Consider hydrogen for Earth's Core

[CharlieO]

Turtle: Good to have friends, Thank you. Unfortuntely, been very busy of late, mainly medical emergencies, pain and suffering and the like. Wish I could sue someone over getting old.

 

However, surfing late last night found me wondering how many different theories on Earth/Sun formation are being promoted by various well meaning crackpots like myself as well as respected scientists. Every theory seems to be supported by complex, convoluted calculations and selected evidence, albeit most 'evidence' seems to be largely imaginative descriptives with lots of unsupported assumptions; to which I can plead as guilty as any.

 

I just ran across one theory, still active, claiming the Sun has an iron core, with this theory also supported by complex, convoluted calculations, with lots of unsupported assumptions supported by claimed factual scientific evidence from NASA - - and Mother Goose perhaps?

 

This Sun's Iron Core theory seems to have been gaining supporters since the early 1960's. Guess my intense interest in debunking Earth's iron core in favor of one of hydrogen must have caused me to miss it all these years. Who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks or 'facts?' Ain't the Internet wonderful? Or is there just too much information available?

 

The Iron Sun Debate (1)

 

Meanwhile, it seems hydrogen is getting some play as the best choice of some scientists, but not all as usual, for being an alloy of Earth's core.

 

More later on this.

 

Meanwhile, fluid and gaseous emissions from Lost City undersea vents were sampled with titanium collection devices designed to avoid any contamination by sea water, which had been the problem in the past. Hot water and hydrogen compounds were found in these collection devices and they were analyzed with great care to avoid any outside contamination; unlike the open air laboratory procedures in the past.

 

The water was found to contain NO Carbon 14, therefore it could not have come from subsidence of sea water into the ocean crust or from any other organic source. The emissions appeared to be completely inorganic in origin. The same for the hydrogen compounds found in these emissions, such as methane, even kerosene and other related compounds. This raises the question about the claimed origin of hydro-carbons to be only biological, as well as the origin of water. Again, NO organic origin as indicated by Carbon 14 was found.

 

Science/AAAS | Science Magazine: Sign In February 1, 2008

 

If I didn't mess up the reference, again running on memory from over a month ago due to time limitations, this looks good to me for the possible an inorganic effusion of hydrogen from a reservoir within Earth, perhaps it’s core. Not proof, but possibly a step in that direction?

 

Regards, Charlie

[Turtle]

...

Meanwhile, fluid and gaseous emissions from Lost City undersea vents were sampled with titanium collection devices designed to avoid any contamination by sea water, which had been the problem in the past. Hot water and hydrogen compounds were found in these collection devices and they were analyzed with great care to avoid any outside contamination; unlike the open air laboratory procedures in the past.

 

The water was found to contain NO Carbon 14, therefore it could not have come from subsidence of sea water into the ocean crust or from any other organic source. The emissions appeared to be completely inorganic in origin. The same for the hydrogen compounds found in these emissions, such as methane, even kerosene and other related compounds. This raises the question about the claimed origin of hydro-carbons to be only biological, as well as the origin of water. Again, NO organic origin as indicated by Carbon 14 was found.

 

Science/AAAS | Science Magazine: Sign In February 1, 2008

 

If I didn't mess up the reference, again running on memory from over a month ago due to time limitations, this looks good to me for the possible an inorganic effusion of hydrogen from a reservoir within Earth, perhaps it’s core. Not proof, but possibly a step in that direction?

 

Regards, Charlie

 

Roger all that. :) The link goes to a registration/payment only access page. :( On the Lost City however, we do have an article here on it in the News section: http://hypography.com/forums/general-science-news/14068-lost-city-pumps-life-essential-chemicals.html

 

Hydrocarbons -- molecules critical to life -- are being generated by the simple interaction of seawater with the rocks under the Lost City hydrothermal vent field in the mid-Atlantic Ocean. ...

 

If my fuzzy old head recalls, the carbon isotope(s) found only indicate the carbon was not in the atmosphere. I'll have a re-read myself. :doh: :) :hihi:

[Moontanman]

In response to a request from BUFFY, I have combined my Introduction Posts into a new thread for Earth Science enthusiasts to review.

