PDA

View Full Version : Discussion: First Genesis Samples Shipped Out



Fraser
2004-Sep-24, 08:44 PM
SUMMARY: NASA scientists picking through the wreckage of Genesis' capsule have shipped off the first sample to the University of California, Berkeley for further analysis. These samples were attached to the interior lid of the capsule - its "lid foils" - and the scientists think they'll be able to recover 75-80% of this material. The next challenge are the four collector arrays which were fairly damaged, but some large pieces have been recovered.

What do you think about this story? Post your comments below.

om@umr.edu
2004-Sep-24, 08:51 PM
That's good news, Fraser.

Can we get a list of the elements they will analyze?

1. Oxygen is probably the easiest to analyze.

Oxygen has three stable isotopes: O-16, O-17 and O-18.

However Robert Clayton's group found that mono-isotopic O-16 (a product of He-burning) seems to have been added to many parts of the early solar system.

Otherwise, simple mass fractionation in the quiet solar wind should enrich the O-17/O-16 ratio by about 32% and the O-18/O-16 ratio by about 71%.

2. Nitrogen may be analyzed, but the results may be difficult to interpret.

Nitrogen has only two stable isotopes: N-14 and N-15. That makes it impossible to distinguish fractionation effects from nuclear effects.

John Kerridge's measurements on Nitrogen in lunar samples revealed an increase in the N-15/N-14 ratio in the solar wind over geologic time.

Apparently "excess" N-15 has been produced near the solar surface. Measurements on solar-flare Nitrogen indicate the "excess" N-15 is in the outer skin of the Sun.

For many elements, solar flares bring up heavier atomic weights than those in the quiet solar wind. For Nitrogen, solar flares bring up Nitrogen of lighter atomic weight than that in the quiet solar wind.

3. Magnesium might be the most informative.

Magnesium has three stable isotopes: Mg-24, Mg-25 and Mg-26.

Simple mass fractionation in the quiet solar wind should enrich the Mg-25/Mg-24 ratio by about 20% and the Mg-26/Mg-24 ratio by about 44%.

The degree of mass fractionation will be lower in solar-flare material. Terrestrial contamination will also tend to reduce the mass fractionation observed.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

om@umr.edu
2004-Sep-25, 09:58 AM
[1.] The $260 million Genesis mission was suppose to provide insight on the formation of the solar system by showing:

1a. What the Sun is made of.

1b. Why Earth is different from other planets.

1c. If planets and the Sun are made of the same stuff.

http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/educate...ionoverview.pdf (http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/educate/kitchen/resource/factsheets/missionoverview.pdf)

Cal Tech's Dr. Don Burnett is the Principal Investigator.

[2.] The current status and a revealing picture of Genesis are available at:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/genesis/...n-092404-1.html (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/genesis/multimedia/gen-092404-1.html)

[3.] I have not yet found which elements they had planned to analyze or pictures of the "clean room" at the Utah desert crash site.

However the above pdf file notes that "Optimism continues to grow as the science team believes that a significant repository of solar wind materials survived the hard landing and has been recovered."

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

Higher Dimensions
2004-Sep-25, 11:40 PM
Thank you, Oliver. Posts like your first are why I read this forum. And your second entry adds to the article. In it, you link to a picture caption disclosing that Genesis parts were moved from Dugway to Denver, not just Berkeley, as the article says. My degree is in accounting, so I'll try to keep my head above water and rephrase parts of your first post.

1. It appears that fractionation is a method to translate current measurements of isotope separation quantities into historical quantities. Plugging the Genesis oxygen measurements into the known ratios will yield the original quantities. I'm guessing that having 3 variables and thus 2 ratios makes possible some kind of simultaneous equations.

2. For 2 reasons, the nitrogen results won't be as reliable. a) Nitrogen has only 2 isotopes and thus 1 ratio, preventing oxygen's cross-verification method and forcing dependence upon the hypothesis from Kerridge's measurements.

b) The routine solar wind pushes isotopes up to a certain mass off of the Sun's surface. Periodic flares have more force and carry off heavier isotopes, which would otherwise have sat on the surface until disintegrating into lighter elementary particles. Nitrogen is an exception.

3. Magnesium is more informative than oxygen because, I'm guessing, a) the atom is bigger and contains more elementary particles, giving more measurement points to compare, increasing accuracy, and b) the Clayton effect is absent.

The gentle solar wind passively allows more orderly separation of isotopes than the swirling solar flares. The jolt of the crash also jumbled the separations, each of which bond with a different spacecraft hexagon material.

