Relpy to Don: On The Origin Of Oil
in [Design]
|
Prev: quantizer for LT Spice
Next: ESD protections
From: msci on 19 Apr 2010 02:45 I don't believe everything I was taught in school. I do hold everything I have been taught up to the light of skepticism. Taking the stance of devils advocate for a moment I will assume everything I have been taught is wrong and I must come up with a new explanation. So.... How would nature get all that carbon underground? Carbon dioxide is slightly soluble in water, anyone who drinks soda pop can attest to that. So when it rains there are millions of gallons water seeping into the ground carrying who knows how many tones of carbon dioxide with it. I think man has a minuscule capability of sequestering carbon dioxide compared to nature. I have heard that Russia has a technology to turn carbon dioxide back into long carbon chains, or fuel. That brings me to my next question; How could nature do the same thing? If we have water carrying carbon dioxide deep underground we would then need some way to strip the oxygen from the carbon in order for the carbon to bond with other carbon. Perhaps a catalyst of some kind could be used... Wait a minute, underground there are all sorts of minerals of almost every type. Not to mention electricity that flows through the ground (Granted the electric flow through the ground is minuscule but it is there and it could do some thing, to one degree or another). Catalyst would be plentiful in that situation. What if there are pure metals, like calcium, that would strip oxygen from the carbon dioxide and let the carbon concentrate in small pockets in those deep underground water ways. That to me would make more sense of how the carbon gets deep underground rather than having miles of dirt being thrown on top of a forest or something. I have heard of oil fields being sucked dry of oil only to have someone come back decades latter to check it and find even more oil in the previously depleted well. So perhaps an oil cycle is sitting on top of the water cycle and is renewable, depending on whether other elements underground are consumed or not. If something like calcium metal, for instance, were oxidized then the supply of it could be consumed and be un renewable. I don't know for sure. I am not claiming to know what actually happens underground. I do claim that we don't really know for sure yet. Hell we act like we just came out of the dark ages or something.
From: msci on 19 Apr 2010 03:16 I don't believe everything I was taught in school. I do hold everything I have been taught up to the light of skepticism. Taking the stance of devils advocate for a moment I will assume everything I have been taught is wrong and I must come up with a new explanation. So.... How would nature get all that carbon underground? Carbon dioxide is slightly soluble in water, anyone who drinks soda pop can attest to that. So when it rains there are millions of gallons water seeping into the ground carrying who knows how many tones of carbon dioxide with it. I think man has a minuscule capability of sequestering carbon dioxide compared to nature. I have heard that Russia has a technology to turn carbon dioxide back into long carbon chains, or fuel. That brings me to my next question; How could nature do the same thing? If we have water carrying carbon dioxide deep underground we would then need some way to strip the oxygen from the carbon in order for the carbon to bond with other carbon. Perhaps a catalyst of some kind could be used... Wait a minute, underground there are all sorts of minerals of almost every type. Not to mention electricity that flows through the ground (Granted the electric flow through the ground is minuscule but it is there and it could do some thing, to one degree or another). Catalyst would be plentiful in that situation. What if there are pure metals, like calcium, that would strip oxygen from the carbon dioxide and let the carbon concentrate in small pockets in those deep underground water ways. That to me would make more sense of how the carbon gets deep underground rather than having miles of dirt being thrown on top of a forest or something. I have heard of oil fields being sucked dry of oil only to have someone come back decades latter to check it and find even more oil in the previously depleted well. So perhaps an oil cycle is sitting on top of the water cycle and is renewable, depending on whether other elements underground are consumed or not. If something like calcium metal, for instance, were oxidized then the supply of it could be consumed and be nonrenewable. I don't know for sure. I am not claiming to know what actually happens underground. I do claim that we don't really know for sure yet. Hell we act like we just came out of the dark ages or something.