 

Ok, I'll give this one a shot, it does seem counterintuative to think of hydrogen at the Earth's core but lots of things are counter intuative. so here goes

 

1. The most popular theory [assumption, concept, guess, etc.] about Earth's composition appears to be based solely on a static model. In this theory, it is assumed that Gravity somehow forced an enormously excessively amount [in comparison to known galactic proportions] of mainly iron to move inward thru molten mantle materials [with temperature only an assumption], leaving other, heavier elements behind [physically impossible], and form proto-Earth's core. This is illogical to the core. [Pun.]

 

Actually the other heavy elements are thouhgt to have been left behind because they were bound up in combination with other lighter elements and didn't travel to the core like iron.

 

 

2. A dynamic model of Earth includes centrifugal force, a fact which seems to have been ignored in popular assumptions and supporting computations. Because Earth spins [like everything in the universe], it has a bulge at its equator as evidence of this force partially overcoming Gravity. Earth would have also slowed its spin rate over time, so there is no doubt Earth was spinning more rapidly in the past and probably disk shaped. Since Gravity would have even less effect at higher rates of spin, heavy elements could not possibly move into the center of proto-Earth's spinning mass, molten or frozen. Iron would only be found in proto-Earth's surface layers; where it is found today in approximately the expected galactic proportions and remains as physical evidence of the improbability of any iron being in Earth's core.

 

I think estimates of the Earths early spin rate put's it at about 18 hours, not enough I think to spin it into a disk.

 

3. Of course, if proto-Earth did not spin, there would be no pesky centrifugal force. Then, Gravity might have forced iron to move into proto-Earth's core, IF Earth was molten to the core and IF such an illogical excess of iron had existed. Unfortunately, under the same assumed conditions, it is doubtful that ALL other elements heavier than iron would somehow stay behind. They, being heavier, might even arrive in the core first.

 

Actually there is a school of thought that says that the earth's true core is uranium, about five miles in diameter. A natural liquid metal reactor that slows down and speeds as the results of the reaction poison the mix and then clear out. It could be what keeps the earth hot and accounts for the fact the earth radiats more energy that it should just from the energy of contraction and simple radiactive decay. (Jupiter does the same thing possibly for the very same reason, since jupiter is thought to have a metalic core of Iron and other heavy elements just like the earth)

 

4. So why not a Gold Core or Uranium Core? Using the same theory-assumption-guess of Gravity forcing iron into Earth's core, gold, uranium and other elements heavier than iron would have also been forced into Earth's core and probably be alloyed with the iron. Then Earth's core would have a far greater density than it appears to have today. So the Gravity only model seems highly unlikely.

 

I think I answered that already.

 

5. Currently, no one really knows the composition or temperature of Earth's interior. No one really knows if there are actually any radioactive elements there to heat the interior with their decay. Earth's interior might in fact be very cold and the only perceived heat flow be originating within continental surface layers and hydrogen-oxygen reactions within Earth's crust.

 

Cold? This accounts for vulcanism, drifting continents, the mid oceanic ridge, the molten mantle, how? How could so much heat energy come out of the earth if it was cold inside? Hydrogen oxygen reactions lasting billions of years? do have heat energy released vs amount of hydrogen oxygen it would require to release that much energy? only a nuclear reaction could release that much energy over that time range.

 

In response to JANUS' claim, "There is the fact that you need a large amount of ferris (iron) material spinning at the center of the Earth to generate its magnetic field. ETC.,"

 

To JANUS and others: Sorry, this "Fact" is another incorrect assumption. In fact, you don't need any amount of ferric material in Earth's core to create a magnetic field. In fact, recent discoveries appear to indicate the "Fact" of "ferris" material being in the core is only an assumption resulting from historical ignorance.

 

1. The initial assumption of Earth's core being of iron was based on the discovery of Earth having a magnetic field when scientists only knew of iron being the only element able to create Earth's magnetic field. However, it was later discovered that Hydrogen can also become a magnetic metal as well as incredibly dense at core pressures, easily capable of generating Earth's magnetic field without any spinning being necessary.

