Belief in Earth's Iron Core still puzzling

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by CharlieO

I'm still puzzled about what appears widely accepted as a proven Hot Iron Core concept, especially the “Hot” part.

I, in turn, am puzzled by your puzzlement, CharlieO. It seems to me that you’re not simple refusing to accept the conclusions of a large body of theory and supporting data, but to even acknowledge that other have, which, as pyro put in his last post, suggest to me you’re motivated by something odd: perhaps simple, pure contrarianism, perhaps some kind of ideology – I won’t hazard a guess.

I’m grateful to you for steering me, with this mention

Originally Posted by CharlieO

Again, my references are from the current global heat flow data (24,774 observations at 20,201 sites) as maintained by the International Heat Flow Commission (IHFC) of the International Association of Seismology and Physics of the Earth's Interior (IASPEI).

, to the Global Heat Flow Database of the IHFC (though you didn’t actually link to it, your description was sufficient for me to find it via an google search). Like a lot of hypographers, I enjoy learning about, and learning to use, sources of data like this.

However, I don’t see that these data suggest that temperature decreases with depth, as I gather you are asserting (please correct me if I gather wrongly). Rather, with the possible exception of a single one of the many thousands of lines in these data which contains the comment “T_GRAD DOESN'T INCREACE W/ DEPTH”, all that provide a temperature gradient (the 10th column, 52-54 on the plain text document) show values that agree with the usually stated positive depth-to-temperature gradient (eg: 15°C/km to 40°C/km, as quoted by Moontanman in post #134). Data shows that the temperature increases, at a very regular rate, with depth.

I think you may be confusing many kinds of measurements, and failing to account for scale and magnitude of different scientific and anecdotal data. The GHFD data are based on measurements of the temperature of sub-surface rock, not of air, and make no attempt to relate the two. They include both data from holes less that 2 meters deep, to holes over 5 km deep, with deeper holes considered higher quality data sources than shallower ones. The deepest mine in the world, the South African TauTona gold mine, is 3.9 km deep. I don’t know how deep the mines with which you are acquainted with are, but most mines in the US are less than 1 km deep, so you’re likely not acquainted with the very high rock temperatures of deeper mines.

[stereologist]

Charlie O writes: It appears to me what we have here is an interesting display of ignorance and dogmatic refusal to even consider any alternative view of any factor which might, repeat, might bring into question the assumption of there being intense heat within Earth's core.

Sorry Charlie, but its not sad to point out that the evidence is overwhelming against your position.

Charlie O writes: Unfortunately, this is deceptive and exhibits his ignorance of the manner in which mine temperatures are recorded.

Sorry Charlie this is not deceptive. I would point out that wet bulbs are used to determine humidity.

Charlie O wrote: Again deceptively inaccurate. … due to the introduction of more watts of lighting, higher powered equipment with more BTUs and the increased compression heating of additional ventilation air.

Sorry Charlie O I was not being deceptive. I wrote older. You used the term abandoned. Your term is better. Your claims of introduced energy are deceptive and incorrect and accounted for in the models used by mining companies to determine adequate levels of ventilation and the factors affecting ventilation. Introductory textbooks on mine ventilation discuss and understand these issues.

Charlie O writes: Also, something no SF member has indicated they have done; which obviously includes Stereologist.

You have no way of knowing that. Frankly your claim of deceptively false is a vacuous statement of no importance in this discussion. Your personal knowledge and experience are of value.

Charlie O writes: I have claimed many ABANDONED mines cool off over time. I have also claimed that WORKING mine may become more heated over time. See above misquoted claim.

Again your statement that anything I have said is deceptive is immaterial. I began my statements by reviewing your claim and then addressing that issue. I am not distorting what you have written and if you resent the fact that the evidence is overwhelming against your position then so be it. If you resent that fact that the U.S./North American Mine Ventilation Symposium papers disagree with your claims then that is fine.

When I attempted to review your statement that “mines cool off over time” are you saying they don’t? Are you saying that abandoned mines do not cool off over time?

I do not want to be sloppy or mislead others about your claims. Being testy and throwing a fit makes it look like you’ve painted yourself into a corner.

CharlieO writes: Although some apparently resent to just being made aware of physical factors other than the dogmatically accepted concept of mines getting hotter with depth proves Earth is intensely heated inside.

There are other ways to examine the interior temperature of the earth. Are you aware of temperatures in petroleum exploration. No one is down there. No machines are running down there. No bright lights are on. None of the issues you mentioned in your recent post. Yet, the temperature increases with depth. Take the pipeline from Prudhoe bay. The oil emerges from the ground hot. It is put into a pipe and pumped through above ground pipes. The air temperature can fall below –70F. The hot petroleum continues to flow out of the ground and to its destination with no further heating requirements.

