Cataclysmic Geomagnetic Field Collapse: Global Security Concerns

Abstract

In 2015, Tyler J. Williams authored “Cataclysmic Polarity Shift: Is U. S. National Security Prepared for the Next Geomagnetic Pole Reversal?” That document provides an extremely cogent and thorough description of some of the risks to national security and infrastructure expected to result from a geomagnetic polarity reversal. However, it describes geomagnetic field generation solely as currently promoted by the geophysics community which is based upon old ideas, circa 1940s-1960s, that are taken to be factual without any attempt to understand their limitations or to evaluate their validity in light of subsequent scientific developments. Moreover, the security concerns Williams described are relevant to humanity globally. Here I have reviewed the historical development of those old ideas, pointed out their problematic nature, and reviewed subsequent published advances that overcome their inherent problems and lead to a better understanding of the geophysics related to geomagnetic polarity reversals, geomagnetic excursions, and, at some yet unknown time, the permanent demise of the geomagnetic field. Mechanisms of rapid geomagnetic field collapse, both natural and potentially human-induced, are described. The present state of nuclear georeactor activity, whether geomagnetic field collapse leads to increased georeactor output, and whether it is likely to trigger earthquakes and volcano eruptions are yet unknown matters of seriously troubling human security concerns. Global security preparedness, even though addressed by sovereign nations, should be predicated upon the latest and most correct scientific understanding. In some areas that may be the case, but in the scientific areas described here there are clearly problems. The inherent problems, I submit, do not result from inadequate funding, but from inadequate methodologies, expectations and responsibilities of scientists, their national and parent institutions, publishers, and respective funding-agencies.

Full text

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
*Corresponding author: E-mail: mherndon@san.rr.com;
Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science
International
24(4): 61-79, 2020; Article no.JGEESI.57772
ISSN: 2454-7352
Cataclysmic Geomagnetic Field Collapse:
Global Security Concerns
J. Marvin Herndon
1*
1
Transdyne Corporation, 11044 Red Rock Drive, San Diego, CA 92131, USA.
Author's contribution
The author holds that technical, scientific, medical and public health representations made in the
scientific literature in general, including this particular journal, should be and are truthful and accurate
to the greatest extent possible and should serve to the highest degree possible to protect the health
and well-being of humanity and Earth’s natural environment.
Article Information
DOI: 10.9734/JGEESI/2020/v24i430219
Editor(s):
(1) Dr. Pere Serra Ruiz, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain.
Reviewers:
(1) Mustapha Adejo Mohammed, Federal University of Lafia, Nigeria.
(2) Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, CSJM University, India.
(3) Marcela Lopes Zanon, Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, Brazil.
Complete Peer review History:
http://www.sdiarticle4.com/review-history/57772
Received 02 April 2020
Accepted 08 June 2020
Published 18 June 2020
ABSTRACT
In 2015, Tyler J. Williams authored “Cataclysmic Polarity Shift: Is U. S. National Security Prepared
for the Next Geomagnetic Pole Reversal?” That document provides an extremely cogent and
thorough description of some of the risks to national security and infrastructure expected to result
from a geomagnetic polarity reversal. However, it describes geomagnetic field generation solely as
currently promoted by the geophysics community which is based upon old ideas, circa 1940s-
1960s, that are taken to be factual without any attempt to understand their limitations or to evaluate
their validity in light of subsequent scientific developments. Moreover, the security concerns
Williams described are relevant to humanity globally. Here I have reviewed the historical
development of those old ideas, pointed out their problematic nature, and reviewed subsequent
published advances that overcome their inherent problems and lead to a better understanding of
the geophysics related to geomagnetic polarity reversals, geomagnetic excursions, and, at some
yet unknown time, the permanent demise of the geomagnetic field. Mechanisms of rapid
geomagnetic field collapse, both natural and potentially human-induced, are described. The present
state of nuclear georeactor activity, whether geomagnetic field collapse leads to increased
georeactor output, and whether it is likely to trigger earthquakes and volcano eruptions are yet
Review Article

Herndon; JGEESI, 24(4): 61-79, 2020; Article no.JGEESI.57772
62
unknown matters of seriously troubling human security concerns. Global security preparedness,
even though addressed by sovereign nations, should be predicated upon the latest and most
correct scientific understanding. In some areas that may be the case, but in the scientific areas
described here there are clearly problems. The inherent problems, I submit, do not result from
inadequate funding, but from inadequate methodologies, expectations and responsibilities of
scientists, their national and parent institutions, publishers, and respective funding-agencies.
Keywords: Magnetic pole reversal; geomagnetic reversal; magnetic pole shift; geodynamo.
1. INTRODUCTION
Earth is constantly under assault by the solar
wind, an electrically conducting ionized plasma
streaming from the sun at temperatures on the
order of one million degrees Celsius and
velocities of about 1.6 million kilometers per hour
[1]. Fortunately, the geomagnetic field deflects
the solar wind safely around our planet thus
shielding the environment and its biological
constituents from serious harm [2].
From time to time, massive pulses of charged
plasma are ejected from the sun’s corona [3] that
partially overwhelm Earth’s magnetic field,
producing infrastructure-damaging geomagnetic
storms that disrupt communications and
navigation systems, and that damage electrical
equipment by induced electric currents [4,5].
These sporadic events provide glimpses of the
far more devastating consequences that will
inevitably result during the next collapse of the
geomagnetic field. As illustrated in Fig. 1,
geomagnetic reversals have happened often in
the geological past and will happen often in the
geological future [6,7].
Proto-humans existed and survived the last
geomagnetic polarity reversal 786,000 years
ago, but were extremely limited in population and
infrastructure. Now, when a reversal takes place,
the consequences will be catastrophic for
civilization’s technologically highly-integrated
infrastructure. In 2015, Williams [8] authored a
document entitled “Cataclysmic Polarity Shift: Is
U. S. National Security Prepared for the Next
Geomagnetic Pole Reversal?” Drawing on the
consequences of exceptionally great coronal
mass ejections, Williams described some of the
potential risks to national security and
infrastructure posed by a geomagnetic polarity
reversal. Such risks are generally applicable to
global security.
The potential consequences of a geomagnetic
reversal on global technologically-based
infrastructure, include the following [8]:
Widespread communications disruptions, GPS
blackouts, satellite failures, loss of electrical
power, loss of electric-transmission control,
electrical equipment damage, fires, electrocution,
environmental degradation, refrigeration
disruptions, food shortages, starvation and
concomitant anarchy, potable water shortages,
financial systems shut-down, fuel delivery
disruptions, loss of ozone and increased skin
cancers, cardiac deaths, and dementia. This list
is not exhaustive. It is likely that a geomagnetic
field collapse would cause much hardship and
suffering, and potentially reverse more than two
centuries of technological infrastructure
development.
William’s report [8] is nonetheless based on an
outmoded understanding of solid-Earth
geophysics, an understanding whose
foundations are comprised of ideas that date
from the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, where
they stop. These fundamental ideas are taken to
be factual decades later without any attempt to
understand their limitations or to evaluate their
validity in light of subsequent scientific ideas and
discoveries made over the last 50 years. I have
reviewed the historical development of those old
ideas, described their problematic nature, and
reviewed subsequent published advances that
overcome their inherent problems and lead to a
better understanding of the physics related to
geomagnetic polarity reversals. I have also
described mechanisms of geomagnetic field
collapse, both natural and potentially human-
induced. My intent is not to contradict Williams’
[8] well-described national security implications,
but to broaden and extend them globally,
especially in light of fundamentally new scientific
advances.
When the geomagnetic field collapses and then
re-establishes in a reversed direction, it often
leaves a readily traceable paleomagnetic record
that can be revealed by rock-magnetism
investigations. From Fig. 1 there is neither
apparent periodicity with respect to the onset of
magnetic reversals nor periodicity with the
durations between reversals [9].