From: Jan Panteltje on 20 Apr 2010 09:08 On a sunny day (Tue, 20 Apr 2010 13:28:56 +0100) it happened Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in <c6hzn.155946$y13.72526(a)newsfe12.iad>: >> continued - an other assumption brought as a fact, you were not there, >> the earth simply slowly cooled and the atmosphere CONDENSED, no mysterious defeat of gravity >> to send it to some other planet! >> Occam's!!!!! > >What are you talking about? >Without a magnetic field around the Earth the solar wind can ionise and >gradually tear off the upper atmosphere as it has done to Mars. Funny thing is, on MARS the water vapour *condensed* and is now everywhere buried under just a bit of sand. If mars had volcanism in the past, and it looks that way, the same processes (condensation of that oily atmosphere) may have happened there *in spite of* there (possibly) being not enough life to create your type of molecules, and then oil may be or mars too, not too deep. A good reason to go there and drill there, in places where THIS theory predicts it will be. But hell they look in all the wrong places for life too, not to upset the pope perhaps. The first Viking experiments were positive for life: http://panteltje.com/panteltje/space/mars/index.html Follow link on bottom to Dr Levin's site. A heavy atmosphere, with all those hydrocarbons can, in my view, not possibly be 'pushed away' by a bit of solar wind. As far as the oily companies and their search for oil goes, they seem to have very little of a clue, as the oil price is so high because of 'peak oil' and the stuff being so 'scarce'. They are simply looking in the wrong places, possibly deliberately. The last because the next big finds will happen as soon as present fields are about to be exhausted. This is a future prediction, 'you will see' but then you will probably explain that in other ways, maybe aliens pumped down a reservoir of their own as truck stop for their interplanetary travels. >As it is we only lose hydrogen, helium and mere traces of the rest. >Except during pole reversals when a bit of atmosphere may escape. The >atmosphere always fluffs up at solar maximum - that was what brought >SkyLab crashing down early. >> >> >>>> An other stupid simulation perhaps, like the global over heaters, >>>> the ones that block air traffic (do you believe that, >>>> they did not even measure anything, just ran a simulation, >>>> and now bankrupt all airlines, the airlines did some test flights and >>>> found no volcanic ash and no damage... >>> They found that their aeroplanes came back in one piece - not the same >>> thing at all. >> >> They checked for damage on the hull, and very likely of the turbine blades (first thing). >> There was none, no stuff on the windshields either. >> At that speed you *would* notice. > >Several F16 and F18 are in for expensive engine repair as we speak. > >http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/04/16/340727/pictures-finnish-f-18-engine-check-reveals-effects-of-volcanic.html The Fins are a lot closer, probably flew through the stuff. >There is nothing wrong with the met office weather simulation the dust >clouds are there. Places in the UK have had dust landing on the ground. Yes UK seems to have a much better grasp of the weather, I look at their sat images every morning: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/satpics/latest_IR.html KNMI nonsense is the LAST thing I will look, if all other weather sites are down. >Whilst I agree there is an element of risk averse over reaction involved >here it is not clear to me how you can allow civilian airliners that are >not equipped to detect and avoid these ash clouds to fly in contaminated >airspace. SO2 detection or blue light backscatter might be usable. Lufthansa (Germany) has flown test flights on different altitudes to different destinations, inspected engines and other parts of the aircraft, and found *NOTHING*.
