isn't Earth's core filled with elements materially heavier than iron? ...

Astrophysics.

Other than lighter elements up through silicon, iron was the most common element formed in supernova explosions and more common novae. That is because iron has the lowest energy per nucleon of all atoms==iron cannot be fused to form heavier elements. Iron is the "dead-end" of stellar element production.

 

Earth's core does no doubt contain heavier elements like gold, but only in proportions of less than one atom in a million, because that's how rare gold is everywhere. All gold would be in the core, except for the simple fact that the Earth's core and surface did not all form at the same time.

 

Subsequent accretions of planetisimals (containing iron and gold) smashed into infant Earth after the core was formed--AND, a non-molten crust as well. The iron and gold in these later accretions merged with the crust and never had a chance to sink to the core. Chemical and relatively low-temperature magma processes in the various upper layers of crust above the Mohovoric discontinuity actually brought many heavy elements up to the surface where they formed ores and other condensed minerals.

 

Consider this analogy. Course ground pepper will sink in water, even in water containing detergent.

 

But thrash the water around until bubbles float in significant layers. THEN sprinkle the pepper in the tub. Where the pepper hits thick suds, the suds support the pepper at the surface and keep it from sinking in the water.

 

The formation of a relatively thick and cool "crust" around the molten interior of the early Earth is like the suds. Subsequent additions of material stuck in the crust and never had a chance to merge with the core.

[CharlieO]

Freeztar: Appreciate the heads up, albeit I reviewed the ariticle earlier. Anisotropy of a Hydrogen crystal seems to be included in Neil's concept and works well with the orientation of Earth's magnetic pole as created by a hydrogen core; which seems to wander over time and even reverse. Of course, the Solar mangetosphere does the same and seems to affect Earth's magnetic pole orientation and intensity in a delayed albeit often muted response, which may explain the changing magnetic fields seen on Earth.

 

Conversly, for a spinning iron core to change in accord with the Solar Magnetosphere, much less reverse its spinning at times, this seems somewhat physically impossible. Whereas a metallic hydrogen crystal could easily be affected by the Solar Magnetoshpere and vary in accord to some extent, even reverse its field.

 

Thanks for asking. Still learning. CharlieO

[CharlieO]

Turtle wrote: I find this a misrepresentation of the Earth's formation in general. I understood it began as dust/rubble and slowly accumulated over time. Heating occured as mass is added both from increasing pressure at depths, as well as impact events.

With all due respect, your understanding of what you were taught is no doubt what you now believe to be true. Unfortunately, there have been no similar observations seen during all the years of studying the cosmos. However, the slow condensing of spirling elements in galactic clouds seems to be commonplace. Unless of course the formation of Earth by gathering rubble was something completely unique in the universe.

 

I was taught that static pressure, no matter how great, cannot create any heat what so ever, only a relatively rapid pressure change can create heat or cold, and the impact events were probably few and far between, as well as ocurring long after Earth had fully formed. After all, the masses doing the impacts had to be formed somewhere over time too. Guess its a toss-up between your teachers and mine.

 

Regards, CharlieO

[CharlieO]

Pryotex: Again, with all due respect, what you were taught seems to be based on a lot of assumptions with no physical proof possible, but thanks for making the effort to educate me.

 

Regards, CharlieO

[Turtle]

Turtle wrote: I find this a misrepresentation of the Earth's formation in general. I understood it began as dust/rubble and slowly accumulated over time. Heating occured as mass is added both from increasing pressure at depths, as well as impact events.

With all due respect, your understanding of what you were taught is no doubt what you now believe to be true. Unfortunately, there have been no similar observations seen during all the years of studying the cosmos. However, the slow condensing of spirling elements in galactic clouds seems to be commonplace. Unless of course the formation of Earth by gathering rubble was something completely unique in the universe.

 

I was taught that static pressure, no matter how great, cannot create any heat what so ever, only a relatively rapid pressure change can create heat or cold, and the impact events were probably few and far between, as well as ocurring long after Earth had fully formed. After all, the masses doing the impacts had to be formed somewhere over time too. Guess its a toss-up between your teachers and mine.

 

Regards, CharlieO

 

No, it is not between teachers. You have presented your conclusions, I am presenting mine. It is between us, or more correctly us all. Learning never stops Charlie, and neither does discovery. :hihi:

 

SPACE.com -- Astronomers See Evidence for Youngest Planet

Astronomers have found evidence for what could be the youngest planet ever detected, a world no more than a million years old circling a distant star.

 

The finding was part of a trio of discoveries from the Spitzer Space Telescope announced at a NASA press conference today.

 

The orbiting observatory also spotted the raw materials for life -- water and other prebiotic chemistry -- in planetary construction zones around five young, Sun-like stars in the constellation Taurus, 420 light-years from Earth.

 

"We've seen the building blocks of habitable planets for the first time unambiguously" in stars that will turn out like our Sun, said Dan Watson, professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Rochester in New York. ...

[freeztar]

Pryotex: Again, with all due respect, what you were taught seems to be based on a lot of assumptions with no physical proof possible, but thanks for making the effort to educate me.

 

Regards, CharlieO

 

Pyro's argument was great Charlie. There is tons of proof to back up his claims. Have you studied nuclear reactions within solar systems? If you object to the evidence offered, then present evidence supporting your claims. Otherwise, you're grasping for straws. :hihi:

 

I recommend a review of this:

Stellar nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Also, I recall that Modest defeated your planetary formation argument starting with this post.

[CharlieO]

Turtle: If you keep on reading the news release on the Youngest Planet, as I did some years ago, you will find the following quote by the same Watson: "That probably makes it the youngest planet we've ever seen," Watson said. "It also puts yet another thorn in the side of the standard model for planet formation, which says ice and dust stick together and collide with ever-larger rocks until a giant core is formed, then gas can be drawn into the mix."

 

This only one example of why I find it difficult to believe Earth was formed by collected rubble, when no other planet or sun seems to have been formed in that manner. Indeed, all I've seen over the years are slow condensing spirals of dust within galactic clouds. Perhaps I've missed something. Still learing.

 

By the way, did you make the following conclusion on your own? Heating occured as mass is added both from increasing pressure at depths, as well as impact events.

 

My conclusion was the result of my education by a physics teacher: Heating and cooling results from a rapid change in pressure, not from static pressure, no matter how great. Slow changes in pressure, which are absorbed by the elastic nature of molecules, will result in no change in temperature.

 

I concluded, based on the above and my personal belief that Earth was never subjected to any rapid change, supported by observing only slow changes seen in the cosmos, excepting novas.

 

I still haven't found any evidence of Earth being formed by rubble or impacts. Perhaps I've missed something. Still learning and appreciate the education.

 

Regards, CharlieO

[Pyrotex]

...I was taught that static pressure, no matter how great, cannot create any heat what so ever, only a relatively rapid pressure change can create heat or cold, and the impact events were probably few and far between...

The total heat brought to the Earth's core is equal to the Potential energy of all components prior to accumulation. Basic physics and demonstratable in college labs.

 

Assume a jillion tons of anything (hydrogen, iron, whatever) poised at, ohhhh... say, the radius of the Moon's orbit. Let it fall down the gravitational gradient to what quickly becomes the "core" of Earth. Each atom or wisp or asteroid's potential energy must equal the added thermal energy after it comes to rest.

[Turtle]

Turtle: If you keep on reading the news release on the Youngest Planet, as I did some years ago, you will find the following quote by the same Watson: "That probably makes it the youngest planet we've ever seen," Watson said. "It also puts yet another thorn in the side of the standard model for planet formation, which says ice and dust stick together and collide with ever-larger rocks until a giant core is formed, then gas can be drawn into the mix."

 

The article is talking about formation of gas giants, not smaller inner rocky planets, and the conclusions are still in debate. In regard to Earth they say:

Boss was also excited to learn of Spitzer's observations of water ice, methanol and carbon dioxide collecting on the dust in disks around the five young, Sun-like stars. These are the ingredients of comets, which theorists figure helped prepare Earth for life by filling its oceans and adding the right organic chemistry.

This is contrary to your assertion that impacts of other bodies don't add to Earth's mass or heat. As to the energy of these impacts:

Information Bridge: DOE Scientific and Technical Information - Sponsored by OSTI

Axial Focusing of Impact Energy in the Earth’s Interior:

a Possible Link to Flood Basalts and Hotspots*

M. B. BOSLOUGH, E. P. CHAEL, T. G. TRUCANO,

D. A. CRAWFORD, and D. L. CAMPBELL

ABSTRACT

We present the results of shock physics and seismological computational simulations that show how energy from a large impact can be coupled to the interior of the Earth. The radiallydiverging shock wave generated by the impact decays to linearly elastic seismic waves. Thesewaves reconverge (minus attenuation) along the axis of symmetry between the impact and itsantipode. The locations that experience the most strain cycles with the largest amplitudes will dissipatethe most energy and have the largest increases in temperature (for a given attenuation efficiency).

We have shown that the locus of maximum energy deposition in the mantle lies along the impact axis. Moreover, the most intense focusing is within the asthenosphere at the antipode, within the range of depths where mechanical energy is most readily converted to heat. We propose that if large impacts on the Earth leave geological evidence anywhere other than the impact site itself, it will be at the antipode. We suggest that the most likely result of the focusing for a sufficiently large impact, consistent with features observed in the geological record, could be a flood basalt eruption at the antipode followed by hotspot volcanism. A direct prediction of this model

would be the existence of undiscovered impact structures whose reconstructed locations would be antipodal to flood basalt provinces, One such structure would be in the Indian Ocean, associated with the Columbia River Basalts and Yellowstone; another would be a second K/T impact structure in the Pacific Ocean, associated with the Deccan Traps and Reunion.

 

Here's the thread that came from; there is more discussion there. >> http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-cosmology/9072-craters-earth-other-planets.html?highlight=impacts

 

This one is good too: http://hypography.com/forums/environmental-studies/11540-space-rock-impact-site-s.html?highlight=impacts

 

:) :rolleyes:

[CharlieO]

Unfortunately, being a 24/7 care-giver for my wife, my time has recently become extremely limited and I now have too little to spare for exploring alternatives to the Hot Iron Core theory. In the past, with some experience in hydrogen properties, hydride behavior and hydrogen embrittlement, it seemed very likely to me that a hydrogen core could provide the means for behaviors observed on Earth’s surface, which a hot iron core could not. While I still consider unproven assumptions of Earth’s interior temperature and composition to be just that, I would only request that you remember this alterative that was discussed, or some small part of it.

 

If I may add, in regard to Neil Christainson’s theory which may, repeat, may revise density requirements for Earth’s core so as to make hydrogen a more viable alternative for Earth’s core and iron even more improbable: We are taught to treat the earth as a large liquid drop, even though seismic S-waves show the earth to be a rigid solid down to the Gutenberg discontinuity. Since seismic waves show the mantle to be a rigid solid, the mantle can be treated as a hollow sphere, such that, it can be divided in half along any diameter to form two hemispheres, each with its own center of gravity. Hence, the pressure at the base of each hemisphere can be calculated using Newton's equation for deriving the gravitational force between two bodies, divided by the area of their contact surface. Try it, you may be amazed by the pressure produced.

 

Over the coming years both you and I may learn some facts that add to or corroborate something here and I believe breakthroughs may come from areas not believed worth exploring today. Whatever they are and wherever they are, I sincerely offer my best wishes to those interested in finding them.

 

For now, I learned a lot from your responses and questions, I only wish I could find the time to continue.

 

Regards, Charlie

[Turtle]

Unfortunately, being a 24/7 care-giver for my wife, my time has recently become extremely limited and I now have too little to spare for exploring alternatives to the Hot Iron Core theory.

 

No worries, take your time, and gesundheit to your wife.

 

...If I may add, in regard to Neil Christainson’s theory which may, repeat, may revise density requirements for Earth’s core so as to make hydrogen a more viable alternative for Earth’s core and iron even more improbable: We are taught to treat the earth as a large liquid drop, even though seismic S-waves show the earth to be a rigid solid down to the Gutenberg discontinuity. Since seismic waves show the mantle to be a rigid solid, the mantle can be treated as a hollow sphere, such that, it can be divided in half along any diameter to form two hemispheres, each with its own center of gravity. Hence, the pressure at the base of each hemisphere can be calculated using Newton's equation for deriving the gravitational force between two bodies, divided by the area of their contact surface. Try it, you may be amazed by the pressure produced.

...

Regards, Charlie

 

Your interest begat my interest Charlie, & I gat this today surfin' da web. Bolding mine. :hihi:

 

 

...A more scientific description is that the iron at the center of the earth cannot be depicted as an average of single crystalline iron. Instead, it is a so-called polycrystalline material with liquid-like granule edges and masses of defects in the structure. Anatoly Belonoshko, in collaboration with his colleagues Natalia Skorodumova and Anders Rosengren, has been able to show that an external disturbance like shear is rapidly mitigated by a migration of atoms and a gliding of the liquid-like granule edges.

 

The study shows that traditional methods of mineral physics are valid, despite the unexpected behavior of iron in the earth’s core, and that what is key to an enhanced understanding of the core of the earth is to be able to recreate the conditions there with great accuracy. A challenge for scientists is to further develop a new way to calculate the elastic properties of various materials at high temperatures. ...

Mystery Of Earth's Innermost Core Solved