Jul 27, 2020
308
46
230
It might appear that the power released by these earthquakes, some well beyond the realm of large nuclear weapons, might inspire some to think that thermonuclear reactions are the source of this power. But it seems rather unlikely.

Most naturally occurring energetic events of this nature - earthquakes, asteroid impacts, volcanic eruptions, etc. are purely mechanical in nature (i.e. non-nuclear). Consider the energy released by the Chicxulub impactor is estimated at 50-100 million MT. This surely was not related to a thermonuclear event.

And the 1883 Krakatoa eruption is estimated with an explosive yield of 200 MT. Unless some aliens detonated a thermonuclear device under that volcano, it detonated by purely natural, mechanical forces.

The Great Chilean Earthquake was a "megathrust earthquake" (1).

Quoting from (1):

They result "where one tectonic plate is forced underneath another, caused by slip along the thrust fault that forms the contact between them. These interplate earthquakes are the planet's most powerful,....."

end quote

It seems rather unlikely that thermonuclear reactions result in seismic events on earth.


(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megathrust_earthquake
 
Dec 12, 2020
29
1
55
1. The power of thermonuclear reactions is not limited. Examples of thermonuclear reactions on the Sun confirm this and remove all doubts.
2. Mechanical energy can be represented as the work of spring, and it is difficult to imagine a mechanism that stores and implements an energy level of 200 megatons. Don't you think?
3. How to explain the origin of deep-focus earthquakes at depths of 300-800 km by mechanical energy, where everything is in a semi-molten form?
 
Jul 27, 2020
308
46
230
Mechanical energy can be represented as the work of spring, and it is difficult to imagine a mechanism that stores and implements an energy level of 200 megatons. Don't you think?
Large impacting masses can provide such a mechanism, like a spring, and it is non-nuclear -> The energy released by the Chicxulub impactor at 50-100 million MT was mechanical - "like a spring".

There were no nuclear reactions of any kind, but it had an energy yield in the millions of megatons.

Isn't 200 megatons a minor fraction of the mechanical energy released by the above mechanical impactor?

to repeat: The 1883 Krakatoa volcanic eruption is estimated having an explosive yield of 200 MT. Non-nuclear - purely mechanical. Like a spring.

I have no knowledge of deep-focus earthquakes. But I do know a little about earthquakes, and they can release a lot of energy. None of it is from nuclear reactions.

Examples of thermonuclear reactions on the Sun
These occur at temperatures in the millions K (inside the sun). There seems to be no means to employ the sun's examples to devise thermonuclear reactions for earthquakes.


 
Dec 12, 2020
29
1
55
There were no nuclear reactions of any kind, but it had an energy yield in the millions of megatons.
??????
1. 2 million megatons of TNT is about 10,000 explosions similar to the Krakatoa volcano. This is already an apocalypse, don't you think?
2.Until 1972, it was believed that nuclear reactions in natural conditions are not feasible, until scientists discovered 16 natural reactors in three parts of the uranium deposit in Gabon, under the general name "Oklo Natural Nuclear Reactor". So why doesn't a thermonuclear reaction occur in the bowels of the Earth? Temperature? With the reactions are known since the 1950s as the μCF process, a few thousand degrees are enough and the reaction will go like clockwork.
 
Jul 27, 2020
308
46
230
16 natural reactors in three parts of the uranium deposit in Gabon, under the general name "Oklo Natural Nuclear Reactor". So why doesn't a thermonuclear reaction occur in the bowels of the Earth?
Those deposits in Africa result from naturally formed, self-sustained nuclear fission "reactors" which occur when sufficient concentrations of fissile material appear together from geological processes. Each could have self-sustained a fission reaction for extended periods. But these natural reactors are putting out energy by fission, not thermonuclear fusion, and neither have anything to do with earthquakes.
 