Herndon; JGEESI, 24(4): 61-79, 2020; Article no.JGEESI.57772
63
Fig. 1. Geomagnetic polarity since the middle Jurassic. Dark areas denote periods where the
polarity matches today's polarity, while light areas denote periods where that polarity is
reversed. Based upon published data [10,11]
Fig. 2. Recent geomagnetic polarity from rock-magnetism investigations. Dark areas denote
periods where the polarity matches today's polarity, while light areas denote periods where
that polarity is reversed. Based upon an image by the U. S. Geological Survey
Fig. 2 presents a record of recent magnetic
polarity reversals. The last polarity reversal event
occurred about 786,000 years ago and may have
occurred during a time span as short as 13±6
years [9], a time-frame consistent with other
observations of rapid geomagnetic reversals
[12,13].
There have been numerous instances with
geomagnetic polarity durations shorter than the
duration-existence of the present polarity (Figs. 1
and 2). There is presently no known way to
estimate the onset of the next polarity reversal or
excursion. There are indications that may show
that a reversal might be imminent:
 As reported by Brown et al. [14]: “The
geomagnetic field has been decaying
at a rate of ~5% per century from at
least 1840, with indirect observations
suggesting a decay since 1600 or even
earlier.”
 As reported by Olson and Amit [15]: “The
dipole moment of Earth’s magnetic field has
decreased by nearly 9% over the past 150
years and by about 30% over the past 2,000
years according to archeomagnetic
measurements”.
 There has been recent accelerated
movement of the North Dip Magnetic Pole,
shown in Figs. 3 and 4.
2. GEOMAGNETIC FIELD PRODUCTION
IDEAS
Despite the importance of understanding the
nature of the geomagnetic field, especially its
potential for disruption which could have
devastating global consequences for modern
humanity [8], almost all scientific publications
about it are based upon the false assumption
that the geomagnetic field is generated inside the
Earth’s fluid core.
Gauss [18] demonstrated that the seat of the
geomagnetic field lies at or near the center of the
Earth. Faraday [19] discovered that an electrical
current of moving charges produces a magnetic
field. Beginning in 1939, Elsasser [20-22] set-
forth the idea that the geomagnetic field is
produced by a current of moving charges driven
by convection operating inside the Earth’s fluid
iron-alloy core that acts as a self-sustaining
dynamo mechanism. For 80 years that concept
has been widely assumed to be the case [8,23-
27] without questioning the underlying scientific
basis, without considering the inherent problems

Herndon; JGEESI, 24(4): 61-79, 2020; Article no.JGEESI.57772
64
of the basic idea, or without citation of more
recent and contradictory scientific literature.
In 1898 Wiechert [28] suggested that the Earth’s
whole-body density [29] could be explained if
Earth has a core made of iron metal, like the iron
meteorites he had seen in museums. Oldham
[30] discovered the Earth’s core in 1906 and by
1933 its size was precisely determined and it
was understood to be fluid [31]. In 1936 Inge
Lehmann [32] reasoned the existence of
the inner core to explain observations of
earthquake waves reflected into the ‘shadow
zone’ (Fig. 5).
Fig. 3. Points in red show the movement of the North Magnetic Dip Pole, the position on the
Earth’s surface where the geomagnetic field is vertical. Points in blue show the movement of
the North Geomagnetic Pole, a model result of a fictitious dipole through the Earth’s center.
Courtesy of the British Geological Survey
Fig. 4. Distance increment in km across the Earth’s surface that the North Magnetic Dip Pole
moved between dates indicated by five-year points of time. Data from [16]. Inset shows similar
incremental North Magnetic Dip Pole surface movement (km) for recent one-year points of
time. Data from [17]

Herndon; JGEESI, 24(4): 61-79, 2020; Article no.JGEESI.57772
65
Fig. 5. A scan of Inge Lehmann’s original diagram showing discovery of the Earth’s inner core
[32]. For improved clarity, the circles representing the inner core and the fluid core have
subsequently been traced over in red and purple, respectively. The shadow zone, not
specifically marked on her original diagram, is indicated in blue. Note the reflection of ray #5
into the shadow zone [33]
Explaining the composition of Lehmann’s inner
core began a progression of misunderstanding
that confused generations of geophysicists,
especially those concerned with the geomagnetic
field, including its origin, energy source, and
reversals.
The discovery of the inner core necessitated
understanding its composition. At the time of its
discovery and for decades thereafter, the
composition of the Earth was imagined to be
similar to that of an ordinary chondrite meteorite.
In ordinary chondrites, nickel is always observed
alloyed with iron metal [34,35]. Elements heavier
than iron and nickel are insufficiently abundant,
even when aggregated, to comprise a mass as
great as the inner core. To explain the
composition of the inner core, in 1940 Birch [36]
assumed that the inner core was partially
crystallized iron metal.
Eighty years later, geoscientists, nearly without
exception, continue to assume that the inner core
is partially crystallized iron metal. That assumed
inner core composition informs obsolescent
thinking about the generation of the geomagnetic
field inside Earth’s fluid core. Some even assume
– without substantive evidence – that the inner
core is growing [37,38]. No one seems to be
aware of the problematic, unresolvable
underlying assumptions. For example, does the
Earth’s core really resemble the alloy of an
ordinary chondrite meteorite? If not, then what is
the composition of the inner core, and what does
the theoretical composition imply about the
generation of the geomagnetic field, the potential
causes for its disruption, and concomitant global
security concerns?
Metal-bearing chondrite meteorites mainly
consist of nickel-iron alloy, iron sulfide, and
silicates. Upon heating in a gravitational field,
iron metal and iron sulfide meld, liquefy, and
settle by gravity beneath the less-dense silicate
portion, similar to the way steel settles beneath
slag on a steel-hearth [39,40]. Earth is like a
spherical steel-hearth, its entire core or alloy part
comprising 32.5% of the planet’s mass [41]. As
shown in Fig. 6, some enstatite chondrites have
a sufficiently high percentage of iron-alloy to
make such a massive core. Ordinary chondrites
do not [42-44].
The fact that the Earth’s core does not resemble
the metal alloy of an ordinary chondrite calls into
question the oft-quoted assumption that the inner

Herndon; JGEESI, 24(4): 61-79, 2020; Article no.JGEESI.57772
66
Fig. 6. Evidence that Earth resembles an enstatite chondrite. The percent alloy (iron metal plus
iron sulfide) of 157 ordinary chondrites (green circles) and 9 enstatite chondrites (red circles)
plotted against oxygen content. The core percent of the whole-Earth, “arrow E”, and of (core-
plus-lower mantle), “arrow X”, shows that Earth resembles an Abee-type enstatite chondrite
and does not resemble an ordinary chondrite. Data from references [45-48]
Fig. 7. Relative abundances of the major and minor elements in the Abee enstatite chondrite,
normalized to iron, showing their relative amounts in the alloy and silicate portions. Note that
calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), and silicon (Si), normally lithophile elements, occur in part in
the alloy portion of enstatite chondrites, but not ordinary chondrites. Data from references
[41,59,60]
core is partially crystallized iron metal. Why? The
partially crystallized inner core idea was based
upon the false assumption that the Earth’s core
resembles the alloy of ordinary chondrite
meteorites. Thus, the idea of the inner core
growing [37,38], for which there is no
independent corroborating evidence, cannot be
assumed to be the energy source that produces
the geomagnetic field.
In 1940, when Birch [36] propounded the idea of
the inner core’s composition as partially

Herndon; JGEESI, 24(4): 61-79, 2020; Article no.JGEESI.57772
67
crystallized iron metal in the process of freezing
from the liquid iron core, he ignored the
possibility of rare enstatite chondrites whose
unusual mineral chemistry was then largely
unknown, except for the mineral oldhamite,
calcium sulfide (CaS) [49], which is not found
naturally on Earth’s surface. Subsequent
discoveries related to components of the alloy
portion of enstatite chondrites were necessary to
understand the constituents of the Earth’s
enstatite-chondrite-like core. These crucial
discoveries, however, were not made until the
1960s and 1970s: Silicon in the metal of enstatite
chondrites [50]; niningerite, magnesium sulfide
(MgS) [51] and, perryite, nickel silicide (Ni
2
Si)
[52-57]. Subsequently, in 1982, two important
trace elements, uranium and thorium, were
discovered in the alloy portion of the Abee
enstatite chondrite [58]. These data provide a
basis for understanding the chemistry of the
Earth’s core, which would have been impossible
for Birch to have known in 1940.
Fig. 7 shows the relative proportion of high-
oxygen-affinity elements present in the alloy
portion of enstatite chondrites unlike as in
ordinary chondrites.
3. EARTH’S INNER CORE AND ITS
PRECIPITATES
While studying the mineralogy of enstatite
chondrites, I realized the possibility that, if silicon
exists within the Earth’s fluid core, then in
principle the silicon would combine with nickel to
form a solid precipitate more dense than the fluid
core and that it would have virtually the same
mass as the actual inner-core mass. My new
inner-core concept, derived logically, was
published in 1979 in the Proceedings of the
Royal Society of London [61]. The abstract in its
entirety states: “From observations of nature the
suggestion is made that the inner core of the
Earth consists not of partially crystallized nickel
iron metal but of nickel silicide.”
Elements that have a high affinity for oxygen
tend to be incompatible in iron-based alloys.
Incompatible elements, like calcium and
magnesium, in a cooling liquid iron alloy will seek
a thermodynamically feasible way to come out of
solution in a cooling liquid iron alloy. Industrially,
to remove sulfur from high-quality steel,
magnesium or calcium is injected into the molten
iron which then combines with sulfur and floats to
the surface [62-64]. In the Earth’s core, calcium
sulfide (CaS) and magnesium sulfide (MgS) can
form solids at temperatures well above the
melting point of iron, and float to the top of the
core.
Dahm [65] and Bullen [66] first discussed the
seismic irregularity at the boundary between
Earth’s core and its lower mantle. Subsequent
investigations confirmed the existence of
“islands” of matter at the boundary of the core
[67,68] that accounts for the seismic “roughness”
observed. Rather than being an artifact from
the lower mantle, I showed that the “islands” of
matter at the core-mantle boundary are
understandable as low-density, high-temperature
CaS and MgS precipitates from the
Earth’s enstatite-chondrite-like core [69-71]
(Table 1).
Table 1. Fundamental mass ratio comparison between the endo-Earth (lower mantle plus core)
and the Abee enstatite chondrite. Above a depth of 660 km, seismic data indicate layers
suggestive of veneer, possibly formed by the late addition of more oxidized chondrite and
cometary matter, whose compositions cannot be specified with certainty at this time [44]
Fundamental earth ratio
Earth ratio value
Abee ratio value
lower mantle mass to total core mass 1.49 1.43
inner core mass to total core mass 0.052 Theoretical
0.052 if Ni
3
Si
0.057 if Ni
2
Si
inner core mass to lower mantle
+
total core
mass
D′′ mass to total core mass
0.021
0.09***
0.021
0.11*
ULVZ** of D′′ CaS mass to total core mass 0.012**** 0.012*
* = avg. of Abee, Indarch, and Adhi-Kot enstatite chondrites, D′′ is the “seismically rough” region between the fluid
core and lower mantle, ** ULVZ is the “Ultra Low Velocity Zone” of D′′, *** calculated assuming average thickness
of 200 km, **** calculated assuming average thickness of 28 km data from [41,59,72]

Herndon; JGEESI, 24(4): 61-79, 2020; Article no.JGEESI.57772
68
4. PROBLEMATIC EARTH CORE GEO-
MAGNETIC DYNAMO
In the circa 1940 understanding of the Earth’s
core, assumed to be an iron alloy similar in
composition to the iron metal of ordinary
chondrites, there is no obvious source of energy
in the fluid core to power the geomagnetic field.
In 1950 Elsasser [22] realized that problem and
suggested uranium and thorium oxides (UO
3
and
ThO
2
) might be incorporated in the core because
of their high densities. Urey [73] disputed that
idea believing that Earth resembled an ordinary
chondrite. In ordinary chondrites, uranium tends
to concentrate in CaO-rich mineral assemblages
[74], which are not expected to occur in Earth’s
fluid core.
For 80 years geoscientists, have subscribed to
the view that the Earth’s inner core is made up of
partially crystallized iron metal, and have either
ignored the absence of a dynamo-powering
energy source in the fluid core [75] and relied on
fictive energy production or assumed
“compositional” convection that results from
hypothetical growth of the inner core [76,77].
These are no longer scientifically justified
assumptions.
There are periods of time when the geomagnetic
field has operated without reversals for millions
of years (Fig. 1). Geoscientists [78-80] have not
yet understood that sustained thermal
convection, necessary for geomagnetic field
production, is physically impossible in Earth’s
core [71,81].
In addition to the absence of a dynamo-driving-
energy source, there are two reasons why
convection is physically impossible in the core
[71]. First, the core is ‘bottom heavy’, i.e. its
density at the bottom is about 23% greater than
at its top due to compression by the weight
above. The potential decrease in density caused
by thermal expansion, <1%, is insufficient to
make the core ‘top heavy’ and result in
convection [82]. Further, for stable thermal
convection, heat brought to the top of the core
must be efficiently removed to maintain the
adverse temperature gradient required for
convection [82]. But that is not possible
because the core is wrapped in a thermally-
insulating silicate blanket, the mantle,
which has lower thermal conductivity, lower
heat capacity, and higher viscosity than the core
[71].
5. NUCLEAR GEOREACTOR GEO-
MAGNETIC FIELD GENERATION
In 1982 Murrell and Burnett [58] discovered that
uranium in the Abee enstatite chondrite resides
in its alloy component. A decade later I published
the justification that uranium in the Earth’s core
would be a high temperature precipitate and
would settle to the planet’s center [69]. In a
series of publications beginning in 1993 through
2006 [43,69,83-87], I demonstrated the feasibility
of the planetocentric uranium maintaining a self-
sustaining nuclear fission chain reaction. The
georeactor, as it came to be known, provides
both the energy source for geomagnetic field
generation, and a location, not in the fluid core
(Fig. 8), but in the georeactor itself, wherein the
geomagnetic field could be generated by
Elsasser’s [20-22] dynamo mechanism. To date
no one has refuted this theory’s validity.
The following is part of the abstract of the first
georeactor review article published in 2014 [44]:
The background, basis, feasibility, structure,
evidence, and geophysical implications of a
naturally occurring Terracentric nuclear fission
georeactor are reviewed. For a nuclear fission
reactor to exist at the center of the Earth, all of
the following conditions must be met: (1) There
must originally have been a substantial quantity
of uranium within Earth’s core; (2) There must be
a natural mechanism for concentrating the
uranium; (3) The isotopic composition of the
uranium at the onset of fission must be
appropriate to sustain a nuclear fission chain
reaction; (4) The reactor must be able to breed a
sufficient quantity of fissile nuclides to permit
operation over the lifetime of Earth to the
present; (5) There must be a natural mechanism
for the removal of fission products; (6) There
must be a natural mechanism for removing heat
from the reactor; (7) There must be a natural
mechanism to regulate reactor power level; and;
(8) The location of the reactor must be such as to
provide containment and prevent meltdown.
Herndon’s georeactor alone is shown to meet
those conditions. Georeactor existence evidence
based upon helium measurements and upon
antineutrino measurements is described.
Geophysical implications discussed include
georeactor origin of the geomagnetic field,
geomagnetic reversals from intense solar
outbursts and severe Earth trauma, as well as
georeactor heat contributions to global dynamics.
From a global security standpoint, the relevance
of the georeactor bears directly upon the causes

Herndon; JGEESI, 24(4): 61-79, 2020; Article no.JGEESI.57772
69
of geomagnetic reversals and the rapidity with
which they might occur, as well as the possibility
that geomagnetic collapse might be initiated by
human activity. And there are uncertainties about
georeactor output, specifically potential increases
in output as georeactor convection declines, as
well as the possibility of the georeactor triggering
earthquakes and volcano eruptions.
Fig. 8. Earth’s nuclear fission georeactor (inset) shown in relation to the major parts of Earth.
The georeactor at the center is one ten-millionth the mass of Earth’s fluid core. The georeactor
sub-shell is the liquid (or slurry) repository for nuclear fission-products. The georeactor sub-
shell, situated between the nuclear-fission heat source and inner-core heat sink, assures
stable thermal convection. That stable thermal convection is necessary for sustained
geomagnetic field production by convection-driven dynamo action in the georeactor sub-shell
[84,86,88]
Fig. 9. Schematic representation of the georeactor. Planetary rotation and fluid motions are
indicated separately; their resultant motion is not shown. Stable convection with adverse
temperature gradient and heat removal is expected. Scale in km [44]

Herndon; JGEESI, 24(4): 61-79, 2020; Article no.JGEESI.57772
70
Fig. 9 is a schematic representation of the
georeactor at Earth’s center which consists of
two components: The nuclear fission sub-core
where sustained nuclear fission chain reactions
take place, and the nuclear waste sub-shell
where the products of radioactive decay and
nuclear fission collect which is where convection
takes place. Heat produced by the nuclear fission
sub-core is transported by convection to the heat
sink that is the inner core which is surrounded by
a much more massive heat sink, the Earth’s
core. Planetary rotation twists the convecting
fluid which produces dynamo-action to generate
the geomagnetic field. This is a self-regulating
mechanism that is generally applicable to
planetary and planetary-moon nuclear fission
reactors [88,89].
6. GEOREACTOR GEOMAGNETIC FIELD
COLLAPSE
There are profound differences between
georeactor geomagnetic field production and the
1930s idea [20] of its production in Earth’s core,
which has a mass almost one-third that of our
planet. The georeactor mass is one ten-millionth
the mass of the fluid core. Consequently,
disruption in georeactor convection can occur
quite quickly.
As noted above, there is evidence from ancient
lava flows of instances of rapid geomagnetic field
change, six degrees per day during one reversal
and one degree per week during another [12,13],
and the last reversal possibly occurring in 13.6
years [9].
These brief instances point to the
likelihood of a magnetic reversal occurring on a
time scale as short as one month or several
years, which is consistent with the relatively
small mass of the georeactor. Humanity is wholly
unprepared to deal with such a rapid collapse of
the georeactor-generated geomagnetic field.
Moreover, one cannot reasonably assume that
the next polarity reversal and its recovery will be
as rapid as these scattered data indicate. That is
simply unknown.
Reversals are usually thought to represent
geomagnetic field collapse with subsequent re-
establishment of stability. In addition to natural
radioactive decay, nuclear fission consumes
uranium fuel. At some yet unknown point in time,
the georeactor will essentially run out of its
nuclear fuel and will be unable to re-establish
convection. At that point, Earth will forever be
without a geomagnetic field [85].
Geomagnetic field collapse is expected to occur
when stable convection in the nuclear waste sub-
shell is disrupted, for example, by trauma such
as an asteroid collision, or the eruption of a
super-volcano (perhaps Yellowstone), or by a
major continental fragmentation attempt driven
by whole-Earth decompression [43,90].
Disruption of convection in the nuclear waste
sub-shell may also result from extreme coronal
mass ejections from the sun as previously
described [44]: The geomagnetic field deflects
the brunt of the solar wind safely past the Earth,
but some charged particles are trapped in donut-
shaped belts around the Earth, called the Van
Allen Belts. The charged particles within the Van
Allen Belts form a powerful ring current that
produces a magnetic field that opposes the
geomagnetic field near the equator. If the solar
wind is constant, then the ring current is constant
and no electric currents are transferred through
the magnetic field into the georeactor by
Faraday’s induction. High-intensity changing
outbursts of solar wind, on the other hand, will
induce electric currents into the georeactor,
causing ohmic heating in the sub-shell, which in
extreme cases might disrupt convection-driven
dynamo action and lead to a magnetic reversal.
A frightening potentiality is that human efforts to
cause an EMP, electromagnetic pulse, for hostile
purposes, for example, by detonating hydrogen
bombs in the Van Allen Belts, might intentionally
or unintentionally lead to georeactor-convection
disruption and geomagnetic field collapse.
Initially, I applied Fermi’s nuclear reactor theory
[91] to demonstrate the feasibility of a nuclear
fission reactor at Earth’s center [69,83,84].
Subsequent calculations were made using the
nuclear reactor software developed at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory [85,87,92]. These numerical
simulations demonstrated that the georeactor
could function over the lifetime of our planet as a
fast fission breeder reactor. The numerical
simulations also provided data on fission
products that were not available from Fermi’s
nuclear reactor theory calculations.
One notable fission-product result was that the
3
He and
4
He are produced in the same range of
ratios observed in volcanic material [85], which
previously had been inexplicable except by ad
hoc speculations [93,94]. The observed helium
ratios in volcanic material [93,95,96] provided the
first evidence of georeactor existence. Further
georeactor-existence evidence was later
obtained from geoneutrino measurements [97] as
the geoneutrino spectrum from georeactor

Herndon; JGEESI, 24(4): 61-79, 2020; Article no.JGEESI.57772
71
Fig. 10. Fission product ratio of
3
He/
4
He, relative to that of air, RA, from nuclear georeactor
numerical calculations at 5 TW (upper) and 3 TW (lower) power levels[85]. The band
comprising the 95 % confidence level for measured values from mid-oceanic ridge basalts
(MORB) is indicated by the solid lines. The age of the Earth is marked by the arrow. Note the
distribution of calculated values at 4.5 Gyr, the approximate age of the Earth. The increasing
values are the consequence of uranium fuel burn-up. Iceland deep-source ‘‘plume’’ basalts
present values ranging as high as 37 RA [95] [98]
nuclear fission differs from the spectrum of
radioactive decay.
Georeactor helium isotope production varies over
time. If the georeactor operates at a constant
energy level, the tritium production, which decays
to
3
He, is constant. The level of
4
He production,
however, decreases over time as much of it
comes from the radioactive decay of the uranium
fuel, which is constantly being diminished by
nuclear fission and by radioactive decay. Thus
the ratio
3
He/
4
He increases over time as shown
in Fig. 10.
Thermal structures beneath the Hawaiian Islands
and Iceland, imaged by seismic tomography
[99,100] are two high
3
He/
4
He hotspots. These
thermal structures, which extend to the interface
of Earth’s core and lower mantle, appear to be
heat channels [71], conduits for heat removal
from Earth’s core. The high mobility of helium
apparently allows it to move to the surface
through these channels.
As indicated by the data shown in Fig. 10, the
high
3
He/
4
He ratios measured in hotspot lavas
appear to be the signature of ‘recent’ georeactor-
produced heat and helium, where ‘recent’ may
extend several hundred million years into the
past. Catastrophic events in the geological past
have sometimes, but not always, been
associated with both high
3
He/
4
He ratios and
geomagnetic reversals. The Siberian Traps,
massive flood basalts 250 million years ago, is
one example [101,102] that occurred about the
time of the End-Permian [a.k.a. Permian-Triassic]
mass-extinction [103,104]. Another example
[105,106] is the Indian massive flood basalt, the
Deccan Traps that took place 65 million years
ago about the time of the Cretaceous–Paleogene
[a.k.a. Cretaceous–Tertiary] mass-extinction
[103,104]. From the helium data [102,106],
energy from the georeactor figured prominently
in these and in other cataclysms.
Currently, volcanos of the East African Rift
System, which is slowly splitting apart the African
continent [98], are spewing lava that is
characterized by the high
3
He/
4
He ratios
[107] indicative of georeactor-produced heat
[85].
The Yellowstone volcano, potentially a super-
volcano [108], is fed by georeactor energy as
indicated by the observed high
3
He/
4
He ratios
[109]. Although the time-frame for the next
eruption is unknown, its magnitude will likely be
extreme. A previous explosive eruption about
640,000 years ago ejected about 1,000 km
3
of
volcanic-material [110].
Although rare, from time to time in science a
paradigm-shift occurs that necessitates a
universal revision of understanding [111].
Occasionally, the transition into a new
understanding proceeds quickly and smoothly,

Herndon; JGEESI, 24(4): 61-79, 2020; Article no.JGEESI.57772
72
as in the case of DNA [112]. Geological science,
however, is especially resistant to change. For
example, Wegener [113,114] displayed
considerable evidence supporting the idea of
continental displacement, but the idea of
continent-mobility was frequently ignored for half
a century until plate tectonics was envisioned
[115]. But, particularly for reasons of global
human security, the geological community should
open itself to new ideas. Prudence dictates
having global security monitoring and
preparedness for a geomagnetic disaster that
could potentially devastate our highly vulnerable
technological infrastructure, and rapidly transport
a 21
st
century population into a realm of 18
th
century infrastructure with great suffering and
loss of life.
7. GEOREACTOR CONSIDERATIONS,
LIMITATIONS AND UNKNOWNS
There are two primary energy sources for major
geodynamic activities that are typically not
discussed in the geoscience literature,
georeactor nuclear fission energy [44] and the
much greater stored energy of protoplanetary
compression [43,89,90,116]. An intrinsic
connection between the two fundamental
planetary energy systems exists and manifests in
Earth’s surface dynamics.
There is evidence to indicate that Earth initially
formed as a Jupiter-like gas giant, its rocky
kernel surrounded by 300 Earth-masses of gases
and ices [89]. The violent solar winds, associated
with the thermonuclear ignition of the sun,
stripped the gases and ices from the proto-Earth
leaving a rocky kernel, compressed to about two-
thirds the diameter of our present planet,
enclosed by a contiguous rocky shell without
ocean basins. Over time, heat from georeactor
nuclear fission and radioactive decay began to
replace the lost heat of protoplanetary
compression, pressures began to build, the
planet’s outer surface began to crack, and the
process of decompression began, as described
by the theory of Whole-Earth Decompression
Dynamics (WEDD) [43,90,116].
During whole-Earth decompression two
fundamental processes necessarily must take
place:
 New surface area must be created to
accommodate the expanding diameter of
Earth.
 Curvature of Earth’s surface must change.
Fig. 11. The annual number of global earthquakes, magnitudes ≥ 6 and ≥ 7, from the U. S.
Geological Survey database [119] shown with linear regression fit lines. This figure clearly
shows that there has been a dramatic increase in the annual number of global earthquakes in
the indicated magnitude ranges over the time interval 1973-2018. For earthquakes of
magnitude ≥ 6, the average increase is 51.0%; for earthquakes magnitude ≥ 7, the average
increase is 59.3%

Herndon; JGEESI, 24(4): 61-79, 2020; Article no.JGEESI.57772
73
Table 2. Statistics from Fig. 11
Earthquake magnitude ≥ 6
Earthquake magnitude ≥ 7
Linear Regression y = 1.2693x – 2392.3 R
2
= 0.3117 y = 0.1408x – 267.11 R
2
= 0.2421
Percent Increase from 1973 to 2018 51.0% from 1973 to 2018 59.3%
Whole-Earth decompression causes cracks to
form in Earth’s surface as it expands. Cracks
underlain by heat sources extrude basalt; cracks
without heat sources serve as sinks into which
extruded-basalt eventually falls and infills as it
flows by gravitational creep. This is the origin of
ocean basins and seafloors [43,90].
Whole-Earth decompression necessitates
changes in surface curvature which takes place
primarily by the formation of surface tucks. The
surface tucks bend, fall over, and break thus
forming chains of mountains characterized by
folding [117]. Secondarily, tension fractures
around the continental edges explain the primary
origin of fjords and submarine canyons [118].
The association of major volcanism and/or
continent-splitting events with georeactor heat,
as indicated by high
3
He/
4
He ratios, begs the
question whether georeactor variations can
trigger decompression-driven volcanism, such as
the Siberian Traps [101,102], Deccan Traps
[105,106], and the East African Rift System [98]
among others. This is simply not known. Also
unknown: Could a major pulse in georeactor
energy trigger eruption of the Yellowstone super-
volcano whose georeactor-supplied heat
is strongly indicated by high
3
He/
4
He ratios
[108]?
Although not often discussed in the scientific
literature, the frequency of major earthquakes
appears to be increasing, based upon tabulations
published by the U. S. Geological Survey (Fig.
11). Statistical data are presented in Table 2. A
fundamental unknown is whether the current
increase in earthquakes is related to changes in
georeactor output.
Although the georeactor numerical simulations
were calculated assuming constant georeactor
energy production, there is evidence that Earth’s
georeactor may possess some degree of
variability. Mjelde and Faleide [120] discovered a
periodicity and synchronicity through the
Cenozoic in lava outpourings from Iceland and
the Hawaiian Islands. These are georeactor-fed
hotspots on opposite sides of the globe that
Mjelde et al. [121] suggest may arise from
variable georeactor heat-production.
There is much to learn about the nature and
operation of Earth’s georeactor, but there are
also some stringent constraints. The georeactor
must be able to maintain stable operation for
periods measured in millions of years (Fig. 1).
During that time the fissioning-portion must be
able to rid itself of fission-product reactor
poisons. Presumably, fission-fragments can be
separated by density in the micro-gravity
environment because fission fragments are
roughly half the mass of the uranium atom. The
georeactor self-regulatory mechanism must also
be able to maintain a more-or-less constant
energy output even though over time there is
great variation in the amount of fissionable
235
U
[44,87]. Further, the georeactor must be able to
function as a fast-neutron breeder reactor;
otherwise fissionable
235
U would have been
depleted 2,000 million years ago. Moreover, the
georeactor must be a naturally occurring
configuration as planetocentric nuclear reactors
are common occurrences in planets and large
moons [88,122].
Among the georeactor unknowns is whether
uranium is mixed with the decay-products of the
convecting sub-shell fluid, and whether, when
convection is disrupted, uranium will settle out
and cause a sudden nuclear-fission flare-up that
might trigger further whole-Earth decompression
and concomitant earthquakes and volcanic
eruptions.
8. REVIEW SUMMARY
 The inevitable collapse of the geomagnetic
field during the next polarity reversal or
excursion will have dire consequences for
humanity. Williams [8] cogently described
some of the potential harm to the
infrastructure, but he relies on scientific
theories developed in the 1930s, 1940s,
1950s and 1960s that constrict his
understanding of potential consequences
that derive from subsequent scientific
advances.
 Old ideas about the generation of the
geomagnetic field are based upon the
following incorrect concepts: Earth
resembles an ordinary chondrite meteorite;
the inner core is composed of partially

