Where does Krypton come from?

On Sep 16, 2:09*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Andrew Usher wrote:
On Sep 16, 6:48 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
Andrew Usher wrote:
There is not a nuclear reactor at Earth's core, or
anything similar. The core is almost devoid of
radioactivity, in fact.
* *Why do you make that statement? Radioactivity
is the primary source of the earth's internal heat.

The radioactive elements (Th, U, K) are almost
entirely not in the core.
But you knew that, didn't you?

Why did you reply to this and not the message
actually directed at you?

* *I'll agree that the majority of radioactive isotopes
like Potassium 40, Uranium 238, 235, and
Thorium 232 contained within the earth's mantle.
* *but I would like a source to measurements that
show there is essentially no radioactivity in
either core. Thanks.

Radioactivity is in the core of Earth.
http://www.newscientist.com/article....mg18725103.700
http://www.physlink.com/News/121103PotassiumCore.cfm
.... "may be ..."
http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~bdfields/geoneutrinos.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0501216
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606614
http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2607
(... strictly for the reference to 60-Fe)

Sorry about the quality of some of the sources...

David A. Smith

On Sep 17, 12:30*am, dlzc wrote:
On Sep 16, 2:09*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:



Andrew Usher wrote:
On Sep 16, 6:48 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
Andrew Usher wrote:
There is not a nuclear reactor at Earth's core, or
anything similar. *The core is almost devoid of
radioactivity, in fact.
* *Why do you make that statement? Radioactivity
* *is the primary source of the earth's internal heat.

The radioactive elements (Th, U, K) are almost
entirely not in the core.
But you knew that, didn't you?

Why did you reply to this and not the message
actually directed at you?

* *I'll agree that the majority of radioactive isotopes
* *like Potassium 40, Uranium 238, 235, and
* *Thorium 232 contained within the earth's mantle.
* *but I would like a source to measurements that
* *show there is essentially no radioactivity in
* *either core. Thanks.

Radioactivity is in the core of Earth.http://www.newscientist.com/article....assiumCore.cfm
... "may be ..."http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~bdfields/geoneutrinos.htmlhttp://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0501216http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606614http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2607
(... strictly for the reference to 60-Fe)

Sorry about the quality of some of the sources...

David A. Smith

The quality indeed !,that there is no reference to rotational dynamics
is not surprising even though it is paramount to all studies and
working principles.I have consistently stated the problem of
organising the Earth's interior to suit the thermal 'convection cell'
mechanism for crustal motion and evolution and these papers you cite
are simply extensions of that dismal stationary Earth working
principle.

http://www.cliffshade.com/colorado/i...d_atlantic.gif

Plate tectonics can be understood by just about anybody given that
they will get that the Continents appear to fit like pieces in a
jigsaw and,by extension,the mid Atlantic ridge appears to have the
same attraction when rotational dynamics is involved whereas thermal
convection and its stationary Earth assumptions are repugnant in this
instance.

A rotating celestial object with a viscous composition does not rotate
as a single unit but displays differential rotation,they already
compare shape with period rotation based on this generalised rule with
differential rotation as a given -

http://www.solstation.com/stars/vega2sol.jpg

I do not know how people involved in rotational dynamics are managing
to ignore this insofar as it is not an enormous leap to apply the
generalised rule of differential rotation to the Earth's interior as
the cause for the 40km deviation from a perfect sphere and then work
that into crustal geodynamics.

Simple question - what are the rotational specifics which cause the
planet's 40 km deviation from a sphere ?.Maybe when people start
doing their jobs and answer this question using generalised rules for
rotating objects in a viscous state then these ridiculous stationary
Earth thermal 'convection cells' can be set aside as an ad hoc
mechanism that causes more difficulties than it solves.











http://www.physlink.com/News/121103PotassiumCore.cfm

On Sep 15, 9:24*pm, dlzc wrote:
Dear Andrew Usher:

On Sep 15, 1:50*am, Andrew Usher wrote:

I was looking at the composition of Earth's
atmosphere relative to solar.
...
So where does all the krypton come from?

http://www.enotes.com/how-products-encyclopedia/krypton
... it has a large number of stable isotopes, so it is easy to decay
into a stable state. *It is on the decay chains of uranium and
thorium.

