BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

William F. McDonough

William F. McDonough contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
astro-ph.EPphysics.geo-phnucl-ex

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
3topics
3close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2020arXiv

Accretion disk's magnetic field controlled the composition of the terrestrial planets

Chondrites, the building blocks of the terrestrial planets, have mass and atomic proportions of oxygen, iron, magnesium, and silicon totaling $\geq$90\% and variable Mg/Si ($\sim$25\%), Fe/Si (factor of $\geq$2), and Fe/O (factor of $\geq$3). The Earth and terrestrial planets (Mercury, Venus, and Mars) are differentiated into three layers: a metallic core, a silicate shell (mantle and crust), and a volatile envelope of gases, ices, and, for the Earth, liquid water. Each layer has different dominant elements (e.g., increasing Fe content with depth and increasing oxygen content to the surface). What remains an unknown is to what degree did physical processes during nebular disk accretion versus those during post-nebular disk accretion (e.g., impact erosion) influence these final bulk compositions. Here we predict terrestrial planet compositions and show that their core mass fractions and uncompressed densities correlate with their heliocentric distance, and follow a simple model of the magnetic field strength in the protoplanetary disk. Our model assesses the distribution of iron in terms of increasing oxidation state, aerodynamics, and a decreasing magnetic field strength outward from the Sun, leading to decreasing core size of the terrestrial planets with radial distance. This distribution would enhance habitability in our solar system, and would be equally applicable to exo-planetary systems.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Radiogenic power and geoneutrino luminosity of the Earth and other terrestrial bodies through time

We report the Earth's rate of radiogenic heat production and (anti)neutrino luminosity from geologically relevant short-lived radionuclides (SLR) and long-lived radionuclides (LLR) using decay constants from the geological community, updated nuclear physics parameters, and calculations of the $β$ spectra. We track the time evolution of the radiogenic power and luminosity of the Earth over the last 4.57 billion years, assuming an absolute abundance for the refractory elements in the silicate Earth and key volatile/refractory element ratios (e.g., Fe/Al, K/U, and Rb/Sr) to set the abundance levels for the moderately volatile elements. The relevant decays for the present-day heat production in the Earth ($19.9\pm3.0$ TW) are from $^{40}$K, $^{87}$Rb, $^{147}$Sm, $^{232}$Th, $^{235}$U, and $^{238}$U. Given element concentrations in kg-element/kg-rock and density $ρ$ in kg/m$^3$, a simplified equation to calculate the present day heat production in a rock is: $$ h \, [μ\text{W m}^{-3}] = ρ\left( 3.387 \times 10^{-3}\,\text{K} + 0.01139 \,\text{Rb} + 0.04595\,\text{Sm} + 26.18\,\text{Th} + 98.29\,\text{U} \right) $$ The radiogenic heating rate of Earth-like material at Solar System formation was some 10$^3$ to 10$^4$ times greater than present-day values, largely due to decay of $^{26}$Al in the silicate fraction, which was the dominant radiogenic heat source for the first $\sim10$ Ma. Assuming instantaneous Earth formation, the upper bound on radiogenic energy supplied by the most powerful short-lived radionuclide $^{26}$Al ($t_{1/2}$ = 0.7 Ma) is 5.5$\;\times\;$10$^{31}$ J, which is comparable (within a factor of a few) to the planet's gravitational binding energy.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

The composition of Mars

Comparing compositional models of the terrestrial planets provides insights into physicochemical processes that produced planet-scale similarities and differences. The widely accepted compositional model for Mars assumes Mn and more refractory elements are in CI chondrite proportions in the planet, including Fe, Mg, and Si, which along with O make up $>$90\% of the mass of Mars. However, recent improvements in our understandings on the composition of the solar photosphere and meteorites challenge the use of CI chondrite as an analog of Mars. Here we present an alternative model composition for Mars that avoids such an assumption and is based on data from Martian meteorites and spacecraft observations. Our modeling method was previously applied to predict the Earth's composition. The model establishes the absolute abundances of refractory lithophile elements in the bulk silicate Mars (BSM) at 2.26 times higher than that in CI carbonaceous chondrites. Relative to this chondritic composition, Mars has a systematic depletion in moderately volatile lithophile elements as a function of their condensation temperatures. Given this finding, we constrain the abundances of siderophile and chalcophile elements in the bulk Mars and its core. The Martian volatility trend is consistent with $ \leq $7 wt\% S in its core, which is significantly lower than that assumed in most core models (i.e., $ > $10 wt\% S). Furthermore, the occurrence of ringwoodite at the Martian core-mantle boundary might have contributed to the partitioning of O and H into the Martian core.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2019arXiv

Reference Models for Lithospheric Geoneutrino Signal

Debate continues on the amount and distribution of radioactive heat producing elements (i.e., U, Th, and K) in the Earth, with estimates for mantle heat production varying by an order of magnitude. Constraints on the bulk-silicate Earth's (BSE) radiogenic power also places constraints on overall BSE composition. Geoneutrino detection is a direct measure of the Earth's decay rate of Th and U. The geoneutrino signal has contributions from the local ($\sim$40$\%$) and global ($\sim$35$\%$) continental lithosphere and the underlying inaccessible mantle ($\sim$25$\%$). Geophysical models are combined with geochemical datasets to predict the geoneutrino signal at current and future geoneutrino detectors. We propagated uncertainties, both chemical and physical, through Monte Carlo methods. Estimated total signal uncertainties are on the order of $\sim$20$\%$, proportionally with geophysical and geochemical inputs contributing $\sim$30$\%$ and $\sim$70$\%$, respectively. We find that estimated signals, calculated using CRUST2.0, CRUST1.0, and LITHO1.0, are within physical uncertainty of each other, suggesting that the choice of underlying geophysical model will not change results significantly, but will shift the central value by up to $\sim$15$\%$, depending on the crustal model and detector location. Similarly, we see no significant difference between calculated layer abundances and bulk-crustal heat production when using these geophysical models. The bulk crustal heat production is calculated as $7 \pm2$~terrawatts, which includes an increase of 1~TW in uncertainty relative to previous studies. Future improvements, including uncertainty attribution and near-field modeling, are discussed.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access