Consider hydrogen for Earth's Core

[CharlieO]

Good show TURTLE, you are going to get me back in the library yet. I remember reading about the plastic nature of Earth's outer core in SCIENCE magazine some years ago, but since they come to me via email thru my membership in AAAS, I haven't retained them. I will admit I'm trying to avoid Information Overload and have been winging it on memory.

 

EARTH'S INNER CORE SPIN: As for the plastic nature of Earth's inner/outer core relationship, some movement is certainly a possibility, even at core pressures, because the force of gravity acting on individual 'grains' or molecules decreases with depth. While pressure may increase to levels beyond our comprehension in Earth's core, there is no more force of gravity in the center of Earth. Effectively, molecules in the center of Earth's core are 'free floating,' albeit jammed together by the pressures created by the mass of materials around them.

 

By way of explanation, Newton didn't get it wrong, he just didn't take into consideration the fact that Gravity has a push-pull effect in every direction, where as Newtonian physics deals with the relationship between individual objects only on a vertical basis; Moon to Earth, Cannon balls and targets, etc. Gravity inside a cohesive mass includes an added vector to the vertical up and down vectors. This includes horizontal or sideways vectors. So one has to include push-pull vertical vectors as well as sideways vectors in calculations for the effect of Gravity on molecules within Earth.

 

When this is done, and the assumed intense internal temperature is dismissed as an illogical factor, the requirements for Earth's core density are greatly reduced. In fact, calculations including horizontal vectors make it obvious that metallic hydrogen, compressed by pressures within Earth, nicely equals the density required for Earth's core. Accordingly, iron, compressed by pressures within Earth, especially when intensely heated, becomes far too dense to be in Earth's core, even when alloyed with hydrogen.

 

MATH EXPLANATION: Neil B. Christianson is an engineer of some accomplishment. He was the head of the Titan Missile program and no slouch when it comes to advanced mathematics. He undertook to compute the values for Earth's density at multiple levels and wrote the following explanation:

 

When Newton was working with gravity, he was concerned with the flight of cannon balls and orbits of satellites. He had to show that the total mass of an orb, regardless of its layered distribution, could be treated as though all mass is located in the orb’s center. As proof, he separated a hypothetical orb into concentric shells of different densities. His shells had walls of zero thickness and all shells shared a common axis. He then chose an individual shell and sliced across its axis to produce stacked rings. Next, he rotated the masses of these rings around the common axis to locate them on an arc of that shell’s circumference. Using an individual ring’s combined mass he then calculated the gravitational force it produced on a gram mass sitting outside of the orb—directly above its axis.

 

Since the force produced was the hypotenuse of a right angle triangle, he simply used trigonometric relationships to determine the vertical vector produced by that ring’s mass. He repeated the process for all ring slices in that shell. Then, repeated the process for all other shells. Adding up all vertical vectors, he showed that their sum was exactly the same as would be produced by considering the orb’s total mass to be located at its center. Now, he ignored the horizontal vectors, because they had little effect on a gram mass sitting outside the orb. But, this is not true for gram masses sitting inside the orb—no one has bothered to calculate trigonometrically the packing effect of horizontal gravity.

 

Once a radial vector is selected for use in trigonometrically calculating the strength of gravitational forces at descending depths, all other radial vectors disappear and the rest of the earth becomes nothing more than a bunch of individual gram masses. Applying gravity’s elastic nature to gram masses inside the earth, suggests gravity’s horizontal vectors work in a manner similar to the pull exerted by molecules in the skin of a rubber balloon. It seemed reasonable then that the strength of pull (packing effect) by gram masses at descending depths within the earth would be obtained by running thin walled shell calculations similar to the ones used by Newton—a very tedious, but eye opening, trigonometric calculation. Results are shown below.

 

Values for vertical gravity vectors obtained from my calculations, using directional vectors and the current hot-core model of earth’s cross section, match well with values obtained by Adam M. Dziewonski (Harvard). This makes me confident that my trigonometric approach is equivalent to his way of calculating vertical gravity at descending depths within the earth. My horizontal and vertical vectors in the earth’s surface are basically of equal value. However, my horizontal vectors in the center of the earth are four times the value of surface vectors. The current model of earth’s cross section has a core of nickel-iron to produce this strong packing effect; so, you can well imagine the packing effect that must result in a star with a degenerate neutron core (~40,000 g/cc).

 

[sorry if the math tables are jammed together, they wouldn't transfer from the posting area to the displayed message. Hopefully, you can understand what the displayed mess really means.:hihi:]

 

Model: Hot-core Average density Cold-core

Radius km Fv msec-2 Fh Fv Fh Fv Fh

 

6370 9.833 8.043 9.826 9.799 9.834 10.071

6359 9.852 8.134 9.834 9.926 8.947 10.194

6291 9.932 8.677 9.817 10.653 9.862 10.907

6116 9.875 9.774 9.364 11.987 9.589 12.334

5671 10.621 12.973 8.824 14.067 9.073 15.198

5371 9.946 13.217 8.244 15.008 8.199 16.486

4371 9.966 17.305 6.733 17.804 5.218 19.646

3871 10.235 19.739 5.969 18.960 3.112 20.158

2900 9.271 25.924 4.467 20.332 0.892 16.841

1217 4.221 32.240 1.875 21.890 0.437 15.244

700 2.483 32.878 1.078 21.973 0.263 15.121

0 0.000 32.025 0.000 21.509 0.000 14.944

 

While calculating gravitational pulls by gram masses located at various depths within an earth model of constant density (average), an interesting numerical relationship popped up. At all depths, the absolute value of the vertical vector, plus the absolute value of the horizontal vector equals twice the absolute value of the vertical vector on the earth’s surface. Since the vertical vector decreases in value, until it drops to zero in earth’s center, the packing effect of horizontal gravity quickly becomes the dominant vector. Also, since my gravitational pulls were derived trigonometrically (consisting of right angle triangles) these results can be proportionally applied to a molecular cloud, or a fragment thereof, by reason of similar triangles.

 

Neil B. Christianson, 1989

 

EARTH'S CORE SPINNING: One must consider the fact that any 'spin' of the inner core, which may be an illusion, would be created by Earth slowing in its rate of rotation, i.e., the fact is, our days are getting longer. This is largely due to the drag on Earth's rotation created by Moon's gravity.