Remember that we capture stuff from solar wind (even noble gases
ionize), and we have the equivalent of a nuclear reactor at Earth's
core.

http://www.answers.com/topic/krypton
QUOTE
The amount of krypton in space is uncertain as is the amount is
derived from the meteoritic activity and that from solar winds. The
first measurements suggest an overabundance of krypton in space.
END QUOTE

David A. Smith

--------------------
right but there is some more knwlegs behind it

see in my abstract the structure of say
Lead
(i didnt show there U but U has the basic skeleton of Lead)

so see in lead the two wealk point
inits skeleton
the weak point i call the locations in which
two 'blockes; of Alpha quartets
are connected toeach other
just by two deutrons or by two
Alphas
the ordianry connestion between
those quartets is by the edges of 4
Alpha
so it i smechanically a weak point
youcan ask why isit that
Lead is not so .weak??
becuse that is not yet all the story
there are on that skeleton more
netrons and unstable neutrons that make the difference
between Lead and U
anyway
thjose weak points are animportant reason why U breaks as it breraks
now the interesting and meaning point is
that
fter breaking
**the U breaks to 'blockes' that are
compatible with the 'sections of quartets
that are **between those weak point*
now since one picture is worth in that case
more than Hundred words

i can send you privately the
structure of Bromine and others
and you will realize that those
daughters of U breakup--
are compatible to the Bromine
Barium etc etc nuc structure
that i got *independantly* on the knowlwdge
of U fragments !!!

btw
those structures show at least to me
that the heavy elements
were created form those
'sections' of lighter nucs
while the point of connection is those
weak points
probably in some huge event
with enourmous pressure toconnect
those lighter sections to a bigger 'block'
may be in supernova events ...
and while separating agin
those weak points break
to bring back the ancient situation

ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------

On Sep 16, 10:59*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Sep 15, 10:15 pm, "Y.y.Porat" wrote:





On Sep 16, 7:46 am, BradGuth wrote:

On Sep 15, 9:00 pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:

On Sep 16, 5:31 am, Sam Wormley wrote:

Craig wrote:

As a terrestrial chemist, I've never much worried about where the
elements came from. *I've been told that medium weight elements (up to
about iron) are made in old stars, which have run out of other fuel.
I've been told that heavier elements come from supernova explosions.

Is there any significant production of elements like krypton in stars
like our sun? *I'm not concerned with splitting infinitesimals - I'm
happy to call the rate of oxidation of wood at ambient temperatures
essentially zero, for example. *Are these elements actually made in
our sun, or do those channels not turn on at all until after easier
fuel is exhausted?

Is mass transport of *anything* to Earth from the solar wind really
significant?

- Craig

* *Our sun is fusing hydrogen into helium... and in its old age
* *its core will get hot enough to fuse helium in to carbon, oxygen
* *and nitrogen. *The most massive of stars can fuse element up
* *through the iron group... but that's the end of the line for
* *fusion processes.

* *Krypton is produced primarily by the fission of uranium.
* * *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krypton
* * *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_krypton
* * *http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/chart/reCent...?z=36&n=48&z=1
* * *http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/chart/getdat...s=84KR&unc=nds

* *The Element Krypton is found in the sun, but not produced by
* *the sun.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

----------------
Sami
look again in my abstract
as see the scheme of Lead
(forsome reasons i didnt show the Uranium
nuc...)
but Lead is one on the chain
sosee there
how it is composed
see that there are there some reak poins
in which that nc can be broken
the Krypton as well has one of the weak points

the Lead has two weak point
Krypton is of couse much *smaller
ands is therefore much stable
but still includes a fraction of
Lead *(i dont what to mension the word * U
in order of not falling in to some
survailance list .....)
and dont you ever dare tocall my model
'Plonk'
because if you do it
your place will be in the garbage parroting science

keep well
Y.Porat
-------------------------

But Zionist/Nazi parroting is pretty much all that Usenet/newsgroups
is about, or do you think Muslims were the really smart ones.

*~ BG

------------------
you are a good scientist * (:-)
each word you said i s * pure science
go see your psychiatrist
Y.P
----------------------

Do you believe that religions play no tactical or subversive role in
government and public funded affairs?

*~ BG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

---------------
Brad
since which year you are a citiszen of the US??

TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------

"Andrew Usher" wrote in message
...
On Sep 16, 12:17 pm, Lofty Goat wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 04:57:07 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
But what is important here is that the core temperature of the sun is
15E6 K which is only hot enough to "burn" hydrogen into helium.

I long since gave up on the notion that conditions within the cores of
stars are perfectly uniform.

They are, nearly enough. What do you think would make it otherwise?

Can you quantify 'nearly enough'?

Since it is believed that photons take around 10^36 seconds (100,000 years)
to transfer energy from the Sun's core to the photosphere, I would have
expected the timescales for equalisation of temperature in the core to be
comparatively long. I wouldn't be surprised if there is significant
deviation from the mean.

