Consider hydrogen for Earth's Core

[HydrogenBond]

One thing that is not taken into consideration are solvent affects. If we drop salt into water, it should sink due to gravity, which it does; until it dissolves, then gravity has little value. There was an science article a few weeks ago about RPI scientists who tried to simulate the core-mantle interface and they found the iron quickly diffusing out. The iron of the forming earth will sink and dissolve, with some making it to the core, which continues to dissolve. Considering the assumed amount of iron within the earth (core), every volcano should be sending up iron and the surface should be richer in iron. We should be a red planet like Mars.

 

If you smelt iron in a blast furnace and add carbon, the carbon does not float on the top because it is lighter. It dissolves to the bottom. Sometimes chemistry gets the better of gravity. Below is a phase diagram of iron and carbon to show that gravity is powerless to separate iron. A tiny atom like carbon , compared to iron, like to fill in the voids between iron.

 

 

 

 

An interesting NASA observation is the solid core rotates faster that the surface of the earth. It completes an extra turn every 400 years. Before this discovery, the spin of the earth helped to generate the magnetic field. Now the core is like an engine or a magnetic being driven by current. This isn't an easy spin considering the visco-plastic lower mantle. It will be like trying to keep a top spinning in honey. It should have stopped, but it keeps plowing on due to an energy generation that iron can't yet explain.

 

Nobody knows what is in the core, but it generates energy.

[Turtle]

One thing that is not taken into consideration are solvent affects. If we drop salt into water, it should sink due to gravity, which it does; until it dissolves, then gravity has little value.

 

Erhrm...wrong. See thermohaline cycle. >> thermohaline cycle - Google Search

[CharlieO]

response to TURTLE: You wrote, "Simply dismissing evidence - gives your credibility a dubious character." Then, "In summary, your assumption is just that; an assumption."

 

Well, at least I have admitted in previous posts I am making assumptions, which are based on physical facts and measurements and not more assumptions. Unlike some references I've been given as proof of something, which only proved to be more assumptions.

 

I have also stated, "I may be wrong," while others seem to believe they know it all and "this is so wrong it isn't even wrong." Fortunately, my assumptions are in good company. Most have been proposed by many others in the past. Some assumptions, including volcanoes being hydrogen vents, have been of record for more than 2000 years; the writings of Strabo for example. So I consider myself among the few still not blindly following the assumptions of many present scientists who are promoting what some may find someday to be obvious nonsense. Thus, I can find amusement instead of insult in many derogatory comments.

 

The following may be a more understandable version of my dismissing evidence regarding seismic interpretations of Earth's core:

 

Some years ago, seismologists determined there were variations on the surface of Earth's core which appeared to be moving. These were first interpreted as being lumps of molten magma rising to the surface. Logical assumption for many scientists interested in how magma rose thru the mantle to create volcanoes. However, there had long been a problem with hot iron being incapable of generating a magnetic field. So, other scientists insisted these same readings were evidence of Earth's inner core rotating within its outer core and generating Earth's magnetic field.

 

Now we have two different assumptions being offered thru different interpretations of the same seismic readings. One is offered as proof of molten magma rising to the surface, the other as proof of Earth's inner core rotating within the outer core and generating a magnetic field. I guess it depends on which group of scientists have the most investment in which theory, rising magma or magnetic field. Not too likely they are both right and they could both be wrong. There is a third assumption possible, hydrogen rising from the core and changing the density of mantle materials along the way. Something which could also be indicated by seismic readings; if any would bother to consider such heresy.

 

I can't deny some special case may exist at core pressures wherein hot iron might generate a magnetic field by rotating within hot iron, albeit such behavior appears to be impossible on Earth's surface. However, it is doubtful any specific mass could rotate independently inside Earth at core pressures. Even if possible under very special conditions, the currently calculated rotation speed is only about 2 Km per year. This is slower than a snail on a cold day. At that speed, it would be virtually impossible for a magnetic field to be generated anywhere in the universe. The modulus of elasticity within molecules would absorb any activity that might generate a magnetic field.

 

Fortunately, this rate of speed could indicate changes in density within mantle materials due to hydrogen infusion. I personally preformed related experiments more than 50 years ago, while trying discover how fast hydrogen could infuse into oil well drilling pipe. I was able to increase its density as much as 1.7:1 within hours. A related increase in the density of mantle materials could easily be "seen" as movement in seismic readings and may have been already, just not recognized as such.

