Talk:Earth's inner core

core is hotter, update needed

see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22297915 The core is 6000 degrees c — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.59.16 (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed the core has been estiamted to be 6230 ± 500 kelvin by recent experiments. But there's a more reliable source than the one above my post: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6131/464 --92.204.73.240 (talk) 12:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, why is it higher in Kelvin than Celsius? 82.3.143.230 (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Reference 3

Reference 3 is nonsensical. Here is the reference from the UCL web page http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/133558/ Note that it was Nature, in 2000 rather than whatever journal in 2002. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.81.94.125 (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I've added an updated url for the paper in EPSL, there's no doubt it exists as referenced. Their Nature paper in 2000 did not include seismic data. Mikenorton (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Inner inner core

A web search will turn up a recent Illinois paper asserting the inner core is really two layers. Ought this be in the article. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Inner core 'pip'?

Has there been confirmation or peer review of this suggestion?

http://www.rense.com/general30/core.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.20.56 (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, so shouldn't this be included in the article, as the person above also suggests? --98.122.20.56 (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Inner core. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080430105106/http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/earth/p_lehmann.html to http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/earth/p_lehmann.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Would heavier metals segregate?

The article says

Further, if the primordial and mostly fluid (still forming) earth contained any significant mass(es) of elements denser than iron and nickel, namely the white (appearance) precious metals (and a few others) except silver, specifically the siderophile elements, then these would necessarily have differentiated to the very center of the core into concentric nested spheres by planetary differentiation, with the most dense (and stable, i.e. platinum, iridium, and osmium, (etc.) in order of density) of these forming the innermost spheroid(s).[12] While unstable elements of such trans-iron/nickel density would have mostly decayed to iron/nickel/lead by the time the Earth formed a discrete core.

The reference is a page on the National Geographic site directed to 6-12-year-old readers. Besides not being authoritative, that source does not say that heavier metals would have formed separate layers. On the contrary, it lists platinum among the siderophile elements, that would have dissolved in the iron core.
It looks like the layering of heavier metals is original inference by the editor. Therefore, I am removing that paragraph. If it is to be restored, it would need a more authoritative reference. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Inconsistencies with sister articles, and a suggestion

There are some rather large inconsistencies in the values given for various properties like temperature between this article and Earth's outer core. One claim—sourced from a 1998 Nature paper—suggests the temperature at the inner core boundary is somewhere between 4,000-8,000K, which forms uncomfortably large error bars around the 5,700K value quoted in this article (sourced from a 2007 paper). I'm just as capable of looking up sources and doing light editing as the next person, but this topic is fairly far outside of my bailiwick so I thought I'd see if there's anyone more knowledgeable who could rectify the discontinuities.

As for the suggestion, this article apparently gets a lot of attention from the general public. With that in mind, perhaps it'd be a good idea to add comparisons to the physical properties mentioned. For example, in the Density and Mass section, add something like, "The density of iron at the Earth's surface is 7.86 g/cm³" to give a point of comparison to the 13 g/cm³ for the inner core. ☽Dziban303 »» Talk☾ 04:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

so if core is iron.

How much compression does iron have in % if E is 210Gpa on 320Gpa Pressure? is it really iron then with what density? how much compressional energy is stored in that? Wikistallion (talk) 13:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wikistallion: compression with respect to what, vaporized iron at 5000 K and the standard pressure? Or wrt iron at standard temperature and pressure? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Inner Core centered?

Is the inner core centered? --2001:16B8:601:8300:B5FC:E8EF:BCD6:E504 (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Typo in acceleration of gravity at the surface of the inner core?

The acceleration of gravity at the surface of the inner core is listed as $4.3m/s^{2}$. I looked up the linked article that is the source of this number, and it does list this value. But a simple calculation based on other numbers in the article and assuming uniform density suggests that this is about 10x too big.

Calculation: $g_{earth}={\frac {GM_{earth}}{r_{earth}^{2}}}=9.81m/s^{2}$

$g_{core}={\frac {GM_{core}}{r_{core}^{2}}}=g_{earth}{\frac {0.017}{0.191^{2}}}=0.454m/s^{2}$

Since the core is not uniformly dense, the simple calculation is a little too big. I suggest they missed a decimal point and the real value is $0.43m/s^{2}$. I submitted a request for this correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmesser314 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2020

In the Pressure and Gravity section, change The acceleration of gravity at the surface of the inner core can be computed to be 4.3 m/s2;[22] which is less than half the value at the surface of the Earth (9.8 m/s2). to The acceleration of gravity at the surface of the inner core can be computed to be 0.43 m/s2;[22] which is less than 1/20 the value at the surface of the Earth (9.8 m/s2).

I have discussed the reason for this change in the Talk page for the article. Mmesser314 (talk) 03:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. A back-of-the-envelope calculation roughly agrees with the value currently listed. You might want to check again. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit

Due to ambient temperatures of space the injure core is cool. Think of a rock basking in the sun. It will be close to the temperature of space which is darkness which is very cold. Vegitarianfisherman (talk) 07:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

"interior" image

There is an image titled "interior" in the "Physical properties" section. There is no further description of what exactly the image is supposed to show and the image itself has no useful information either. As such, it does not provide any useful information, as I suggest that it be removed if we cannot add the context needed to understand what it supposed to illustrate. I have opened a similar request at the image's talk page — SkyLined (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

On 3 April 2021, I added a "further explanation needed" tag to the caption text of this image in the article. After two weeks of waiting, no explanation has been added. Therefore, I have removed this image from the article because I think it is not an informative image. It could be restored to the article if an explanation is ever added at its Wikimedia Commons page. GeoWriter (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

2nd layer of core discovered update needed

With the recent discovery of the so called innermost core layer within the core, parts of this article are now out of date. Particularly the cross section which only shows the inner core but nothing else within it. 2607:FEA8:99C0:61C0:1BA:4E9A:C03F:4C59 (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Why

Because it is big 2600:1008:B1AA:28E2:ECB1:4C78:9246:60FE (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)