It would be interesting to know more about the processes that lead to
equilibrium within the solar core, and which of these are dependent on
physical mixing and/or radiative energy transfer.

On Sep 16, 3:09 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:

I'll agree that the majority of radioactive isotopes like Potassium 40,
Uranium 238, 235, and Thorium 232 contained within the earth's mantle.
but I would like a source to measurements that show there is essentially
no radioactivity in either core. Thanks.

It's thought that a small amount of radioactivity is necessary to
balance
the heat budget of the core. The one worthwhile reference of the ones
David gave in reply i.e.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606614

shows the partition coefficient of uranium to be small but non-
negligible.
Those for Th and K are surely less still. So if I has to guess I'd say
perhaps 1 to 1.5 TW of radioactivity in the core; the standard figure
is 28 TW for the whole Earth.

Andrew Usher

"OG" wrote in message
...

"Andrew Usher" wrote in message
...
On Sep 16, 12:17 pm, Lofty Goat wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 04:57:07 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
But what is important here is that the core temperature of the sun is
15E6 K which is only hot enough to "burn" hydrogen into helium.

I long since gave up on the notion that conditions within the cores of
stars are perfectly uniform.

They are, nearly enough. What do you think would make it otherwise?

Can you quantify 'nearly enough'?

Since it is believed that photons take around 10^36 seconds (100,000
years)

Oh, I got that really wrong didn't I - that should be 10^12 seconds

to transfer energy from the Sun's core to the photosphere, I would have
expected the timescales for equalisation of temperature in the core to be
comparatively long. I wouldn't be surprised if there is significant
deviation from the mean.

It would be interesting to know more about the processes that lead to
equilibrium within the solar core, and which of these are dependent on
physical mixing and/or radiative energy transfer.

In sci.chem Benj wrote:

: You'll notice that possibility of low energy biological
: transmutations aren't even considered as a mechanism.

Un-ALTERED reproduction of this IMPORTANT INFORMATION is ENCOURAGED.

-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" wrote in message
...
Dear Craig:

"Craig" wrote in message
...
On Sep 15, 11:24 am, dlzc wrote:
On Sep 15, 1:50 am, Andrew Usher wrote:

I was looking at the composition of Earth's
atmosphere relative to solar.
...
So where does all the krypton come from?

Remember that we capture stuff from solar wind
(even noble gases ionize), and we have the
equivalent of a nuclear reactor at Earth's core.

As a terrestrial chemist, I've never much worried
about where the elements came from.

The Purchasing Department! ;)

I've been told that medium weight elements (up
to about iron) are made in old stars,

Probably much less massive than this. Mira is shedding about what a star
like our Sun can produce.


I have a bit of a problem with this.

I can accept that elements between (say) Lithium and Iron can be made in
stars lighter than the earth.

But it is also my understanding that main sequence stars lighter than a few
times greater than the Sun don't explode and disperse their elements into
space for the (eventual) production of rocky planets. If this is true, the
large bulk of krypton on earth must have been formed in supernovae, which
require first generation stars much larger than the Sun.

On Sep 18, 1:13*pm, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" wrote in ...





Dear Craig:

"Craig" wrote in message
....
On Sep 15, 11:24 am, dlzc wrote:
On Sep 15, 1:50 am, Andrew Usher wrote:

I was looking at the composition of Earth's
atmosphere relative to solar.
...
So where does all the krypton come from?

Remember that we capture stuff from solar wind
(even noble gases ionize), and we have the
equivalent of a nuclear reactor at Earth's core.

As a terrestrial chemist, I've never much worried
about where the elements came from.

The Purchasing Department! *;)

I've been told that medium weight elements (up
to about iron) are made in old stars,

Probably much less massive than this. *Mira is shedding about what a star
like our Sun can produce.

I have a bit of a problem with this.

I can accept that elements between (say) Lithium and Iron can be made in
stars lighter than the earth.

But it is also my understanding that main sequence stars lighter than a few
times greater than the Sun don't explode and disperse their elements into
space for the (eventual) production of rocky planets. If this is true, the
large bulk of krypton on earth must have been formed in supernovae, which
require first generation stars much larger than the Sun.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

--------------------
it has to be created by stars that could create

elements like U from lighter elements like Iron
and later exploded
see in my abstarct the lead nuc and itsd structure
and then see the Iron nuc
and then go back to the Lead nuc
and see the midd section
between the two 'weak points ' .....

ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------------