 

While hydrogen might do this under the right conditions the core of the earth isn't the right conditions.

 

2. Earth having an iron core was at first only a logical, albeit ignorant guess, whether true or not. Then a misunderstood calculation by Sir Robert Boyle was used by some scientists to support their assumption that Earth's temperature increased with increasing depth to the degree that Earth's core was also molten. Actually, Boyle only calculated the rate at which temperature increased with increasing depth in Wales tin mines, as a means of settling a miner's pay scale dispute. He also concluded temperatures only increased with increasing depth due to the miner's heat energy input and the decreasing efficiency of air conditioning as depth increased.

 

the earth iron core couldn't be molten, it has to be a solid core of compressed iron crystals. To much pressure for it be molten even at temps higher than the surface of the sun.

 

3. Unfortunately, Boyle's pay scale calculation of temperature increasing with depth was used by self-serving scientists to "prove" their assumption of Earth's core also being molten; to explain how iron could have flowed into the core. Of course, then there was the question of how Earth's core managed to remain molten for billions of years.

 

A nuclear reactor at the core five miles in diameter, contraction energy?

 

4. Well, about 100 years ago, the discovery of radioactivity decay was assumed to be the heat creating factor in the mantle which kept Earth's core molten and the answer as to how the core could have stayed molten for billions of years. Unfortunately, radioactive elements are largely located in continental surface layers. A fact which seems to have been conveniently ignored by the Hot Iron Core enthusiasts.

 

see above

 

 

5. Then there is the fact that natural openings and sealed, abandoned mines and bore holes in Earth's continental layers get cooler with depth. Nothing except the mines and bore holes being worked will increase in temperature with increasing depth and even they cool off when not being worked, i.e., no longer being injected with heat generating energy.

 

this just isn't true for hole that are deep enough, oil comes out of the ground at very high temps, so does magma.

only a thin layer of the earths crust is cooled by contact with the surface. this temps is the average temp of the surface year round, warmer in the winter cooler in the summer. have you done any cave exploration?

 

6. More recently, the assumption of increasing heat with increasing depth was complicated by the fact that iron heated above 800C can't generate a magnetic field.

 

It can if it's highly compressed, this compression totally changes the properties of the iron at the core in both it's liquid phase and it's solid phase.

 

7. Therefore, another assumption claimed Earth's inner iron core was rotating within Earth's outer iron core and thus generating a magnetic field. However, the fact is, non-magnetic iron spinning inside non-magnetic iron still can't generate a magnetic field.

 

see above

 

8. Currently, many self-serving scientists and their graduate students, who can't risk disputing obvious inconsistencies, are now producing experiments and calculations which "prove" the initial assumptions of Earth having a hot iron core and generating Earth's magnetic field by spinning inside its outer iron core are correct. Unfortunately, any calculation, however complex and/or supported by any number of experiments, which includes just one assumed factor, will only produce a result with no validity; except to unquestioning believers.

 

Liquid sulfer has been shown to generate a magnetic field when rotated inside a sphere. sulfer isn't even metalic much less magnetic.

 

9. So I came to believe the mass of Earth's inner core spinning inside Earth's outer core, surrounded by mantle material at incredible pressures, was science fiction at best. I also came to believe such an illogical series of assumptions supporting the initial assumption of there being an iron core inside Earth were totally unnecessary when a simple, highly possible and most likely core of magnetic, metallic hydrogen is considered as a viable alternative.

 

I can't see your reasoning on that.

 

10. Metallic hydrogen had long been theorized before I learned in the 1950s that Russian researchers had produced small quantities, perhaps even before 1950. They reported it was a "silvery metal" and could exist at ambient temperatures and pressures, plus it had magnetic properties. How they produced it then was not known. However, USA researchers have produced quantities of metallic hydrogen more recently. Therefore, it appears the tremendous pressures within other giant planets may not be required to produce metallic hydrogen on Earth.

 

Do you have source that metallic hydrogen is stable at surface temps and pressures? If it was it would be the ultimate rocket propellant, if it can be made in quanity. What process in nature would produce metallic hydrogen seperate from a planet like jupiter? Deomposition of metallic hydrogen would release engery on scale of the nuclear rockets.