 

Miss I. Lehmann of Danmark discovered the existence of Earth's inner core in 1936. This was measured by several researchers to be 1217 Km in diameter. Now, if Earth's main mass is assumed to be falling behind one rotation every 1700 to 2000 years we have a problem for the believers in a hot iron, magnetic generating, inner core. Assuming this retrograde rotation estimate for Earth is valid and 1850 years are a realistic average, consider the circumference of Earth's inner core to be 3832 Km.

 

If Earth fell behind in rotation once every 1850 years, the retrograde distance traveled in a single year would be 2 Km. Since there are 8766 hours per year, the retrograde speed of Earth in relation to its inner core would be 2.282 Centimeters per hour or less than one inch per hour. Not exactly a speed which could generate a magnetic field. In fact, common garden snails crawl much faster. Therefore, the existence of magnetic, metallic hydrogen being able to generate Earth's magnetic field without spinning appears to be a much more realistic alternative to the impossibility of a non-magnetic iron core generating anything at the speed of less than one inch per hour; if the inner core moves at all. [Check my math, not my strongest suite.]

 

BACTERIA IN EARTH'S DEPTHS: As for bacteria, the little buggers have been found deeper inside Earth than in your reference. In France there is a cave nearly 5,000 feet deep filled with the little devils. In the Marianas Trench they are doing well at 30,000 feet. I guess 12.4 miles or 65,000 feet was just more than my limited imagination could believe. However, I'm always willing to learn something new, so I'll have to recant on my flat denial of the possibility of such a thing. Still, I do believe there is water down there and that hydrogen does effuse thru it, so non-oxygen feeding bacteria are certainly a possibility. Thank you.

 

However, in your earlier post, NASA assumed hydrogen was effusing from within 'grains' to feed the bacteria. Consider the amount of hydrogen which might be needed to feed anything for 4+ Billion years or even for one week. While at Shell, I was able to infuse hydrogen into various samples, increasing their density, but not their size. Hydrogen has the unique property of being able to reside within other molecules; in some more easily than others and totally unable to penetrate some. Unfortunately for Shell Oil, drill strings were easily penetrated by atomic hydrogen and when molecular hydrogen effused during stress, it would gather in grain boundaries and rupture the crystals, leading to complete metal failures.

 

Unfortunately for the NASA assumption, at best, I was only able to increase hydrogen density in my samples by 70%. Russians claim to have increased hydrogen density in their samples by 110%, but how was beyond my limited ability. Even so, a 'grain' with 110% of its stored hydrogen capable of effusion and feeding bacteria would not provide much nourishment, perhaps only for a week or so. However, hydrogen effusing from within Earth could effectively provide unlimited nourishment for bacteria over eons. Good argument for a hydrogen core, no help for one of iron.

 

TURTLE this is great, your most applicable examples are a great help in jogging my memory, considering all my notes were lost in a move many years ago. Reliving research done more than 50 years ago has been fun.

 

Best Regards, Charlie

[InfiniteNow]

I remember reading about the plastic nature of Earth's outer core in SCIENCE magazine some years ago, but since they come to me via email thru my membership in AAAS, I haven't retained them. I will admit I'm trying to avoid Information Overload and have been winging it on memory.

 

The article referenced by the NYTimes story referenced by Turtle, and described by Charlie above, is available here:

 

 

GEOPHYSICS: Earth's Inner Core Is Running a Tad Faster Than the Rest of the Planet -- Kerr 309 (5739): 1313a -- Science

Nine years after suggesting that Earth's inner core may spin faster than the rest of the planet, the original claimants are back with persuasive evidence. The rate is not as fast as it first seemed, but possibly fast enough to help probe the nature of Earth's layered interior.

[Turtle]

Good show TURTLE, you are going to get me back in the library yet. ...

 

TURTLE this is great, your most applicable examples are a great help in jogging my memory, considering all my notes were lost in a move many years ago. Reliving research done more than 50 years ago has been fun.

 

Best Regards, Charlie

 

No worries. I cut to the chase a decade ago after a fire and threw away what didn't burn the same as what did. ;) At any rate, I've proffered more here than I said I would and I'll leave it all to other hands and just read along. I have already forgotten more than I know. :)

[Turtle]

Good to see TURTLE still hanging in there.

 

...Some personal history, which I hope is allowed in this forum: I am personally aware of water and hydrogen gas being a problem in very deep boreholes. In fact, while working for Shell (Oil) Development in Emeryville, CA, during the 1950s, the problem we were trying to solve was the effect inside metals resulting from contact with hydrogen in deep boreholes. I'm sure you can understand what might be the problem when a drill string breaks several miles deep. "Fishing" any broken string out of a borehole is extremely costly. So it was necessary to try to protect drill strings from the effects of hydrogen infusion. We did have some success, albeit failures created by hydrogen in deep boreholes have continued to this day.

 

Regards, Charlie

 

Hi again Charlie. Five minutes ago I had this bit of yours on my mind and my natural question now is how are these drill rigs protected against electrolysis? What is used for a drilling fluid? Is it possible that a moving conductor (drill shaft) in a magnetic field (Earth's) is creating a current in an electrolyte (the drilling fluid) and so creating hydrogen gas while corroding the drill pipe? Well, off to more mulling. .......:)

[CharlieO]

InfiniteNow: Thanks for the heads up. After a quick review of the SCIENCE article and unless my math [in my earlier post] is incorrect, the rotation of Earth's outer core, mantle and crust is slowing down at a greatly reduced snail's pace. An Amoeba might move faster than the speed at which Earth is falling behind the [illogical] continued rotation of its Inner Core. Hardly a speed differential that could generate a magnetic field. Curious that professional scientists would claim Earth's inner core is moving ahead, when Earth is actually slowing down. Guess a misleading claim get better public attention.

 

TURTLE: Very good question on oil wells, for which I have no first hand answer. Shocking, but true. Guess I really don't know everything after all and I've probably forgotten more than most.

 

As I was in Shell's research facility, with a lot of pressure to concentrate on finding a solution to an unusual metal fatigue problem, the details of how wells were drilled or protected was not made evident to me; being a new man on the team. I do know the problem was largely with deeper wells and even then only a selected number were having problems with what the oil field geologists called 'sour crudes.' Apparently, these wells contained a lot of free hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide and water. This 'evil mixture' seemed to cause atomic hydrogen to infuse into the metal, apparently by electrolysis as you so astutely proposed. I was told various methods were being tried. Electric potential charge, nasty paint, changes in alloys, etc.

 

Only thing I was told later is there was only limited success. The infused hydrogen could be driven off with no evident damage to the metal with heat, but when metal was subjected to stress in the drilling process, the strain caused atomic hydrogen [H] to effuse from within the metal's molecules into grain boundaries and form molecular hydrogen [HH]. This developed enough pressure to separate the grains and deform the crystals, eventually leading to micro metal fractures and failure thru Hydrogen Embrittlement, a serious problem in many industries even today. One reason you may see lots of drill pipe being used for fencing. They don't hold up long in active service.

 

Interesting personal note, which I hope is allowed: On a trip back home to Oklahoma, I mentioned the research at Shell with Hydrogen Embrittlement to a fellow pilot, who was active Air Force. I soon found myself working for the USAF at Tinker AFB-OCAMA, 1959-60. Seems that a particular model of turbojet engines was having a difficult time keeping their compressor blades intact. Turns out only some interior blades were failing initially, then the engine would be torn apart or seized shut; usually tearing loose on bombers or killing pilots in fighters. We found the interior blades were the ones most affected by vibratory stress, mainly during compressor stalls. We then determined the manufacturer's Foreign Object Damage limits were not correctly related to the blade's most critical areas and FOD cleaning of runways was a waste of time, except in the case of the Concorde of course.

 

I thought the problem was Hydrogen Embrittlement and concluded the hydrogen creating the [possible] Embrittlement problem was [probably] infused into the blades during the manufacturing process and the blades were not being [properly] annealed by the manufacturer to remove it. Serious charge and all hell broke loose. Testifying before an Aviation Committee in Washington DC, was an experience I don't wish on my worst enemy. In the end, the manufacturer was let off the hook, their engine was taken out of service, annealing was improved on others, lives were saved and I ended up as a Service Engineer for British Leyland Cars, racing a few in the process; no American company would hire a 'Whistle Blower." British car problems were a lot more fun, I must add, and they had a lot of problems.

 

USAF research tie-in with Earth's hydrogen core: The stresses of Earth Tides created by Moon's Gravity, creates strains deep within Earth's Mantle. This is turn can physically cause hydrogen, migrating upward from the core thru molecules within the mantle material, to more actively effuse into more porous areas of Earth's crust. Volcanoes therefore become mainly hydrogen vents. Now that should raise some eyebrows. Sort of the next shoe.

 

Regards, Charlie

[freeztar]

USAF research tie-in with Earth's hydrogen core: The stresses of Earth Tides created by Moon's Gravity, creates strains deep within Earth's Mantle. This is turn can physically cause hydrogen, migrating upward from the core thru molecules within the mantle material, to more actively effuse into more porous areas of Earth's crust. Volcanoes therefore become mainly hydrogen vents. Now that should raise some eyebrows. Sort of the next shoe.

 

I'm much more hesitant to make that leap of faith. Why couldn't the H2 be emanating from the crust, or even the mantle?

[CharlieO]

FREEZTAR: You are most justified in finding a complete break with dogma to be difficult and in fact there is still a good chance I may be wrong.

 

Earth's Mantle would in fact be an ideal place for atomic Hydrogen to sit quietly within other molecules for eons. However, Earth's crust is too well studied and found too lacking in hydrogen for it to have a chance to be a reservoir for the great amount of hydrogen which has emerged over the past four billion years. After all, no one really knows what elements composed the Mantle and in what ratios. Mainly silicon according to some, while others claim differently. Which proves a point. No one really knows.

 

So, being a former hydrogen properties researcher, I, like everyone else will lean towards what is most familiar. I'll probably see things differently than someone indoctrinated by a different religion, that is, theory [assumption], no matter what evidence is offered. However, the fact is the amount of hydrogen and its compounds, which emerges from volcanoes alone far exceeds all other elements which emerge from within Earth. Add to that the hydrogen and its compounds which effuse from earthquake zones, geysers, oil wells, gas wells and other natural venting areas and you must admit hydrogen has been the dominate element venting from within Earth for eons.

 

OK, volcanoes. Virtually everybody I've met will say volcanoes spew forth molten lava and blow a lot of melted rock into the air, therefore it must be molten below the crust and the gases dissolved within the magma cause the volcanic eruptions. This appears to be true, but looks can be deceiving.

 

Let's say two ants are walking along a great iron beam. Below it is a man with a cutting torch, which uses acetylene [mainly hydrogen] and oxygen to provide the heat to cut into the iron. Neither the Acetylene nor Oxygen are hot before they are combined. They can even be very cold. However, when they do combine, they create enough heat venting from a cutting torch to blow a hole in the iron beam.

 

What would the ants think? Why it would be understandable for the ants to conclude there must be a great reservoir of melted iron below the surface and the dissolved gases caused it to melt a hole thru the iron beam and splatter the melted iron around the hole. Remember, these are very intelligent ants, probably ant scientists. So it would also be completely understandable for early man to believe in melted magma rising from below, filling a magma chamber and then exploding thru the crust when the pressure of the dissolved gases becomes too great for the crust to contain. Sounds good, so what is the problem?

 

Unfortunately for the ants and us, there is no melted reservoir of magma beneath volcanoes. At least I've never seen any research or seismographic study which located a melted magma reservoir area below an active volcano. Which will probably result in a number of references being supplied by the sharp eyed readers of the this very intelligent forum.

 

Meanwhile, the only related experiments known to me were preformed as a means of measuring the temperature within active lava lakes. Perhaps surprisingly, these failed to find any 'throat' thru which the lava emerged, but did find the interior temperatures declined with increasing depth, to the point they were soon below the melting point of rock and only solid rocks could be found not very far below the surface of the boiling volcanic lake. T. A. Jagger, My Life with Volcanoes.

 

This could be explained by relatively cold hydrogen emerging from below and combining with oxygen in an exothermic reaction, resulting in a temperature rise which can easily melt rock, even iron.