Charlie O wrote: none of them are direct measurements. That's the fact.
How hot is the surface of the sun? That can be determined quite accurately, but no is out there making a direct measurement. What is the mass of the earth? That can be determined, but no one is putting the earth on a scale for a “direct measurement.” Inference is used in many measurements. That’s a fact.

CharliO wrote: Therefore, with all due respect to those who choose to believe a simplistic 'mainstream science fact' without question and detest even the consideration of any possible alternative, I believe there is the possibility that interior heating may be only insignificant or even totally absent in the Heat Flow measured on Earth's surface.

I don’t see anything in the literature stating anything such as heat flow in the earth is simplistic. Detest is an odd word to use. That’s demagoguery.

CharlieO wrote: Stereologist supports this problem when he states that rock is a good insulator and I agree that most rock would retain the heat from the drilling for some time.

Since rock is a good insulator the rock does not retain the heat. Rocks are generally poor conductors of heat. Therefore, the heat from drilling does not penetrate the rock well. The heat remains near the surface of the borehole.The heat dissipates into the borehole, not conducted into the rocks.

CharlieO: I must wonder how Stereologist or Moontanman will react if I claim, I wrote IF, that ABANDONED oil well bottom hole temperatures [BHT] grow colder over time.

Simple. Just provide some evidence to that claim.

CharlieO wrote: What if I claim, I wrote IF, there are many geysers which erupt with very cold water

Since you point out that experience is so important I should point out that I have seen many geyser fields and not just Yellowstone. The water has splashed on me and been cool to the touch. That has nothing to do with the temperature of the steam forcing water to the surface.

CharlieO wrote: which ONLY provide evidence of temperatures within WORKING mines as being a serious industrial problem; with which I fully agree and have so noted previously.

I am not calling that deceptive. That is a purposeful and blatant MISREPRENTATION of the supplied papers. These papers all discuss the issue of heat flow due to the temperature of the rocks at depth.

CharlieO wrote: the State of Colorado warned of NEAR-FREEZING pools of water at the BOTTOM of shafts?

Now that is a deceptive misrepresentation of the issue! The source of the water is the surface. You quoted a paper I supplied:

Between 50m and 100m (315 feet) the gradient is variable because it is affected by atmospheric changes and circulating ground water. Below that zone, temperature almost always increases with depth.

CharlieO wrote: I pray this is the end of a meaningless dispute over my abandoned mines grow cooler statement.

The issue is whether or not this has any bearing on heat flow or the internal temperature of the earth. It’s a red herring.

CharlieO wrote: IF the Earth is intensely heated inside and Heat Flow is some indication of that factor, why isn't Heat Flow greater closer to Earth's mantle?

The mantle is down some 60 to 120 miles. Heat flow measured in mountains and down in valleys is hardly closer or farther to the mantle. As you quoted from the paper:

However, the rate of increase with depth (geothermal gradient) varies considerably with both tectonic setting and the thermal properties of the rock

[stereologist]

CharlieO wrote: Others, including Lord Reyleigh, around 1850 on, through Neil Christianson, around 1972 on, and many others, some more qualified than opposing researchers, believe there is sufficient heat generated by radioactive decay in Earth's crust

This is not possible. Radioactivity was discovered by Becquerel in 1896. Radioactive decay was discovered in 1902. You mention Neil Christianson, who is the proponent of a metallic hydrogen core. The earth is too massive to have a metallic hydrogen core. End of story.

CharlieO wrote: My personal experience and education confirms ABANDONED mines often have very low temperatures, including near-freezing water in their depths; albeit ice has been reported, but not verified. Also, there are studies by oil companies which verify that ABANDONED oil wells' bottom hole temperatures (BHT) cool down over time. In addition, I've personally observed geysers which erupt cold water.

You need to do more than make anecdotal remarks. Please tell us what low is. Unsubstantiated reports, i.e. ice, are worthless. You can leave those out of future posts. Cold water from geysers? Please tell us the temperature of that water and the location of the geyser.

CharlieO wrote: abandoned mines usually have walls much colder than anbient[sic] surface temperatures.

Tell us the temperatures, depths, and relative humidity involved. You mention restricted airflow. What about water flow. Water flow is one of the better methods of transporting heat.

CharlieO wrote: Some 40 years ago, I assisted in Heat Flow studies which indicated those made in sunny locations were higher than those in nearby, constantly shaded locations; solar radiation obviously being the primary factor. I've also read the results of Heat Flow studies made by others which clearly indicated minimal Heat Flow in the ocean, median Heat Flow at sea levels and greatly increased Heat Flow at higher elevations; inversely to what would be expected with a heated interior.

Heat flow taken in sunny locations? What good is that? Official temperatures taken by the US Weather service requires readings taken in the shade, 4 to 6 feet above the ground surface, in a well ventilated white enclosure.
The Weather Notebook: Thermometer

So all you are saying here is that the sun can warm the surface of the earth. The US weather service knows about it and demands that official readings be performed in a manner to address that issue.

