Register to reply

Heating of the earth's core

by carl fischbach
Tags: core, earth, heating
Share this thread:
Chemicalsuperfreak
#37
Nov3-03, 04:34 PM
P: 324
Originally posted by Smart Guy
If you told me that the earth was hollow I would say okay, Back that up with facts.
Theories should be proven. The statements I made were all facts.To disprove my theory would require facts of your own. The Cores heat is not generated but stored in the mantle. The illustration you showed me had a core1 and core 2 the interactions between the two create only one core. No proof. Well my proof comes from the fact that since the mantle is the only true liquid and "the cores middle" aka... inner core is solid. The mantle has to store heat, because like you said the pressure at the earth's core is so great there is very little molecule movement unlike the mantle. And we all know heat is generated by movement of molecules to a certain point.


What do you think...
And be nice
Heat isn't generated by the movement of molecules. Heat IS the movement of moleculars, or actually the transfer of energy from one group of moving molecules to a slower group of moving molecules. But like I've stated above, most of the interior's heat is due to radioactive decay. If there wasn't this source of heat, the interior would have frozen billions of year ago.
Nommos Prime (Dogon)
#38
Nov3-03, 10:32 PM
Nommos Prime (Dogon)'s Avatar
P: 383
What do you guys think of this theory regarding the heating of the Earth's core? (Vacuum heart theory). The Russians have done some great work on it (the paper loses a bit in it's translation).

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Nebu.../engearth.html
Smart Guy
#39
Nov4-03, 09:00 AM
P: 15
Sorry for the mistake. Heat IS the movement of molecules. Also a very good argument for Radioactive Decay. Maybe there is not just one source of heat, I believe that the amount of heat transfered down by plate movement ie friction between the two would be sufficient enough to compensate for any heat loss even over billions of years. That heat is then transferred down and stored in the mantle the rest is realeased.
sage
#40
Nov4-03, 11:35 AM
P: 130
mantle is NOT LIQUID. one can infer the state of the earth rocks by the velocity of the seismic waves. mantle in fact turns out to be a kind of solid which can flow(or semisolid). outer core is fluid while inner core is solid. and yes the crust is a poor heat conducter. another thing. heat is THE GENERATOR OF ALL TECTONIC MOVEMENTS ON EARTH. don't you think if the heat inside earth was only residual heat and hence always decreasing with time, the earth would have been a much quieter place? in fact more heat is being generated than can be released, leading to heat buildup, local melting, convection current, mantle plumes, plate tectonics and what not. thing to see is whether radioactive decay can account for all this heat, scientists seem to think so and we should find out what they are saying before jumping at other alternatives.
Smart Guy
#41
Nov5-03, 10:17 AM
P: 15
Originally posted by sage
mantle is NOT LIQUID. one can infer the state of the earth rocks by the velocity of the seismic waves. mantle in fact turns out to be a kind of solid which can flow(or semisolid). outer core is fluid while inner core is solid. and yes the crust is a poor heat conducter. another thing. heat is THE GENERATOR OF ALL TECTONIC MOVEMENTS ON EARTH. don't you think if the heat inside earth was only residual heat and hence always decreasing with time, the earth would have been a much quieter place? in fact more heat is being generated than can be released, leading to heat buildup, local melting, convection current, mantle plumes, plate tectonics and what not. thing to see is whether radioactive decay can account for all this heat, scientists seem to think so and we should find out what they are saying before jumping at other alternatives.
I had you, but I lost my whole reply. 4000 characters down the drain.
Well thought out and articulated. I was just getting started good too. To sum it up I said the Mantle was kept at a constant temp. Heated by friction and cooled by cracks in the earths crust. I mentioned the amount of seismic activity per day. So on and So fourth


