Notices
Results 1 to 42 of 42

Thread: Opinion of chemists on origin of water

  1. #1 Opinion of chemists on origin of water 
    Forum Freshman antidote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    18
    this is my post from another thread:

    "lets say that abiotic origin of oil is right, when we make petroleum out of methane, hydrogen is leftout. hydrogen took oxygen from surrounded minerals and produce water. water dissolve silicate and sodium (salt perhaps being made). salt is lighter so it can rise trough magma. pressure also force water upward."

    i wonder is it possible that hydrogen took oxygen from minerals and create water and salt?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    951
    please translate into a rational question


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,631
    Quote Originally Posted by antidote View Post
    this is my post from another thread:

    "lets say that abiotic origin of oil is right, when we make petroleum out of methane, hydrogen is leftout. hydrogen took oxygen from surrounded minerals and produce water. water dissolve silicate and sodium (salt perhaps being made). salt is lighter so it can rise trough magma. pressure also force water upward."

    i wonder is it possible that hydrogen took oxygen from minerals and create water and salt?
    Hahaha.. In theory, yes..

    But this is not practical..

    Hydrogen does not react easily with bound oxygen, and hydrogen is the first gas to dissipate into outer space, so it doesn't have much time. Btw, salt doesn't exist like that. There is no "salt". There are ionic combinations of elements, which we call salts. However you mean potassium or sodium chloride, then no. In magma it is no salt anyway, but the molten sodium does rise up, and when it reacts with water it does create sodium hydroxide and hydrogen.

    Water comes from asteroids mostly.. Maybe some rose up from the core, but not that much to fill oceans..
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman antidote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    18
    [QUOTE=Zwolver;587594]
    Quote Originally Posted by antidote View Post
    this is my post from another thread:
    Hahaha.. In theory, yes..

    But this is not practical..

    Hydrogen does not react easily with bound oxygen, and hydrogen is the first gas to dissipate into outer space, so it doesn't have much time. Btw, salt doesn't exist like that. There is no "salt". There are ionic combinations of elements, which we call salts. However you mean potassium or sodium chloride, then no. In magma it is no salt anyway, but the molten sodium does rise up, and when it reacts with water it does create sodium hydroxide and hydrogen.

    Water comes from asteroids mostly.. Maybe some rose up from the core, but not that much to fill oceans..
    forgive my ignorance about chemistry. it isnt neither my prime education or hobby. so in theory is possible.
    actually you said that hydrogen react with bound oxygen. but not easy. how then? can you explain me in simple language.
    can we get salt from sodium hydroxide or sodium? again, pardon my ignorance, but how do we get salt anyway (in ocean and earth)? personally i dont believe in hypothesis that water came from the sky but i dont want that this become debate from where water came. lets focus on chemical reactions inside the earth.

    edit: or should i say, pretend that abiotic theory of oil is right. like a working hypothesis.
    Last edited by antidote; August 22nd, 2014 at 06:18 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by antidote View Post
    this is my post from another thread:

    "lets say that abiotic origin of oil is right, when we make petroleum out of methane, hydrogen is leftout. hydrogen took oxygen from surrounded minerals and produce water. water dissolve silicate and sodium (salt perhaps being made). salt is lighter so it can rise trough magma. pressure also force water upward."

    i wonder is it possible that hydrogen took oxygen from minerals and create water and salt?
    Hahaha.. In theory, yes..

    But this is not practical..

    Hydrogen does not react easily with bound oxygen, and hydrogen is the first gas to dissipate into outer space, so it doesn't have much time. Btw, salt doesn't exist like that. There is no "salt". There are ionic combinations of elements, which we call salts. However you mean potassium or sodium chloride, then no. In magma it is no salt anyway, but the molten sodium does rise up, and when it reacts with water it does create sodium hydroxide and hydrogen.