You need not tell me where I'm wrong, since that would require way too much time on your part. Just have a laugh at my feeble attempt.

om@umr.edu
2004-Sep-26, 12:17 AM
Basically right on all counts!

Good science and accounting are very closely related!

E.g., I couldn't have said it better, "The gentle solar wind passively allows more orderly separation of isotopes than the swirling solar flares."

Nitrogen isotope measurements have been a big surprise.

The data are consistent with N-15 production at the solar surface over billions of years.

Hans Bethe had suggested that N-15 was made in the CNO cycle.

But early neutrino measurements ruled out the CNO cycle.

And the CNO cycle was suppose to occur at the Sun's core.

Thank you for your kind comments.

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

PS - Measurements on Magnesium are also important because this is a refractory element.

PSS - The number of isotopes is indeed important! Xenon has nine stable isotopes: Xe-124, Xe-126, Xe-128, Xe-129, Xe-130, Xe-131, Xe-132, Xe-134, Xe-136. Measurements in many different laboratories show the lighter mass isotopes in the quiet solar wind are systematically enriched by about 3.5% per mass unit across this entire mass spectrum.

Higher Dimensions
2004-Sep-26, 12:53 PM
Thanks, Oliver. I learned something again.

om@umr.edu
2004-Sep-26, 01:31 PM
Higher Dimensions,

Accountants can estimate the the bulk composition of the Sun from:

i) A table of element abundances in the photosphere, and

ii) The mass separation of Xenon isotopes, 3.5% per mass unit.

Since the Xe-130/Xe-131 ratio is enriched by a factor of 1.035

1.035 = (131/130)^x

log (1.035) = x log (131/130)
log (1.035) = x [log(131)-log(130)]
0.015 = x[2.11727-2.11394]
0.015 = x [0.00333]
x = 300 x 0.015
x = 4.5

Therefore,
(Xe-131/Xe-130)-Sun = (Xe-131/Xe-130)-surface x (131/130)^4.5

In general, if H = Heavy mass and L = Light mass
Then (H/L)-bulk-Sun = (H/L)-surface-Sun x (H/L)^4.5 . . . eq. (1)

Let's apply this to a long standing problem in astrophysics:

Question: "Why does O/C = 2.35 in the Sun ?"

Answer: O/C = 2.35 in surface-Sun, not in the bulk-Sun !

(O/C)-bulk-Sun = (O/C)-surface-Sun x (16/12)^4.5

(O/C)-bulk-Sun = 2.35 x (16/12)^4.5

(O/C)-bulk-Sun = 2.35 x (1.333)^4.5

(O/C)-bulk-Sun = 2.35 x 3.65

(O/C)-bulk-Sun = 9

You can use eq. (1) to calculate any ratio of elements in the bulk Sun from the measured (H/L) ratio at the solar surface.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

antoniseb
2004-Sep-26, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Sep 26 2004, 01:31 PM
In general, if H = Heavy mass and L = Light mass
Then (H/L)-bulk-Sun = (H/L)-surface-Sun x (H/L)^4.5 . . . eq. (1)
Hi Higher Dimensions,

Dr. Manuel is asking you to believe that the apparent difference in isotope abundances on the surface of the sun is an anomaly, and that the inside has terrestrial abundances.

What he is not telling you is that there are good reasons to think that the terrestrial planets are where the mass-fractionation have happened. It is no coincidence that the solar abundances, the Jovian abundances, and the interstellar gas abundances match, while the abundances on the terrestrial planets vary considerably, favoring the heavy isotopes and elements. This is especially easily seen when looking at Deuterium abundance.

Believe his conclusions if you want. If you do so, you will enjoy the excitement of being part of a tiny minority arguing against all other solar & stellar astrophysicists.

om@umr.edu
2004-Sep-27, 12:42 AM
Higher Dimensions,

Apparently Anton is not an accountant.

The Genesis mission would be a total waste of tax funds if elements in the solar wind contained no information on the composition of the Sun !

But he is partially right. Many members of the space science community mistakenly assumed that the mass fractionation occurred in the terrestrial planets.

We showed in 1983 that mass fractionation in the terrestrial planets could not explain the data.

Later measurements on refractory elements, like Magnesium, confirmed that.

Measurements on other elements and isotopes in solar flares further confirmed that.

See: ""Composition of the Solar Interior: Information from Isotope Ratios"
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.pdf
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.ps

A more recent paper on measurements of elements in the photosphere confirm that mass-separation occurs in the Sun itself, much like that seen across isotopes in the quiet solar wind.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

PS - Deuterium is too easily produced by spallation reactions and too easily destroyed by fusion reactions to be a useful indicator isotope in the Sun. The D/H and He-3/He-4 ratios in Jupiter were useful in showing that deuterium burning in the early Sun cannot explain the high He-3/He-4 ratio in the solar wind. See: "Abundances of Hydrogen and Helium Isotopes in Jupiter"

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts/nolte_lietz.pdf
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts/nolte_lietz.ps

om@umr.edu
2004-Sep-27, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by antoniseb@Sep 26 2004, 02:49 PM
What he is not telling you is that there are good reasons to think that the terrestrial planets are where the mass-fractionation have happened.
Anton,

As was pointed out recently in the UT Iron Sun thread,

"The Earth's gravitational field is 300,000 times weaker than the Sun's.

But elemental segregation also occurs in the upper Earth's atmosphere, according to:"

http://www.towson.edu/~mroberge/Physical%2.../Atmosphere.pdf (http://www.towson.edu/~mroberge/Physical%20Web%20Materials/Atmosphere.pdf)

Segregation of elements and isotopes by mass-fractionation happens many places, Anton.

The real world cannot be deciphered by simple "either, or" reasoning.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

antoniseb
2004-Sep-27, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Sep 27 2004, 09:32 AM
Segregation of elements and isotopes by mass-fractionation happens many places, Anton.

The real world cannot be deciphered by simple "either, or" reasoning.

We are having a breakthrough here! What portion of the 4.56 mass fractionation exponent do you say has augmented the terrestrial ratios, as opposed to depleted the photospheric ratios? By what you've said above you no longer claim that it is zero.

om@umr.edu
2004-Sep-27, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by antoniseb@Sep 27 2004, 10:50 AM
What portion of the 4.56 mass fractionation exponent do you say has augmented the terrestrial ratios, as opposed to depleted the photospheric ratios?
Essentially all this mass-fractionation occurs in the Sun, as we first explained in 1983.

That might not be the case if we considered isotope ratios in the thin skin of H-rich material at the top of Earth's atmosphere.

http://www.towson.edu/~mroberge/Physical%2.../Atmosphere.pdf (http://www.towson.edu/~mroberge/Physical%20Web%20Materials/Atmosphere.pdf)

But so-called "solar" isotope ratios come from the thin vaneer of H-rich material at the Sun's surface.

The Sun is 329,390 times more massive than Earth !

Solar mass-fractionation is interrupted by solar flares.

Please study this data summary: "Composition of the Solar Interior: Information from Isotope Ratios"

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.pdf
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.ps

Independent measurements on material in the photosphere (manuscript submitted) confirm our 1983 conclusion that the mass-fractionation occurs in the Sun.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

antoniseb
2004-Sep-27, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Sep 27 2004, 02:55 PM
Essentially all this mass-fractionation occurs in the Sun, as we first explained in 1983.

How do you reconcile that statement with these recent previous statements of yours?

Segregation of elements and isotopes by mass-fractionation happens many places
The real world cannot be deciphered by simple "either, or" reasoning.


I take back my earlier claim of a breakthrough.

Higher Dimensions
2004-Sep-28, 09:08 AM
How flattering. Did you two start fighting over little old me?

om@umr.edu
2004-Sep-28, 12:37 PM
No.

Anton represents well the majority view in astrophysics and astronomy:

"The inside of the Sun is the same as its surface."

Or as the standard solar model claims,

"The Sun formed instantly as a homogeneous, throughly mixed, object, that neither gained nor loss mass."

Over 40 years of measurements convince me this is utter nonsense.

Several co-authors and reviewers obviously agree.

But the reputations of many powerful leaders of the scientific community are at stake.

The Sun:

i) accounts for about 99.9% of the mass of the solar system, and

ii) serves as a model for other stars in the cosmos..

The divergence of opinions began in 1975, when we discovered that all primordial Helium was linked with "Strange" Xenon at the birth of the solar system. Perhaps Anton was then in diapers - if even conceived!

Returning to science, possible mass fractionation sites that were considered:

1. Inside the Sun (which turned out to be correct),

2. In accelerating material into the Solar Wind (which may make a small contribution), and

3. In planetary material (which may make a smaller contribution).

A site we failed to consider, which may be important, is mass fractionation in the parent star that gave birth to the solar system.

Again, Higher Dimensions, I appreciate your comments. It is refreshing to speak with an accountant!