Dont reply please im disgusted. Instead let do another topic.[b(]
Mr. Robin Parsons
#42
Nov16-03, 05:14 PM
P: 1,560
Originally posted by Smart Guy
If you told me that the earth was hollow I would say okay, Back that up with facts.
Theories should be proven. The statements I made were all facts.To disprove my theory would require facts of your own. The Cores heat is not generated but stored in the mantle. The illustration you showed me had a core1 and core 2 the interactions between the two create only one core. No proof. Well my proof comes from the fact that since the mantle is the only true liquid and "the cores middle" aka... inner core is solid. The mantle has to store heat, because like you said the pressure at the earth's core is so great there is very little molecule movement unlike the mantle. And we all know heat is generated by movement of molecules to a certain point.
What do you think...
And be nice
"Heat storage" is an unknown phenomenon in current Science, laws of thermodynamics prohibits it, all heat is radiant......
FZ+
#43
Nov16-03, 06:40 PM
FZ+'s Avatar
P: 1,954
But that heat does not radiate away instantly, and it dissipates away differently for different objects. I think heat storage here is used to mean a substance that radiates very slowly, so that the heat is temporarily delayed within the mantle.
Mr. Robin Parsons
#44
Nov17-03, 09:46 AM
P: 1,560
Originally posted by FZ+
But that heat does not radiate away instantly, and it dissipates away differently for different objects. I think heat storage here is used to mean a substance that radiates very slowly, so that the heat is temporarily delayed within the mantle.
Nice thought, problem though with the mantle, as Rock is NOT a good insulator, actually quite a poor one as most able insulators work on the basis of 'trapping' heat in gasses, as to slow transfer rates. Water is a much better insulator then mantle rock, but its coating is superficial, though still effective.

There is a tremendous amount of pressure at the center of the Earth, perhaps the minute 'Working(s)' of the plastic(s) (rock/metals/minerals) at those points, generate more heating, through pressurization, (Not pressure) then is currently thought.

Perhaps it is that minutia that actually works, consistently over time, via the stresses and pulls of the "spacial environment" (Sun moon, other planets, satellites) that is generating a quotient of that heating effect.
Mr. Robin Parsons
#45
Nov19-03, 03:27 PM
P: 1,560
Perhaps you should understand that I am not arguing against heat storage, (by mantle) just that the amount of heat required, tells us clearly that, there must be other sources for that heating, as the generation of heat must be ongoing to have lasted this 4.5 billion years that the planet has had to cool off...

The Apollo astronauts found the Moon to be emitting/generating Heat, maybe the rest of the panetary bodies do so to, just relitavized to their respective spacializations.

The manner of the storage is probably a little more complex then just the idea of 'dissipation alone' as agent/operator of the storage mechanism(?).
Andre
#46
Nov22-03, 09:23 AM
PF Gold
Andre's Avatar
P: 5,458
I think I said it before but my guess is that one of the possible heat sources is friction, especially in the inner /outer core boundary and the core mantle boundary, where external forces acting upon earth, especially the precession of the equinoxes will generate accellerations, hence movement and hence drag or resistance.

It has been argued that Earth magnetic field is tied to that precession reactions as there has been a study long ago that suggested that there was some correlation between precession rates and magnetic field of the different planets. The paleomagnetic excursions, that we see about every 50-100,000 years may indicate that some severe things are going on over there, chaotic eddies perhaps that create a lot of drag/heat periodically. This all slows down Earth. So the Earths turning energy may be converted to heat.

Just thinking.
Mr. Robin Parsons
#47
Nov22-03, 09:39 AM
P: 1,560
Gotta remember that there is almost 4 M bars of pressure at the center, that is a lot of pressure/pressurization that has yet to be explained as to how that is brought into being.....and pressurizational processes generate heat/ing....

As for the existence of "boundary levels", how the heck does that happen, and why?? Mantle/outer core, outer core/core, core/innercore and the idea that 'rock' acts like a 'plastic' is just so neat!
Nereid
#48
Nov22-03, 11:25 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,014
Originally posted by Andre
I think I said it before but my guess is that one of the possible heat sources is friction, especially in the inner /outer core boundary and the core mantle boundary, where external forces acting upon earth, especially the precession of the equinoxes will generate accellerations, hence movement and hence drag or resistance.

It has been argued that Earth magnetic field is tied to that precession reactions as there has been a study long ago that suggested that there was some correlation between precession rates and magnetic field of the different planets. The paleomagnetic excursions, that we see about every 50-100,000 years may indicate that some severe things are going on over there, chaotic eddies perhaps that create a lot of drag/heat periodically. This all slows down Earth. So the Earths turning energy may be converted to heat.

