Non‐equilibrium concepts lead to a unified explanation of the formation of chondrules and chondrites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract— Calculations of the formation of seven types of chondrules in Semarkona from a gas of solar composition were performed with the FACT computer program to predict the chemistries of oxides (including silicates), developed by the authors and their colleagues. The constrained equilibrium theory was used in the calculations with two nucleation constraints suggested by nucleation theory. The first constraint was the blocking of Fe and other metal gaseous atoms from condensing to form solids or liquids because of very high surface free energies and high surface tensions of the solid and liquid metals, respectively. The second constraint was the blocking of the condensation of solids and the formation of metastable liquid oxides (including silicates) well below their liquidus temperatures. Our laboratory experiments suggested subcooling of type IIA chondrule compositions of 400 degrees or more below the liquidus temperature. The blocking of iron leads to a supersaturation of Fe atoms, so that the partial pressure of Fe (pFe) is larger than the partial pressure at equilibrium (pFe(eq)). The supersaturation ratio S = pFe/pFe(eq) becomes larger than 1 and increases rapidly with a decrease in temperature. This drives the reaction Fe + H2O ⇔ H2 + FeO to the right. With S = 100, the activity of FeO in the liquid droplet is 100 times as large as the value at equilibrium. The FeO activities are a function of temperature and provide relative average temperatures of the crystallization of chondrules. Our calculations for the LL3.0 chondrite Semarkona and our study of some non‐equilibrium effects lead to accurate representations of the compositions of chondrules of types IA, IAB, IB, IIA, IIAB, IIB, and CC. Our concepts readily explain both the variety of FeO concentrations in the different chondrule types and the entire process of chondrule formation. Our theory is unified and could possibly explain the formation of chondrules in all chondritic meteorites as well as provide a simple explanation for the complex chemistries of chondrites, and especially for type 3 chondrites.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".