 

Thus, present scientists changing their interpretations of the same seismic readings to "prove" their assumption that Earth's core is rotating and generating a magnetic field, instead of magma plumes rising, still doesn't do much to support the assumption of Earth having a hot iron core.

 

Seems like some scientists are grasping at straws in support of their belief in Earth's hot iron core. Meanwhile, believers appear to be blindly following without question; while damning those who dare to question and point out bogus evidence along the way. The real physical evidence, not self-serving assumptions offered as proof for other assumptions, still looks good for Earth having a cold core of hydrogen.

 

This may be a leap of faith for many, but isn't that what considering possible alternatives is all about for open minds? At least I have carefully considered the evidence offered in defense of hot iron core assumptions and found them lacking physical proof, being just more assumptions than anything else. It remains for those believing they have open minds to consider the possible alternative of Earth having a cold core of hydrogen and to carefully consider the evidence in support of this assumption, instead of just dismissing evidence.

 

Meanwhile, I appreciate the efforts of HydrogenBond and will carefully consider them.

 

Regards, CharlieO

[Turtle]

"Simply dismissing evidence - gives your credibility a dubious character." Then, "In summary, your assumption is just that; an assumption."

 

Well, at least I have admitted in previous posts I am making assumptions, which are based on physical facts and measurements and not more assumptions.

Regards, CharlieO

 

You observe hydrogen damaging drill rigs, a fact. You assume hydrogen is leaking from a pool of it called the core, when in fact we have given many sources and mechanisms that explain the presence of hydrogen in boreholes without resorting to such a pool. I won't claim this is proof of what's in the core, but it undermines your claim. :)

[Boerseun]

Charlie, in summary, you propose the hydrogen forming the water vapour that is emitted at volcanoes, to be the originator of the liquid rock in that it binds with oxygen, burns, and melts the surrounding rock, resulting in liquid magma (lava the the surface) and water vapour. Other gases will also be given off, depending on the makeup of the surrounding rock. Have I got that right?

 

You're proposing this as a bulwark to your argument for hydrogen making up the Earth's core. Have I got that right?

 

Then:

 

If hydrogen bubbling from the core combines with oxygen in order to melt the surrounding rock which bubbles up as lava, how do you explain underwater volcanoes?

Why, then, would it be that volcanoes are mostly found (worldwide) at the crustal subduction zones, on land as well as underwater, regardless of wether the rock has any access to any atmospheric oxygen? There simply isn't enough oxygen in the rock (even less so for undersea volcanoes built on sima) to be squeezed out of the rock to combine with hydrogen to the extent you propose.

 

Take another look the the Kola data. The Russians only bored to around 13,000 meters or so. But they said the rock was already plastic (they had to redrill the sides of the borehole everytime they had to replace the drill bit - the sides were squeezing shut in the amount of time it took.)

They pumped in a slurry as a drilling lubricant, and what came out was a bubbling "hydrogen-rich" mud. The hydrogen is in the rock, being squeezed out at the incredibly high pressure found so relatively shallow (compared to the size of the Earth) as 13,000m. But this should vindicate your argument, not?

 

No.

 

Keep in mind, the rock drilled at the Kola peninsula is crustal, having been laid down millions of years ago - and is on its way to a subduction zone for destruction. At the subduction zone, where the rock is forced into the molten mantle, the hydrogen is finally released. This will then bubble up and make its appearance at the vent.

 

1) I say this because volcanoes are found at subduction zones.

2) Volcanoes at subduction zones bubble out hydrogen

3) The Kola rock (on a "conveyor belt" towards a subduction zone) contains vast amounts of hydrogen in the rock.

 

In other words, the hydrogen bubbling out from volcanoes does not come from up deep, not even from the mantle. It's crustal hydrogen going around in a very long drawn-out cycle.

 

Also, hydrogen bubbling from the core isn't consistent with the rest of your theory. You're saying that hydrogen forms the core because of centrifugal force sending the heavier stuff out. Then the obvious question arise:

Why, then, would hydrogen bubble out, at all? According to your argument, hydrogen should be trying it's best to get to the core and stay there?

 

I'm not completely following you here. You seem to be contradicting yourself slightly.

[CraigD]

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.