From: angryScientist on 19 Apr 2010 12:32 I don't believe everything I was taught in school. I do hold everything I have been taught up to the light of skepticism. Taking the stance of devils advocate for a moment I will assume everything I have been taught is wrong and I must come up with a new explanation. So.... How would nature get all that carbon underground? Carbon dioxide is slightly soluble in water, anyone who drinks soda pop can attest to that. So when it rains there are millions of gallons water seeping into the ground carrying who knows how many tones of carbon dioxide with it. I think man has a minuscule capability of sequestering carbon dioxide compared to nature. I have heard that Russia has a technology to turn carbon dioxide back into long carbon chains, or fuel. That brings me to my next question; How could nature do the same thing? If we have water carrying carbon dioxide deep underground we would then need some way to strip the oxygen from the carbon in order for the carbon to bond with other carbon. Perhaps a catalyst of some kind could be used... Wait a minute, underground there are all sorts of minerals of almost every type. Not to mention electricity that flows through the ground (Granted the electric flow through the ground is minuscule but it is there and it could do some thing, to one degree or another). Catalyst would be plentiful in that situation. What if there are pure metals, like calcium, that would strip oxygen from the carbon dioxide and let the carbon concentrate in small pockets in those deep underground water ways. That to me would make more sense of how the carbon gets deep underground rather than having miles of dirt being thrown on top of a forest or something. I have heard of oil fields being sucked dry of oil only to have someone come back decades latter to check it and find even more oil in the previously depleted well. So perhaps an oil cycle is sitting on top of the water cycle and is renewable, depending on whether other elements underground are consumed or not. If something like calcium metal, for instance, were oxidized then the supply of it could be consumed and be nonrenewable. I don't know for sure. I am not claiming to know what actually happens underground. I do claim that we don't really know for sure yet. Hell, we act like we just came out of the dark ages or something.
From: Martin Brown on 19 Apr 2010 15:50
Jan Panteltje wrote: >>> However, the salient characteristic of the inner planets is that their >>> gaseous envelopes were removed quite early in the evolution of the solar >>> system, long before there was a stable surface with sand, basins, or >>> deserts. >> Yeah, but it doesn't "jive" with him, man! > > Because it is pure speculation, brought here as if it is fact. > Very little is known about that, and what is known does not confirm this. That is not true. Biological processes preferentially grab low mass carbon 12 and deltaC13 can be used to determine whether or not you are looking at biogenic or abiogenic material. We have a pretty good idea of the initial solar nebula conditions that give rise to rocky inner planets. Without a magnetic field the solar wind would strip the Earths atmosphere off like it has done with Mars. > > An other stupid simulation perhaps, like the global over heaters, > the ones that block air traffic (do you believe that, > they did not even measure anything, just ran a simulation, > and now bankrupt all airlines, the airlines did some test flights and > found no volcanic ash and no damage... They found that their aeroplanes came back in one piece - not the same thing at all. Civilian airliners are not equipped to detect ash clouds. They have no idea if they flew into it or not. Only a crazy would fly into a serious ash cloud - BA009 lasted about 5 minutes before all 4 engines flamed out almost simultaneously. A brilliant incredibly cool pilot and a fair amount of good luck saved the day. I travelled the length of Britain yesterday and there were places where the sky was visibly full of stuff as well as patches of clear blue sky. The recent sunsets were a bit disappointing to be honest but Fridays was properly Turneresque with very unusual colours. > > Stupid simulations are no good. > We need real data and clear thinking. > That rules out multitudes We need to set a safe limit on volcanic ash that is above zero but still low enough to be acceptable in the modern safety culture. Bird strike is tested on aero engines but we now need a safe working limit for volcanic dust. US ambulance chasing lawyers will be claiming that "they" should have done more to prevent captain dimwit flying into a cloud of ash and crashing. We got away with it last time by a hairs breadth. > > For sure Putin & The Oily Companies would like people to think the stuff is rare. > Yes there is a finite supply, but it is not rare. It is rare enough now that the price will continue to rise. And it will jump very abruptly when Saudi Arabia goes completely over to Al Qaeda. Look carefully at the nationalities of the 9/11 terrorists. US refineries are rather bad at handling cheaper high sulphur crude so you are already between a rock and a hard place. > Club of Rome, Oil peak, etc etc. all for the money, no science. > Do not eat whale meat, save humanity., > > Not a chance, a species so stupid will<--- go dinosaurs way, Sadly I think you are right there. Goldman Sachs seems to demonstrate very clearly how short term greed always triumphs over ethics. Regards, Martin Brown |