Georeactor in the Earth

Anisichkin, V. F.; Bezborodov, A. A.; Suslov, I. R.

doi:10.1080/00411450802515817

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The average thickness of such a shell-boundary, which has increased density and mosaic structure, is ~2.2 km [32]. In our opinion, the most advanced mechanism for formation of such a shell below the mantle now are the experimental results of Anisichkin et al [16,18] and Hueshao-Secco [34]. According to these results, the chemically stable high-density actinide compounds (particularly uranium carbides and uranium dioxides) lose most of their lithophilic properties at high pressure, sink together with melted iron and concentrate in the Earth's core consequent to the initial gravitational differentiation of the planet.…”

Section: Soliton-like Nuclear Georeactor and The Kamland Antineutrinomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is obvious now that the experiments by the KamLAND-collobaration over the last 8 years [1][2][3][4][5] are extremely important not only for observation of reactor antineutrino oscillations, but because they make it possible for the first time to verify one of most vivid and mysterious ideas in nuclear geophysics -the hypothesis of natural nuclear georeactor existence [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. In spite of its singularity and long history, this hypothesis becomes especially attractive today because it enables clearly to explain from the physical standpoint different unrelated, at the first glance, geophysical anomalous phenomena whose fundamental nature is beyond any doubt.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Apparently, the most advanced model, which is devoid of the mentioned contradictions, is the so-called Gonnermann-Mukhopadhyay model, preserving noble gases in convective mantle [24]. However this model ignores the possible high concentrations of 238 U and 232 Th in the outer core (as it is shown by numerous laboratory experiments [16,18,20]), and this is the weak point of this model. At the same time, it is shown [17] that, if the nuclear georeactor exists, within the framework of model, which takes into account the georeactor thermal power and distribution of 238 U and 232 Th in the Earth's interior, it is possible also to obtain a good description of the known experimental 3 He/ 4 He distributions in the crust and mantle.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

KamLAND-Experiment and Soliton-Like Nuclear Georeactor. Part 1. Comparison of Theory with Experiment

Rusov¹,

Litvinov²,

Mavrodiev³

et al. 2013

JMP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We give an alternative description of the data produced in the KamLAND experiment, assuming the existence of a natural nuclear reactor on the boundary of the liquid and solid phases of the Earth core. Analyzing the uncertainty of antineutrino spectrum of georeactor origin, we show that the theoretical (which takes into account the soliton-like nuclear georeactor) total reactor antineutrino spectra describe with good accuracy the experimental KamLAND-data over the years of 2002-2007 and 2002-2009, respectively. At the same time, the parameters of mixing (△m²₂₁=2.5×10^-5 eV², tan²θ₁₂=0.437) calculated within the framework of georeactor hypothesis substantially differ from the parameters of mixing ((△m²₂₁=7.49×10^-5 eV², tan

show abstract

Section: Soliton-like Nuclear Georeactor and The Kamland Antineutrinomentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

KamLAND-Experiment and Soliton-Like Nuclear Georeactor. Part 1. Comparison of Theory with Experiment

Rusov¹,

Litvinov²,

Mavrodiev³

et al. 2013

JMP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As up to 25% of the U and Th in the CMB is assumed to be involved in the run-away 696 georeactor, one would at first glance expect a difference in the 235 U/ 238 U and Th/U ratios between There are however a number of reasons why such differences are not likely. The main reason is that 699 in a breeder type georeactor, both 235 U and 238 U (as well as 232 Th) disappear by conversion to fissile 700 materials (Anisichkin at al. 2008).…”