This assumption is, I think, incorrect (or at least incomplete), and with it, any prediction that an Earth composed of more than a small fraction of hydrogen formed in the inner solar system.

 

It can be demonstrated, both theoretically and observationally, that clouds of light molecules such as hydrogen can’t accumulate in the inner solar system, because solar radiation, both EM and particles, exert an outward force on all them. Low density gas clouds far from massive objects are accelerated away from the Sun. Random differences in this force greatly exceed the gravitational force between molecules in such clouds, causing them to lose their shape and be dispersed.

 

For a proto-Earth to condense from a primarily hydrogen cloud, this must occur in the absence of solar radiation more than a fraction of the present value. Two possibilities for how this might occur are: Earth formed before the Sun began radiating much; Earth formed much further from the Sun than its current distance.

 

The first explanation is contradicted by the calculated time at which the Sun began radiating about as much as presently (about 4.6 billion years ago) and the estimated age of Earth (about 4.5 billion years ago). According to the best solar system formation models, which have been extensively simulated using computer programs, solar radiation began too early to allow the formation of hydrogen-rich planets in the inner solar system.

 

The second explanation appears to me somewhat more defensible, as recent observations have discovered star systems with hydrogen rich giant planets orbiting Sun-like stars even more closely than Earth. However, such planets are observed to have hydrogen-rich atmospheres. A hydrogen-rich Earth model, then, must include the stripping of nearly all of the original planet’s atmosphere from it, and include a hydrogen-rich composition of the planet’s core, so that this stripping doesn’t render it hydrogen-poor.

 

Although I’ve not run such models myself, nor read their literature in detail, my impression is that models such as the one I describe have been run, and are believed to be unlikely.

 

Solar system formation modeling is a very interesting and popular discipline, and one that allows unusual proposals such as CharlieO’s hydrogen-rich Earth to be rigorously tested. I’d encourage people interested this proposal to become acquainted with, and ideally, conduct their own such modeling. One of the great boons of the time we live in is that computers capable of such simulations are cheap, providing a ready avenue for investigations that 30 years ago required the backing of large organizations.

[CharlieO]

Believe me, I certainly appreciate the education I've been getting of late. However, I have a question that has been bugging me in regard to hydrogen escaping from Earth.

 

Facts are: 1. Hydrogen can be seen constantly escaping Earth's atmosphere. The daily loss is visually significant as far as the orbit of our Moon, yet the mass is still unknown to me. If anyone has a link or reference, please supply same. My assumption is: Hydrogen has been escaping into space since Earth was formed as a largely hydrogen mass, before there was solar radiation or solar winds. Therefore, the hydrogen escaping today from Earth must be effusing from a reservoir of hydrogen within Earth's mantle, if not the core.

 

2. Fact: Hydrogen escaping into space must first be separated from water vapor [H+O+H and methane [C+H4] in Earth's upper atmosphere by solar radiation. This reaction creates free hydrogen, which is lost in space, and the resulting oxygen and carbon dioxide [C+O2], which descend to Earth. No assumption here, only facts.

 

3. Fact: The water vapor and methane injected into Earth's upper atmosphere are largely vented thru volcanoes, fumaroles and other natural sources of these gases. My assumption agrees with many others, in that water and methane are created by chemical reactions within Earth's crust, along with resultant areas of intense heat, an activity better explained by C. Warren Hunt.

 

4. Fact: The amount of water vapor alone vented thru volcanoes is considerable and its effects on climates are well known. Italian researchers measured the gases venting from Mount Etna as 90% water vapor. Their estimates of the total amounts venting during both quiet periods and eruptions appear to exceed in weight the mass of the volcano by a factor of 30 over the known 300,000 year history of the volcano.

 

This alone should make it obvious that water vapor and methane cannot solely come from dissolved gases within lavas, since the mass of the gases vented may exceed by 30 or more the mass of the lava. I will agree some special case may make it possible for more than twice the mass of lava be dissolved gases, but I was unable to increase the density of many materials by more than a factor of 1.7:1 under laboratory conditions. Therefore, my assumption is: Since the amount of water vapor vented can't be entirely dissolved gases, it must also be obvious the vented water vapor can't include much recycled surface water, since the water vapor will largely be separated into oxygen and hydrogen; with no water as such to be recycled.