    Water comes from asteroids mostly.. Maybe some rose up from the core, but not that much to fill oceans..
    The molten sodium rises up?
    Where does the molten sodium come from?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman antidote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Warron View Post
    Where does the molten sodium come from?
    better question is where the water comes from if we ignore, for sake of my working hypothesis, that water came from meteroites.
    I wish I was a chemist now. Im trying to read about elements found in earth and their reactions et cetera but more I read more Im confused.
    Last edited by antidote; August 27th, 2014 at 04:58 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman antidote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    18
    I think I have had "aha" moment.
    sun as any star produce elements (with process called nucleosynthesis) such as carbon, sodium and chlorine et cetera. all these elements can be found in earth crusts.
    we have decent amount of methane, sodium and chlorine in earth and universe. they react easily and form stable salt. when hydrogen is left out from methane it took oxygen from minerals and formed water. water then going over and trough mineral rocks dissolved sodium chloride. so basicly water could be formed inside earth and could dissolved salt from the rocks. then we have oceans. fresh water/rivers brings new salt into ocean and ocean "accumulate" salt. Fact that ocean salinity is stable for billion years could be explained by plate tectonics mechanism which took salt from ocean.
    even if abiotic theory of oil is wrong, hydrogen is most abundant chemical element in the universe and its in our sun and in earth.
    correct me if Im wrong but it all have sense.

    water is created inside earth.
    Last edited by antidote; August 27th, 2014 at 05:00 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by antidote View Post
    this is my post from another thread:

    "lets say that abiotic origin of oil is right, when we make petroleum out of methane, hydrogen is leftout. hydrogen took oxygen from surrounded minerals and produce water. water dissolve silicate and sodium (salt perhaps being made). salt is lighter so it can rise trough magma. pressure also force water upward."

    i wonder is it possible that hydrogen took oxygen from minerals and create water and salt?
    Hahaha.. In theory, yes..

    But this is not practical..

    Hydrogen does not react easily with bound oxygen, and hydrogen is the first gas to dissipate into outer space, so it doesn't have much time. Btw, salt doesn't exist like that. There is no "salt". There are ionic combinations of elements, which we call salts. However you mean potassium or sodium chloride, then no. In magma it is no salt anyway, but the molten sodium does rise up, and when it reacts with water it does create sodium hydroxide and hydrogen.

    Water comes from asteroids mostly.. Maybe some rose up from the core, but not that much to fill oceans..
    Where did the comets and asteroids get their water from?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman antidote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Where did the comets and asteroids get their water from?
    water could not be in ice particles in our solar system because it was too hot in early stage of solar system. water vapour is blasted with solar wind. so earth didnt start with water. water "wait" that temperature drops below boling point. offical theory claims that water didnt came from comets because they are rich with heavy hydrogen than our water.
    offical theory claim that water came from one type of meteorite called Carbonaceous Chondrite. only that meteorite have h2o similar to ours inside it plus carbon. they came from frost line in our solar system so thats the reason why they have water.

    anyway what are chances that earth was hit by so many Carbonaceous Chondrite? earth crust would be abundant with carbon. yet carbon isnt even in top ten abundant elements in earths crust. something is wrong with this theory that water came from the sky.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman antidote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    18
    at best Carbonaceous Chondrite can have 22% of water. can our oceans came on it? just google name of that meteorite and see pictures. i highly doubt. for every drop of water we would have much more carbon. well i dont see ocean of carbon.
    Last edited by antidote; August 27th, 2014 at 05:38 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,429
    I'm a chemist and my opinion is you are talking nonsense. Unless you can write down your proposed reaction scheme for water formation and show it is thermodynamically favourable (which as far as I can make out from your somewhat garbled posts is very unlikely) all you have is unsupported speculation and hand waving, nothing worth considering seriously at all...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman antidote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    I'm a chemist and my opinion is you are talking nonsense. Unless you can write down your proposed reaction scheme for water formation and show it is thermodynamically favourable (which as far as I can make out from your somewhat garbled posts is very unlikely) all you have is unsupported speculation and hand waving, nothing worth considering seriously at all...
    as i said im not chemist so i cant do what you asked me. but this is forum. not a peer review publishing magazine. if i could do what you ask me to I would wrote paper and go to publisher and be sure i would not be here. anyway thanks on your huge help.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,429
    OK, but at the least you should be able to say which chemicals are reacting (not just "salt" "minerals" etc) in a clear way (your posts so far are very confused) or you are just wasting your time... Edit, I see you have at least alluded to sodium chloride as "salt" but what about other salts such as sulphates, nitrates etc. and salts of other cations such as magnesium etc which are all present in the oceans?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman antidote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    OK, but at the least you should be able to say which chemicals are reacting (not just "salt" "minerals" etc) in a clear way (your posts so far are very confused) or you are just wasting your time... Edit, I see you have at least alluded to sodium chloride as "salt" but what about other salts such as sulphates, nitrates etc. and salts of other cations such as magnesium etc which are all present in the oceans?
    perhaps when water run trough rocks water took nitrate and others too. nitrate is dissolved in water, right? im mean offical theory also claim that fresh water came from sky and took salt from earth. what im proposing here is that water was created inside earth and when pressure forced it up , water collect salt from surrounded minerals. what minerals? well i will explore it. it would be great that someone jumps in with more knowledge. but im sure those minerals exists otherwise offical theory would be hypothesis. since i dont see oceans of carbon from meteorites its more logic that water came from the earth. source of hydrogen? perhaps petroleum formation from methane. (?) water could be formed inside earth and could dissolve salts from minerals.


