A nuclear reactor in the earth core?

[Angeltxilon]

There is a hypothesis that says that the earth core could contain a little subcore of several kilometers of radius, a subcore made of uranium, plutonium, thorium in constant fission and transmutation, and surrounded by a subcluster of nuclear waste of the fission and disintegration of these materials.

This hypothesis is named "georeactor model", and exposes that is possible that the energy produced from earth and others planets is not only in basis disintegration, but also by natural nuclear fission reactors.

 

This hypothesis also can explain the formation of the moon by a extremely big nuclear explosion that broken the planet (changing also the rotation axis of this and creating the required heat to obtain the liquid core), can explain the existence of natural nuclear reactors (like the nuclear reactor of Oklo), and the neutrine anomalies.

What are your thoughts about this?

Founts:

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0905/0905.0523.pdf
http://nuclearplanet.com/Herndon's%20Nuclear%20Georeactor.html
http://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/did-the-moon-form-in-natural-nuclear-explosion/ 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklo

 

 

 

Edited April 9, 2016 by Angeltxilon

[RainDreamer]

Since I am not a professional in this matter, I can't offer any more valuable knowledge, but what I think is...technically this would make nuclear energy a "natural energy" , not counting the sun.

[cantab]

"This hypothesis also can explain the formation of the moon by a extremely big nuclear explosion that broken the planet"

Bunk. No way it could be big enough. Planets are really hard to blow up.

"can explain the existence of natural nuclear reactors (like the nuclear reactor of Oklo)"

Oklo is well understood and doesn't depend on whatever happens in Earth's core.

More generally, any significant-sized "inner-inner core" ought to have shown up in seismic studies.

And chemically, uranium and thorium are not thought to mix much with iron such as in the inner core. Rather, they easily form minerals with oxygen and are enriched in the crust and upper mantle. Both elements are considerably more abundant in Earth's crust than they are in meteorites, which isn't really consistent with the hypothesis that Earth's thorium and uranium went into its core.

[PB666]

17 minutes ago, cantab said:

"This hypothesis also can explain the formation of the moon by a extremely big nuclear explosion that broken the planet"

Bunk. No way it could be big enough. Planets are really hard to blow up.

"can explain the existence of natural nuclear reactors (like the nuclear reactor of Oklo)"

Oklo is well understood and doesn't depend on whatever happens in Earth's core.

More generally, any significant-sized "inner-inner core" ought to have shown up in seismic studies.

And chemically, uranium and thorium are not thought to mix much with iron such as in the inner core. Rather, they easily form minerals with oxygen and are enriched in the crust and upper mantle. Both elements are considerably more abundant in Earth's crust than they are in meteorites, which isn't really consistent with the hypothesis that Earth's thorium and uranium went into its core.

Uranium and Thorium are lithophiles not siderophiles, they tend to comibe with mantle and crustal elements. Uranium cannot diisolve through iron or coalesce from iron, particles of uranium would remain interdispersed in the core unable to concentrate, once the core solified sonwould these contaminants. 

[sevenperforce]

Yeah, total bunk. A significant portion of geothermal heat does come from radioactive decay, but not from chain reactions as in a nuclear reactor. You need a moderator for that. 

[peadar1987]

Not even remotely plausible, others have explained why.

[YumonStudios]

16 hours ago, Angeltxilon said:

 

This hypothesis also can explain the formation of the moon by a extremely big nuclear explosion that broken the planet (changing also the rotation axis of this and creating the required heat to obtain the liquid core), can explain the existence of natural nuclear reactors (like the nuclear reactor of Oklo), and the neutrine anomalies.

We don't need to explain the existance of natural nuclear reactors,  we know those form when U-rich magma goes up to the crust.

And the formation of the moon via nuclear fission explosions sounds ridiculous. The mass of the planet above is way too much to allow for that.

16 hours ago, Angeltxilon said:

 

There is a hypothesis that says that the earth core could contain a little subcore of several kilometers of radius, a subcore made of uranium, plutonium, thorium in constant fission and transmutation, and surrounded by a subcluster of nuclear waste of the fission and disintegration of these materials.

This hypothesis is named "georeactor model", and exposes that is possible that the energy produced from earth and others planets is not only in basis disintegration, but also by natural nuclear fission reactors.

 

Sounds like it would not be able to achieve fission after a few million years, as the waste would clog the reactor up and stop it from running, and the density of U-235 would become too low very quickly.

[sevenperforce]

The very reason we know of the existence of natural fission reactors is because fissile fuel is depleted in the affected deposit. Radioactive decay is a well-understood gradual geothermal heat source; fission chain reactions burn through fissile material FAST.