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

PS - We are making headway. That is why NASA invested $260 million on the Genesis mission to find "What is the Sun made of ?"

antoniseb
2004-Sep-28, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Sep 28 2004, 12:37 PM
The divergence of opinions began in 1975, when we discovered that all primordial Helium was linked with "Strange" Xenon at the birth of the solar system. Perhaps Anton was then in diapers - if even conceived!
Actually, I was in college then, taking a course based on Donald Clayton's book about the origins of the elements. None-the-less,

"The Sun formed instantly as a homogeneous, throughly mixed, object, that neither gained nor loss mass."
is a rather extreme and simplistic representation of the standard model. Obviously the 'instant' that the sun was formed took quite a while [perhaps millions of years], and the degree to which the material was 'thoroughly mixed' ignores minor local differentiation, and large scale processes affecting the contents of the accretion disk during planetary formation.

om@umr.edu
2004-Sep-28, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by antoniseb@Sep 28 2004, 02:08 PM

"The Sun formed instantly as a homogeneous, throughly mixed, object, that neither gained nor loss mass."
is a rather extreme and simplistic representation of the standard model. Obviously the 'instant' that the sun was formed took quite a while [perhaps millions of years], and the degree to which the material was 'thoroughly mixed' ignores minor local differentiation, and large scale processes affecting the contents of the accretion disk during planetary formation.
Really?

The standard solar model assumes there was no accretion or loss of material.

If the Sun formed by accreting material over "millions of years", the heavy elements would sink to the center.

How could the Sun avoid accreting material over these "millions of years" while the planets were forming in the "accretion disk"?

To avoid these "problems" and to preserve the illusion of a homogeneous Sun, the standard solar model (ssm) simply assumed there was no accretion or loss of material.

Sounds to me like something from Grimm's Fairy Tales !

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

PS - I have known Don Clayton for many years, including the period when you were studying his textbook. A bright, former-student of Willie Fowler. But the ssm makes no sense to me.

antoniseb
2004-Sep-29, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Sep 28 2004, 03:29 PM
If the Sun formed by accreting material over "millions of years", the heavy elements would sink to the center.

The duration depends on what you call the start and end points of the process. No one thinks that from mild increase in gas density to onset of nuclear fusion takes place in under a nano-second. I don't know what standard model you're talking about, but it's not the standard ones used in the papers and simulations I am aware of.

Maybe you've selected the most over-simplified model, and you are attacking it for being too simple. You clearly aren't attacking something that I've been supporting.


How could the Sun avoid accreting material over these "millions of years" while the planets were forming in the "accretion disk"?

If the sun accreted [after onset of fusion] a tenth of a percent of its initial mass from the accretion disk, would you say that was no accretion of matter? A simplified model might say that. Current observations might easily support that much without discrepency.

So, why not point to a Paper that lays out the standard model that you've been attacking. Perhaps I will attack it along with you.

Duane
2004-Sep-29, 10:26 PM
The standard solar model assumes there was no accretion or loss of material.


Really!?! Since when? Quite a change from the SSM I have learned about.

Perhaps you know something the rest of us merely mortal people don't? I wonder how a star could accrete enough material to ignite nuclear fusion without accreting any material. Interesting model you have there.


To avoid these "problems" and to preserve the illusion of a homogeneous Sun, the standard solar model (ssm) simply assumed there was no accretion or loss of material.


Whatever are you talking about? The SSM talks about the sun's accretion of material to begin the process by which it ignites, and its loss of material from the accretion disk by way of the polar jets observed (Oh yea, you don't observe) on T-Tauri stars. Some of the material accreted is accelerated beyonder the escape velocity of the forming system, the rest rains back into the plane of the accretion disk.

Oh goodness, could that be how there is an accumulation of hydrogen/helium/Xenon in the giant planets? Naw, can't be that simple.

om@umr.edu
2004-Oct-14, 05:50 PM
According to the NASA/JPL news release,

http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/educate...ionoverview.pdf (http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/educate/kitchen/resource/factsheets/missionoverview.pdf)

The Genesis Mission collected Atoms in the Solar Wind to find out:

1.) What the Sun is made of.

2.) Why Earth is different from other planets.

3.) If planets and the Sun are made of the same stuff.

4.) The formation of the solar system.

We used Atoms in the Solar Wind, in the Photosphere, in Solar Flares, in Meteorites, and in Planets to answer these same questions.

I will post our answers on the Iron Sun thread so they can be compared with forthcoming answers from the Genesis Mission.

http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.p...=645#entry44946 (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=16&t=2544&st=645#entry44946)

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

PS - Anton and Duane: Assumptions of the Standard Solar Model are concisely stated on p. 935 of the paper by A. Dar and G. Shaviv in Ap. J. vol. 468 (1996) pages 933-946.

om@umr.edu
2004-Nov-02, 11:14 AM
Are there plans to present the preliminary data from the Genesis mission at the next Lunar and Planetary Science Conference?

