Thermal Energy Generation in the Earth — Nuclear Processes?

There was a very interesting post by Joseph Fine in the Journal of Nuclear Physics.

It links to an article  published in the journal Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics written by F. J. Mayer and J. R. Reitz titled
“Thermal energy generation in the earth” in which the authors suggest a new way of thinking about volcanic activity.

Abstract. We show that a recently introduced class of electromagnetic composite particles can explain some discrepancies in observations involving heat and helium released from the earth. Energy release during the formation of the composites and subsequent nuclear reactions involving the composites are described that can quantitatively account for the discrepancies and are expected to have implications in other areas of geophysics – for example, a new picture of heat production and volcanism in the earth is presented . . .

We will consider n to be a parameter; however, looking ahead to later numerical solutions, we will choose a value that gives the correct order of magnitude for the “excess heat” generated in so-called “cold fusion” experiments of Notoya (1993).

 

They also introduce a new physics called tresino physics.

“It is important to note that the tresino has a net negative charge and is quite small (roughly a factor of 10 smaller than the hydrogen atom). It should be clear that tresinos will behave like heavy, negatively charged “ions” having approximately the mass of the hydrogen nucleus; tresinos are electrostatically attracted to positive charges. Because they are three-body electromagnetic entities, assembled from a hydrogen nucleus and two electrons, tresinos are neither easily nor usually formed. Upon formation, they release their binding energy of Eb = 3.7 keV and are stable unless the binding energy is, in some way, re-supplied to make them disassemble; this is a substantial amount of energy on the scale of usual chemical reactions (less than a few eV).

The article has a few remarkable conclusions. The authors postulate three sources of thermal energy in the earth

1. Radioactive decay of uranium and thorium

2. Energy from the deuteron and proton tresono

3. Nuclear energy produced by deuteron-driven reactions.

If their hypotheses are correct, most of the heat produced within the earth is produced close to the earth’s surface by processes connected with surface waters, which could account for deeper thermal currents and affect the earth’s magnetic field. Also these heating processes could be connected with tectonic plate propulsion, volcanic eruptions and lightning.

Post submitted by ECW reader Marcus Haber

  • Obvious

    Helium is found in greater concentrations in lithium and beryllium-bearing minerals. The ratio of He3 to He4 also tends to be greater in these minerals also than typical crustal minerals. Lithium and beryllium minerals tend to accumulate (being both lighter and incompatible with most minerals) at the carapace of the granitic bodies that are the restite derived from mafic (low viscosity)-silicic (high viscosity) differentiation of magma. The less viscous mafic (more or less basaltic) material is squeezed out of the magma chamber and flows up the pressure gradient towards the low pressure surface to become volcanic extrusions. These volcanic areas then tend to contain and release the He-enriched gasses in volumes greater than areas that are devoid of volcanic activity, making areas of volcanic activity a He-rich environment. Precursor He gas then is indeed a signal of impending extrusive activity.
    Silica-rich volcanic activity (since it contains more of the enriched incompatible elements scavenged from the granitic carapace) should show a measurable increase in He gasses compared to more mafic volcanic activity, which may be an important indicator of potentially more dangerous explosive volcanic activity, since silica-rich volcanic magmas tend to be more viscous and plug their own edifices more often than less viscous, low silica melts. Plugged vents lead to extreme pressure build-ups and explosive release of pent-up pressure when the plug is finally breached.

  • mcloki

    This I find interesting. I have always been suspicious of the Carl Sagan/ Neil Young. We are all stardust theory. While i believe that heavier elements do form in these nuclear furnaces. I suspect it is not the only way that heavier elements condense. IF LENR is correct and some transmutation appears along fracture cracks reaction to the presence of hydrogen and heat, then bodies like planets and meteorites. Would over billions of years create all sorts of heavier elements as well as large amounts of heat. All trapped within layers of surrounding rock. Interesting theory to ponder.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    “Clearly, without a quantum electrodynamical formulation for these composites, their existence is unproven“. (p. 1)

    They appear to have a fairly strange idea of the scientific method. The existence of the claimed particles could – more or less and always with reservations – be proven by experiments, not by abstract mathematical calculations.

    • Gordon Docherty

      Ah, but first you have to have the will to look… alas, the Emporer’s new Clothes is still the order of the day in many walks of life… or, put another way, change is OK, so long as it’s done to others. As was seen all-too-often in the “early days” of LENR/CMNS, scientists preferred to dismiss and deny the experimental anomalies seen (“outliers”), remaining instead in their zones of comfort (theories and concepts that had worked to date in most situations), even though it was in the outliers that new discoveries were waiting to be made.

      Scientists, however, are not alone in this behaviour. Indeed, it is a general truth about the human brain: as a way of dealing with complexity in the environment, the brain gives far more weight in decision making to what is “already known” over what “does not fit”, even although what is “already known” is, itself, only an aggregate of decisions that are, themselves, in large part determined by “rules of thumb” derived from previous experience of what has worked or, equally, what was socially acceptable. In fact, our schooling years are all about teaching us “the right way”.

      So, in order to deal with a world that otherwise just overwhelm us, we the brain keeps within its comfort zones as much as possible: anything that challenges those comfort zones is then seen as disconcerting, threatening even – this is one reason why scientists in general often fail to see what is in front of them, leaving the discovery to someone with a different world-view. It is not because it cannot be seen, but rather it is perceived as being counter to the prevailing paradigm and so is filtered out (note: it does not actually have to be counter, perception is enough).

      This is where we therefore come full circle … “Ah, but first you have to have the will to look… ”

      It is for this reason alone that I give thanks to the many “maverick” inventors in their “off-beat” (i.e. “off-message”) laboratories who, through serendipity or sheer determination, have had the courage to challenge the one thing hardest to change – their own preconceptions. To borrow a term from the Marines – “Oorah!”.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Maybe there is an evolutionary mechanism which is deeply anchored in the human brain. Radical changes of perspective will always be risky. In most cases, keeping established thought and behavior might be more successful. An it is, of course, much more convenient. But sometimes there are pivot points where it is necessary to take the risk. Some of our predecessors must have overcome their fear of fire in order to make it usable for heating, cooking, hunting, and the deterrent of predators. Individuals of that kind, who are able to force themselves to do the unusual, are presumably in the minority. I believe Andrea Rossi is one of them.

  • Obvious

    Here’s the link to the first tresino paper. I am not convinced the geological story they are telling in the newer paper is anywhere near correct.

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.0034.pdf

    • Gerrit

      the paper was also peer reviewed and published in International Journal of Theoretical Physics (2012) 51:322–330 (DOI 10.1007/s10773-011-0959-8).

  • Gerard McEk

    Interesting! Again another atom model. As Gerrit, below rightly says, it looks a bit like an hydrino, but also like prof. Santilli’s atom model.
    A few month ago I read an article, where the authors (Sarg et al?) propose a proton, being a kind of eight-shaped energy-flow. In case of hydrogen an electron rotates around the energy flow though of one of the circles. By adapting this model there is no energy loss, which should take place when a charged particle circles around the proton in the planetary model and which s still an unexplained problem in this Bohr model. The second electron could rotate through the second circle of the proton energy flow, making it a tresono.
    By adopting these new atom-models also LENR can more easily understood and explained. I hope the scientific will now start to rethink what matter exactly is.

  • Curbina

    It remembered me instantly of the related theories of Mills, Santilli and Sarg.

  • Gerrit

    the proposed tresino sounds a bit like a hydrino to me.

    Hey, maybe the heat and helium originates from the ringwoodite, which contains 1% water:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26553115