Section: Supporting Evidence 666mentioning

confidence: 99%

Forming the Moon from terrestrial silicate-rich material

Meijer¹,

Anisichkin²,

Westrenen³

2013

Chemical Geology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent high-precision measurements of the isotopic composition of lunar rocks demonstrate that the bulk silicate Earth and the Moon show an unexpectedly high degree of similarity. This is inconsistent with one of the primary results of classic dynamical simulations of the widely accepted giant impact model for the formation of the Moon, namely that most of the mass of the Moon originates from the impactor, not Earth. Resolution of this discrepancy without changing the main premises of the giant impact model requires total isotopic homogenisation of Earth and impactor material after the impact for a wide range of elements including O, Si, K, Ti, Nd and W. Even if this process could explain the O isotope similarity, it is unlikely to work for the much heavier, refractory elements. Given the increasing uncertainty surrounding the giant impact model in light of these geochemical data, alternative hypotheses for lunar formation should be explored. In this paper, we revisit the hypothesis that the Moon was formed directly from terrestrial mantle material. We show that the dynamics of this scenario requires a large amount of energy, almost instantaneously generated additional energy. The only known source for this additional energy is nuclear fission. We show that it is feasible to form the Moon through the ejection of terrestrial silicate material triggered by a nuclear explosion at Earths core-mantle boundary (CMB), causing a shock wave propagating through the Earth. Hydrodynamic modelling of this scenario shows that a shock wave created by rapidly expanding plasma resulting from the explosion disrupts and expels overlying mantle and crust material.Comment: 26 pages, 5 figures, 1 tabl

show abstract

“…As described in detail [42], each of the above conditions is fulfilled for Herndon's nuclear fission georeactor at the center of Earth, and not fulfilled for other, later, putative 'georeactors' assumed to be located elsewhere in Earth's deep interior [80,81]. Paleomagnetic evidence indicates that the geomagnetic field was being produced at least 4.2 billion years ago, just a few hundred million years after Earth's formation [82].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Causes and Consequences of Geomagnetic Field Collapse

Herndon¹

2020

JGEESI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Consequences of the next geomagnetic field collapse, concomitant with a magnetic polarity reversal or excursion, have been greatly underestimated as based upon a widely-accepted, but physically-impossible geoscience paradigm. The underlying causes of geomagnetic field collapse are inexplicable in that flawed paradigm wherein geomagnetic field production is assumed to be produced in the Earth’s fluid core. Here I review the causes and consequences of geomagnetic field collapse in terms of a new geoscience paradigm, called Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics, specifically focusing on nuclear fission georeactor generation of the geomagnetic field and the intimate connection between its energy production and the much greater stored energy of protoplanetary compression. The nuclear georeactor is subject to a staggering range and variety of potential instabilities. Yet, its natural self-control mechanism allows stable operation without geomagnetic reversals for times longer than 20 million years. Geomagnetic reversals and excursions occur when georeactor sub-shell convection is disrupted. Disrupted sub-shell convection can occur due to (1) major trauma to Earth such as an asteroid collision or (2) change in the charge particle flux from the sun or change in the ring current either of which can induce electrical current into the georeactor via the geomagnetic field causing ohmic-heating that can potentially disrupt sub-shell convection. Further, humans could deliberately or unintentionally disrupt sub-shell convection by disrupting the charge-particle environment across portions of the geomagnetic field by nuclear detonations or by heating the ionosphere with focused electromagnetic radiation. The use of electromagnetic pulse weapons is potentially far more devastating to humanity than previously imagined, and should be prohibited. During the next polarity reversal or excursion, increased volcanic activity may be expected in areas fed by georeactor heat, such as the East African Rift System, Hawaii, Iceland, and Yellowstone in the USA. One potentially great risk is triggering the eruption of the Yellowstone super-volcano.

show abstract

Georeactor in the Earth

Cited by 7 publications

References 13 publications

KamLAND-Experiment and Soliton-Like Nuclear Georeactor. Part 1. Comparison of Theory with Experiment

KamLAND-Experiment and Soliton-Like Nuclear Georeactor. Part 1. Comparison of Theory with Experiment

Forming the Moon from terrestrial silicate-rich material

Causes and Consequences of Geomagnetic Field Collapse

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About