Patriotism
Free Republic has it
Sign up to donate monthly
and a sponsoring FReeper will donate $10
Urgent: Save Lazamataz! Donate today
Posted on 04/18/2011 6:12:10 AM PDT by Red Badger
A new computational study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reveals how hydrocarbons may be formed from methane in deep Earth at extreme pressures and temperatures.
The thermodynamic and kinetic properties of hydrocarbons at high pressures and temperatures are important for understanding carbon reservoirs and fluxes in Earth.
The work provides a basis for understanding experiments that demonstrated polymerization of methane to form high hydrocarbons and earlier methane forming reactions under pressure.
Hydrocarbons (molecules composed of the elements hydrogen and carbon) are the main building block of crude oil and natural gas. Hydrocarbons contribute to the global carbon cycle (one of the most important cycles of Earth that allows for carbon to be recycled and reused throughout the biosphere and all of its organisms).
[snip]
Geologists and geochemists believe that nearly all (more than 99 percent) of the hydrocarbons in commercially produced crude oil and natural gas are formed by the decomposition of the remains of living organisms, which were buried under layers of sediments in Earth's crust, a region approximately 5-10 miles below Earth's surface.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
...and cultures..........
When I first heard about him, probably ten years ago he had already had a couple of cold fusion experiments that had been producing for more than 60 days.
That’s when I decided to see if I could get his address and approach him. It took about a year and I was so disappointed when he turned me down but I am thrilled that he has succeeded in making everything work the way he said it could. The is the kind of thing that will lead to accomplishing many more “cannot be done” experiments.
I am fed up with brain dead scientists whose proclamations are automatically accepted as wisdom because these men are respectable, which to me means they refuse to step outside the walls of the scientific community.
Mud huts and cat crap coffee? Did you marry my ex-wife?
Catalysts do not change the chemical equilibrium of a reaction. The fact that a catalyst does not change the equilibrium is a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics. If there was such a catalyst that shifted an equilibrium, the system would result in reaction to move to the new equilibrium, producing energy.
Then, removing the catalyst would also result in reaction, producing energy; i.e. the addition and its reverse process, removal, would both produce energy. Thus, a catalyst that could change the equilibrium would be a perpetual motion machine, a contradiction to the laws of thermodynamics.
Can you show me one other example where a catalyst is used to reverse the direction of a reaction?
Dirt Thermos Update - Mission Control announced that the coffee in the dirt thermos cooled to room temperature in less than two hours. Extrapolating from these results...the earth’s center cooled to 70 degrees F 14 billion years ago. I don’t know. Maybe it keeps getting warmed up by those guys that keep catching on fire in that porno shop in San Francisco.
Of course. That’s why the earth has a fever. Algore discovered this problem when he inserted a special 5 mile long metal thermometer into the rectum of the earth located in Washington,DC precisely between the White House and Capitol Hill.
I read a paper by a geologist whose name I believe is Wolf who was saying this 10 years ago.
This ought to send the greenies into high orbit.
It’s n-a-t-u-r-a-l.....................
I think Thomas Gold was proposing this in the 1950s, and the idea itself is much older.
It realld does make sense when one thinks about it. Natural gas is constantly being produced by the decomp of the same organic matter. Though it would take longer and higher temps and pressures, why not petroleum.
THIS IS REALLY GONNA PISS OFF ALGORE!
Not just decomposition of organics; hydrocarbons are all over the universe but no one dares claim they all come from living organisms the way they claim for them on earth.
I don't think it is a true thermodynamic reversal. In cracking situations you have a large number of different products forming simultaneously, including some with longer chains than the starting material. What some catalysts do is make those low-probability reactions "high probability", which results in a change of the product mix.
Don't forget that in most continuous processes, you never reach true thermodynamic equilibrium, so you set up the conditions to choose the kinetically (rather than thermodynamically) favored product. Causing that shift in kinetics is what catalysts are all about.
No matter where the oil comes from, that is a TRUE statement!!!
Understand, but access is a bit of a problem from the rest of the universe. You are right, however, as carbon is everywhere but, to the best of my knowledge, the bulk of the marsh gasses, petroleum and coal here are from expired and well-aged carbon based lifeforms.
It's worse than that. Quite a few scientists won't even look over the walls of their own little scientific sub-area. The whole "cold fusion" thing has NOT covered the physics community with glory, IMO. They have NOT followed the true system of science, but rather engaged in "science power politics", in which those who don't adamantly ascribe to the "current wisdom" are denied grants, tenure, and in some cases, driven out of the profession.
Look up the saga of Peter Hagelstein. A true genius, with a huge track record of scientific accomplishment at a very young age. He had the temerity to say that he thought he had a mechanism that could account for the "cold fusion" phenomenon. Instead of true scientific process, he was essentially blackballed, and his career suffered badly.
>>those who don’t adamantly ascribe to the “current wisdom” are denied grants, tenure, and in some cases, driven out of the profession.<<
EXACTLY! We see that here on FR. You know which ones I am referring to.
For a moment I thought you were referring to the Washington monument. It’s not metal. Whew!
You have a vastly different understanding of the cracking process than I learned from the Chemical Engineers at the engineering firm that designs thermal crackers.
Chemical engineers who design thermal crackers have a VERY limited field of view of chemistry. Think about the various polymerization processes, for instance for polyethylene. Pure pressure and temperature (VERY high), with a free radical initiator (no catalyst) in ethylene yields a polymer. A different set of conditions (in solution, with catalyst) yields a very different material. Yet another set of conditions with a slightly different catalyst yields still a third product, with vastly different properties.
The process in the article apparently is more similar to polymerization than "cracking".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.