Just thinking.
Hey Andre, how about taking out an old envelope and doing some OOM (order of magnitude) calculations on the back of it? You know, surface area of your favourite boundary, coefficient of friction, distance moved, energy generated, time period, ... you could quickly determine how realistic your thinking is!
carl fischbach
#49
Nov22-03, 06:19 PM
P: n/a
I've found an interesting web page that virtually proves that a column of gas under gravity is warmer at the bottom than the top, and can be
viewed at www.firstgravitymachine.com/index.phtml this explains jupiter's core temperature of 20,000 K and a significantly cooler surface temperature although it is the overal cooling
of the planet and work done by gravitational contraction of the planet that is responsible
for it's excess heat. It is this gavitational
heating effect that explains the temperature
differences at various altitudes on earth. Why not take it one step further and apply it to the earth itself.
Andre
#50
Nov23-03, 07:54 AM
PF Gold
Andre's Avatar
P: 5,458
Nereid,
I still think that almost nothing times almost infinity can still add up to something.

I think we can assume that the sun-moon gravity force that generates the precession of the Equinoxes, only works on the equatorial bulge and hence the lithosphere/mantle. Somehow this movement has to be transmitted to the solid inner core, to keep aligned. The precession cycle it is completed in a mere 26,000 years, the spin axis of the solid inner core has to be dragged along over 2 x 23 degrees in only 13,000 years. Now this is only a infinitesinal small rate per second but the turning momentum of the inner core is of a tremendous value and it increases very rapidly, to the fifth power of the radius if I'm right when the core cools down and grows.

I need a big envellope.
Mr. Robin Parsons
#51
Nov23-03, 11:01 AM
P: 1,560
If you go to any gasoline station you will find the gas pump 'tagged' with a "volume adjusted" labelling. Here, at this latitude, it reads "Volume temperature compensated to 15 C", this is due to the simple fact that the planet is 'heated' proven by its generation of a consistant temperature, just under the surface, (About 8' down here) of 15 C, over the entire YEAR! (without an great fluctuations)

There is a gradient of temperature as you press down into the earth, it is measurable in feet/meters (whatever you like) but it is a consistant rise in temperature over distance in. It is proven by what has been shown on television, from the deep mines in Africa, about a mile and a half down, a thermometer pressed against the mine's walls showed a temperature of 56 C (Hot enough for ya?)

That gravity is involved in the heating was once discussed in "Astro and Cosmo" in the thread "Proof of the Cause of Gravity", by myself, et al.
Andre
#52
Nov23-03, 01:27 PM
PF Gold
Andre's Avatar
P: 5,458
Fully correct Mr Robin,

However there is also an idea that the heat in the crust could be radiogenic:

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/9512/msg00248.html

3. More radiogenic heat is produced from the granitic continental crust, which contains higher concentrations of the radioactive elements and is thicker than the basaltic oceanic crust.
(...)
6. Some scientists believe that natural nuclear reactors such as the one at Oklo in Gabon, Africa (Draganic and others, 1990) were much more common during early earth history. These reactors may have raised radioactive levels at many places on the earth. During early earth history fissionable U-235 made up about 25% of the uranium. Today U-235 makes up only about 3/4 of one percent of uranium due to its shorter half-lifel (0.7 billion years)
Nereid
I'd appreciate you're opinion on this one:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showt...threadid=30992
Nereid
#53
Nov24-03, 05:09 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,014
Andre wrote: I still think that almost nothing times almost infinity can still add up to something.
That's why an OOM calculation is a good place to start! You could even approach it from the other direction - since we know the rate of heat loss from the inner Earth (i.e. not counting any latent effects of absorbed solar radiation), your idea has to come up with a number that's between ~0.01 and 100 times this value (at the OOM stage, it's OK to work with a couple of powers of ten). You say you know the timescale for the effect you propose, you know the mass of the Earth (and its components), and you can work out the forces with only a very small envelope. That leaves only one unknown (maybe two). At this level of accuracy, does the answer seem realistic?
Mr. Robin Parsons
#54
Nov24-03, 09:10 AM
P: 1,560
Originally posted by Andre
(SNIP) However there is also an idea that the heat in the crust could be radiogenic: (SNoP)
Yes!, I agreed that there is radioactive heating, just that it didn't seem that that was the 'only method' of heating that was involved in the "whole process of heating". Heck "working a plastic" will cause the 'plastic' to heat.....gravity is involved as well though, just it isn't 'current theory'.

What is the 'Randi' connection, don't get it???


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Composition of the Earth's core Earth 3
Why Does The Earth's Core Spin Earth 2
CPU differences: quad core, dual core, etc. for CFD Mechanical Engineering 3
Air core Coils vs. Metal core coils Electrical Engineering 1
The Earth's core Earth 6