PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 7491490

Venus reconsidered.

W M Kaula
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The Magellan imagery shows that Venus has a crater abundance equivalent to a surface age of 300 million to 500 million years and a crater distribution close to random. Hence, the tectonics of Venus must be quiescent compared to those of Earth in the last few 100 million years. The main debate is whether the decline in tectonic activity on Venus is closer to monotonic or episodic, with enhanced tectonism and volcanism yet to come. The former hypothesis implies that most radioactive heat sources have been differentiated upward; the latter, that they have remained at depth. The low level of activity in the last few 100 million years inferred from imagery favors the monotonic hypothesis; some chemical evidence, particularly the low abundance of radiogenic argon, favors the episodic. A problem for both hypotheses is the rapid decline of thermal and tectonic activity some 300 million to 500 million years ago. The nature of the convective instabilities that caused the decline, and their propagation, are unclear.

Explore related subjects

ElementsExtraterrestrial EnvironmentTemperatureVenusJournal ArticleResearch Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

W M Kaula. 1995-12-01. Venus reconsidered.. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.270.5241.1460

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Use of energy filtering transmission electron microscopy for image generation and element analysis in plant organisms.

Energy filtering TEM (EFTEM) with modern spectrometers and software offers new possibilities for element analysis and image generation in plant cells. In the present review, applications of EFTEM in plant physiology, such as identification of light elements and ion transport, analyses of natural cell incrustations, determination of element exchange between fungi and rootlets during mycorrhiza development, heavy metal storage and detoxification, and employment in plant physiological experiments are summarized. In addition, it is demonstrated that EFTEM can be successfully used in more practical approaches, for example, in phytoremediation, food and wood industry, and agriculture. Preparation methods for plant material as prerequisites for EFTEM analysis are compared with respect to their suitability and technical problems are discussed.

Elements↗
PubMed2006

RM1: a reparameterization of AM1 for H, C, N, O, P, S, F, Cl, Br, and I.

Twenty years ago, the landmark AM1 was introduced, and has since had an increasingly wide following among chemists due to its consistently good results and time-tested reliability--being presently available in countless computational quantum chemistry programs. However, semiempirical molecular orbital models still are of limited accuracy and need to be improved if the full potential of new linear scaling techniques, such as MOZYME and LocalSCF, is to be realized. Accordingly, in this article we present RM1 (Recife Model 1): a reparameterization of AM1. As before, the properties used in the parameterization procedure were: heats of formation, dipole moments, ionization potentials and geometric variables (bond lengths and angles). Considering that the vast majority of molecules of importance to life can be assembled by using only six elements: C, H, N, O, P, and S, and that by adding the halogens we can now build most molecules of importance to pharmaceutical research, our training set consisted of 1736 molecules, representative of organic and biochemistry, containing C, H, N, O, P, S, F, Cl, Br, and I atoms. Unlike AM1, and similar to PM3, all RM1 parameters have been optimized. For enthalpies of formation, dipole moments, ionization potentials, and interatomic distances, the average errors in RM1, for the 1736 molecules, are less than those for AM1, PM3, and PM5. Indeed, the average errors in kcal x mol(-1) of the enthalpies of formation for AM1, PM3, and PM5 are 11.15, 7.98, and 6.03, whereas for RM1 this value is 5.77. The errors, in Debye, of the dipole moments for AM1, PM3, PM5, and RM1 are, respectively, 0.37, 0.38, 0.50, and 0.34. Likewise, the respective errors for the ionization potentials, in eV, are 0.60, 0.55, 0.48, and 0.45, and the respective errors, in angstroms, for the interatomic distances are 0.036, 0.029, 0.037, and 0.027. The RM1 average error in bond angles of 6.82 degrees is only slightly higher than the AM1 figure of 5.88 degrees, and both are much smaller than the PM3 and PM5 figures of 6.98 degrees and 9.83 degrees, respectively. Moreover, a known error in PM3 nitrogen charges is corrected in RM1. Therefore, RM1 represents an improvement over AM1 and its similar successor PM3, and is probably very competitive with PM5, which is a somewhat different model, and not fully disclosed. RM1 possesses the same analytical construct and the same number of parameters for each atom as AM1, and, therefore, can be easily implemented in any software that already has AM1, not requiring any change in any line of code, with the sole exception of the values of the parameters themselves.

Elements↗