Herndon; JGEESI, 24(4): 61-79, 2020; Article no.JGEESI.57772
74
crystallized iron metal; the inner core is
growing; Earth’s fluid core is convecting;
the geomagnetic field is produced by
convection-driven dynamo action within the
fluid core; and, growth of the inner core
provides energy to power the geomagnetic
field.
 The following are more-correct concepts
related to the generation of the
geomagnetic field: The inner 82% of Earth
resembles an enstatite chondrite
meteorite; the inner core consists of fully
crystallized nickel silicide; the inner core is
not growing; stable thermal convection in
Earth’s fluid core is physically impossible;
there exists a planetocentric nuclear fission
reactor, called the georeactor; the
geomagnetic field is produced by
convection-driven Elsasser-dynamo action
within a portion of the georeactor; and,
georeactor nuclear fission energy powers
the geomagnetic field.
 The georeactor mass is one-ten millionth
that of the fluid core. Consequently,
geomagnetic reversals can potentially
occur more quickly than previously
thought. Geomagnetic field disruptions
occur as a consequence of convection
disruption in the convecting decay-
products sub-shell portion of the
georeactor. Georeactor convection
disruption can potentially occur as a
consequence of trauma to the Earth or by
an intense solar coronal outburst that
induces electrical currents into the
georeactor.
 Human efforts to cause an electromagnetic
pulse, EMP, for hostile purposes, for
example, by detonating hydrogen bombs in
the Van Allen Belts, might lead to
georeactor-convection disruption and
geomagnetic field collapse, intentionally or
unintentionally.
 At some yet unknown point in time, the
georeactor will essentially run out of its
nuclear fuel and will be unable to re-
establish convection, marking the end of
the geomagnetic field.
 Virtually all solid-Earth geodynamic activity
is driven by the stored energy of
protoplanetary compression, radioactive
decay and georeactor nuclear fission
energy. There is a historical association of
some instances of major flood basalt
eruptions, e.g. Siberian and Deccan Traps,
with georeactor heat, magnetic reversals,
and the stored energy of protoplanetary
compression. That association begs the
question of whether the present inevitable
geomagnetic field collapse might trigger
some devastating geological events such
as the eruption of the Yellowstone super-
volcano.
 Global security preparedness for a
geomagnetic collapse is presently non-
existent.
9. CONCLUSIONS
Williams [8] provided a thorough description of
some of the risks to United States’ national
security and infrastructure that could be expected
to result from a geomagnetic polarity reversal.
His descriptions were based on a scientific
literature that is founded on old, problematic
ideas.
My review of the historical development of those
old ideas, their problematic nature, and the
subsequent published advances that overcome
their inherent problems leads to a better
understanding of the geophysics involved in
Earth’s geomagnetic polarity reversals and, at
some yet unknown time, the permanent demise
of the geomagnetic field. The global security
concerns that logically follow do not contradict
the concerns described by Williams [8], but
clarify the science underlying the threats and
extend them to a global context.
The extended global security concerns related to
reasonable certainties of geomagnetic field
collapse pertain to:
 Potential rapidity of geomagnetic collapse,
the georeactor being one ten-millionth the
mass of the fluid core;
 Potential georeactor convection disruption
from trauma to the Earth by virtue of the
low georeactor mass;
 Potential of massive solar flare induced
georeactor heating disrupting georeactor
convection;
 Potential human-caused georeactor
convection-disruption by an EMP
weapon.
The extended global security concerns related to
yet unknown aspects of georeactor geomagnetic
field collapse include:
 Questions of whether geomagnetic field
collapse might lead to georeactor bursts of
energy;

Herndon; JGEESI, 24(4): 61-79, 2020; Article no.JGEESI.57772
75
 Whether the present inevitable
geomagnetic field collapse might trigger
some devastating geological events such
as earthquakes and volcano eruptions,
potentially including triggering the eruption
of the Yellowstone super-volcano.
Global security preparedness should be
predicated upon the latest and most correct
scientific understanding.
DISCLAIMER
The products used for this research are
commonly and predominantly use products in our
area of research and country. There is absolutely
no conflict of interest between the authors and
producers of the products because we do not
intend to use these products as an avenue for
any litigation but for the advancement of
knowledge. Also, the research was not funded by
the producing company rather it was funded by
personal efforts of the authors.
ETHICAL APPROVAL
The author holds that technical, scientific,
medical, and public health representations made
in the scientific literature in general, including this
particular journal, should be and are truthful and
accurate to the greatest extent possible, and
should serve to the highest degree possible to
protect the health and well-being of humanity and
Earth’s natural environment.
COMPETING INTERESTS
Author has declared that no competing interests
exist.
REFERENCES
1. Withbroe GL. The temperature structure,
mass and energy flow in the corona and
inner solar wind. The Astrophysical
Journal. 1988;325:442-67.
2. Parker E. Interaction of the solar wind with
the geomagnetic field. The Physics of
Fluids. 1958;1(3):171-87.
3. Marusek JA. Solar storm threat analysis: J.
Marusek; 2007.
4. Oughton EJ, Hapgood M, Richardson GS,
Beggan CD, Thomson AW, Gibbs M, et al.
A risk assessment framework for the
socioeconomic impacts of electricity
transmission infrastructure failure due to
space weather: An application to the
United Kingdom. Risk Analysis. 2019;
39(5):1022-43.
5. Cannon P, Angling M, Barclay L, Curry C,
Dyer C, Edwards R, et al. Extreme space
weather: impacts on engineered systems
and infrastructure: Royal Academy of
Engineering; 2013.
6. Constable CG, Tauxe L, Parker RL.
Analysis of 11 Myr of geomagnetic
intensity variation. J Geophys Res. 1998;
103:17735-48.
7. Valet JP, Fournier A. Deciphering records
of geomagnetic reversals. Reviews of
Geophysics. 2016;54(2):410-46.
8. Williams TJ. Cataclysmic Polarity Shift is
US National Security Prepared for the Next
Geomagnetic Pole Reversal. Air command
and staff college maxwell AFB United
States; 2015.
Available:https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/
u2/1040918.pdf
9. Sagnotti L, Giaccio B, Liddicoat JC,
Nomade S, Renne PR, Scardia G, et al.
How fast was the Matuyama–Brunhes
geomagnetic reversal? A new
subcentennial record from the Sulmona
Basin, central Italy. Geophysical Journal
International. 2015;204(2):798-812.
10. Kent DV, Gradstein FM. A Cretacious and
Jurassic geochronology. Bull Geol Soc
Am. 1985;96(11):1419.
11. Cande SC, Kent DV. Revised calibration of
the geomagnetic polarity timescale for the
Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic. J Geophys
Res. 1995;100:6093.
12. Coe RS, Prevot M. Evidence suggesting
extremely rapid field variation during a
geomagnetic reversal. Earth Planet Sci
Lett. 1989;92:192-8.
13. Bogue SW. Very rapid geomagnetic field
change recorded by the partial
remagnetization of a lava flow Geophys
Res Lett. 2010;37.
DOI: 10.1029/2010GL044286.
14. Brown M, Korte M, Holme R, Wardinski I,
Gunnarson S. Earth’s magnetic field is
probably not reversing. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences. 2018;
115(20):5111-6.
15. Olson P, Amit H. Changes in earth’s
dipole. Naturwissenschaften. 2006;93(11):
519-42.
16. Available:http://wdc.kugi.kyoto-
u.ac.jp/poles/polesexp.html Accessed May
18, 2020.
17. Available:https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geo
mag/data/poles/NP.xy
Accessed May 18, 2020.

