Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: River of Iron

  1. #1

    River of Iron

    Does the discovered river of iron referred to in this article further misalign the calculations for what energy should still be left as a residue from Earth's formation 4.3 billions years ago? If the calculations didn't align before because of an excess of energy presently observed with Earth, then the energy this rivre of iron is reflecting has to make it worse,it seems to me, given that to move a river of iron of this scale indicates even more incredible amounts of energy.

    Does this paper provide a possible means at reconciling observations with calculations based upon its thesis?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,210
    I suspect that it doesn't change our understanding of the amount of energy involved in the movement of the core; I suspect it is really more surprising to find that is (still) coherent in such a disrete structure.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,232
    There was a science fiction story about a planet that had evolved very dense life forms that lived on the surface of their planet's core instead of the surface of its lithosphere.

    Colonists couldn't mine too deeply or even have too deep a building foundation as the planet's version of "birds" would fly through them.

    It may have been part of a space detective series. The one with the guy who got offended when other people mentioned his goatee made him look goat-like. Read it as a child.

    This reminds me of that.
    Time wasted having fun is not time wasted - Lennon
    (John, not the other one.)

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,945
    Quote Originally Posted by Canis Lupus View Post
    Does the discovered river of iron referred to in this article further misalign the calculations for what energy should still be left as a residue from Earth's formation 4.3 billions years ago?
    What do you meant by "further misalign"?
    All that the river of iron discovery says is that there is enough heat in the Earth's interior to keep that river molten. The first sentence in the 2016 Possible generation of heat from nuclear fusion in Earth’s inner core abstract is "The cause and source of the heat released from Earth’s interior have not yet been determined.". This single author of the paper is very speculative with their suggestion of nuclear fusion inside the Earth. This is not the "low energy nuclear reaction" (or cold fusion) argument. It is the speculation of pion mediated fusion. No sign of Mikio Fukuhara being a geoscientitst or fusion expert. A material scientist?
    Mikio Fukuhara
    New Industry Creation Hatchery Centre, Tohoku University, Sendai, 980-8579, Japan
    Waseda University Research Organization for Nano & Life Innovation, Green Device Laboratory, Tokyo, Japan

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    16,011
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDon View Post
    There was a science fiction story about a planet that had evolved very dense life forms that lived on the surface of their planet's core instead of the surface of its lithosphere.

    Colonists couldn't mine too deeply or even have too deep a building foundation as the planet's version of "birds" would fly through them.

    It may have been part of a space detective series. The one with the guy who got offended when other people mentioned his goatee made him look goat-like. Read it as a child.

    This reminds me of that.
    Tintin? They never visited other planets in Tintin, only the moon (which was uninhabited).

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Canis Lupus View Post
    Does this paper provide a possible means at reconciling observations with calculations based upon its thesis?
    This is the same cold fusion/LENR paper you brought up before. The issues with its claims haven't changed. The claims it makes against the mainstream explanation are still flawed. As it stands there is no evidence for the fusion modes mentioned. Given that the conditions it requires are within reach of laboratory experiments it seems strange that the proposal is not to test it but to infer its existence from some shaky claims about the Earth's interior.

    The fact that apparently equations 6,7,9,10,11,23,24,25,26 were wrong is also a cause for concern (this is out of 26 equations - that means more than a third of the equations in the original print were wrong).

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    15,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    This is the same cold fusion/LENR paper you brought up before. The issues with its claims haven't changed. The claims it makes against the mainstream explanation are still flawed.
    Thanks. This really deserves a reference link to that topic: conclusion of topic Refining a planetary model. I had forgotten.
    0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...
    Skepticism enables us to distinguish fancy from fact, to test our speculations. --Carl Sagan

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    This is the same cold fusion/LENR paper you brought up before. The issues with its claims haven't changed. The claims it makes against the mainstream explanation are still flawed. As it stands there is no evidence for the fusion modes mentioned. Given that the conditions it requires are within reach of laboratory experiments it seems strange that the proposal is not to test it but to infer its existence from some shaky claims about the Earth's interior.

    The fact that apparently equations 6,7,9,10,11,23,24,25,26 were wrong is also a cause for concern (this is out of 26 equations - that means more than a third of the equations in the original print were wrong).
    Do you have a reference for the errors or did you check them yourself?

    I have read around a little on this paper. The only criticism I have read about it thus far is that he cites his own papers in the paper. On the other side of coin, someone pointed out that the reaction appeared quite similar to what was accepted to occur in a brown dwarf. But these were just comments on reddit.

    Edit: You expressed surprised, if not shock, previously the paper was published. I too am surprised the paper passed peer review if there was so many errors in the calculations.
    Last edited by Canis Lupus; 2017-Jul-31 at 08:29 AM. Reason: Edit

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    This is the same cold fusion/LENR paper you brought up before. The issues with its claims haven't changed. The claims it makes against the mainstream explanation are still flawed. As it stands there is no evidence for the fusion modes mentioned. Given that the conditions it requires are within reach of laboratory experiments it seems strange that the proposal is not to test it but to infer its existence from some shaky claims about the Earth's interior.

    The fact that apparently equations 6,7,9,10,11,23,24,25,26 were wrong is also a cause for concern (this is out of 26 equations - that means more than a third of the equations in the original print were wrong).
    Is this the lab experiment you refer to or are there others?

    What is stated in this article from 2007 is no longer valid?

    This dual nature of iron has been an enigma to researchers for more than 50 years, since iron in laboratory experiments has not evinced any tendency whatsoever to behave like a fluid under high pressure. The reason for this is the much lower temperatures in laboratory experiments compared with the center of the earth.
    Or what is being stated in this 2017 article

    The problem with this is that the conditions are so extreme at the earth's center that it is very difficult to perform any kind of laboratory experiment that faithfully simulates conditions in the earth's core. Nevertheless, geophysicists are constantly trying these experiments and improving on them, so that their results can be extrapolated to the earth's center, where the pressure is more than three million times atmospheric pressure.
    Last edited by Canis Lupus; 2017-Jul-31 at 08:47 AM. Reason: Insert 2017

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    14,914
    Canis Lupus infracted for reposting the same ATM outside the ATM forum for which he was infracted before. Thread will remain closed unless someone has a convincing reason to reopen it.
    If so, report this post please.
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Forum Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •