4.7 Article

Adiabatic heat flow in Mercury's core from electrical resistivity measurements of liquid Fe-8.5 wt%Si to 24 GPa

期刊

EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS
卷 568, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2021.117053

关键词

electrical resistivity; thermal conductivity; iron-silicon alloy; high temperature and pressure; Mercury; heat flow

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [2018-05021]
  2. Canada Foundation for Innovation [11860]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study investigated the effect of the core thermal conductivity on heat flow along the adiabat using direct measurements of electrical resistivity of Fe 8.5Si. Unexpected behavior at low temperatures between 6-8 GPa may indicate an undocumented phase transition. The adiabatic heat flow at the core side of Mercury's core-mantle boundary is estimated to be considerably higher compared to most models of Fe-S or Fe-Si core, yet similar to models of an Fe core.
The effect of the core thermal conductivity on the heat flow along the adiabat is investigated using direct measurements of electrical resistivity of Fe 8.5Si at pressures from 5-24 GPa and temperatures above melting. Unexpected behaviour at low temperatures between 6-8 GPa may indicate an undocumented phase transition. Measurements of electrical resistivity at melting seem to remain constant at 127 mu.cm from 10-24 GPa, on both the solid and liquid side of the melting boundary. The adiabatic heat flow at the core side of Mercury's core-mantle boundary is estimated between 21.8-29.5 mWm(-2), considerably higher than most models of an Fe-S or Fe-Si core yet similar to models of an Fe core. Comparing these results with thermal evolution models suggests that Mercury's dynamo remained thermally driven up to 0.08-0.22 Gyr, at which point the core became sub-adiabatic and stimulated a change from dominant thermal convection to dominant chemical convection arising from the growth of an inner core. (C) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据