 

About 40 years ago, I applied for a grant to study volcanic gas emissions, worldwide, as a theme for a Master's degree thesis. I wanted to find out what kind and what quantities of gasses vented from all possible volcanoes, both during eruptive events and relatively quiet periods.

 

At first, there was academic support for this effort and an endorsement was anticipated, albeit volcanic gases were not exactly in line with what my major professor was comfortable with. He specialized in the study of lava's features. Never the less, I was looking forward to corresponding with volcano researchers all over the world.

 

My initial review of available information indicated Hydrogen and its compounds were the primary emissions from volcanoes; as much as 97% and largely within water. In addition, the amount of gaseous emissions was estimated to be in the millions of tonnes during a single eruptive period; which at first even I thought might be excessive.

 

One volcano, Mount Etna in central Italy was chosen as my primary example. It is the highest, largest and most active volcano in Europe. It has erupted an estimated 18,700 times over the past 300,000 years, roughly every 16 years. Mount Etna is an enormous cone, about two miles high and some 8 miles across its effective base, albeit its lavas spread out thinly for many more miles.

 

The volume of a cone is 1/3 (Pi (radius x radius)) times height. Igneous rock averages about 5,000 pounds per cubic yard or 2.6 million tonnes per cubic mile. [Remember some igneous rock is so light it can float.] If the cone consists of 300+ cubic miles of rock, probably less due to the cone not being a consistent cone shape, then Mount Etna might weigh about 780 million tonnes. An awesome weight to be sure.

 

However, gas emissions were observed by serious scientists to vary from 100 to 250 tonnes per day, mainly hydrogen and its compounds, again largely water. Eruptive gaseous emissions were estimated to be in the order of ten to forty thousand tonnes per day. Since Etna's violent eruptions have been recorded over the past 2,500 years as lasting for days, even weeks, with lesser eruptions continuing for months, an average of 25,000 tonnes per day x 10 days x 18,700 events equals 4.675 billion tonnes of gas. An average of 175 tonnes per day for 300,000 years equals 19.163 billion tonnes of gas, for a total of 23.838 billion tonnes of gaseous emissions over the known life of Mount Etna, roughly 30 times the total mass of one of the world's most 'enormous' volcanoes. [My math skills may be lacking and more recent estimates might be different, but I believe my point is valid.]

 

I concluded the amount of gaseous emissions, over the known life of just Mount Etna, might include enough hydrogen, mainly combined with oxygen as water, to fill the nearby Ionian Sea. It seems curious that scientifically trained volcanic researchers only seem to concentrate on the 'enormous' quantities of melted lava appearing around the base of what is effectively a gigantic gas vent. Not sure why they only seem to focus their interest on mainly the melted slag or lava which appears around a hole blown thru Earth's surface by the intense heat of what is actually a gigantic hydrogen-oxygen cutting torch.

 

Meanwhile, the gas emitted during a major eruption of just one of 300 or more active volcanoes, in one event, can change Earth's climate and damage all flora and fauna worldwide for months, if not for years. Volcanic events have done this in man's recent past. Gas venting from a series of volcanoes over a short period, say during one year, could easily change Earth's climate for decades, and may have done so in prehistoric events which were recorded by man in oral histories. Gas venting from only half of the thousands of volcanoes known to exist, could wipe man as a species off the face of the Earth.

 

Some researchers, mentioned in SCIENCE, have recently reported the possibility that the mighty comet or asteroid which crashed into the Yucatan some 65 million years ago and assumed to have killed off the dinosaurs, may have only been the "trigger" for the release of enormous amounts of 'dissolved gases' stored in Earth's Mantle. They now suggest the Yucatan event largely disturbed Earth's Mantle enough so 'dissolved gases' were then released from volcanoes all over the world, creating a climate change that killed 90% of Earth's species.

 

The Decca Traps in India [hundreds of square miles of lava fields] were given as an example of the enormous amounts of lava being released during the same time period, which would represent far greater amounts of hydrogen compounds by weight venting into Earth's atmosphere. In short, so much hydrogen was represented as venting from within that Earth's climate would have been changed for decades, until solar radiation could separate the hydrogen from oxygen in the upper stratosphere and a more livable balance be restored to our surface atmosphere.

 

Core or Mantle, I believe there is good evidence for hydrogen venting from within as the primary element controlling Earth's climate and our lives. Good question FREEZTAR.

 

Regards, Charlie

[Turtle]

...

 

OK, volcanoes. Virtually everybody I've met will say volcanoes spew forth molten lava and blow a lot of melted rock into the air, therefore it must be molten below the crust and the gases dissolved within the magma cause the volcanic eruptions. This appears to be true, but looks can be deceiving. ...

 

Regards, Charlie

 

Erhmm...I don't think so. :) This is so gross a generalized mischaracterization of volcanoes that it is not even wrong. But I didn't come about the ants.

 

Inasmuch as you found the information on the role of electrolysis in hydrogen production new & welcome, here is another even more revealing bit of new information on the role of electricity in rocks under pressure. ....:hihi:>>

 

http://hypography.com/forums/earth-science/3135-earth-conductivity.html?highlight=piezoelectric+Earth

 

http://hypography.com/forums/physics-mathematics/605-piezoelectric-earth.html?highlight=piezoelectric+Earth

[CharlieO]

TURTLE, I read the intro and then the whole six pages following and learned more than I ever suspected about electrical discharges created by Earth movements. Makes a lot of sense. Thank you.

 

Regards, Charlie

[freeztar]

FREEZTAR: You are most justified in finding a complete break with dogma to be difficult and in fact there is still a good chance I may be wrong.

 

I'm open-minded and skeptical. :hihi:

 

Core or Mantle, I believe there is good evidence for hydrogen venting from within as the primary element controlling Earth's climate and our lives. Good question FREEZTAR.

 

What do you mean by H2 being the "primary element controlling Earth's climate and our lives"?

 

That is an extremely bold statement, and as an "armchair" enthusiast studying climatology, I would love to hear the justification.

[Turtle]

TURTLE, I read the intro and then the whole six pages following and learned more than I ever suspected about electrical discharges created by Earth movements. Makes a lot of sense. Thank you.

 

Regards, Charlie

 

Roger. I love how science is always ammendable. :) So I was off researching for another thread and ran across more stuff for us. As a bit of an aside, were I to have to go to the library(s) to track this stuff down like in the old days, it would happen at a pace a snail would scoff at, if at all. Yay internet! Fullfilling its original purpose. :)

 

OK The electolytic effect refered to as 'galvanic corrosion' occurs without the application of external current but by means of action between dissimilar metals. This article deals with it in pressure storage vessels, but the dissimilar metals found in a drill head & rig will behave similarly. :)

 

OilPro - Tech Notes - Corrosion is just the pits

...Galvanic Corrosion

 

The Corrosion Doctors define it like this: "Galvanic corrosion refers to corrosion damage induced when two dissimilar materials are coupled in a corrosive electrolyte. The driving force for corrosion is a(n electric) potential difference between the different materials. The less noble material will become the anode of this corrosion cell and tend to corrode at an accelerated rate, compared with the uncoupled condition. The more noble material will act as the cathode in the corrosion cell. ...

[CharlieO]

To ALL: Sorry for the response delay. Snow storm, ice on wires, living far out on Colorado plains. Dial-up unreliable, wireless too distant, satellite too expensive. Been off-line for awhile. Busy staying alive. At least I have a cell phone to call on and a generator for Barbara's concentrator, frig and furnace.

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

In response to TURTLE: "so gross a generalized mischaracterization" is kind, compared to what has been said about me in the past. I would have probably been burnt at the stake in early days. I still maintain volcanoes are just hydrogen vents and physical evidence would seem to confirm this. Pity there is no physical evidence connecting volcanoes with the assumed Hot Iron Core. I did run across at few references you might find of interest. - - - - - - -

 

WIKIPEDIA: Gases are released from magma through volatile constituents reaching such high concentrations in the base magma that they evaporate. (Technically, this would be described as the exsolution and accumulation of the gases upon reaching excess supersaturation of these constituents in the host solution (magmatic melt), and their subsequent loss from the host by diffusion and phase separation into bubbles). Molten rock (either magma or lava) near the atmosphere releases high-temperature volcanic gas (>400 °C). In explosive volcanic eruptions, sudden release of gases from magma may cause rapid movements of the molten rock. When the magma encounters water seawater, lake water or groundwater, it can be rapidly fragmented. The rapid expansion of gases is the driving mechanism of most explosive volcanic eruptions. However, a significant portion of volcanic gas release occurs during quasi-continuous quiescent phases of active volcanism.

 

The abundance of gases varies considerably from volcano to volcano. However, water vapor is consistently the most common volcanic gas, normally comprising more than 60% of total emissions. Carbon dioxide typically accounts for 10 to 40% of emissions.[1]

 

Certain constituents of volcanic gases may show very early signs of changing conditions at depth, making them a powerful tool to predict imminent unrest. Used in conjunction with monitoring data on seismicity and deformation, correlative monitoring gains great efficiency. Volcanic gas monitoring is a standard tool of any volcano observatory. Volcanic gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

 

FROM Agence France-Presse

Last updated 06:24am (Mla time) 12/06/2007

SAN JOSE -- Costa Rica's Turrialba volcano on Wednesday began spewing vapor and gas, raising alarm among experts over a potential eruption though no evacuations have yet been ordered, officials said. Costa Rican volcano begins spewing gas, vapor - INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos

 

 

THINKQUEST: Volcanic gas is contained within magma. As the magma rises to the Earth's surface the gases are exsolved. Because some gases are toxic they can suffocate people. Gas escapes from fissures and vents and help to form fumaroles, solfataras and mud pots. Volcanic Gas

 

 

BRITANNICA: The most common volcanic gases are water vapour, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and hydrogen sulfide. Small quantities of other volatile elements and compounds also are present, such as hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, and mercury. The specific gaseous compounds released from magma depend on the temperature, pressure, and overall composition of the volatile elements present. The amount of available oxygen is of critical importance in determining which volatile gases are present.

 

When oxygen is lacking, methane, hydrogen, and hydrogen sulfide are chemically stable, but when hot volcanic gases mix with atmospheric gases, water vapour, carbon dioxide, and sulfur dioxide are stable.The most common volcanic gases are water vapour, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and hydrogen sulfide. Small quantities of other volatile elements and compounds also are present, such as hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, and mercury.

 

The specific gaseous compounds released from magma depend on the temperature, pressure, and overall composition of the volatile elements present. The amount of available oxygen is of critical importance in determining which volatile gases are present. When oxygen is lacking, methane, hydrogen, and hydrogen sulfide are chemically stable, but when hot volcanic gases mix with atmospheric gases, water vapour, carbon dioxide, and sulfur dioxide are stable. volcano :: Gas clouds --  Britannica Online Encyclopedia

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

TURTLE: You may note in the above references there is NO mention of the AMOUNT of gases released from the magma over time. Fact is, the only element which can infuse within other materials is hydrogen, which can then effuse as an apparent "dissolved gas."

 

In fact, after reviewing all the references I can find, no material directly related to Earth's Mantle has ever been found around volcanic vents. There are many references to the types of lava found around volcanic vents, all of which appear to be directly related to the type of crust on which the particular volcano is located. In other words, hydrogen is the only element solely coming from within the mantle and sometimes, but not always, mixing with oxides in the crust beneath the volcano to create eruptions and/or intense heat within Earth's surface layers. There is no free hydrogen on Earth's surface than does not come from within. Everything else can be found on the surface.

 

Another point you might want to consider, if researchers and my math are correct, is the AMOUNT of gases venting from Mount Etna appear to be at least 30 times greater by weight, over time, than the volcano itself today. Consider the impossibility of a pound of 'magma' or lava containing 30 times its weight in dissolved gases? The best I ever did under laboratory conditions was to infuse samples of various materials with hydrogen in ratios of 1.17:1 minimum to 1.70:1 maximum, compared to the initial weight of the samples.

 

To equal the dissolved gases venting from Mount Etna, one would have to believe a pound of lava would have to hold about 45 times MORE in dissolved gases than was done under the best of conditions in one of the finest materials laboratories in the world. Shell didn't mind spend a lot of money when preventing millions of dollars in drilling failures were at stake.

 

If I am still guilty of a "gross generalized mischaracterization" in your view of how volcanoes function, I plead guilty. Albeit, at least my mischaracterization is based on physical experiments and scientific measurements under laboratory conditions as well as physical facts which can be observed and measured in the field. At good counter is to claim conditions inside Earth must be beyond anything which can be duplicated or observed on the surface. Good logical type of assumption, has been used by many others before to explain why I was unable to duplicate assumed volcanic conditions, but still just another an assumption. I prefer physical facts.

 

* * * * * * * * * * * *

 

In response to FREEZTAR: Your wrote: What do you mean by H2 being the "primary element controlling Earth's climate and our lives"?

 

That is an extremely bold statement, and as an "armchair" enthusiast studying climatology, I would love to hear the justification.

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

Good question. Are you aware of considerable amounts of hydrogen escaping into space every day? When water vapour rises into the stratosphere, from low pressure zones, it is subjected to solar radiation. A finite amount of water vapor, at a rate determined by the intensity of solar radiation at that time, separates into oxygen and hydrogen. The heavier oxygen descends back down to Earth, in high pressure zones. The hydrogen, being too light to be retained by Earth's Gravity, escapes into space, trailing Earth like a comet's tail and visible as far as Moon's orbit. This is a physical fact that can be seen. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to locate any scientific measurements.

 

So, every day, a specific amount of water vapour is being changed into oxygen and hydrogen, and the hydrogen is being lost in space. Somehow, more hydrogen must be coming from somewhere to replace that which is being lost. If not, we would have constantly increasing amounts of oxygen and decreasing amounts of water. Now that could produce some dramatic climatic changes as the result of too little hydrogen.

 

When Earth's Core or Mantle, as you prefer, effuses more hydrogen usual, which combines with oxygen and produces water, you will have more water vapour than usual and only a finite amount of solar radiation to separate a limited amount of water vapour into oxygen and hydrogen. Then you will have more water vapour retained in Earth's atmosphere than is necessary to maintain ambient temperatures and climatic conditions.

 

Dense clouds will follow an overabundance of water vapour and these will reflect the sunlight, thus temperatures will drop and more rain and snow will appear. So how is this related to hydrogen? Well, check on what happens when there is a major volcanic eruption, with more than the usual amount of hydrogen and hydrogen compounds, including water vapor, plus some particulate materials and aerosols, vented from within Earth; dissolved gases, if you will.

 

Climatic conditions can become deadly following a major eruption, albeit Mount Saint Helens was no biggie. With a biggie, there may be a year or more without summer, e.g., Mount Pinatubo, Krakotoa, Santorini, Tamboro, etc. With a number of biggies being triggered into major venting by an asteroid strike, there may be dozens, if not hundreds of years without summers. That's climatic change you can reference directly to volcanic emissions, with hydrogen being the dominate element in these emissions. sizes of eruptions

 

Consider what will happen when Earth's Core or Mantle ceases to provide hydrogen to combine with oxygen in Earth's crust and create water. We will die. Will happen someday.

 

Hope this is an understandable and believable answer to your question.

 

Regards, Charlie

[Eclogite]

On the topic of hydrogen embrittlement in drilling operations: Charlie you provided the explanation within your very detailed post. You note that the wells were tapping into 'sour crude', i.e. crude oil with a significant hydrogen sulphide content. It is a classic problem when drilling in H2S zones. However, it offers zero support for the notion of hydrogen emananting from the mantle. (Though your ensuing story makes for interesting reading.)

 

I still maintain volcanoes are just hydrogen vents and physical evidence would seem to confirm this.

What physical evidence? I know of absolutely no evidence that would support this contention. I am ready to be amazed - please offer it now.

You then provide some lengthy quotes which far from supporting your argument actually refute it.

Thus the wikipedia article states "water vapor is consistently the most common volcanic gas, normally comprising more than 60% of total emissions. Carbon dioxide typically accounts for 10 to 40% of emissions." No mention of hydrogen.

Two short quotes simply refere to volcanic gases, while the Britannica article tells us " The most common volcanic gases are water vapour, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and hydrogen sulfide. Small quantities of other volatile elements and compounds also are present, such as hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, and mercury." Hydrogen present then, but as a small quantity only.

 

I can find, no material directly related to Earth's Mantle has ever been found around volcanic vents

To paraphrase what Turtle said of an earlier statement of yours, this is so wrong it isn't even wrong.

I don't have time to go into a comprehensive description of reality. This is dealt with in any of scores of text books, doubtless several internet sites, and thousands of research papers.

Briefly, partial melting of the mantle generates basaltic magmas that erupt at mid ocean ridges, island chains, such as Hawaii, or in continental locations such as the Deccan Traps. The character of the mantle, and possible contamination as the magma rises through the crust effect the final composition of the erupted magma, but it is largely 'material directly related to Earth's Mantle'. This is simply not in dispute.

(Where subduction zones carry sediments beneath continental masses partial melting of the sediments at depths will generate andesitic magmas. You would be correct that they contain little or no mantle material.)

 

Charlie, I don't want you to feel Turtle and I are ganging up on you here, but on these points at least you are simply wrong.

[CharlieO]

In response to TURTLE: Oil Pro provided a good explanation on corrosion related to dissimilar metals - - - - - The Corrosion Doctors define it like this: "Galvanic corrosion refers to corrosion damage induced when two dissimilar materials are coupled in a corrosive electrolyte. The driving force for corrosion is a(n electric) potential difference between the different materials. The less noble material will become the anode of this corrosion cell and tend to corrode at an accelerated rate, compared with the uncoupled condition. The more noble material will act as the cathode in the corrosion cell. ...

 

As I remember the problem at Shell, it was more to do with similar metals, albeit also working in a "corrosive electrolyte," largely hydrogen based and increasingly so as wells went deeper. The hydrogen infused into the metal, which, when subjected to stress, would cause the hydrogen to effuse and literally tear the metal crystals apart. Not too good for keeping a drill string together. This seemed to me to be a valid indication of increasing hydrogen being present with increasing depth, to the extent that hydrogen effusion from within Earth's Mantle might be considered a viable assumption. How's that for weasel words? Boy, I need some wiggle room with this forum.

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

In response to ECLOGITE: Let's discuss, "water vapor is consistently the most common volcanic gas, normally comprising more than 60% of total emissions. Carbon dioxide typically accounts for 10 to 40% of emissions." You claim there is "No mention of hydrogen."

 

With all due respect, what is water vapor if not hydrogen+oxygen+hydrogen? In fact, the few studies of volcanic emissions I was able to locate in the past, recorded a wide variation in both the amount of water vapor (hydrogen+hydrogen+oxygen) and other hydrogen compounds, including free hydrogen. In fact, there is evidence of volcanic eruptions that burnt thru the crust which were almost entirely hydrogen, becoming water vapor after reacting with oxygen in the atmosphere.

 

However, as I freely admitted in early posts, I may be wrong and I'm still learning, so I don't resent in the slightest any corrections offered in this forum. At least I haven't been branded just a "trouble maker," as was frequently done in earlier in my life.

 

That magma may be present around volcanoes is interesting, but doesn't affect my assumption that volcanoes are largely hydrogen vents.

 

So we are back to the fact that hydrogen is escaping into space in significant quantities on a daily basis due to solar radiation separating the hydrogen from the oxygen in water vapor. Seems logical to assume this lost hydrogen must be replaced or our atmosphere will soon be devoid of water (hydrogen+oxygen+hydrogen). Seems like good evidence for additional hydrogen effusing from within Earth's Mantle, then into Earth's surface layers; where oxides are found that can react with hydrogen to form water (hydrogen+oxygen+hydrogen). This could also create intense heat due their exothermic reaction. Enough heat to melt holes in solid rock. Volcanoes anyone?

 

Then we are back to the fact that volcanoes do eject large amounts of water vapor (hydrogen+oxygen+hydrogen) into Earth's atmosphere, as well as lesser, but still significant quantities of other hydrogen compounds, including free hydrogen; which does not exist on Earth's surface. These "dissolved gases" can and often do alter the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere over time and the resultant clouds and/or aerosols will reflect sunlight. This turn will lower ambient temperatures, which increases rain and snowfall and can changed climates to the extent of sometimes wiping out entire species. Seems like hydrogen is a significant factor in Earth's evolution, composition and a good indication of Earth having a hydrogen core.

 

Still no support for the assumption of Earth having an Iron Core, which most likely resulted from the discovery of Earth's magnetic field and early scientists only knowing of Iron in various forms as being magnetic. Logical at the time, but incorrect after metallic, magnetic hydrogen was discovered and answered the question of what might really be in Earth's core, without the illogical and science fiction type assumptions which dominate current views.

 

Not sure why someone used Sir Robert Boyles' pay scale computations to assume Earth became increasingly heated with increasing depth. Another assumption that doesn't appear to have much basis in fact in most continental areas. Please note that only working, heat energy, activity in mines and wells creates increasing heat with increasing depth; as Boyle so noted, but it went unnoticed.

 

However, there are reactive areas, where hydrogen is combining with oxygen, that do become heated at great depths, so I won't make a blanket claim on this issue. Certainly volcanoes would be good examples, except the greatest temperatures in active lava lakes, after eruptions, were found near the surface, with increasingly cooler temperatures found at increasing depths, to the extent that no 'throat' of venting molten magma has ever been located, with only solid rocks at the base of the relatively shallow lava lakes. T. A. Jagger, My Life with Volcanoes.

 

In fact, the Japanese recently drilled into an active volcano, expecting to intersect the magma plume, but only found solid rock. They were not as fortunate as an attempt in Hawaii, where I was told a high pressure methane (hydrogen+carbon) gas 'pocket' caused some damage to both rig and workers.

 

I would beg you to reconsider the statement of very little hydrogen being effused from volcanoes, albeit I appreciate your effort to set me right on 'magma' ejections. Could be.

 

Regards, Charlie

[Eclogite]

CharlieO,

I currently have no connectivity from home. I shall not be able to respond fully to your post until Monday. The delay does not reflect any lack of interest in the discussion, or lack of respect for yourself. (I think your arguments in support of your idea are badly flawed, but I respect the vigour and enthusiasm with which you promote them. I shall doubtless get quite vitriolic in my attacks later. Please do not take any of it personally.)

 

I do think equating water with hydrogen is a bit of a liberty. The implication in your earlier posts was very much that hydrogen was coming from the core and hydrogen was coming out of the volcanoes. However, consider that that clarification by you has now been made. I shall accept future references to hydrogen and hydrogen migration to refer to hydrogen in atomic, molecular, or combined forms. I'm fine with that.

 

You really cannot refer to volcanoes as being primarily hydrogen vents. It is purest nonsense. We know how much lava comes out of volcanoes. We can measure it. And we can measure the composition and proportion of the gases in these lavas. They do not constitute the larger part. That is an absolute. I don't know where to begin in trying to educate you on this point.

 

Correction - please go to this site Basaltic Volcanism on the Terrestrial Planets

 

There is everything you should need to know in order to realise that your perception of what volcanoes are is badly flawed. There are over 1200 pages, so it should keep you occupied for a little while.:D

 

Take care.

[CharlieO]

In response to ECLOGITE: Your reference on volcanoes was extensive, however I was unable to find any mention within it regarding documented evidence for the total mass/amount by weight of volcanic gaseous emissions from any volcano. There was a good deal on the amount of Sulphur-Dioxide volcanic emissions in general and their effect on Earth's climates, which is considerable. I was also unable to find any mention for the total mass/amount by weight of hydrogen constantly escaping from Earth into space. Therefore, your effort was appreciated, but the reference didn't appear to be related to the issue of this thread. Whether or not hydrogen largely composes Earth's core.

 

Review: My assumption is Earth was formed in much the same manner as all galactic masses, condensing within a spinning cloud of largely hydrogen until the core area reaches sufficient mass to attract other elements by its gravity, albeit later in the time of its formation. Once a sufficient mass of hydrogen accreted from the condensing cloud, gravity would attract heavier elements from within the cloud surrounding the hydrogen core. The increased mass would then develop pressures which would change gaseous hydrogen into liquid hydrogen and then into metallic hydrogen, thereby creating a magnetic field as well. This appears to be the same manner in which other planets and our sun came into existence, with hydrogen cores. This also appears to be the common behavior within other Galaxies which can be seen today in photographs taken by Hubble of condensing masses within our Galaxy and within similar Galaxies in the surrounding Universe.

 

About 60 years ago, I was taught Earth formed in much the same manner, except that Proto-Earth later became molten due "gravitational collapse."

 

Apparently, earth scientists also believed Proto-Earth started as a condensing cloud of elements, largely hydrogen, they just forgot the cloud would have been spinning as it formed and, as such, the cloud could not collapse rapidly enough to create any heat while doing so; largely due to the modulus of elasticity within molecules and the increase in rotation speed as the overall size of the evolving mass within the cloud of elements decreased and became denser.

 

Unfortunately, the realization of Earth having a magnetic field and only ferromagnetic materials then being known to be magnetic, led to the logical, albeit ignorant assumption of Earth having a largely iron core. To justify this logical assumption of a largely iron core, it was assumed an enormous excess, by galactic proportions, of mainly molten iron in the molten crust was somehow forced by gravity to flow thru a molten Mantle, composed of other elements, into Earth's core area. Then, it was assumed this enormous excess of molten iron displaced the original core of 'lighter elements' and forced them to flow outward to Earth's surface, where these 'lighter elements' became gaseous and were blown away by solar winds.

 

According to what current Earth Science students are telling me, some scientists apparently realized there was a problem with assuming an enormous excess of iron initially formed on Earth's surface and flowed inward to displace the 'lighter elements.' Now they are teaching students that Proto-Earth was formed by the accretion of many smaller masses of mainly iron, which were deficient in 'lighter elements.' The current assumption is that this 'Great Bombardment' turned Proto-Earth into a molten mass thru the heat energy released by the violent impacts of these assumed smaller masses arriving from every direction; which is itself an illogical assumption.

 

Currently, I'm unaware of any logical explanation being provided as to how these smaller masses came into being before Earth was formed or how they were somehow able to concentrate their arrival in mass at a point in space from every direction, with no initial gravitational force from a initial planetary body to attract them. Seems like current assumptions are getting more and more like science fiction every time they are changed to explain problems with older assumptions.

 

So what evidence is there of a Hydrogen Core? Well, hydrogen can become a magnetic, metal at core pressures, thereby generating a magnetic field. Metallic hydrogen is also most likely to achieve the density, at core pressures, to equal that which is calculated for Earth's core. This resulted from the realization by Neil B. Christainson that internal gravity is three dimensional, whereas previous calculations were based on two dimensional calculations; resulting in an error indicating greater density for Earth's core than he calculated.

 

In 1989, Christainson published EARTH HAS A COLD HEART, a review of his calculations and his conclusion that only metallic hydrogen at core pressures appears to achieve the three dimensional density required for Earth's core; which would be substantially lighter than a core of largely iron and easily generate Earth's magnetic field.

 

Over the years, C. Warren Hunt independently came to the same conclusion, after reviewing the physical and chemical factors involving hydrogen and its compounds, which includes water. He also detailed in a number of published papers and articles how hydrogen reacts chemically with oxygen and other elements within Earth's crust. As an oil field geologist and geophysical researcher, he had long realized hydrogen was present in great quantities within Earth's crust and was constantly emerging into Earth's atmosphere.

 

In any event, there is physical evidence that hydrogen, which is constantly effusing from volcanoes, fumaroles and other natural vents, largely as water vapor, rises into the stratosphere where the hydrogen is separated from water vapor by solar radiation. At that point, oxygen descends back down to Earth and hydrogen escapes into space. Just the significant amount of hydrogen constantly escaping into space alone should be considered ample proof there has to be a great reservoir of hydrogen within Earth that is constantly effusing hydrogen. From where else would this hydrogen effuse, besides from a hydrogen core? Detailed in a 1979, self published monograph, MY MODEL [of Earth, an alternative hypothesis], by me.

 

So what evidence is there for Earth having a Hot Iron Core? None I know of. Hot iron can't be magnetic, plus experiments have indicated iron would be too dense at core pressures. Currently, some scientists are trying to defend the Hot Iron Core assumption by proposing an alloy of iron with hydrogen to produce a less dense alloy to equal the density indicated for core pressures calculated in two dimensions. Meanwhile, core pressures and density calculated in three dimensions, would be closer to that of metallic hydrogen.

 

Meanwhile, some scientists are interpreting seismographic readings as indicating Earth's inner core of hot iron is rotating within its outer core of hot iron and generating Earth's magnetic field. Unfortunately, the rotation of hot iron within hot iron, if it were physically possible for anything to rotate inside Earth at core pressures, can't generate a magnetic field, especially since the rotation rate is currently calculated to be about 2 Km per year; slower than a snail on a cold day. Not much help for a hot iron core.

 

I believe any evidence offered in support for Earth's Hot Iron Core will most likely be based on assumptions, with many assumptions physically impossible. Therefore, I believe the existence of a hot iron core within Earth is highly unlikely, if not impossible.

 

In summary, I believe my assumption of Earth having a Hydrogen Core, most likely to be relatively cold, is based on physical evidence, measurable facts and easily observed behavior; therefore factual and realistic.

 

Regards, CharlieO

[Turtle]

...

Meanwhile, some scientists are interpreting seismographic readings as indicating Earth's inner core of hot iron is rotating within its outer core of hot iron and generating Earth's magnetic field. Unfortunately, the rotation of hot iron within hot iron, if it were physically possible for anything to rotate inside Earth at core pressures, can't generate a magnetic field, especially since the rotation rate is currently calculated to be about 2 Km per year; slower than a snail on a cold day. Not much help for a hot iron core.

 

I believe any evidence offered in support for Earth's Hot Iron Core will most likely be based on assumptions, with many assumptions physically impossible. Therefore, I believe the existence of a hot iron core within Earth is highly unlikely, if not impossible.

 

In summary, I believe my assumption of Earth having a Hydrogen Core, most likely to be relatively cold, is based on physical evidence, measurable facts and easily observed behavior; therefore factual and realistic.

 

Regards, CharlieO

 

It is this kind of simply dismissing evidence that gives your credibility a dubious character. First you deny a rotation is possible, then you claim that the rotation is too slow. In summary, your assumption is just that; an assumption.

 

(Here's a link to the study confirming differential rotation: >> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/science/26core.html?_r=1&oref=slogin )

 

PS Believe it or not, besides evidence of differential rotation in the core, there is evidence that the Earth's entire crust can differentialy move as a whole over the mantle: >> http://hypography.com/forums/general-science-news/8194-planet-earth-may-have-tilted-keep.html?highlight=true+polar+shift