    Last edited by antidote; August 27th, 2014 at 06:01 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,429
    ...but until you can give a plausible mechanism for how the water was formed you have nothing worth considering seriously, just something you have made up...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman antidote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    ...but until you can give a plausible mechanism for how the water was formed you have nothing worth considering seriously, just something you have made up...
    well i wrote it already. when petroleum is made from methane, hydrogen is left out. hydrogen took oxygen from surrounded minerals and produce water. if we pretend that abiotic theory of oil is right everything fits. could be other sources of hydrogen? at this moment i dont know but i know that hydrogen is 10 abundant material in earth crust. oxygen is first.

    edit: story that water came from the sky is made up. i dont see oceans of carbon. meteorites contains 3-22% of h2o. at best, where are those 78% elements? or at worst 97%.
    Last edited by antidote; August 27th, 2014 at 06:19 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,429
    Is petroleum made from methane? If so give the mechanism, what do you mean by the "hydrogen is left out" and even if this did occur how does molecular hydrogen react with oxygen in "minerals" to produce water (I've asked for your proposed mechanism at least once already)? What evidence leads you to think oil was produced abiotically? (I've got a feeling you are flailing around trying to support a crackpot "theory"). You're just making up random nonsense. If all you are going to do is repeat unsupported assertions I'll leave you to it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman antidote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    18
    PhDemon

    I took as working hypothesis that petroleum is made from methane. I read once that in some process hydrogen is left out. Maybe you can help me here? Could be that petroleum is formed from methane dont you think? Even if it doesnt hydrogen is most abudant element in universe. Yet in earth crust it isnt. Its missing.
    I personally dont know on molecular level how hydrogen reacts with oxygen in minerals. But offical theory states
    that hydrocarbons will suffer a loss of hydrogen on their way up through the crust. In fact oxygen atom to interact with a hydrocarbon fluid of any sort will result in that fluid losing two hydrogenatoms for every oxygen atom encountered, thus generating water. am I right?
    water emerging everywhere. can you comment these links below:



    http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/14/5808888/scientists-discover-massive-ocean-of-water-400-miles-underground

    http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/africa/mystery-as-lake-appears-in-middle-of-tunisian-desert-and-becomes-overnight-tourist-attraction-9642769.html

    Now I will try to play chemist here since you force me. Please be kind when you comment and elaborate.

    Serpentinite mechanism




    Spinel polymerization mechanism




    Fischer–Tropsch process

    (2n + 1) H2 + n CO → CnH(2n+2) + n H2O


    I hope I will get help from you not just criticism. Although those two are synonyms, but Im sure you got point.






    Last edited by antidote; August 31st, 2014 at 02:50 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,531
    Quote Originally Posted by antidote View Post
    PhDemon

    I took as working hypothesis that petroleum is made from methane. I read once that in some process hydrogen is left out. Maybe you can help me here? Could be that petroleum is formed from methane dont you think? Even if it doesnt hydrogen is most abudant element in universe. Yet in earth crust it isnt. Its missing.
    I personally dont know on molecular level how hydrogen reacts with oxygen in minerals. But offical theory states
    that hydrocarbons will suffer a loss of hydrogen on their way up through the crust. In fact oxygen atom to interact with a hydrocarbon fluid of any sort will result in that fluid losing two hydrogenatoms for every oxygen atom encountered, thus generating water. am I right?
    water emerging everywhere. can you comment these links below:



    http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/14/5808888/scientists-discover-massive-ocean-of-water-400-miles-underground

    http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/africa/mystery-as-lake-appears-in-middle-of-tunisian-desert-and-becomes-overnight-tourist-attraction-9642769.html

    Now I will try to play chemist here since you force me. Please be kind when you comment and elaborate.