 

11. I suspect should hydrogen be compressed slowly to the pressures found within Earth's core, its density should become equal to that required for the core and generate Earth's magnetic field as well. However, I don't believe this experiment has been done as yet, but it may be done soon.

 

I would like to see that data.

 

12. Many years ago, experimenters at Carnegie Institute did apply near-core pressures to iron and reported the iron molecules became far too dense to compose Earth's core. Then, a critical firestorm from their peers erupted over their report and forced the experimenters to recant, at least for a moment. A good example of dogma believers refusing to even fairly consider the work of those who discover viable alternatives and/or the impossibility of popular assumptions.

 

the earths core it believed to be composed of ultra dense iron crystals, I don't see your point.

 

13. In response to my earlier posts, no one has yet tried to explain how an enormous excess of iron somehow passed thru many other, heavier elements to somehow become Earth's relatively massive core, leaving behind a reasonable amount in Earth's continental layers, or why we don't also have a core of gold or uranium or heavier elements alloyed with this excess of iron IF Gravity were the dominate factor.

 

The fact that heavyier elements are much less pletiful than iron and mostly bound up in chemicals explains it. As a side note, much if not all the pure metals found in the earths crust are thought to be there due to concentration by biological processes.

 

Just try to consider metallic, magnetic hydrogen as an alternative core material and see what happens.

 

I don't see how hydrogen could be there in pure form at all. sulfer is thought to a significant part of the outer core.

 

To ALL: If any want to expand their beliefs beyond the popular assumptions regarding Earth's core, there are books and articles by Neil B. Christainson and C. Warren Hunt and others which explain the probability of Earth having a hydrogen core in both greater detail and far better than I. My book on the subject was written too long ago to be a useful reference today. I should also add the possibility of Earth having a hydrogen core was considered very likely by scientists many centuries before the recognition of Earth's magnetic field led to the illogical assumption of Earth having an iron core.

 

Regards, CharlieO

 

How did I do?

[Eclogite]

If I didn't mess up the reference, again running on memory from over a month ago due to time limitations, this looks good to me for the possible an inorganic effusion of hydrogen from a reservoir within Earth, perhaps it’s core. Not proof, but possibly a step in that direction?

Here is the abstract of the paper you referenced.

 

Proskurowsk, G. et al Abiogenic Hydrocarbon Production at Lost City Hydrothermal Field Science 1 February 2008:

Vol. 319.

Low-molecular-weight hydrocarbons in natural hydrothermal fluids have been attributed to abiogenic production by Fischer-Tropsch type (FTT) reactions, although clear evidence for such a process has been elusive. Here, we present concentration, and stable and radiocarbon isotope, data from hydrocarbons dissolved in hydrogen-rich fluids venting at the ultramafic-hosted Lost City Hydrothermal Field. A distinct "inverse" trend in the stable carbon and hydrogen isotopic composition of C1 to C4 hydrocarbons is compatible with FTT genesis. Radiocarbon evidence rules out seawater bicarbonate as the carbon source for FTT reactions, suggesting that a mantle-derived inorganic carbon source is leached from the host rocks. Our findings illustrate that the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in nature may occur in the presence of ultramafic rocks, water, and moderate amounts of heat.

[Moontanman]

Here is the abstract of the paper you referenced.

 

Proskurowsk, G. et al Abiogenic Hydrocarbon Production at Lost City Hydrothermal Field Science 1 February 2008:

Vol. 319.

Low-molecular-weight hydrocarbons in natural hydrothermal fluids have been attributed to abiogenic production by Fischer-Tropsch type (FTT) reactions, although clear evidence for such a process has been elusive. Here, we present concentration, and stable and radiocarbon isotope, data from hydrocarbons dissolved in hydrogen-rich fluids venting at the ultramafic-hosted Lost City Hydrothermal Field. A distinct "inverse" trend in the stable carbon and hydrogen isotopic composition of C1 to C4 hydrocarbons is compatible with FTT genesis. Radiocarbon evidence rules out seawater bicarbonate as the carbon source for FTT reactions, suggesting that a mantle-derived inorganic carbon source is leached from the host rocks. Our findings illustrate that the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in nature may occur in the presence of ultramafic rocks, water, and moderate amounts of heat.