Dec 12, 2020
29
1
55
So you easily admit the natural process of nuclear fission, but not the natural process of nuclear fusion? Before 1972, anyone who claimed the possibility of natural nuclear reactions would have been laughed at. But in 1972 everyone stopped laughing. Of course, African reactors are not related to earthquakes, because the reactors worked without detonating the active part of a natural reactor. We are discussing the possibility of a seismic shock due to the explosion of a natural thermonuclear reactor. Look at this:https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3738328
 
Dec 12, 2020
29
1
55
It is known that after earthquakes in the environment, the content of helium increases. Why? Maybe because hydrogen nuclei merge? And we are talking about depths of several hundred kilometers. Until 1972, people also thought that natural nuclear reactions could not occur on Earth until they found 16 natural reactors in Africa.
Thanks.
Miner
 
Jul 27, 2020
308
46
230
after earthquakes in the environment, the content of helium increases.
The only natural source for helium on earth is by decay of radioisotopes, which occurs well below the surface, at least in bulk. This again is from fission. Much of the earth's molten core is heated by radioactive decay, which releases lots of helium.

Significant seismic activity would release helium from within the crust. This does not mean that fission or fusion is causing seismic activity inside the planet. It means that the seismic activity created pathways for this helium to rise more rapidly from those areas.
You are welcome.
Chem721
 
Dec 12, 2020
29
1
55
Are you rejecting the scientific fact that helium is formed by the fusion of two hydrogen nuclei? And this is already a thermonuclear reaction. The fact that the high temperature in the bowels of the Earth is formed due to nuclear reactions is controversial. This is just a hypothesis.

Miner
 
Jul 27, 2020
308
46
230
Are you rejecting the scientific fact that helium is formed by the fusion of two hydrogen nuclei?
Helium formed by fusion of hydrogen (four, not two nuclei) occurs at the center of the sun, at about 15 million K. That I am not denying.

I am denying that nuclear fusion from hydrogen to produce helium occurs beneath this planet. It is not a reasonable proposition considering the extreme requirements.
 
Dec 12, 2020
29
1
55
Let's reason like this: What is needed to start a thermonuclear reaction? 1. A set of necessary substances. 2. A temperature of several million degrees. I dare to suggest that deep in the Earth's mantle there are many different suitable substances from hydrogen to iron, which can be a combustible material for a thermonuclear reaction. I think you agree with this provision. It remains to resolve the issue with the temperature. As I already wrote to you, the reaction starts temperature can be lowered from millions of degrees to several thousand, which is quite acceptable at a depth of several hundred kilometers. By what means, you ask? Due to the catalyst - the process of muon melting. This process is well known and studied.
 
Jul 27, 2020
308
46
230
the process of muon melting
Regrettably I have no experience in subatomic reactions in the interior of the earth, so have nothing to offer. And it is not worth your effort to try to explain them to me.

It should be noted that fusing iron is an endothermic reaction, which requires enormous amounts of energy (heat input). Would advise you drop that one from your list.

And fusing those helium nuclei you were referring to can occur in what is called the triple-alpha process to produce carbon. But this requires temperatures estimated at 100 million K.

Sorry, but I cannot help you on those subterranean subatomic activities.

Cheers!
 
Last edited:
Dec 12, 2020
29
1
55
I understand you, it's hard to imagine a thermonuclear reaction in the Earth's mantle. But, this is just a hypothesis, why not fantasize on a real scientific basis. Anyway, thanks for the conversation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chem721
Mar 19, 2020
284
38
730
Let's reason like this: What is needed to start a thermonuclear reaction? 1. A set of necessary substances. 2. A temperature of several million degrees. I dare to suggest that deep in the Earth's mantle there are many different suitable substances from hydrogen to iron, which can be a combustible material for a thermonuclear reaction. I think you agree with this provision. It remains to resolve the issue with the temperature. As I already wrote to you, the reaction starts temperature can be lowered from millions of degrees to several thousand, which is quite acceptable at a depth of several hundred kilometers. By what means, you ask? Due to the catalyst - the process of muon melting. This process is well known and studied.
Is there enough hydrogen in a dense enough state? no.
 
Dec 12, 2020
29
1
55
I have already noted the fact that other elements from H to Fe are also suitable for the thermonuclear reaction process. And if the matter rests only on hydrogen, then during volcanic eruptions, hydrogen is the main erupting gas. For example, during the eruption of Mount Etna, scientists stated 14% hydrogen.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY