Prev: Quantum Gravity in 3 Steps Gets Plainer Simpler
Next: electrons radiate gravity/inertia
From: Mike Vandeman on 21 Jun 2010 10:53
Hi,

I'm reading a great paper published in PNAS:

"The evolution of multicomponent systems at high pressures: VI. The
thermodynamic stability of the hydrogen–carbon system: The genesis of
hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum"

http://www.pnas.org/content/99/17/10976.full.pdf+html

The paper discusses thermodymanic stabity theory and presents model
experimental results in which hydrocarbons are generated abiotically.

The experiment involves cooking lab grade CaCO3 and FeO with triple-
distilled H2O to exclude biota. The temperature and pressure used are
found within the mantle of the Earth. Calcium carbonate is a barely
representative mineral of the earth's minerals. FeO is a rare
intermediate oxidation state of ion, more reduced than fully oxidized
iron found in the crust and more oxidized than the molten iron core of
the earth. Those few of you who have mastered high school chemistry
will understand the chemistry. In the reactions studied by the
authors, calcium carbonate provides a source of carbon in an oxidized
state, FeO is a catalyst and reducing agent and H2O provides a source
for hydrogen. Cook and squeeze under mantle conditions and you end up
with an equilbrium mixture of complex hydrocarbons. The authors
presentation of theory gives a graph for normal alkanes, alkenes,
cycloalkanes and polyaromatics up to carbon number 20.

All this seems compelling from the point of view of our knowledge of
the solar system. We can see compex mixtures of hydrocarbons laying
about on moons such as Titan. We know of the carbonaceous chondrites
which contain what I would call asphalts.

You can read about carbonaceous chondrites here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonaceous_chondrites

My reading of the wikipedia article is that the author leans towards a
biological origin for the asteriod's materials. Let's dismiss that
idea for a moment and ask ourselves, 'how did polyaromatic
hydrocarbons like asphalt get hurtled into outer space?' If they were
created in an abiotic process deep within the mantle of a planet, then
we are talking about exploding planets much like Superman's planet
Krypton exploded!

However, the current dominant theory for the origin of our Moon is
that our earth was explodied in a massive collision with a Mars size
impactor. The debris reassembled into what is now the earth-moon
system.

This abiotic oil theory along with the currect genesis theory of the
earth-moon systen suggests that there should be valuable
concentrations of petroleum on the moon.

My question to this congegrations is has any such evidence been
observed and has any one bothered to look? Maybe oil seeps on the
moon's surface might be visible by telescope? Objects as small as
lunar rovers have been seen using powerful telescopes on earth,
From: dlzc on 21 Jun 2010 12:47
Dear Mike Vandeman:

On Jun 21, 7:53 am, Mike Vandeman <MikeVande...(a)hushmail.com> wrote:
....
> My question to this congegrations is has any such
> evidence been observed and has any one bothered
> to look?

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1970GeCAS...1.1879M
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/LEA/whitepapers/AllenApolloOrganics.pdf
"The organic compounds measured in Apollo samples are generally
consistent with known sources of contamination."
.... no oil in the few sites we sampled.

David A. Smith
From: Cwatters on 21 Jun 2010 16:19

"Mike Vandeman" <MikeVandeman(a)hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:f16e7ffd-bd9a-4065-8ebe-e25666bcfe1a(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Hi,
>
>I'm reading a great paper published in PNAS:
>
>"The evolution of multicomponent systems at high pressures: VI. The
>thermodynamic stability of the hydrogen�carbon system: The genesis of
>hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin


From: Uncle Al on 21 Jun 2010 20:37
Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm reading a great paper published in PNAS:
>
> "The evolution of multicomponent systems at high pressures: VI. The
> thermodynamic stability of the hydrogen�carbon system: The genesis of
> hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum"
>
> http://www.pnas.org/content/99/17/10976.full.pdf+html
>
> The paper discusses thermodymanic stabity theory and presents model
> experimental results in which hydrocarbons are generated abiotically.

1) Petroleum compounds that are chiral are homochiral.
2) Petroleum carbon compounds have an extraordinary preference for
even-numbered carbon compounds - acetate homologation.
3) Petroluem terpenoids and polyterpenoids.

> The experiment involves cooking lab grade CaCO3 and FeO with triple-
> distilled H2O to exclude biota. The temperature and pressure used are
> found within the mantle of the Earth. Calcium carbonate is a barely
> representative mineral of the earth's minerals.
[snip]

Yadda yadda. Won't reproduce the stereochemistry, even carbon number
preference, and terpenoid (poly)cyclics that are flooding the Gulf at
70,000 bbl/day.

Methane can be abiotic no problem. Petroleum and coal are degraded
organisms.


> My question to this congegrations is has any such evidence been
> observed and has any one bothered to look? Maybe oil seeps on the
> moon's surface might be visible by telescope? Objects as small as
> lunar rovers have been seen using powerful telescopes on earth,

Don't be an idiot.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
From: spudnik on 23 Jun 2010 22:12
there is one theory, that Moon is a dead planet; that is,
if one does not assume that all craters are via bolides,
that the maria are basaltic seafloors, and the highlands
being the finally acreted "Panluna."

therefore, if residual water is to be found,
mayhap also residual hydrocarbons.

> The vacuum of the lunar surface makes anything of a conventional
> liquid or fluid impossible.

thus&so:
are not there already several kinds
of "surrogate factoring" in numbertheory ...
is that a demonstration of the meaning Life,
Universe and 42?

yeah; the second Meander number!

thus&so:
that's about what Roemer did (no umlaut
for the o, hereat). note that
Vedic astrology included the precession of the equinoxes,
whereas Western or Symbolic or Solar atrology doesn't;
it is based upon Ptolemy's hoax, which had no epicylce
for that well-known phenomenon. so,
when a typical western astrologer does your sign,
it is no-better than the twelve daily fortune-cookies
in the newspaper -- Sydney Omarr is dead;
long-live Sydney Omarr (TM) !!

> > a + b + c + d = x^2
> > a^2+b^2+c^2+d^2 = y^2
> > a^3+b^3+c^3+d^3 = z^3
> If (a, b, c, d) is a solution then so is
> (akk, bkk, ckk, dkk)
> for any square kk.
> Solutions for a,b,c,d < 1300 with
> no such common square factor include
> (0, 0, 0, 1)
> (10, 13, 14, 44)
> (54, 109, 202, 260)
> (102, 130, 234, 318)

thus&so:
surely it could not be so hard,
to find some of the rather definitive un-null results
of Michelson, Morely et al; is it?... well, even
as Albert the Witnit wobbled on the idea of aether,
it is really a matter of interpretation. so,
why cannot the electromagnetic properties
of atoms in "space" be an aether; to wit,
permitivity & permeability?
should your "theory" can be taken at all seriously,
you'd have to be able to explain such; would you not?
oh, and there never was a twin paradox;
it is just a "term of art" and pop-science. I mean,
shouldn't the few properties of energy, of light,
be of the ultimate importance for matter,
per the experiments of Young, Fresnel et al,
in utterly burying Newton's "theory" of corpuscles
-- til it was rescued by the word, "photon;
hereinat to be interpreted to mean a massless rock
o'light?... and, thanks for that Nobel!"
> Using Larmor’s transform, there is no twin’s paradox.

--BP loves Waxman-Obama cap&trade (at least circa Kyoto, or
Waxman's '91 cap&trade on NOX and SO2) --
how about a tiny tax, instead of the Last Bailout
of Wall Street and the "City of London?"
http://larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2010/lar_pac/100621pne_nordyke.html

--le theoreme prochaine du Fermatttt!
http://wlym.com
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Quantum Gravity in 3 Steps Gets Plainer Simpler
Next: electrons radiate gravity/inertia