It is obvious that the surrounding area will become extremely hot, but I want to know other consequences if enough iron to make a sword were to be teleported to earth. Would it be possible to make a sword of that iron?
-
$\begingroup$ Please clarify your specific problem or provide additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it's hard to tell exactly what you're asking. $\endgroup$– Community BotCommented Mar 18, 2022 at 12:05
-
2$\begingroup$ You would be much better off mining some old white dwarf core, because unlike Sun's, that core would be pure iron. $\endgroup$– AlexanderCommented Mar 18, 2022 at 20:36
-
2$\begingroup$ There are stars that have an iron core but the sun is not one of them. It isn't large enough to produce the necessary conditions. $\endgroup$– Peter - Reinstate MonicaCommented Mar 19, 2022 at 14:06
-
2$\begingroup$ There's no great concentration of iron in the Sun's core. The iron is from previous generations of stars, and is well-mixed. $\endgroup$– John DotyCommented Mar 19, 2022 at 16:18
4 Answers
Other answers have already covered why the iron would be dangerous to harvest because of its gaseous state... but the other important thing to consider is that even if you could teleport pure iron in from another source, you still have a lot of work to do to make it into a useful metal for making a sword out of.
Pure, un-worked, un-tempered iron is so soft, that its material properties are very similar to annealed copper.
SOURCE: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/28/jresv28n5p643_A1b.pdf
To put this in perspective, a very low quality sword like you would find in the bronze age or early iron age would generally have BHN of ~160 with a UTS of ~50,000lb/sqin. If you want to make something more like a late medieval tempered, medium carbon steel sword, you'd expect a BHN in the 200-400 range with a UTS that could exceed 100,000 lb/sqin.
So, to make a useful iron blade, you'd still need to alloy it with carbon, magnesium, and/or phosphorous to harden it, you'd need to hammer it out to improve its crystalline structure, and you need to alternate its temperature between various highs and lows to properly temper it. So, if your goal is to extract hot iron from another source and turn it directly in a sword, you will get a very poor quality blade. Most of the stuff that ancient smiths did to smelt and form thier steel can't just be skipped over by having a source of really hot iron to start with.
-
$\begingroup$ Thank you kind sir for your incredibly detailed answer This actually put a lot of things in perpective $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 23, 2022 at 7:30
Iron becomes a gas at 5182F, about half the temperature of the Sun. There is probably plenty of iron in the sun, from asteroids and comets falling in. Certainly enough to make a sword. But any iron in the sun is in a very diffuse gaseous state, teleporting enough to make a sword would likely take a miles wide chunk of the sun, and would explode so quickly that the atomic iron would be spread over most of the Earth.
Unless you have some magical way to extract just the iron and cool it down enough to condense into at least a liquid (2800F), I think this idea is a non-starter.
-
1$\begingroup$ thanks you for your answer i guess a sword made from the core of the sun is unrealistic $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 18, 2022 at 12:38
-
$\begingroup$ +1 indeed temperature is an issue, but there's no need to shoot the idea entirely, I think there could be a near alternative in the solar system (see my answer) $\endgroup$– GoodiesCommented Mar 18, 2022 at 13:38
-
1$\begingroup$ Worth noting that the iron at the core of the sun is the end of a fusion chain, not just from asteroids and comets falling in. It's fusion in stars that gives us iron, the universe over. $\endgroup$– jdunlopCommented Mar 18, 2022 at 18:33
-
1$\begingroup$ There's actually more that a Jupiter mass of iron in the Sun. It's almost entirely primordial, having wound up in there during the sun's formation. $\endgroup$– notovnyCommented Mar 18, 2022 at 21:43
-
1$\begingroup$ @jdunlop The sun isn't hot enough for meaningful iron production by fusion. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 18, 2022 at 22:53
Move your teleporter a bit, to target Mercury's core instead of the sun
Consider teleporting iron from Mercury's core. It has huge amounts of pure iron, and it is solid.
Be careful !
Mercury's core iron is probably much cooler than Earth's 5200 degrees celcius.. Mercury has a lower mass.. but on reception you'll have to cool it down and contain it ! The pressure will be lower, it could explode. To make sure you can harvest a useful amount, teleport it into a cave or under water, and await the teleportation on a safe distance.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018GL081135
Forge the sword
Then, the solid iron can be forged into a sword. You can also melt it and use graphite powder, to harden the iron. You can also use the ashes.
The magic of a Mercury sword
According to the usual magic symbol system for planets, a Mercury sword will make a warrior agile and smart.
-
1$\begingroup$ +1 Agreed, that would work. Mercury is more of a moving target, but still viable. I suspect the questioner wanted to claim some magical trait or superiority trait of "Sun Iron" versus any other form. $\endgroup$– AmadeusCommented Mar 18, 2022 at 14:16
-
1$\begingroup$ I mean, if you're moving to a rocky planet, there's Earth's core as well. Easier target, to boot. $\endgroup$– jdunlopCommented Mar 18, 2022 at 18:32
-
1$\begingroup$ @Amadeus you're right, we can assume that, it has a magic purpose. Thanks, I've put an edit. Suppose the teleportation of iron from a planetary core is magic too! teleporting things is thinkable.. but tearing a few kilograms of iron, from a planetary core would require something special ! $\endgroup$– GoodiesCommented Mar 18, 2022 at 18:35
-
1$\begingroup$ @jdunlop true, but we get a lot of iron out of Earth already, normal swords are made of Earth iron. And out planetary inner core is solid, but it has a temperature of 5200 degrees celcius. Mercury has a larger core in respect to its weight, so its temperature is lower, or the Mercury core is older. I'm not quite sure of the temperature thing for all 3 cases.. maybe an asteroid containing metallic iron would be more appropriate. The magic power would be zero of course ;) $\endgroup$– GoodiesCommented Mar 18, 2022 at 18:48
-
1$\begingroup$ Thank you both for providing input. Finished my edits. $\endgroup$– GoodiesCommented Mar 18, 2022 at 18:56
Summary
My concern here would be the pressure difference. The Sun's core has a pressure of about 265 gigabar. That's about 265 billion times higher than sea level on Earth. Simultaneously, the temperature is about 15 million Kelvin, compared to Earth's 300 K, or about 50 thousand times higher than Earth. (Wikipedia, Solar core)
My original answer suggested the energy release would be quite small. I made the mistake of trusting mathematician definitions of the Boltzmann constant, leading to incorrect dimensional analysis.1. I restarted the calculations from scratch and got a value that's much closer to what I expected. That doesn't make it correct, but I'm more confident in this answer.
This would detonate like a very large bomb. Just the 1kg of iron would explode like 20 tons of TNT. If you had to get the 500kg or so of raw star stuff required to get that much iron, it would be roughly like the Little Boy nuke.
Ideal Gas Law
The ideal gas law tells us:
$PV=nRT$
n is the number of molecules, which is constant for a given mass, and R is the gas constant for that composition. Since P (pressure) and T (temperature) are given by the problem, that only leaves V (volume) to normalize to Earth standard.
$V=\frac{nRT}{P}$
$V_{new}=nR\frac{\frac{T}{2.65\cdot 10^{11}}}{\frac{P}{5\cdot 10^4}}$
$=nR\frac{T}{P}\frac{2.65\cdot 10^{11}}{5\cdot 10^4}$
$=(5.3\cdot 10^6)\frac{nRT}{P}$
$=(5.3\cdot 10^6)V$
Assuming R stays the same during cooldown (probably an invalid assumption since we're converting from plasma to gas, but I think the premise is still valid) this means the mass you teleported is going to expand in volume by over 5 million times, with the radius increasing by about 170 times.
The speed of sound in the core as you teleport it is about 50 km/s (Stanford, Results of solar model calculations, very last graph on the page). This is somewhere between the blast wave speed of C4 (1.5 km/s, PubMed abstract of The disguised face of blast injuries: shock waves) and a nuclear blast (882 km/s @ 2m, Worldbuilding.se answer to How fast is the shockwave of a nuclear bomb from 2-5m away?).
None of this directly helps us, but is essentially the basis of my gut feeling.
Plasma Physics
I'm not at all familiar with plasma physics, so any errors are probably in this section. I've done the best I can to figure out what's correct based on other reading.
A typical sword weighs 2-5 lbs, meaning it masses about 0.9-2.3 kg. Let's call it 1 kg for simplicity. The heat capacity of a plasma is given by $\varepsilon=\frac{3}{2}n k_B T$ (Physics.se, answer to Heat capacity of plasma?. $\varepsilon$ is energy per unit volume, so we can get energy as:
$E=\varepsilon V$
$=\frac{3}{2} n k_B T V$
$n$ is the plasma density. Star plasma has a density of about $10^{26}\frac{e}{cm^3}$ (Cern, Introduction to Plasma Physics, page 2).
$k_B$ is the Boltzman constant, $1.380649\cdot10^{−23}\frac{J}{K\cdot e}$, where $e$ is the number of electrons.1
$T$ is temperature. Plasma physicists tend to use units of eV (electron-volts). 1 eV corresponds to 11600 K. The Cern paper gives star plasma a temperature of $2\cdot 10^3$ eV, which corresponds to 23 million K, which is pretty close to the 15 million K we're using.
$E=\frac{3}{2} n k_B T V$
$=\frac{3}{2} 10^{26}\frac{e}{cm^3} \cdot 1.38\cdot 10^{-23}\frac{J}{K\cdot e}\cdot 1.5\cdot 10^{7} K\cdot V$
Originally at this point, I kept calculating, then tried to calculate the volume and substitute that back in:
$=3.1\cdot 10^{10}\cdot V\cdot \frac{J}{cm^3}$
But volume doesn't matter. $\frac{e}{cm^3}\cdot V$ must equal the number of electrons. And we can calculate the number of electrons directly.
Iron is about $56 \frac{g}{mol}$, or $18 \frac{mol}{kg}$. Since we have 1 kg of iron, that means n=18 moles in conventional terms. However plasma physics counts in terms of electrons, which is about the number of protons per atom. Iron atoms have 26 electrons per atom, so our plasma particle count is $18\cdot 26$ $=468\frac{mol}{kg}$. 1 mole is $6.02\cdot 10^{23}$ electrons, giving $2.82\cdot 10^{26} \frac{e}{kg}$. Since we have a 1kg sword, that's $2.82\cdot 10^{26} e$.
So we can replace particle density times volume with number of particles. Then instead of energy per volume, we'll have energy, which is what we actually want.
$E=\frac{3}{2} 2.82\cdot 10^{26} e \cdot 1.38\cdot 10^{-23}\frac{J}{K\cdot e}\cdot 1.5\cdot 10^{7} K$
$=8.8\cdot 10^{10} J$
A ton of TNT is about $4.2\cdot 10^9 J$ (WolframAlpha), so this is the equivalent of about 21 tons of TNT.
I can't find a good source, but various forums suggest the Sun consists of about 0.2% iron. In order to get enough iron to make a sword, you'd then need about 500 kg of Sunstuff, increasing the energy substantially.
$E=4.4\cdot 10^{13} J$, which is about a 10.5 kT TNT, or about 0.7 times the energy of Hiroshima nuke (Wikipedia, Little Boy).
Notes
Star Trek did a similar concept in an episode (S5E13, The Masterpiece Society, where they had a chunk of the core of a neutron star for some hand-wavy purpose. There might (or might not) be something useful you can get inspiration from there.
1 If you look up the Boltzman constant in most cases, you'll typically find it listed with units of $\frac{J}{K}$, but that's because mathematicians tend to ignore ad-hoc units like "cycles" and "particles". The Boltzman constant is just the ideal gas constant when particle number is in units of "individual particle" instead of "moles" (which is just $\frac{\text{number of particles}}{\text{Avagadro's number}}$) (Wikipedia, Boltzmann constant). Since the ideal gas constant has the number of molecules and we're dividing by a dimensionless quantity, the Boltzmann constant also has to have the number of molecules.
In my original equations, this caused me to try cancelling out the number of molecules when calculating volume, so I was inadvertently dividing by very large numbers when I shouldn't have. This is why engineers tend to prefer including all the units, not just the neatly-packaged units with exact definitions. It's also why it helps to actually understand the material in question.
-
$\begingroup$ Wow +1 for the numbers, nice to see the explosion itself would not be extremely dangerous. But how to harvest it in one place after that? see Amadeus objection, I think it still stands. $\endgroup$– GoodiesCommented Mar 19, 2022 at 10:12
-
$\begingroup$ Uh, are you sure that $n$ is the number of moles of iron, not the number of molecules? Cos I suspect you've got that wrong, and that makes your working incorrect by quite a considerable number of orders of magnitude. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 19, 2022 at 20:41
-
$\begingroup$ I mean, you can trivially see that in the real world steam explosions are a thing and are hideously dangerous, and involve much lower pressures and temperatures than what you're thinking of here. That should have rung alarm bells that your working was not correct. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 19, 2022 at 20:43
-
$\begingroup$ @StarfishPrime: I agree it seems weird, but I'm not seeing an error. It's not really relevant whether it's moles or molecules, because I ran through actual dimensions. Further reading suggests the original number should be electrons per cm³, but (mol/cm³)*(e/mol)*(cm³/e) equals 1, as we'd expect. Two errors I did find: I dropped the 3/2 factor off the initial plasma equation, and I found a better plasma density for stars that's a lot higher. Which reduces the energy output even more. $\endgroup$– MichaelSCommented Mar 20, 2022 at 2:50
-
$\begingroup$ @MichaelS you're transitioning from using (number of moles)*(ideal gas constant) to (number of moles)*(boltzmann constant). That's unambiguously wrong, and it makes your heat capacity calculation completely incorrect. Re-read the link I gave above if you're unclear on this. If your corrections are further reducing the effects of what is effectively a naked nuclear explosion, it is a sign that your corrections are not complete. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 20, 2022 at 8:34