 

My assumption are: Considering the fact that thousands of volcanoes may have actively vented many times their mass weight in water vapor during Earth's history, some 360 being active today, this enormous mass of water vapor would have exceeded the mass of water represented by all of Earth's seas and oceans, perhaps several times. Therefore, the hydrogen later separated from this mass of water vapor and lost in space could represent an enormous reservoir of hydrogen within Earth's mantle, if not the core.

 

In summary: Hydrogen must constantly be effusing from an evaporating reservoir within Earth's mantle or core, rising into the crust, there to be combined with oxygen and carbon, often creating intense heat in the process, then to vent thru the crust as water vapor and methane, then to rise into the stratosphere, there to be separated from oxygen and carbon and finally be lost in space.

 

Fact: Even a little bit of hydrogen being lost in space on a daily basis, over 4+ billions years or more, will eventually equal a major portion of Earth's mass. How do you explain whence comes this enormous mass of hydrogen that is constantly being lost in space today and has been lost in space during Earth's history?

 

Regards, CharlieO

[CraigD]

In summary: Hydrogen must constantly be effusing from an evaporating reservoir within Earth's mantle or core, rising into the crust, there to be combined with oxygen and carbon, often creating intense heat in the process, then to vent thru the crust as water vapor and methane, then to rise into the stratosphere, there to be separated from oxygen and carbon and finally be lost in space.

 

Fact: Even a little bit of hydrogen being lost in space on a daily basis, over 4+ billions years or more, will eventually equal a major portion of Earth's mass. How do you explain whence comes this enormous mass of hydrogen that is constantly being lost in space today and has been lost in space during Earth's history?

Regardless of your acceptance of the claim that “Hydrogen must constantly be effusing from an evaporating reservoir within Earth's mantle or core, rising into the crust…”, I agree that some hydrogen must be becoming disassociated from heavier molecules (primarily [ce]H2O[/ce]) and escaping into space. Unless we are to believe that this process leads to a unchecked depletion of hydrogen-containing compounds (primarily [ce]H2O[/ce]), some source of replacement hydrogen must be offered.

 

I suspect that source is primarily infalling meteoroids, with a net composition similar to chondrite meteorites, as well as ice-rich, kuiper material bodies. Although I’ve had difficulty finding a simple reference to chondrite composition by mass, this paper - states that they have a hydrogen abundance about 1/1000 that of sun, which calculate to about 0.07%, roughly the same as the conventional ratio of hydrogen to the total mass of the Earth.

 

I’m skeptical of the “fact” that the total amount of hydrogen lost and/or gained by the Earth from space equals “a major portion of Earth's mass”. A layer of water covering every present day point of solid land would mass about [math]\frac{4}{3} \pi \left( (r_{\mbox{Earth}} +8850)^3 - r_{\mbox{Earth}}^3 \right) \cdot 1000 \,\mbox{kg/m}^3 = 4.5 \times 10^{21} \,\mbox{kg}[/math]

2/18 of water by mass is hydrogen. So, had all of the hydrogen in such a mass of water been disassociated and lost into space, the lost mass would have been about [math]5 \times 10^{20} \,\mbox{kg}[/math], about 0.008 % of the Earth’s present mass of about [math]5.97 \times 10^{24} \,\mbox{kg}[/math] mass. The precede is meant for intuitive illustrative purposes, to emphasize how difficult it is appears to be to have a planet that has a large fraction of its mass as hydrogen, without having it built like a gas giant.

 

All of this conversation is lacking in much numeric data. CharlieO, do you have an estimate of the rate (mass/time) of hydrogen being lost into space by the Earth under you theory? An estimate of the total mass of hydrogen on Earth, according to conventional theory, and according to yours?

 

Better still, do you also have a prediction of an independently verifiable observation (spectroscopic, etc.) that could be made to confirm your estimate of a much higher than conventionally predicted rate of hydrogen being lost into space?

[CharlieO]

In response to CraigD:

 

First let me say how much I appreciate your thoughtful and detailed explanations. Should you be or have been a professional educator, I'm sure your students found you to be a great teacher.

 

As for the total amount of hydrogen lost in space on a daily or annual basis, I wish I could find an exacting measurement of the physical quantity. The best reference found to date was a 1995 study by NASA, which only suggested the amount was 'significant' and varied during 24 hour periods by as much as 10%. However, I believe from personal experience that hydrogen, largely in the form of water vapor as well as methane gas [CH4], rises into the stratosphere in far greater amounts than suspected.

 

Take just the methane, for example: There are large deposits of solid methane under the oceans which are said to occasionally 'burp' relatively enormous amounts of methane gas. The methane gas bubbles have been suspected of being the cause of ships and planes vanishing without any notice of difficulty or appeal for assistance.

 

My father was involved in one such incident before WW II, around 1937, which was never given any public recognition. This had to do with a single engine Navy aircraft which radioed its position as being east of NAS Ft. Lauderdale (Florida) and on course to land. Then nothing. During a few years following, several other Navy planes disappeared in the same area. The common factor was all were flying fairly low at the time at the time they disappeared. No radar then.

 

My father was a PBY-2 instructor pilot and set out with volunteers from NAS Pensacola (Florida) to search for one of the missing planes. They crossed Florida and found nothing both up and down a wide band of the east coastal waters. While returning on the same course as the missing plane, flying low to search for floating debris, after flying a higher search pattern outbound looking for oil slicks, the water ahead, which had been calm, appeared to turn a lighter color over a considerable area. Shortly after passing over what now appeared to be boiling water, both engines cut out and the plane seemed to fall out of the sky.

 

Being a veteran pilot, he quickly set up an engine-out landing configuration before the aircraft slammed into the sea, which was still boiling, albeit much less than before. The aircraft promptly sank past its normal displacement, with green water over the bow. Fortunately, being a true flying boat built for landing in choppy seas, with no heavy munitions or landing gear, it survived an impact that might have broken up a land based airplane. It plowed ahead on momentum until it reached clear water, where it rose back up to its normal displacement. The crew all agreed, "It was like the water was too thin and it stank." After checking for damage, the engines were restarted and he flew the PBY back to NAS Pensacola.

 

Father reported the boiling water was probably an undersea release of gases which caused both water and the air above to become less dense, to the extent that aircraft engines could not function in the gas cloud, nor the aircraft fly in the low density air nor displace sufficient mass in the boiling water to float normally. He theorized the gases were probably not flammable and the aircraft engines simply died for lack of oxygen. Actually, the gases were later found to be methane, which killed the engines by supplying too rich a mixture to burn, possibly with some hydrogen sulfide, which stinks.

 

Father's experience off the east coast of Florida was one of many, perhaps hundreds of similar events in the twentieth century in an area which has come to be known as the Bermuda Triangle. Apparently, soon after WWII and the loss of many more aircraft at low altitudes, the Navy figured out the effects of the deadly gas could be avoided by flying high enough where the effusing gases mixed with ambient air and would no longer affect the engines and air density to any significant degree. I was told it eventually became an unwritten rule that naval aircraft flights over continental shelf areas were not to be done at low altitudes.

 

More recently, a private plane flying from Bermuda to Miami, vanished without a call for help. The only factor may have been that it was flying too low for radar to note where it disappeared. There are also stories of suspected drug running aircraft flying very low over ships in the area, then never seen again. Then there are the stories of ships vanishing on calm seas, said to have been 'swallowed' by boiling water. Even, Coast Guard helicopters have reported problems with engines and maintaining altitude when flying low around the coasts of Florida; where methane deposits are known to exist.

 

This release of methane gas from continental shelf areas is worldwide and nothing new. There have been stories of vanishing ships and boiling seas beyond recorded time. This activity may have been commonplace for millions, if not billions of years. Add this to volcanoes and fumaroles which are known to vent largely hydrogen and hydrogen compounds, with little water, plus the larger number of volcanoes and fumaroles venting largely water vapor. You then have an enormous amount of hydrogen, methane and water vapor rising into the upper atmosphere where the hydrogen escapes into space while the oxygen and carbon dioxide returns to Earth's surface.

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

 

Feb 2004, A new study in the American Journal of Physics suggests that deposits of solid methane on the sea floor could create methane bubbles. Apparently, when pieces of these deposits break off, they become gaseous as they rise and erupt on the surface. A giant bubble could, in theory, swamp a ship. There's a sunken vessel at the center of one of these deposit sites, but it's unclear if there's a cause and effect.

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

 

 

Techlines provide updates of specific interest to the fossil fuel community. Some Techlines may be issued by the Department of Energy Office of Public Affairs as agency news announcements.

 

 

Issued on: August 7, 2006

 

In the United States, where methane hydrate occurs beneath the permafrost of Alaska's arctic north and below the seabed offshore, the volume of this resource is staggering. The U.S.Geological Survey estimates that the Nation’s methane hydrate deposits could hold as much as 200,000 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of natural gas. This compares with a non-hydrate U.S. natural gas resource of 25,000 Tcf—of which only 1,400 Tcf is deemed recoverable with current technology. If just one percent of the hydrate resource in America were commercially developed, it would more than double the Nation’s proved gas reserves.

 

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

 

methane clathrate: Information and Much More from Answers.com

 

Methane clathrate, also called methane hydrate or methane ice, is a solid form of water that contains a large amount of methane within its crystal structure (a clathrate hydrate). Originally thought to occur only in the outer regions of the solar system where temperatures are low and water ice is common, extremely large deposits of methane clathrate have been found under sediments on the ocean floors of Earth.

 

Methane clathrates are common constituents of the shallow marine geosphere, and they occur both in deep sedimentary structures, and as outcrops on the ocean floor. Methane hydrates are believed to form by migration of gas from depth along geological faults, followed by precipitation, or crystallization, on contact of the rising gas stream with cold sea water.

 

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

 

I may not be able to find any measurement of the total mass of hydrogen escaping into space, but the physical events detailed above clearly indicate it must be substantial. Well beyond the possibility for any substantial amount of hydrogen to arrive from outer space in any form. Theories concocted to support assumptions of a hot iron core may not give much credibility to there being much hydrogen available within Earth, but the fact that hydrogen is escaping into space in substantial amounts and the physical evidence of massive hydrogen effusions from within Earth's crust have convinced me there has to be a reservoir of hydrogen within Earth's mantle, if not its core.

 

If anyone has a reference to a study which quantifies the total amount of hydrogen escaping into space on a daily or annual basis, please provide same.

 

Regards, CharlieO

[Buffy]

As for the total amount of hydrogen lost in space on a daily or annual basis, I wish I could find an exacting measurement of the physical quantity. The best reference found to date was a 1995 study by NASA, which only suggested the amount was 'significant' and varied during 24 hour periods by as much as 10%. However, I believe from personal experience that hydrogen, largely in the form of water vapor as well as methane gas [CH4], rises into the stratosphere in far greater amounts than suspected....

 

In the United States, where methane hydrate occurs beneath the permafrost of Alaska's arctic north and below the seabed offshore, the volume of this resource is staggering. The U.S.Geological Survey estimates that the Nation’s methane hydrate deposits could hold as much as 200,000 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of natural gas. This compares with a non-hydrate U.S. natural gas resource of 25,000 Tcf—of which only 1,400 Tcf is deemed recoverable with current technology. If just one percent of the hydrate resource in America were commercially developed, it would more than double the Nation’s proved gas reserves.

Its true that these are "really big numbers" but the question is the *ratio* of the mass of hydrogen escaping to the mass of the earth. Even then the methane and natural gas you're referring to is almost entirely effectively "sequestered": it ain't going anywhere soon.

 

Its really easy to get overwhelmed by big numbers. Thanks to our educational system, most folks are beyond the level of those primitive tribes whose languages refer to all amounts above 10 as "many." But at the same time as soon as someone says "trillions," it has the same effect as "many," and it sounds to me like that's the trap you're falling into here. You really need to do the math because that's where the enlightenment will come.

 

To live a creative life, we must lose our fear of being wrong, :)

Buffy

[CraigD]

I may not be able to find any measurement of the total mass of hydrogen escaping into space, but the physical events detailed above clearly indicate it must be substantial.

I don’t think any of the phenomena detailed above clearly indicate that any hydrogen is escaping into space, let alone suggest a mass/time rate. There are at least a couple of reasons why I don’t find the suggested explanations clear:

• First, most of what’s described is the release of methane, [ce]CH4[/ce], a molecule about 16 times as massive a atomic hydrogen. Like most hydrocarbons, methane clings pretty tenaciously to its hydrogen. If you apply a “will it stay in the atmosphere?” rule to it, such as this one (at Nick Strobel’s award-winning “Astronomy Notes” website) the average speed of methane is much too low to escape much into space – about 685 m/s vs. the .2 * Earth escape velocity = 2237 necessary for “more than half will be gone in one billion years”. Compare to atomic hydrogen, with an average speed of 2735 m/s, high enough that most of it is lost in a short time.
  
