Electrical and thermal conductivities of Fe–Ni–Si alloy under core conditions

By F. Stacey, O. Anderson. 2001

168 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Geophysics, Materials Chemistry, Mechanical Engineering

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d930f7a2abe101b26764561a52e3805e9ac5c38d

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Geophysics

1. F. Nimmo
2. J. Hernlund
3. Stéphane Labrosse
4. A. Dombard
5. J. Aurnou
6. S. Hauck,
7. Sean C. Solomon
8. K. Hirose

In Materials Chemistry

1. K. Hirose
2. Matthieu J. Verstraete
3. Stéphane Labrosse
4. J. Aurnou
5. S. Hauck,
6. F. Nimmo
7. A. Dombard

In Mechanical Engineering

1. Stéphane Labrosse
2. J. Aurnou
3. S. Hauck,
4. F. Nimmo
5. A. Dombard

Citations in the corpus

• Internal and tectonic evolution of Mercury (2003, background): “A superadiabatic temperature gradient, which corresponds to a heat flux from the core of at least 12–13 mW/m(2) (given a core thermal conductivity of f 40 W/(m K) [55] and the parameters in Table 1), or growth of an inner core with its attendant release of buoyant S, may independently be sufficient ”
• Energetics of the Core (2015, methodology): “The latter data were used by Stacey and Anderson (2001) to conclude that k at the CMB was 46 W m−1 K−1.”
• Sulfur's impact on core evolution and magnetic field generation on Ganymede (2005, methodology): “Assuming a core thermal conductivity of 40 W m K 1 [e.g., Stacey and Anderson, 2001], only models with twice chondritic heat production and 6–8.5 wt % bulk core sulfur content satisfy this dynamo requirement after 4.5 Gyr.”
• The high conductivity of iron and thermal evolution of the Earth’s core (2013, background): “2007) and SA01 (Stacey and Anderson, 2001) show the earlier estimates.”