    Serpentinite mechanism




    Spinel polymerization mechanism




    Fischer–Tropsch process

    (2n + 1) H2 + n CO → CnH(2n+2) + n H2O


    I hope I will get help from you not just criticism. Although those two are synonyms, but Im sure you got point.






    There is no evidence of anything like enough petroleum in the Earth to account for the amount of water in the oceans, if it were all formed by the mechanism you suggest. Whereas it is fairly plain that oxygen is formed in large amounts by stellar nucleosynthesis, so hydrogen and oxygen have ample opportunity to combine directly, rather than proceeding via a methane intermediary.

    So I must admit I do not understand why you are so keen to pursue this line of speculation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,429
    It wasn't my intention to be unpleasant to you but in the absence of any chemistry there was nothing worthwhile to discuss. Now to try and answer your questions, I'm not aware of any sensible proposal that petroleum us made from methane, do you have a reference for this? I'm still not sure what you mean by hydrogen being "left out" so I can't comment on that...

    Hydrogen is less abundant on Earth as it is continuously lost from the atmosphere, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with this fact though...

    Even if you are right about hydrocarbons losing hydrogen as they pass through the crust (do you have a citation for this by the way?) I still don't see a plausible way for this hydrogen to extract bound oxygen from minerals.

    Your section in bold is incorrect, many hydrocarbons are stable in oxygen (in fact petroleum is!) until they are ignited, "interaction" is not sufficient for a reaction to occur.

    I'm using my phone at the minute so reading your linked articles will be an exercise in frustration so I won't

    Now for your chemistry, your first two equations don't balance so I have no great hopes of them being correct, please check them and repost if necessary. Your third equation showing the reaction between hydrogen and calcium carbonate seems plausible but do you think there are enough carbonate rocks to account for the amount of water on Earth to be produced by this reaction (coupled with the fact carbonates are often thermally unstable so deep in the crust where it is hot they are probably not stable.)

    Your last equation is correct but IIRC this process requires a catalyst and is not terribly efficient even in custom made reactors so it is a non-starter as a natural process to form water. I'm with exchemist, frankly I think you are wasting your time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman antidote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    18
    I will adress your posts asap because rightnow im also using phone. Just quick question...but down there they could ignite and form water? Also how last equation isnt efficent. Far as i know it was efficent for wermacht.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,429
    a) I don't think it will ignite, that's my point b) the Fischer-Tropsch reaction needs a catalyst to be even moderately efficient and IIRC it is only ~50-60% efficient even with the catalyst (and it won't occur at all in the absence of a catalyst, in the crust for example...).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,631
    Energetically it could occur. I picked propane as a carbon molecule, but you could pick any CnHn molecule for this.

    3CH4 + O2 --> C3H8 + 2H2O

    -224,61 --> -675,45 = +450.84 Kj/mol

    However, where are all the large carbon molecules, it doesn't scale up.

    8CH4 + 3O2 --> C8H20 + 6H2O

    Which means there will be more water, and use of more oxygen when making larger carbon molecules (in proportion with eachother).

    Fisher tropsch reaction was unknown to me, but i guess all it is different with this is that is uses Hydrogen, instead of methane.

    7H2 + 3CO --> C3H8 + 3H2O

    -110,5 --> -571,6 + -857.4 = +1318.5 Kj/mol

    A huge extra amount of energy is released, plus 3 water molecules instead of 2. But it still doesn't scale.
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    Energetically it could occur. I picked propane as a carbon molecule, but you could pick any CnHn molecule for this.

    3CH4 + O2 --> C3H8 + 2H2O

    -224,61 --> -675,45 = +450.84 Kj/mol

    However, where are all the large carbon molecules, it doesn't scale up.

    8CH4 + 3O2 --> C8H20 + 6H2O

    Which means there will be more water, and use of more oxygen when making larger carbon molecules (in proportion with eachother).

    Fisher tropsch reaction was unknown to me, but i guess all it is different with this is that is uses Hydrogen, instead of methane.

    7H2 + 3CO --> C3H8 + 3H2O

    -110,5 --> -571,6 + -857.4 = +1318.5 Kj/mol

    A huge extra amount of energy is released, plus 3 water molecules instead of 2. But it still doesn't scale.
    Yes, commercially, in the GtL process, methane is converted to light hydrocarbons using the F-T synthesis, but this involves first of all steam reforming the methane to convert it to CO + H2 (so-called "syngas"), in effect driving the F-T reaction backwards to get hydrogen, and then running it forwards to get the hydrocarbons. The steam reforming step is endothermic, and in fact the overall process requires considerable consumption of gas, as fuel, to provide the heat to run it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    106
    http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/14/5808888/scientists-discover-massive-ocean-of-water-400-miles-underground

    A quick read of the editors summary says that the water hypothesised at depth has its origin at the surface and it is transported downward.


    "The water cycle involves more than just the water that circulates between the atmosphere, oceans, and surface waters. It extends deep into Earth's interior as the oceanic crust subducts, or slides, under adjoining plates of crust and sinks into the mantle, carrying water with it."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Warron View Post
    http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/14/5808888/scientists-discover-massive-ocean-of-water-400-miles-underground

    A quick read of the editors summary says that the water hypothesised at depth has its origin at the surface and it is transported downward.


    "The water cycle involves more than just the water that circulates between the atmosphere, oceans, and surface waters. It extends deep into Earth's interior as the oceanic crust subducts, or slides, under adjoining plates of crust and sinks into the mantle, carrying water with it."
    Was it like 27 times as much water in the interior of the Earth as in the oceans. So if you think it all was on the surface at some stage!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,041
    I think it probably originated from the Big Bang. There was likely a lot of Hydrogen and some Helium, and traces of Lithium. These are incidentally the fuel sources modern science is looking to use to emulate hot nuclear fusion similar as what our Sun does.

    Lots of early Hydrogen, but we need oxygen to bond with it to form water molecules. These may have come from asteroids and comets that collided with the Earth after a sufficient cool down for the Earth to not just keep turning the water into vapor. I believe they think that comets may have tails made if ice from which water could on impact be released, melting the ice and cooling our planet's surface in the process. Just theory. I never wondered about this before.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Warron View Post
    http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/14/5808888/scientists-discover-massive-ocean-of-water-400-miles-underground

    A quick read of the editors summary says that the water hypothesised at depth has its origin at the surface and it is transported downward.


    "The water cycle involves more than just the water that circulates between the atmosphere, oceans, and surface waters. It extends deep into Earth's interior as the oceanic crust subducts, or slides, under adjoining plates of crust and sinks into the mantle, carrying water with it."
    Was it like 27 times as much water in the interior of the Earth as in the oceans. So if you think it all was on the surface at some stage!
    I read that news blurb too. As always the media goes for the sensationalism.
    The original research papers are not quite so dramatic.
    Hydrous mantle transition zone indicated by ringwoodite included within diamond | ReadCube Articles

    Rare mineral points to vast 'oceans' beneath the Earth - University of Alberta

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...orth-of-water/
    Last edited by dan hunter; September 2nd, 2014 at 05:01 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Warron View Post
    http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/14/5808888/scientists-discover-massive-ocean-of-water-400-miles-underground

    A quick read of the editors summary says that the water hypothesised at depth has its origin at the surface and it is transported downward.


    "The water cycle involves more than just the water that circulates between the atmosphere, oceans, and surface waters. It extends deep into Earth's interior as the oceanic crust subducts, or slides, under adjoining plates of crust and sinks into the mantle, carrying water with it."
    Was it like 27 times as much water in the interior of the Earth as in the oceans. So if you think it all was on the surface at some stage!
    I read that news blurb too. As always the media goes for the sensationalism.
    The original research papers are not quite so dramatic.
    Hydrous mantle transition zone indicated by ringwoodite included within diamond | ReadCube Articles

    Rare mineral points to vast 'oceans' beneath the Earth - University of Alberta

    Rare Diamond Confirms That Earth's Mantle Holds an Ocean's Worth of Water - Scientific American
    I was quoting from the Editors summary from the Science site, which was the journal of origin for the news blurb story in the link, which was the link posted in by antidote in post #18

    Dehydration melting at the top of the lower mantle

    I don't have access to the original paper in Science so can't comment on whether the 27 ocean volumes is correct.