• Second, as Buffy notes, it’s not clear that very much hydrogen is being described. Taking the 200,000 Tcf (5.7e15 m^3) of methane in undersea methane hydrate, that’s about 4e15 kg of methane, of which 1/4th by mass is hydrogen – about 1/6 billionth of the Earth’s mass of about 6e24 kg.
  
• It’s not at all clear from the description the rate at which these deposits release methane into the atmosphere. Their suspected role in mysterious aircraft and ship accidents notwithstanding, most of the popular literature and TV programs I’ve seen conclude that the amount of undersea methane periodically released is a small fraction of the total reserve.

… Well beyond the possibility for any substantial amount of hydrogen to arrive from outer space in any form.

Without at least a rought (within a factor of 10 or so) estimate of hydrogen loss into space and infall of hydrogen-bearing matter from space, I don’t think this possibility can be either ruled out or in.

If anyone has a reference to a study which quantifies the total amount of hydrogen escaping into space on a daily or annual basis, please provide same.

Appealing to hypography members at large is never a bad approach, but not a sure one, ;) so I’d plan on having to find or derive this data on your own.

 

A couple of approaches strike me as promising for deriving it:

• If you dig more deeply into the method used in the above Astronomynotes.com page, you’ll find it’s based on the Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution. Though not an easy work of math, it should be in principle possible to describe the rate of hydrogen (or any other molecule) loss into space as a function of its observed occurance in the atmosphere.
  
• Hydrogen gas has destinct lines of spectral absorption, so it should be possible, in principle, to estimiate the amount of hydrogen in space near Earth by a periodic increase in these absorption lines in orbiting optical and infrared telescopes. A similar difference should be detectable in ground-based observations on oposite near-equitorial horizons just before/after dawn/dusk, and vs. in a polar direction. This approach would be, I think, much harder than the other.
  

Until an idea is able to make at least somewhat precise predictions, it’s not yet a theory, and can’t be scientifically tested. In cases where such theoretical work hasn’t been done, an idea’s proponent is saddled with the work, if their idea is to be taken seriously by a scientific community, either professional, or an enthusiast community like hypography’s.

[freeztar]

Here's an interesting article I found that has profound implications. Perhaps both camps are right/wrong?

 

Quantum Mechanics Explains Solubility Of Hydrogen In Earth's Iron Core

 

“For the first time this study presents the principles for the stability of iron together with hydrogen under pressure conditions relevant to the inner parts of the earth,” says Börje Johansson, professor of the theory of condensed matter at Uppsala University and the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm.

[CharlieO]

FREEZTAR: Good article, reviewed it earlier and certainly cause for serious consideration.

 

I don't know if Earth's core is hydrogen or iron or a mixture. No one else does either. However, there is hydrogen being lost in space at a rate which appears to be worthwhile evidence of a hydrogen reservoir within Earth. Perhaps the hot volcanic magma may prove to be cold hydrogen saturated materials rising from within Earth's mantle.

 

Fact is: Hot iron can't be magnetic and the assumed spinning of the inner core creating a magnetic field is impossible. However, if the core is relatively cold, then an iron core or one with an alloy of hydrogen could be magnetic. Interior temperature is my next shoe to be dropped.

 

Best regards, CharlieO

[CharlieO]

REASON: Good questions. I'd be delighted to try to answer, with the understanding that I don't know everything and freely admit I make assumptions of my own.

 

1. If gravity has no affect on a gaseous mass, what do you suspect makes the cloud start to spin, or condense, as with the formation of the Sun?

 

My answer: Every atom spins. When atoms form molecules, the molecules in a cloud of molecules will spin. Only when molecules are gathered together in a solid or liquid do they cease spinning, to a degree. Actually, there is nothing totally solid, apparently solid glass, even the hardest of rock will flow like water over time. Drive thru a highway cut thru a rock outcrop and check out the obviously flowing rock layers.

 

All galactic clouds of molecules spin in space, as may easily be observed. I believe Earth was formed within a spinning cloud when an eddy was created by, say, a passing meteor or comet. This disturbance then caused an isolated region of the cloud to spin within the overall cloud eventually condense into relatively solid form, like every other mass which can be observed to be forming in space.

 

2. It is easy for us to calculate the gravitational force of the Earth based on its mass. How would a metallic hydrogen core affect the Earth's overall mass compared to what we currently theorize to comprise its core?

 

My answeer: Interesting question on which I and some others are just now spending a good deal of time making calculations in regard to the fact the Newton didn't include the fact that gravity acts in all directions, up and down as well as sideways. From the most recent calculations, it appears that the center of Earth has far less density than calculated by Newton. However, this is offset by the increased density within the middle regions of Earth's mantle. Thus there is no difference in Earth's mass or gravitational force between an iron or hydrogen core.

 

3. How large would a metallic hydrogen core have to be in order to equal the mass of an implied ferrous core?

 

My answer: Some years ago, researchers compressed an iron sample in a diamond anvil to assumed core pressures and concluded iron would become too dense to compose Earth's core. This led to the attempts to find an alloy which might correct this disparity. Hydrogen is the latest element proposed to be alloyed with iron by researchers in their search for a lighter core. So why not a core of all metallic hydrogen? At least this wouldn't require any illogical spinning within to create Earth's magnetic field.

 

Fact is: Earth's core has a determined size, which if research proves it to be largely hydrogen, the existing core size of metallic hydrogen would have a mass more in accord with the revised density calculations based on gravity inside materials. Thus, the present size of Earth's core may be exactly right to be composed of hydrogen, especially since Earth's present core is far too large to be mainly iron or a related alloy.

 

Regards, CharlieO

[freeztar]

I don't know if Earth's core is hydrogen or iron or a mixture. No one else does either.

 

Indeed!

 

However, there is hydrogen being lost in space at a rate which appears to be worthwhile evidence of a hydrogen reservoir within Earth.

 

"Within the Earth" is much different than "the Earth's core".

 

Perhaps the hot volcanic magma may prove to be cold hydrogen saturated materials rising from within Earth's mantle.

What about the amount of Fe that is spewed out?

 

Fact is: Hot iron can't be magnetic and the assumed spinning of the inner core creating a magnetic field is impossible. However, if the core is relatively cold, then an iron core or one with an alloy of hydrogen could be magnetic. Interior temperature is my next shoe to be dropped.

 

As temperature is directly related to pressure, I look forward to your "shoe dropping". :naughty:

 

As far as magnetism goes, how magnetic is iron hydride I wonder?

 

Here's a couple links you may find inspiring Charlie:

Iron swells up when squeezed with hydrogen - discovery that iron hydride can exist under high pressure suggests that it may be present at the Earth's core | Science News | Find Articles at BNET.com

ScienceDirect - Physics of The Earth and Planetary Interiors : Formation of iron hydride and high-magnetite at high pressure and temperature

[CharlieO]

FREEZTAR: With all due respect, temperature directly relates to pressure CHANGE. Because of the modulas of elasticity, extremely slow changes in pressure, to that effectively beyond measure, can be made without any change in temperature. At least that's how I learned it.

 

Thus it might be the interior of Earth could in fact be extremely cold, with the only heat being generated by an exothermic reaction between hydrogen rising from within the mantle and oxygen within Earth's crust.

 

REASON: Early calculation efforts, based on an awareness of gravity having an effect both in the sense Newton descibed and between molecules inside a mass has led to a recalculation of forces within Earth. This produces a geater density for the middle regions of the Mantle and less density for Earth's core, which nicely approximates the compressed density for metallic hydrogen. More work is needed and being done. I'll get back to you on this soon.

 

MODEST and FREEZTAR and many others: I sincerely appreciate the thoughtful responses. The information and carefully thought out questions are appreciated even more. With a careful review, I may in fact become aware I have been totally wrong and become a strong supporter of a hot iron core assumption. However, this will take time as I have to attend to family business for a few days, but will get back with you all after reviewing the information and questions you raised.

 

Answering your questions has been a great education.

 

Best Regards, CharlieO

[CharlieO]

Gentlemen,

 

Since I live on a hill, I was offered FREE high speed broadband if I would allow a repeater to be installed on my roof; to provide Internet Service to the surrounding neighbors. Offer I couldn't refuse. Now I will be able to review many of the links you have so kindly offered and surf for related information, long since denied by dial-up that was so slow out here on the plains that I could brew a cup of tea while a grandkid's emailed photo was downloading. The difference is amazing! Looking forward to more of your questions.

 

Regards, CharlieO