Herndon; JGEESI, 24(4): 61-79, 2020; Article no.JGEESI.57772
76
18. Gauss JCF. Allgemeine Theorie des
Erdmagnetismus: Resultate aus den
Beobachtungen des magnetischen Vereins
in Jahre 1838. Leipzig. 1838;73 .
19. Faraday M. Experimental researches in
electricity, vol. III. London, UK: Richard
Taylor and William Francis. 1855;1846-52.
20. Elsasser WM. On the origin of the Earth's
magnetic field. Phys Rev. 1939;55:489-98.
21. Elsasser WM. Induction effects in
terrestrial magnetism. Phys Rev. 1946;
69:106-16.
22. Elsasser WM. The Earth's interior and
geomagnetism. Revs Mod Phys. 1950;
22:1-35.
23. Deguen R, Lasbleis M. Fluid dynamics of
earth’s core: Geodynamo, inner core
dynamics, core formation. fluid Mechanics
of Planets and Stars: Springer; 2020;129-
212.
24. Wicht J, Sanchez S. Advances in
geodynamo modelling. Geophysical &
Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics. 2019;113(1-
2):2-50.
25. Reshetnyak MY. Geodynamo Models.
Radiophysics and Quantum Electronics.
2019;61(8-9):537-44.
26. Yadav RK, Gastine T, Christensen UR,
Wolk SJ, Poppenhaeger K. Approaching a
realistic force balance in geodynamo
simulations. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences. 2016;113(43):
12065-70.
27. Glatzmaier GA, Olson P. Probing the
geodynamo. Scientific American. 2005;
292(4):50-7.
28. Wiechert E. Ueber die Massenverteilung
im Inneren der Erde. Nachr K Ges Wiss
Goettingen, Math-Kl. 1897:221-43.
29. Cavendish H. Experiments to determine
the density of Earth. Phil Trans Roy Soc
Lond. 1798;88:469-79.
30. Oldham RD. The constitution of the interior
of the earth as revealed by earthquakes. Q
T Geol Soc Lond. 1906;62:456-76.
31. Daly RA. The depths of the Earth. GSA
Bulletin. 1933;44(2):243-64.
32. Lehmann I. P'. Publ Int Geod Geophys
Union, Assoc Seismol, Ser A, Trav Sci.
1936;14:87-115.
33. Herndon JM. Inseparability of science
history and discovery. Hist Geo Space Sci.
2010;1:25-41.
34. Herndon JM, Suess HE. Can the ordinary
chondrites have condensed from a gas
phase? Geochim Cosmochim Acta. 1977;
41:233-6.
35. Herndon JM. Reevaporation of condensed
matter during the formation of the solar
system. Proc R Soc Lond. 1978;A363:
283-8.
36. Birch F. The transformation of iron at high
pressures, and the problem of the earth's
magnetism. Am J Sci. 1940;238:192-211.
37. Tarduno J, Cottrell R, Smirnov A. The
paleomagnetism of single silicate crystals:
Recording geomagnetic field strength
during mixed polarity intervals,
superchrons, and inner core growth.
Reviews of Geophysics. 2006;44(1).
38. Labrosse S, Macouin M. The inner core
and the geodynamo. Comptes Rendus
Geoscience. 2003;335(1):37-50.
39. Turkdogan E, Fruehan R. Fundamentals of
iron and steelmaking. The Making,
Shaping and Treating of Steel,
Steelmaking and Refining Volume, 11th
ed, RJ Fruehan, ed, AISE Steel
Foundation, Pittsburgh. 1998;11:125-6.
40. Ghosh A, Chatterjee A. Iron making and
steelmaking: theory and practice: PHI
Learning Pvt. Ltd.; 2008.
41. Dziewonski AM, Anderson DA. Preliminary
reference Earth model. Phys Earth Planet
Inter. 1981;25:297-356.
42. Herndon JM. Composition of the deep
interior of the earth: Divergent geophysical
development with fundamentally different
geophysical implications. Phys Earth Plan
Inter. 1998;105:1-4.
43. Herndon JM. Solar System processes
underlying planetary formation,
geodynamics, and the georeactor. Earth,
Moon, and Planets. 2006;99(1):53-99.
44. Herndon JM. Terracentric nuclear fission
georeactor: background, basis, feasibility,
structure, evidence and geophysical
implications. Curr Sci. 2014;106(4):528-41.
45. Baedecker PA, Wasson JT. Elemental
fractionations among enstatite chondrites.
Geochim Cosmochim Acta. 1975;39:735-
65.
46. Jarosewich E. Chemical analyses of
meteorites: A compilation of stony and iron
meteorite analyses. Meteoritics. 1990;25:
323-37.
47. Kallemeyn GW, Rubin AE, Wang D,
Wasson JT. Ordinary chondrites: Bulk
compositions, classification, lithophile-
element fractionations, and composition-
petrolographic type relationships. Geochim
Cosmochim Acta. 1989;53:2747-67.
48. Kallemeyn GW, Wasson JT. The
compositional composition of chondrites-I.

Herndon; JGEESI, 24(4): 61-79, 2020; Article no.JGEESI.57772
77
The carbonaceous chondrite groups.
Geochim Cosmochim Acta. 1981;45:
1217-30.
49. Story-Maskelyne NS. On aerolites. Dept
Brit Ass Advanc Sci. 1862;32:188-91.
50. Ringwood AE. Silicon in the metal of
enstatite chondrites and some
geochemical implications. Geochim
Cosmochim Acta. 1961;25:1-13.
51. Keil K, Snetsinger KG. Niningerite: a new
meteoric sulfide. Science. 1967;155:451-
543.
52. Fredriksson K, Henderson EP. Trans Am
Geophys Un. 1965;46:121.
53. Ramdohr P. Einiges ueber Opakerze im
Achondriten und Enstatitachondriten. Abh
D Akad Wiss Ber, Kl Chem, Geol, Biol.
1964;5:1-20.
54. Ramdohr P. The Opaque Minerals in Stony
Meteorites. New York: Elsevier. 1973;245.
55. Ramdohr P, Kullerud G. Stony meteorites.
Carnegie Institution of Washington Year
Book. 1962;61:163-5.
56. Reed SJB. Perryite in the Kota-Kota and
South Oman enstatite chondrites. Mineral
Mag. 1968;36:850-4.
57. Wasson JT, Wai CM. Composition of the
metal, schreibersite and perryite of
enstatite achondrites and the origin of
enstatite chondrites and achondrites
Geochim Cosmochim Acta. 1970;34:169-
84.
58. Murrell MT, Burnett DS. Actinide
microdistributions in the enstatite
meteorites. Geochim Cosmochim Acta.
1982;46:2453-60.
59. Keil K. Mineralogical and chemical
relationships among enstatite chondrites. J
Geophys Res. 1968;73(22):6945-76.
60. Mason B. Geochemistry Part 1. Meteorites,
Data of Geochemistry. U S Geological
Survey Professional Paper 440-B-1. 1979.
61. Herndon JM. The nickel silicide inner core
of the Earth. Proc R Soc Lond. 1979;
A368:495-500.
62. Foster E, Klapdar HW, Richter H,
Rommerswinkel HW, Spetzler E,
Oberhausen JW. Deoxidation and
desulphurization by blowing of calcium
compounds into molten steel and its
effects on the mechanical properties of
heavy plates Stahl u Eisen. 1974;94:474.
63. Inoue R, Suito H. Calcium desulfurization
equilibrium in liquid iron. Steel Res.
1994;65(10):403-9.
64. Ribound P, Olette M, editors.
Desulfurization by alkaline-earth elements
and compounds. Physical Chemistry and
Steelmaking; 1978; Versailles, France.
65. Dahm CG. New values for dilatational
wave‐velocities through the Earth. Eos,
Transactions American Geophysical
Union. 1934;15(1):80-3.
66. Bullen KE. A hypothesis on compressibility
at pressures on the order of a million
atmospheres. Nature. 1946;157:405.
67. Lay T, Helmberger DV. The shear wave
velocity gradient at the base of the
mantle. J Geophys Res. 1983;88:8160-
70.
68. Vidale JE, Benz HM. Seismological
mapping of the fine structure near the base
of the Earth's mantle. Nature.
1993;361:529-32.
69. Herndon JM. Feasibility of a nuclear fission
reactor at the center of the Earth as the
energy source for the geomagnetic field. J
Geomag Geoelectr. 1993;45:423-37.
70. Herndon JM. Scientific basis of knowledge
on Earth's composition. Curr Sci.
2005;88(7):1034-7.
71. Herndon JM. Geodynamic Basis of Heat
Transport in the Earth. Curr Sci.
2011;101(11):1440-50.
72. Kennet BLN, Engdahl ER, Buland R.
Constraints on seismic velocities in the
earth from travel times Geophys J Int.
1995;122:108-24.
73. Urey HC. The Planets. New Haven: Yale
University Press; 1952.
74. Tatsumoto M, Unrah DM, Desborough GA.
U-Th-Pb and Rb-Sr systematics of the
Allende and U-Th-Pb systematics of
Orgueil. Geochim Cosmochim Acta.
1976;40:617-34.
75. Glatzmaier GA, Roberts PH. A three-
dimensional convective dynamo solution
with rotating and finitely conducting inner
core and mantle. Physics of the Earth and
Planetary Interiors. 1995;91(1-3):63-75.
76. Roberts DLP. Compositional convection
and the gravitationally powered dynamo.
Stellar and Planetary Magnetism, ch.
1983:297-327.
77. Lister JR, Buffett BA. The strength and
efficiency of thermal and compositional
convection in the geodynamo. Physics of
the Earth and Planetary Interiors.
1995;91(1-3):17-30.
78. Yong W, Secco RA, Littleton JA, Silber RE.
The Iron Invariance: Implications for
Thermal Convection in Earth's Core.
Geophysical Research Letters. 2019;
46(20):11065-70.

Herndon; JGEESI, 24(4): 61-79, 2020; Article no.JGEESI.57772
78
79. Yin L, Yang C, Ma S-Z, Zhang K-K.
Parallel and fully implicit simulations of the
thermal convection in the Earth’s outer
core. Computers & Fluids. 2019;193:
104278.
80. Solovjev S, Popova T, editors. Modeling of
Convective Heat Transfer in the Liquid
Core of the Earth. IOP Conference Series:
Earth and Environmental Science; 2019:
IOP Publishing.
81. Herndon JM. Uniqueness of Herndon's
georeactor: Energy source and production
mechanism for Earth's magnetic field;
2009.
Available:https://arxivorg/ftp/arxiv/papers/0
901/09014509pdf
82. Chandrasekhar S. Thermal Convection.
Proc Amer Acad Arts Sci. 1957;86(4):323-
39.
83. Herndon JM. Planetary and protostellar
nuclear fission: Implications for planetary
change, stellar ignition and dark matter.
Proc R Soc Lond. 1994;A455:453-61.
84. Herndon JM. Sub-structure of the inner
core of the earth. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA.
1996;93:646-8.
85. Herndon JM. Nuclear georeactor origin of
oceanic basalt
3
He/
4
He, evidence, and
implications. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA.
2003;100(6):3047-50.
86. Herndon JM. Nuclear georeactor
generation of the earth's geomagnetic field.
Curr Sci. 2007;93(11):1485-7.
87. Hollenbach DF, Herndon JM. Deep-earth
reactor: nuclear fission, helium, and the
geomagnetic field. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA.
2001;98(20):11085-90.
88. Herndon JM. Nature of planetary matter
and magnetic field generation in the solar
system. Curr Sci. 2009;96(8):1033-9.
89. Herndon JM. New indivisible planetary
science paradigm. Curr Sci. 2013;105(4):
450-60.
90. Herndon JM. Whole-Earth decompression
dynamics. Curr Sci. 2005;89(10):1937-
41.
91. Fermi E. Elementary theory of the chain-
reacting pile. Science, Wash. 1947;105:27-
32.
92. Herndon JM, Edgerley DA. Background for
terrestrial antineutrino investigations:
Radionuclide distribution, georeactor
fission events, and boundary conditions on
fission power production. arXiv:hep-
ph/0501216 24 Jan 2005; 2005.
93. Anderson DL. The statistics of helium
isotopes along the global spreading ridge
system and the central limit theorem.
Geophys Res Lett. 2000;27(16):2401-4.
94. Kurz MD, Jenkins WD, Hart RS, Clague
DA. Helium isotopic variations in volcanic
rocks from Loihi Seamount and the Island
of Hawaii. Earth Planet Sci Lett. 1983;
66:388-406.
95. Hilton DR, Grönvold K, Macpherson CG,
Castillo PR. Extreme He-3/He-4 ratios in
northwest Iceland: constraining the
common component in mantle plumes.
Earth Planet Sci Lett. 1999;173(1-2):53-60.
96. Rao KR. Nuclear reactor at the core of the
Earth! - A solution to the riddles of relative
abundances of helium isotopes and
geomagnetic field variability. Curr Sci.
2002;82(2):126-7.
97. Gando A, Gando Y, Ichimura K, Ikeda H,
Inoue K, Kibe Y, et al. Partial radiogenic
heat model for Earth revealed by
geoneutrino measurements. Nature
geoscience. 2011;4(9):647.
98. Herndon JM. New concept on the origin of
petroleum and natural gas deposits. J
Petrol Explor Prod Technol 2017;7(2):345-
52.
99. Bijwaard H, Spakman W. Tomographic
evidence for a narrow whole mantle plume
below Iceland. Earth Planet Sci Lett.
1999;166:121-6.
100. Nataf H-C. Seismic Imaging of Mantle
Plumes. Ann Rev Earth Planet Sci.
2000;28:391-417.
101. Latyshev A, Ulyakhina P, Krivolutskaya N.
Signs of the Record of Geomagnetic
Reversal in Permian–Triassic Trap
Intrusions of the Ergalakhsky Complex,
Norilsk Region. Izvestiya, Physics of the
Solid Earth. 2019;55(2):270-86.
102. Basu AR, Poreda RJ, Renne PR,
Teichmann F, Vasiliev YR, Sobolev NV, et
al. High-
3
He plume origin and temporal-
spacial evolution of the Siberian flood
basalts. Sci. 1995;269:882-25.
103. Rampino MR. Mass extinctions of life and
catastrophic flood basalt volcanism.
Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences. 2010;107(15):6555-6.
104. Rampino MR, Caldeira K. Comparison of
the ages of large-body impacts, flood-
basalt eruptions, ocean-anoxic events and
extinctions over the last 260 million years:
a statistical study. International Journal of
Earth Sciences. 2018;107(2):601-6.
105. Basavaiah N, Satyanarayana KV,
Deenadayalan K, Prasad J. Does Deccan
Volcanic Sequence contain more reversals

Herndon; JGEESI, 24(4): 61-79, 2020; Article no.JGEESI.57772
79
than the three-Chron N–R–N flow
magnetostratigraphy?—a palaeomagnetic
evidence from the dyke-swarm near
Mumbai. Geophysical Journal Interna-
tional. 2018;213(3):1503-23.
106. Basu AR, Renne PR, DasGupta DK,
Teichmann F, Poreda RJ. Early and late
alkali igneous pulses and a high-
3
He
plume origin for the Deccan flood basalts.
Sci. 1993;261:902-6.
107. Marty B, et al. He, Ar, Nd and Pb isotopes
in volcanic rocks from Afar. Geochem J.
1993;27:219-28.
108. Lowenstern JB, Hurwitz S. Monitoring a
supervolcano in repose: Heat and volatile
flux at the Yellowstone Caldera. Elements.
2008;4(1):35-40.
109. Dodson A, Kennedy BM, DePaolo DJ.
Helium and neon isotopes in the Imnaha
Basalt, Columbia River Basalt Group:
evidence for a Yellowstone plume source.
Earth and Planetary Science Letters.
1997;150(3-4):443-51.
110. Christiansen RL. The quaternary and
pliocene Yellowstone Plateau volcanic field
of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana. Report
No. 2330-7102; 2001.
111. Kuhn TS. The structure of scientific
revolutions. Chicago, IL, USA: University of
Chicago Press; 1962.
112. Watson JD, Crick FH. Molecular structure
of nucleic acids. Nature. 1953;171(4356):
737-8.
113. Wegener A. Die entstehung der kontinente
und Ozeane. fourth ed. Braunschweig:
Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn. 1929;246.
114. Wegener AL. Die Entstehung der
Kontinente. Geol Rundschau. 1912;3:276-
92.
115. Dietz RS. Continent and ocean basin
evolution by spreading of the sea floor.
Nature. 1961;190:854-7.
116. Herndon JM. Energy for geodynamics:
Mantle decompression thermal tsunami.
Curr Sci. 2006;90(12):1605-6.
117. Herndon JM. Origin of mountains and
primary initiation of submarine canyons:
the consequences of Earth’s early
formation as a Jupiter-like gas giant. Curr
Sci. 2012;102(10):1370-2.
118. Herndon JM. New concept for the origin of
fjords and submarine canyons:
Consequence of whole-earth decompres-
sion dynamics. Journal of Geography,
Environment and Earth Science
International. 2016;7(4):1-10.
119. USGSEQ.
Available:http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earth
quakes/search/.
120. Mjelde R, Faleide JI. Variation of Icelandic
and Hawaiian magmatism: evidence for
co-pulsation of mantle plumes? Mar
Geophys Res. 2009;30:61-72.
121. Mjelde R, W essel P, Müller D. Global
pulsations of intraplate magmatism
through the Cenozoic. Lithosphere.
2010;2(5):361-76.
122. Herndon JM. NASA: Politics above
Science; 2018.
Available:amazon.com
_________________________________________________________________________________
© 2020 Herndon; This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
Peer-review history:
The peer review history for this paper can be accessed here:
http://www.sdiarticle4.com/review-history/57772