Hydrogen escape into space, how much?

[freeztar]

FREEZTAR and ZYTHRYN: Fact is, there is little or NO free hydrogen in Earth's atmosphere, yet a considerable amount can be seen escaping into space every day. If not from within a reservoir within Earth, where might one find another source for where it comes from to escape into space? Some volcanoes have been known to vent enough water vapor [H+O+H] over time to exceed their mass by a factor of 30. Water vapor later is separated by solar photo-disassociation in the stratospher and its hydrogen to escapes into space. Looks like the obvious physical evidence would lead one to believe that hydrogen is coming from some sort of reservoir within Earth.

 

But it's not free hydrogen, as one would expect from a vent of a hydrogen core. The photolysis of water vapor alone might account for the H losses.

Think the planet Earth, which was assumed by virtually every known scientist during the previous centuries before the Iron Core crowd, to have a hydrogen or light element core. They all considered a light or hydrogen core to be the only physical possibility. Strabo even wrote of this before Christ was born. Others, including myself, are still writing of this.

 

That does nothing to validate your hypothesis. I could say the same thing about the Earth being flat or the geocentric model. Those were the prevailing theories for a long time until they were ruled out by new evidence.

[Zythryn]

Fact is, there is little or NO free hydrogen in Earth's atmosphere,...

By that classification there is little or NO hydrogen escaping the atmosphere.

Free hydrogen appears to be about 0.000055% of the atmosphere (0.55ppmv). With the total mass of the atmosphere coming in around 5.1e+18 that small percentage adds up. (numbers from Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Now I am not saying that all the escaping hydrogen comes from free hydrogen in the atmosphere. I just wanted to make clear there is quite a bit of hydrogen available.

And as already mentioned, why couldn't the escaping hydrogen come from water vapor? There is a lot more hydrogen bound up in water vapor than free hydrogen. I suspect this would be enough to explain the observed loss.

[CharlieO]

MODEST: Apparently you didn't read and/or understand what I wrote:

 

Your response: "You example of Jupiter supports this. It's core (be it rock, metal, tar, ect.) is denser than the hydrogen and helium that surround it. This is true of all planets."

 

I wrote: There are highly qualified researchers who have interpreted the same measurements made in space and claimed Jupiter has 1. a metallic hydrogen core or 2. a smallish rocky core or 3. an iron core or 4. even a core mainly composed of tar.

 

My response: Try to understand exactly what I wrote, that "highly qualified researchers - - claimed Jupiter 1. has a metallic hydrogen core." Please try to understand what is written before writing incorrect statements. Plus, "This is true of all planets" is just an assumption. Fact is, NO one really knows what the interior composition of any of the planets might be, including Earth. Do you KNOW for certain? If so, how?

 

Your response: "Perhaps we don't need to jump to the conclusion that the entire core is hydrogen and invalidate a lot of scientific research to add the appropriate amount of hydrogen to the atmosphere."

 

My response: Why not? This is a common theme, that the alternative assumption of Earth's core being of hydrogen, if proved to be correct, might make a lot of prior scientific research appear to be a waste of time, effort and money. Should everybody then NOT even consider any alternative so as to protect the reputations, positions, research and publications based on an illogical assumption? Is such a consideration dogmatic heresy in your opinion? After all, you are entitled to your opinion, just as I am.

 

Fact is: It was not very long ago in Man's history that a great deal of effort, research and publications, including the reputation of the Catholic Church, were expended on proving Earth was the center of our solar system and the Sun rotated around Earth.

 

Best regards, CharlieO

[freeztar]

Charlie,

 

What do you make of this link on mass segregation?

Mass segregation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Since kinetic energy is proportional to mass times the square of the speed, equipartition requires the lighter members of a cluster to be moving faster. The heavier members will thus tend to sink into lower (closer to the center) orbits, while the lighter members will tend to rise to higher orbits.

[Buffy]

But the fundamental question still is, why is it that you think that gravity has no effect on gases?