 

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing, are we talking about hydrogen and it's compounds in the mantle? (see Gold "The Deep Hot Biosphere") or are we talking about an actual mass of hydrogen the size of what we know as the Earth's core? If you are talking about the Earths core actually being made of hydrogen the biggest stumbling block I can point out is the Earth's gravity. A mass of metallic hydrogen the size of the Earths core, about the size of the moon if I remember correctly wouldn't be massive enough, even in it's metallic phase to generate the Earth's gravity field, that and where did this metallic hydrogen come from? Metallic hydrogen is only thought to exist in the under layers of massive planets like Jupiter, no mechanism I know of allows it's formation in nature anywhere else. Even Jupiter is thought to have a rocky metallic core with the metallic hydrogen over laying that core. The Earth is thought to have been formed from lots of rocks called chondrites which are high in carbon and hydrocarbons (again see Thomas Gold's book "The Deep Hot Biosphere") I really don't see how something as light as metallic hydrogen could compose the Earth's core.

[HydrogenBond]

The oceans, which cover the earth, are slightly basic and therefore have a slight negative charge. This is caused by the proportion of atoms within the ocean water. In terms of oxidation and reduction the slight negative charge of the ocean water, gives it a slight reduction potential relative to neutral water. The hydrogen and hydrogen related compounds within the vents are reduced materials. Both the vents and the oceans show affects on the reduction side, with the ocean water exhibiting a lower level relative to the vent compounds.

 

If we go deeper and assume the reduction potential continues to increase, the negative oceans would be an equilibrium induction with a reduction potential that is occurring inside the earth. Either iron or hydrogen, could support this scenario. A solid iron core only has to oxidize. The electrons can also come from hydrogen. Both would make heat, but with the H and O generating more.

 

The question is where is the potential coming from to drive this. One possible source is the atmospheric oxygen. It is charge neutral but has a strong affinity for electrons. One observation that supports this is, O2 is more soluble in basic water than in neutral or acidic water. It has an affinity for electron density, while also being neutral in apparent charge. It has to do with orbital addition and the octet. Life keeps generating the O2, so the tug of potential is constant, due to solar power.

[Moontanman]

The oceans, which cover the earth, are slightly basic and therefore have a slight negative charge. This is caused by the proportion of atoms within the ocean water. In terms of oxidation and reduction the slight negative charge of the ocean water, gives it a slight reduction potential relative to neutral water. The hydrogen and hydrogen related compounds within the vents are reduced materials. Both the vents and the oceans show affects on the reduction side, with the ocean water exhibiting a lower level relative to the vent compounds.

 

If we go deeper and assume the reduction potential continues to increase, the negative oceans would be an equilibrium induction with a reduction potential that is occurring inside the earth. Either iron or hydrogen, could support this scenario. A solid iron core only has to oxidize. The electrons can also come from hydrogen. Both would make heat, but with the H and O generating more.

 

The question is where is the potential coming from to drive this. One possible source is the atmospheric oxygen. It is charge neutral but has a strong affinity for electrons. One observation that supports this is, O2 is more soluble in basic water than in neutral or acidic water. It has an affinity for electron density, while also being neutral in apparent charge. It has to do with orbital addition and the octet. Life keeps generating the O2, so the tug of potential is constant, due to solar power.

 

I uderstand all that but I still don't see the energy potitial for what we see on the earth or a source of all the helium three that comes out of the earth. A source of nuclear energy, radioactive decay or a natural reactor on the other hand could be the source of the helium three that is being vented from the earth. Is this related to the core being metallic hydrogen? If so then how do you account for the Earths mass? A core of hydrogen metallic or not would greatly decrease the Earths mass way too much.

[Pyrotex]

Has anyone considered the Earth's MASS?

This has been very accurately measured.

So has the Earth's volume.

The density of the Earth is so high that it only makes sense if the Earth's core is iron.

Case closed.

[modest]

Has anyone considered the Earth's MASS?

This has been very accurately measured.

So has the Earth's volume.

The density of the Earth is so high that it only makes sense if the Earth's core is iron.

Case closed.

 

Indeed.

 

-modest

[Eclogite]

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing, are we talking about hydrogen and it's compounds in the mantle? (see Gold "The Deep Hot Biosphere") or are we talking about an actual mass of hydrogen the size of what we know as the Earth's core?

CharlieO seemed to feel that the paper I offered the abstract from provided evidence for a hydrogen core. His logic seemed to be:

1) Hydrogen is emitted during volcanic eruptions and seeps up through the Earth's crust.

2) Conventional geochemists believe this largely derives from seawater carried into the mantle on subducting plates.

3) The quoted research shows that the carbon in hydrocarbons emitted from submarine vents was not recirculated material.

3) Therefore - says CharlieO - the same applies to the hydrogen.

4) Therefore the hydrogen must come from somewhere else and a hydrogen core is the most logical source.

 

It is points 3 and 4 that I feel are unjustified. If I have done a poor job of representing Charlie's argument, perhaps he can come back.

 

The objections to the hydrogen core are numerous:

 

1) Not consistent with current understanding of planetary formation.

2) Not consistent with observed meterorite compositions, cosmic elemental abundances and solar composition.

3) Insufficient mass to provide observed Earth mass.

4) Inconsistent with observed seismic details.

[Moontanman]

CharlieO seemed to feel that the paper I offered the abstract from provided evidence for a hydrogen core. His logic seemed to be:

1) Hydrogen is emitted during volcanic eruptions and seeps up through the Earth's crust.

2) Conventional geochemists believe this largely derives from seawater carried into the mantle on subducting plates.

3) The quoted research shows that the carbon in hydrocarbons emitted from submarine vents was not recirculated material.

3) Therefore - says CharlieO - the same applies to the hydrogen.

4) Therefore the hydrogen must come from somewhere else and a hydrogen core is the most logical source.

 

It is points 3 and 4 that I feel are unjustified. If I have done a poor job of representing Charlie's argument, perhaps he can come back.

 

The objections to the hydrogen core are numerous:

 

1) Not consistent with current understanding of planetary formation.

2) Not consistent with observed meterorite compositions, cosmic elemental abundances and solar composition.

3) Insufficient mass to provide observed Earth mass.

4) Inconsistent with observed seismic details.

 

For another, and I think more plausable, explination of where the hygrogen comes from see "Thomas Golds" really great book "The Deep Hot Biosphere". What he says is basically that the Earth accumulated a great deal of carbonatious chonderite type material during it's formation and this material is slowing up welling from under the crust and this is where we get the oil, natural gas, and coal everyone assumes is fossil fuel. For detailed discription of what is very reasonable theory his book is a great read.

[CharlieO]

Gentlemen,

 

Finally got some time to myself and happily reviewed the many comments posted since my last visit. Most impressed with the details, reasoning, efforts and assumptions - “It is thought,” etc.

 

Delay has been due to care-giving, something I pray you will all be spared as you grow older. Not how I planned to spend my retirement or a career I trained for in the past.

 

Please rest assured, many good points were raised by you for which I will have an observation or two in the future, when I find more time to consider them more fully and compose my answers. Can’t say enough about how much this exchange has helped me survive mentally.

 

One question. If physical testing by Carnegie Institute and others in the past has established the fact than Iron becomes too dense at core pressures to be Earth’s core, does anyone know what is currently believed to be the composition of Earth’s core? This would help me with some of my observations. [i haven’t been able to spend much time of late to surf the Internet and learn of the latest assumptions.]

 

Thanks to all, “I’ll be back.” CharlieO

[Turtle]

Gentlemen,

 

Finally got some time to myself and happily reviewed the many comments posted since my last visit. Most impressed with the details, reasoning, efforts and assumptions - “It is thought,” etc.

 

Delay has been due to care-giving, something I pray you will all be spared as you grow older. Not how I planned to spend my retirement or a career I trained for in the past.

 

Please rest assured, many good points were raised by you for which I will have an observation or two in the future, when I find more time to consider them more fully and compose my answers. Can’t say enough about how much this exchange has helped me survive mentally.

 

One question. If physical testing by Carnegie Institute and others in the past has established the fact than Iron becomes too dense at core pressures to be Earth’s core, does anyone know what is currently believed to be the composition of Earth’s core? This would help me with some of my observations. [i haven’t been able to spend much time of late to surf the Internet and learn of the latest assumptions.]

 

Thanks to all, “I’ll be back.” CharlieO

 

Hey! What are you doin' with my ol' shoes? No matter. Stretch your brain learning to tie them one-handed, with both the left & right hands. :lol:

 

I think this article that I mentioned in post #68 is the 'latest & greatest' I have run across on the subject. >> Mystery Of Earth's Innermost Core Solved

 

Don't burn your lip on that hot green tea. :sleep: :phones:

[Moontanman]

Gentlemen,

 

Finally got some time to myself and happily reviewed the many comments posted since my last visit. Most impressed with the details, reasoning, efforts and assumptions - “It is thought,” etc.

 

Delay has been due to care-giving, something I pray you will all be spared as you grow older. Not how I planned to spend my retirement or a career I trained for in the past.

 

Please rest assured, many good points were raised by you for which I will have an observation or two in the future, when I find more time to consider them more fully and compose my answers. Can’t say enough about how much this exchange has helped me survive mentally.

 

One question. If physical testing by Carnegie Institute and others in the past has established the fact than Iron becomes too dense at core pressures to be Earth’s core, does anyone know what is currently believed to be the composition of Earth’s core? This would help me with some of my observations. [i haven’t been able to spend much time of late to surf the Internet and learn of the latest assumptions.]

 

Thanks to all, “I’ll be back.” CharlieO

 

What do you mean by Iron is too dense at the Earth's core? It has been thought the Iron at the Earth's core was compressed in to a super dense crystalline structure that couldn't exist at the surface. At one time it was thought that solids could not be significantly compressed but modern research has disproved this. At temps higher than the surface of the sun and compressed into a super dense crystalline structure the iron is atypical to say the least but too dense? The pressure would certainly make it as dense as was necessary to resist the pressure wouldn't it?

[Eclogite]

Moontanman,

Charlie has cited, on this or another thread, research that purports to rule out the possibility of iron forming the core of the Earth based upon pressure/density considerations. I can find nothing in on-line literature searches to indicate this research has been duplicated or widely accepted. All the material I have found on the core acknowledges and accepts that iron dominates the composition. This is true even when you have some radical theories such as the uranium core.

[Cold-co]

New observation:

There is a curiosity with seismic wave speeds that causes some concern. The ratio of P wave speeds to S wave speeds in Earth’s upper layers run 1.8, but when they pass the Gutenberg discontinuity they change to a ratio of 1.15. It is as though the core is made up of an exotic material not familiar to us on the surface. In your studies have you run into any explanation for this lack of conformity?

[Turtle]

New observation:

There is a curiosity with seismic wave speeds that causes some concern. The ratio of P wave speeds to S wave speeds in Earth’s upper layers run 1.8, but when they pass the Gutenberg discontinuity they change to a ratio of 1.15. It is as though the core is made up of an exotic material not familiar to us on the surface. In your studies have you run into any explanation for this lack of conformity?

 

yes.

 

Gutenberg Discontinuity

The Gutenberg discontinuity occurs within Earth's interior at a depth of about 1,800 mi (2,900 km) below the surface, where there is an abrupt change in the seismic waves (generated by earthquakes or explosions) that travel through Earth. At this depth, primary seismic waves (P waves) decrease in velocity while secondary seismic waves (S waves) disappear completely. S waves shear material, and cannot transmit through liquids, so it is believed that the unit above the discontinuity is solid, while the unit below is in a liquid, or molten, form. This distinct change marks the boundary between two sections of the earth's interior, known as the lower mantle (which is considered solid) and the underlying outer core (believed to be molten).

 

Read more: Gutenberg Discontinuity