The heat flow claims under the ocean are affected by the rocks under them. The same is true of all measurements you mention.

Your claim that this is “inversely to what would be expected with a heated interior” does not follow from the stated claims.

CharlieO wrote: One study of interest was the attempt to locate caves by using shallow surface temperatures

This is not a peer reviewed paper. I am simply noting this fact.

The paper does NOT reason “that caves would interrupt the flow of heat from Earth's interior and less Heat Flow would indicate the presence of a cave.”

Furthermore the paper does NOT make any claims about radioactivity or, “The obvious difference being the depth of radioactive materials between the surface and cave roof, more so in deeper caves than shallow ones; the deeper caves being overlaid with a greater mass of radioactive material.”

This is a blatant MISREPRESENTATION of the work that is reported.

The paper does state quite clearly that:

Surface radiation by the sun and convection by the wind make any temperature interpretation at the surface difficult.

In most areas, only the shallowest of buried caves have a prayer of being found thermally. In the area of Missouri I have tried this method, it appears that some caves can be located down to a maximum depth of around 20 feet.

Thermal surveys may not work at all in your area if your caves are vertical, with small, dry-soil covered entrances.

Here is a great frustration of using the method…what works in August probably won’t work in May. There can be such changes in surface temperature conditions that what works one day won’t work even on the next, or even the same day at a different time.

To make any claims other than what the author has stated so clearly is again a blatant MISREPRESENTATION.

CharlieO wrote: MY LIFE WITH VOLCANOES, by T. A. Jagger.
I can’t find anything on this book.

CharlieO wrote: I've yet to see a SF Member provide any reference detailing scientific tests which proved ABANDONED mines stay heated after human activity ceases or ABANDON oil wells' bottom hole temperatures remain the same as active wells' BHT or the absence of cold water geysers or temperature studies within active lava lakes that indicate temperatures get hotter with depth or Heat Flow studies which recorded averaged higher Heat Flows closer to Earth's mantle.

I’ve yet to see you post any scientific tests of abandoned mines, abandoned oil wells, cold water geysers, lava lake temperatures, or heat flow studies. You have offered nothing more than anecdotal claims.

[Pyrotex]

okay, CharlieO...

it is obviously clear that logic and facts do not work with you.

You cite "authorities" to back your theory up, then we discover that you MISQUOTE or MISREPRESENT those sources. There's a word for that kind of behavior, CharlieO. That word is "lying". I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just saying, there's a word for that kind of behavior.

Your theory has been utterly refuted by the FACTS and by the LOGIC.

If you persist in ignoring the facts and logic, then you are either a Troll or a Whacko. Neither alternative is exactly welcome here at Hypography.

Prepare for egress.

[UncleAl]

http://www.splung.com/kinematics/ima...n%20of%20g.png
http://www.typnet.net/Essays/EarthGrav.htm
bottom

Gee increases with depth to 50% radius. Earth has an iron core the size of Mars.

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by UncleAl

...Gee increases with depth to 50% radius. Earth has an iron core the size of Mars.

Uncle Al,
Absolutely fascinating! Thank you so much. The idea that Gee would actually INCREASE with depth struck me as odd at first, but with only a little thought, it became obvious. Of course! Earth has an iron core the size of Mars!

Thanks again.

[Zythryn]

Rev, Charlie has refused to address any of the evidence that supports the hot iron core theory, AND weakens or discounts his own.
It is not that he has an, at this point, non-mainstream hypothesis, it is that he won't address the shortfalls in it, or the strengths in the current theory.

[HydrogenBond]

Here is an interesting study.
Iron hydride formed by the reaction of iron, silicate, and water: implications for the light element of the earth's core

Above a pressure of 2.8 GPa at temperatures above 550 °C, iron reacts with water to form iron hydride and iron oxide. The chemical composition of the iron hydride formed is estimated to be FeH0.3-FeH0.4. This result implies that if water was contained together with iron and silicates at sufficient depth within the primordial Earth, iron should have transformed into iron hydride. The density of iron hydride thus formed can explain a large portion of the density deficit of the Earth's core. These results show that hydrogen is likely a component of the Earth's core.

The hydrogen in the core is not there due to density but due to chemical affinity. This is how core hydrogen was sequestered. All we need is a quantum tunneling mechanism for hydrogen for warm-point fusion throughout the core matrix.

[Pyrotex]

[quote]The density of iron hydride thus formed can explain a large portion of the density deficit of the Earth's core. [/unquote]

There is no "density deficit of the Earth's core".
There is no mystery of why the Earth's core isn't as dense as it should be.
There is no problem or paradox or conflict with the best estimates of the core density.
There isn't a problem that needs solving.