 

What you're clearly stating is that centrifugal force is stronger than gravity, or that inertia (the actor in centrifugal force) does work on gases but gravity does not.

 

This implies that Newton and Einstein are wrong about mass in general and that there should be a huge exception for matter that is in a gaseous state.

 

Your entire argument depends on your answers to these questions, so they really demand some answers.

 

A lifetime is more than sufficiently long for people to get what there is of it wrong, :naughty:

Buffy

[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?

 

y answer: 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

[modest]

MODEST: Apparently you didn't read and/or understand what I wrote:

 

I apologize if it seemed like I didn't read what you wrote. I in fact did. I also apologize if my response left the impression that I didn't understand what you were saying. What you wrote was in fact very well-said and I understood it well.

 

Please try to understand what is written before writing incorrect statements. Plus, "This is true of all planets" is just an assumption.

 

I don't believe anything I have written is incorrect. You and I may differ in our opinions, but my statements have all been according to the best scientific understanding of the subject. I have provided links to support my positions. I understand if you do not subscribe to current theory on the subject, but this is hardly reason to claim I'm not understanding.

 

Fact is, NO one really knows what the interior composition of any of the planets might be, including Earth. Do you KNOW for certain? If so, how?

 

If you are honestly asking how we can rule out the possibility that earth has a metallic hydrogen core I can demonstrate that without making any assumptions. All values and equations here are derived experimentally in the laboratory and well-known:

 

Earth's Acceleration of Gravity: 9.8 m/s/s or

 

[math]g=\frac{m\times{G}}{r^2}[/math]

 

Solved for mass this is:

 

[math]m=\frac{g\times{r}^2}{G}[/math] or [math]m=\frac{(9.80665)(6.371\times{10^{-6}})^2}{6.67428\times10^{-11}}[/math]

 

Earth mass is therefore approximately [imath]6\times10^{24}kg[/imath]

 

Earth's volume is [math]V=\frac{4}{3}{\pi}r^3[/math] or [math]V=\frac{4}{3}{\pi}{6371000}^3 [/math]

 

Earth's volume is therefore approximately [imath]1\times10^{21}m^3[/imath]

 

By division we know earth's density is [imath]6,000 Kg/m^3[/imath] or [imath]6 g/cm^3[/imath] Notice this is an estimation as I've used rounded numbers. The official number is closer to 5.5, but my intention was to show that the number can be gotten without making assumptions - which I have done.

 

We know that Earth's crust has a density of approx. 2.7 to 3.3 depending on geographic location. The density of earth's core obviously needs to be greater than this. We see from hydrogen's equation of state (which has been measured in the laboratory):

 

 

that the density of hydrogen is nowhere near what it needs to be to make up earth's core. A logical conclusion might be that the core is made of something denser - like iron. This web page shows a good approximation of the densities expected and the materials expected in earth's interior.

 

This web page is a very good explanation of the different densities between iron and hydrogen and how they create differences between Earth and the Jovian planets.

 

Please understand, I'm not simply assuming what you say is not possible. I honestly have reasons to think it is not. I have outlined two of those reasons. I understand if you do not subscribe to my interpretation of the data. We can have a difference of opinion and yet fully understand each other and both be competent in our approach to the subject.

 

-modest

[REASON]

We know that Earth's crust has a density of approx. 2.7 to 3.3 depending on geographic location. The density of earth's core obviously needs to be greater than this. We see from hydrogen's equation of state (which has been measured in the laboratory...

 

...that the density of hydrogen is nowhere near what it needs to be to make up earth's core. A logical conclusion might be that the core is made of something denser - like iron.

 

Charlie seemed to imply in his response to my question about this that the difference in relative densities at the core between iron and metallic hydrogen was accounted for in the mantle. So therefore, we must also be incorrect in our current understanding of the composition of the mantle. Is that correct Charlie as you see it?

[modest]

Charlie seemed to imply in his response to my question about this that the difference in relative densities at the core between iron and metallic hydrogen was accounted for in the mantle. So therefore, we must also be incorrect in our current understanding of the composition of the mantle. Is that correct Charlie as you see it?

 

And I think we know quite a bit more about the mantle than the core - with volcanoes and what not.

 

I'm also thinking - isn't there an asteroid belt out there that might say something about the composition of planets? If we wanted to bust apart a planet and take a peek - that might be our chance.

 

-modest

[CharlieO]

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 thoughtout 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

[modest]

Answering your questions has been a great education.

 

Best Regards, CharlieO

 

And likewise - you are obviously an out-of-the-box thinker. We need more of those.

 

"It's like religion. Heresy [in science] is thought of as a bad thing, whereas it should be just the opposite." - Dr. Thomas Gold

 

-modest

[CharlieO]

MODEST: Thanks for the understanding. Still tied up with family until after Sunday, 35 due for dinner. But took time to check for emails from family, 13 kids, 42 grandkids, 43 great-grandkids and more coming. Lots of pictures of babies to download.

 

Your tag line from Tom Gold sure rang my bell. Some years ago, around late 1970's, my father reviewed a copy of my book, MY MODEL [of Earth, an alternative hypothesis], self-published in 1979 to a largely disinterested market. This book, still listed with the Library of Congress, contained much of what I've been running past your goodself and others. It was largely based on the hydrogen core concept, which had been proposed for centuries by noted scientists up to the early 1800's. Then the concept appeared to disappear from scientific journals. I was attempting a revival, which proved a fruitless effort.

 

He liked it so well, he said he took my book to Cornell University and said he gave it to a friend of his, Steve Solter, asking his opinion. In 1980, I had the pleasure to read nearly the same words I had written earlier in a new book by Steve Solter and Tom Gold; THE DEEP EARTH GAS HYPOTHESES. This was about hydrocarbons effusing from within Earth. I realize they could have come up with the same concept independently or accessed other similar books and papers written previously. Point is, I'm not the only one or the first to promote the concept of hydrogen effusing from within Earth.

 

Tom Gold then went on to give a paper on a similar vein which appeared to be very closely related to a paper given earlier by C. Warren Shaw. I'm not saying he plagiarizes from others, but he certainly has similar thoughts, which I hope proves Great Minds think alike.

 

Regards, CharlieO

[Eclogite]

The critical factor here is the mass of hydrogen being lost to space. It turns out that this is not sufficient to be important.

 

These quotations from Chemistry of Atmospheres, Richard P.Wayne, Oxford Science Publications 1991, illustrate the point.

Escape is seen to involve the high velocity particles in the tail of the Maxwell velocity distribution. Atomic hydrogen has a most probable velocity of ~3 km/sec at 600K. and the fraction of atoms with v > 11.2 km/sec is just greater than 10^-6. (page 61)

There are three major stages in the escape process: transport of the constituent through the atmosphere, conversion to the escaping form, and the actual escape. Normally one of these will be the slowest and rate determining. On Earth, for example, hydrogen loss is limited by upward diffusion flux and not by any process involved in the conversion to escaping H atoms. With this knowledge, the flux of the escaping hydrogen can be estimated from the diffusion rate through the stratosphere. Mixing ratios for H2O, H2 and CH4 yield an escape flux of 2.7 * 10^8 H atoms per cm^2 per second.(page 62)

 

That may sound like an awful lot of atoms in just one second through just one square centimetre. Recall, however, that there are approximately 6 * 10^23 H atoms in just one gram. So it takes roughly 70 million years to lose 1 gram of hydrogen through one square centimetre of the atmosphere, and since the origin of the Earth no more than about 65 gms will have been lost per square centimetre.

 

A quick, back of the envelope calculation reveals that the total mass of hydrogen lost in this way since early times is around 90 million kilograms. That would be equivalent to about 800 million tons of water. Again, it sounds like a lot, but in practice it isn’t – a cube measuring 90 metres on a side weighs that much.

I think you can see from the point of view of losing hydrogen we really don’t have a problem. The only problem here is that the evidential support for your hypothesis is being lost much faster than hydrogen from the atmosphere.

 

I shall now wait in nervous anticipation that I misplaced the decimal point :doh:by many places and the oceans will evaporate before the end of the week.:hihi:

[CharlieO]

ECOLGITE: Taking time out from family preparations for a quick answer to your appreciated effort to enlighten me with, "The critical factor here is the mass of hydrogen being lost to space. It turns out that this is not sufficient to be important."

 

You supplied, "These quotations from Chemistry of Atmospheres, Richard P. Wayne, Oxford Science Publications 1991, illustrate the point."

 

- - - - body of text, with calculations to prove hydrogen loss is insignificant - - - -

 

Your conclusion: "I think you can see from the point of view of losing hydrogen we really don’t have a problem. The only problem here is that the evidential support for your hypothesis is being lost much faster than hydrogen from the atmosphere. I shall now wait in nervous anticipation that I misplaced the decimal point by many places and the oceans will evaporate before the end of the week."

 

[This in fact has happened in the past, albeit so slowly than you need not be nervous, as evidenced by coral reefs found in deep ocean trenches where shallow seas and sunlight were once present. There are also river beds still in evidence on the ocean floors, containing rocks from continental areas, rounded by the rushing waters that flowed across once dry lands. Later, the oceans refilled, slowly enough to allow whales to evolve from land animals.]

 

With all due respect, your effort is a good example of selecting just one reference to "prove" something. I suspect the world of science is becoming far too complicated, largely due to egos and academic positions requiring more time be spent defending dogmatic assumptions than in exploring every possible alternative with an open mind.

 

For instance: The issue at hand is whether or not the amount of hydrogen currently, in fact, being lost into space can be considered as valid evidence of there being a reservoir of hydrogen within Earth.

 

As for Wayne's 1991 "calculations" of an insignificant amount of hydrogen currently being lost in space: Jeans in 1916 calculated 657,805 short tons being lost per year, Brinkmann in 1969 calculated 451,912 short tons per year and a 1995 NASA paper suggested Earth might be losing as much as another observed "evaporating planet" which was calculated to be losing 3,500,000 to 4,000,000 short tons per year.

 

From "insignificant" to 4,000,000 short tons per year is an extremely wide variation and demonstrates the equally wide variation in various scientists' claims, research and results. Who knows what is true and correct? Seems like anyone can claim to prove anything from references individually selected to agree with and/or protect their assumptions, however illogical.

 

Fact is, Earth can be photographed from near space and physically seen to have a comet-like tail extending to the orbit of the Moon, composed of hydrogen escaping into space. Exactly how much hydrogen mass is lost per year has yet to be determined. Until then, I believe this obviously apparent, physical loss of hydrogen is a valid indication of there being a substantial source of hydrogen within Earth. Seeing is believing.

 

Regards, CharlieO

[freeztar]

This in fact has happened in the past, albeit so slowly than you need not be nervous, as evidenced by coral reefs found in deep ocean trenches where shallow seas and sunlight were once present. There are also river beds still in evidence on the ocean floors, containing rocks from continental areas, rounded by the rushing waters that flowed across once dry lands. Later, the oceans refilled, slowly enough to allow whales to evolve from land animals.

 

I've never heard that, do you have a link?

In any case, that does not neccesarily mean that the oceans "evaporated" due to Hydrogen losses to space. If that were the case, we wouldn't have an ocean today.

 

From "insignificant" to 4,000,000 short tons per year is an extremely wide variation and demonstrates the equally wide variation in various scientists' claims, research and results. Who knows what is true and correct? Seems like anyone can claim to prove anything from references individually selected to agree with and/or protect their assumptions, however illogical.

Do you have a link for the NASA paper Charlie? Did I miss it?

 

Fact is, Earth can be photographed from near space and physically seen to have a comet-like tail extending to the orbit of the Moon, composed of hydrogen escaping into space.

 

Again, do you have a source for this?

 

Exactly how much hydrogen mass is lost per year has yet to be determined. Until then, I believe this obviously apparent, physical loss of hydrogen is a valid indication of there being a substantial source of hydrogen within Earth. Seeing is believing.

 

If it's undetermined, then how can it be a valid indication.

Do you see the hypocrasy of your claims?

[CharlieO]

FREEZTAR: Again, short on time due to family reunion this weekend. But had to answer your, "If it's undetermined, then how can it be a valid indication. Do you see the hypocrasy of your claims?" remarks.

 

Shouldn't there be a question mark after "indication?" Isn't "hypocrisy" the correct spelling?

 

I wrote: EXACTLY how much - - - - has yet to be determined.

 

Until then, I BELIEVE this obviously apparent, PHYSICAL LOSS is a VALID indication - - -

 

Seems straightforward to me. Photographs show significant amounts of hydrogen escaping into space, more than can be explained by hydrogen coming in thru ozone holes. Physical measurements also seem to indicate a substantial amount is being lost, it is just that the EXACT amount has yet to be determined.

 

Therefore, an obviously substantial, physically evident amount being lost into space should logically be a valid indication of a substantial source within Earth, at least it is to me.

 

Since this is what I believe, and there is considerable physical evidence to support my belief, where is the hypocrisy?

 

And this from someone who was kind enough to surf the Internet and find Brinkmann's thesis for me, which went into great detail about the substantial amounts of hydrogen escaping into space, largely from volcanic outgassing. [Apparently Brinkmann believes there is evidence of a hydrogen source within Earth.] Brinkmann also referenced many high altitude research studies done by those best in a position to know how to do them; JPL, NASA, etc. Brinkmann also presented the results of these direct measurements indicating substantial hydrogen losses.

 

Based on the facts, doesn't implying I am being hypocritical in MY claims seem a bit hypocritical to you?

 

Sorry I don't have time to surf the Internet or visit my local library for a while, but I have every confidence you will be able to find the evidence to support the other claims I have made on you own.

 

Regards, CharlieO

[CraigD]

I think we have consensus that the rate of hydrogen loss from Earth into space is about [math]4.1 \times 10^8 \,\mbox{kg/year}[/math]. As I note in post #26, this implies a loss on the order of [math]2 \times 10^{18} \,\mbox{kg}[/math] of hydrogen lost over Earth’s [math]4.5 \times 10^9 \,\mbox{year}[/math] history. Conventional theory gives Earth’s [math]6 \times 10^{24} \,\mbox{kg}[/math] as about [math]1.9 \times 10^{24} \,\mbox{kg}[/math] iron and [math]4.2 \times 10^{21} \,\mbox{kg}[/math] hydrogen.

 

The given loss rate, even if it averaged a hundred times its current rate, and even if no sources or replacement hydrogen exists, does not contradict the conventional, high-iron theory of the composition of the Earth. Even though it constitutes a small fraction of the Earth’s total mass, according to these theories, Earth's hydrogen is thousands of times the amount lost into space.

 

For conventional theory to require radical change, such as hydrogen being hundreds of times more common, the hydrogen loss rate would have to be several thousand times greater than [math]4.1 \times 10^8 \,\mbox{kg/year}[/math].

 

I don’t believe Charlie is being hypocritical, but I do believe he is failing to correctly appreciate the implications of the quantities given in this post and post #26. While they don’t invalidate the idea of a solid hydrogen core of the Earth (the proposed hydrogen core might not leak gas through the mantle, crust, and into the atmosphere, for example) neither do they invalidate the conventional theory of a liquid outer and solid inner core composed mostly of iron. The hydrogen loss data simply can’t be used to support the extraordinary theory over the conventional ones.

Sorry I don't have time to surf the Internet or visit my local library for a while, but I have every confidence you will be able to find the evidence to support the other claims I have made on you own.

:Exclamati According to hypography’s site rules, it’s not considered good form to support a claim by asking others to. If, as you’ve stated, you don’t have time to do the necessary research, simply don’t persist in making the claim until time permits you to support it with links or references.

 

:xparty: Best wishes to you and your family for an enjoyable reunion.