![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi,
I think I originally posted this question to the wrong group forum...so I'll try again. Please....Im not a scientist (Im a historian...but that is neither here nor there)...so please use laymans terms if possible. When are star has a larger percentage of heavier than helium elements....does that necessarily translate into celestial bodies caught in its gravity containing a higher than average chance of being composed of what we might call strategic resource elements (aluminum, magnesium, titanium, iron, etc)? For example, Barnard's Star (from what Ive read) has somewhere between 10 and 32 percent of its mass as being elements heavier than hydrogen whereas our own star has only a fraction of a percent of its mass as "metallicity". If there were celestial bodies orbiting Barnard's Star...does it necessarily translate into there being higher than average amounts of resource elements? Would Barnard III (3rd planet, for the sake of argument) be richer in iron and other elements than Earth? Thanks in advance.... |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Brooklyn Red Leg wrote:
I think I originally posted this question to the wrong group forum...so I'll try again. This sounds like a "worldbuilding" type of question - you might want to try rec.arts.sf.science (unmoderated, but good signal-to-noise ratio). When are star has a larger percentage of heavier than helium elements....does that necessarily translate into celestial bodies caught in its gravity containing a higher than average chance of being composed of what we might call strategic resource elements (aluminum, magnesium, titanium, iron, etc)? Short answer, no. The "terrestrial" planet like Earth are composed of a very small, refined portion of the original solar nebula. Yes, the nebula (that the planets form out of) of a high-metalicity star would have a higher percentage of elements heavier than H & He, but that just means more material to make planets out of - you might get bigger planets, or more planets, but not more "strategic resource rich" planets. Furthermore, what we call "strategic minerals" are not at all uncommon. Iron is very common, as is nickel. Aluminium is all over the place. So why are they "strategic"? Because they're not accessible - the iron & nickel ended up in the core, inaccessible, while things like aluminum & titanium are present in the crust, but in oxidized form. For example, Barnard's Star (from what Ive read) has somewhere between 10 and 32 percent of its mass as being elements heavier than hydrogen whereas our own star has only a fraction of a percent of its mass as "metallicity". Hmm... According to the references I have onhand, the metalicity of Barnard's Star is 20% of *solar* metalicity - in other words, it has 1/5th the "metals" (elements heavier than H & He) that our own Sun does. There are stars that have higher than solar metalicities - Alpha Centauri, for instance, has 165% of solar metalicity, or 65% richer in "metals" than our Sun. -- Brian Davis |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AMBER ALPHA STAR CESAM stellar model | harlod caufield | Space Shuttle | 0 | December 27th 03 09:12 PM |
Stars Rich In Heavy Metals Tend To Harbor Planets, Astronomers Report | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | July 21st 03 07:10 PM |