It might be worth a trip to Houston next March.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

om@umr.edu
2004-Nov-08, 01:47 AM
Come on, NASA! When will we see the data from our $260 million investment?

The Genesis Mission was suppose to collect Solar Wind Atoms and tell us:

http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/educate...ionoverview.pdf (http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/educate/kitchen/resource/factsheets/missionoverview.pdf)

1.) What the Sun is made of.

2.) Why Earth is different from other planets.

3.) If planets and the Sun are made of the same stuff.

4.) How the solar system formed.

Will the results be presented at the next Lunar and Planetary Science Conference?

If not, where and when?

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

antoniseb
2004-Nov-08, 04:47 AM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Nov 8 2004, 01:47 AM
Come on, NASA! When will we see the data from our $260 million investment?
Patience! Even before it crashed, they were saying results wouldn't be available before March 2005 at the earliest.

om@umr.edu
2004-Nov-08, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by antoniseb+Nov 8 2004, 04:47 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antoniseb @ Nov 8 2004, 04:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-om@umr.edu@Nov 8 2004, 01:47 AM
Come on, NASA&#33; When will we see the data from our &#036;260 million investment?
Patience&#33; Even before it crashed, they were saying results wouldn&#39;t be available before March 2005 at the earliest. [/b][/quote]
Thanks, Anton.

March 2005 is the date of the next Lunar & Planetary Science Conference at the NASA Space Center near Houston, TX &#33;&#33;

NASA will likely use the 2005 LPSC forum to get maximum publicity for their finding on the Sun&#39;s composition recorded in solar wind atoms.

Four years earlier, in March 2001, solar wind atoms were reported to have "fingerprints" of severe mass-separation inside the Sun.

When corrected for mass fractionation, the measurements contained startling new information on

"The Sun&#39;s Origin, Composition and Source of Energy", 32nd Lunar & Planetary Science Conference, Abstract #1041, Houston, TX, March 12-16, 2001

http://www.umr.edu/~om/lpsc.prn.pdf
http://www.umr.edu/~om/lpsc.ps

It will be interesting to compare those 2001 conclusions with the results to be presented in 2005.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

antoniseb
2004-Nov-08, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Nov 8 2004, 03:09 PM
When corrected for mass fractionation, the measurements contained startling new information
So you believe that the Genesis data [if conamination is avoided] will show isotope abundances reflecting the contents of the photosphere, and you will still need to apply your fractionation formula to show that the sun&#39;s main bulk has a different composition.

om@umr.edu
2004-Nov-08, 06:13 PM
Yes, of course, the Genesis Mission will find that light-weight isotopes are enriched in the solar wind.

The solar wind comes from the solar surface, and we have already shown that light-weight atoms are enriched in the photosphere.

http://web.umr.edu/~om/images/Figure2withCaption.gif

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

om@umr.edu
2004-Nov-11, 03:22 AM
The next Lunar & Planetary Science Conference is scheduled for 14-18 March 2005.

Here is the link.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

damienpaul
2004-Nov-11, 08:07 AM
are you inviting us Dr. M?

om@umr.edu
2004-Nov-11, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by damienpaul@Nov 11 2004, 08:07 AM
are you inviting us Dr. M?
Yes, of course, but I can&#39;t pay your way.

Over 20 years ago Solar Wind atoms in lunar soils from the Apollo Mission showed that mass separation in the Sun generates excess light-weight atoms at the Sun&#39;s surface.

See the red dashed line in the above figure for measurements from 3 to 136 mass units.

Those measurements showed the Sun is mostly iron, although its surface is covered with the two lightest elements, H and He.

Light-weight atoms made by the s-process (capture of slow neutron) are enriched at the Sun&#39;s surface.

See the solid blue line in the above figure for measurements from 25 to 207 mass units.

Those measurements confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt that the Sun is mostly iron, although its surface is covered with the two lightest elements, H and He.

The red dashed line says Fe, O, Si, Ni & S are the most abundant elements inside the Sun.

The solid blue line says Fe, O, Si, Ni & S are the most abundant elements inside the Sun.

Fe, O, Si, Ni & S are the most abundant elements in ordinary meteorites.

However, those findings have been hotly debated here for months.

http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.p...?showtopic=2544 (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2544)

NASA invested &#036;260 million for the Genesis Mission to collect Solar Wind atoms and tell us

What the Sun is made of

http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/educate...ionoverview.pdf (http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/educate/kitchen/resource/factsheets/missionoverview.pdf)

I would like to see as many UT readers in Houston as possible next March to hear their findings.

Hope to see you in Houston&#33;

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om