    Another paper I do have access to mentions volumes of water equal to 2 or 3 oceans at shallower depths but it isn't clear to me if this is the actual volume now or the a volume that has been part of dynamic recycling since the earths formation. In any case, it does appear that there is potential for significant water in the rocks, which is very interesting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    I noticed most of the articles mention the "water" is in the form of hydroxide ions which makes me think it is not liquid water they are talking about at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,531
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    I noticed most of the articles mention the "water" is in the form of hydroxide ions which makes me think it is not liquid water they are talking about at all.
    Indeed, what this is about is water trapped in the hydrated forms of various minerals, as opposed to the anhydrous forms. Enormous amounts of water can be bound in this way. I find it very interesting that geochemists are now realising the transitions between these forms may play a major role in plate tectonic mechanisms.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman antidote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    18
    what about this, can this help my case? hv is photon. (x rays, ultraviolet light, gamma rays)




    CH3 is molecule or...? Hydrogen is leftout
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman antidote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    I noticed most of the articles mention the "water" is in the form of hydroxide ions which makes me think it is not liquid water they are talking about at all.

    and? isnt water on moon and mars same? perhaps im wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by antidote View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    I noticed most of the articles mention the "water" is in the form of hydroxide ions which makes me think it is not liquid water they are talking about at all.

    and? isnt water on moon and mars same? perhaps im wrong.
    I would say as long as there is a process to extract the water, it is water, whatever form it is in.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,531
    Quote Originally Posted by antidote View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    I noticed most of the articles mention the "water" is in the form of hydroxide ions which makes me think it is not liquid water they are talking about at all.

    and? isnt water on moon and mars same? perhaps im wrong.
    Not sure about the moon but in the case of Mars, people are talking about liquid water or solid ice, i.e. water as free H2O molecules. This is quite different from the water molecules in a hydrated mineral. In the latter, each water molecule is chemically bound into the mineral structure and releasing it requires a chemical reaction to occur.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman antidote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    it requires a chemical reaction to occur.
    Such as?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,531
    Quote Originally Posted by antidote View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    it requires a chemical reaction to occur.
    Such as?
    A well-known school book example would be the hydration and dehydration of copper sulphate: CuSO4 + 5 H2O <-> CuSO4.5H2O. The enthalpy of hydration is -78kJ/mol, that is, the hydrated version is more stable than the anhydrous version. Heat is thus given off when the anhydrous form takes up 5 molecules of water per atom of copper.

    The water molecules are bound into the crystal structure, see here for a diagram: Metals and Chemical Change - Google Books

    An analogous process occurs with a great many minerals and it is this, rather than free water, that is being discussed in the geochemistry of the Earth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman antidote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    18
    Water on Earth predates the solar system, and even the sun
    Water on Earth is older than the sun, scientists say - LA Times
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by antidote View Post
    Water on Earth predates the solar system, and even the sun
    Water on Earth is older than the sun, scientists say - LA Times
    I found that article badly written, anyone else agree, or was it just me?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman antidote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    18
    What particular part you found badly written...with what you disagree?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,531
    Quote Originally Posted by antidote View Post
    Water on Earth predates the solar system, and even the sun
    Water on Earth is older than the sun, scientists say - LA Times
    Well….yes……not sure what point you wish to make here.

    Anyway, clearly it was not formed as you originally suggested, by hydrocarbons abstracting oxygen from minerals on the early Earth.

    The reported findings are interesting but not exactly surprising, in view of the cosmic abundance of hydrogen, deuterium and oxygen. Water is a very simple molecule and it would be reasonable to expect lots of it in environments cool enough for chemistry to occur.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by antidote View Post
    What particular part you found badly written...with what you disagree?
    It was as if the person writing it had no idea what was really happening. I wasn't convinced it was the whole story.

    Deborah Netburn - LA Times The author, does she have the depth to handle the topic? A paragraph like this doesn't exude depth of knowledge
    At the time that our sun was born, the ratio of deuterium to hydrogen throughout the universe was about 1 deuterium molecule to every 100,000 hydrogen molecules. But for water in the solar system, the proportion is significantly higher.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Are chemists pragmatists?
    By JonG in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: June 7th, 2014, 05:35 AM
  2. Chemists!
    By jocular in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: August 4th, 2013, 08:31 PM
  3. ORIGIN OF WATER ON EARTH
    By Suhail Jalbout in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: May 4th, 2011, 04:22 AM
  4. Hello, my fellow Chemists
    By Deicide in forum Introductions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 4th, 2011, 01:32 AM
  5. A funny one for all chemists.
    By ArchStaton in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 28th, 2009, 03:52 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •