jpbowden Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 At the K-T boundary, so far it does not contain charcoal as far as I know. Is it then Carbon black? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpbowden Posted February 17, 2009 Author Share Posted February 17, 2009 Found the answer, it is. Just good old Aciniform Black Carbon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I just got a chunk of it; from Trochu, Alberta. (It measures 53mm x 35mm x 11mm). "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpbowden Posted February 17, 2009 Author Share Posted February 17, 2009 Have you ever wondered how you can get that much carbon without charcoal? Not to mention the large deposits of salt and sulfur along the gulf coast? An asteroid that size would be like shooting a BB at a pumpkin, there is a lot more to be said here, and they forgot about one thing. The Van Allen Belt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest N.AL.hunter Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Remember the Van Allen Belt catching on fire in "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Whatever happened, it was big. I am also trying to acquire a slide of micro-tectites from the same event. "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpbowden Posted February 17, 2009 Author Share Posted February 17, 2009 Remember the Van Allen Belt catching on fire in "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea"? Look at it this way, the object if 5 miles wide and 11 miles long passing through the Van Allen Belt would have carried a large electron charge with it. This long before it touched down could have caused a plasma arc using the oxygen of the atmosphere and flashing the Methane Hydrates on the ocean floor. This would explain the lack of acid rain and why there is an abundance of salt and sulfur on the Gulf Coast. This would have produced a lot of Aciniform Black Carbon, and at the same time lowering the oxygen level of the atmosphere to drop a great deal. This would also explain a few other things also, like wheres the burnt wood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphactinus Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 we have fossil evidence of the mega-tsunami in the bootheel of Missouri. Everything looks like it's in a blender, and the rock is full of micro tectites. Mega cool! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpbowden Posted February 17, 2009 Author Share Posted February 17, 2009 we have fossil evidence of the mega-tsunami in the bootheel of Missouri. Everything looks like it's in a blender, and the rock is full of micro tectites. Mega cool! That would be expected, also plasma arcs throw off lots of splatter, which look like micro tectites, check out how plasma cutters work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpbowden Posted February 17, 2009 Author Share Posted February 17, 2009 check this out plasma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphactinus Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 So is your theory there was no impact at the K-T boundary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpbowden Posted February 17, 2009 Author Share Posted February 17, 2009 So is your theory there was no impact at the K-T boundary? Yes there was an impact, I just think that everything was there to cause more damage that just the impact itself. I also think that there would not have been enough oxygen to support allot of life on land and sea. The temperature of the arc would have been monstrous to say the least. One other thing is that carbon dioxide helps fuel the plasma arc and would reduce plant life world wide. There would have been no acid rain, no great forest fires, many life forms would breath there last and mega-tsunamis would scrub the land scape clean followed by storms like no other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpbowden Posted February 22, 2009 Author Share Posted February 22, 2009 Time to finish this up so to speak, for thirty years or so I have worked in the Petrochemical Industry as an Electrical Engineer. In this regard the Earth itself is nothing more than a very large motor, the core being it's armature(axis), and the Van Allen Belt being part of it's field. Large motors when once up to operating speed, will balance out by the armature(axis), reaching magnetic center. But, if the field should fail on a motor the size of the earth you have a real problem. First, it has no fixed armature(axis), it floats in a sphere, once it loses center, it will go on the hunt and may not return to where it was at first. Second, the weight of the earth will act on itself as a flywheel holding momentum up till it fines center again, with all of the balance and lunging what will be going on with the Plates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 so how come when we dig we don't find copper windings? and why don't the oceans short out the earth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Pat, I've been chewing on your idea since you first posted it; can't quite get it out of my mind in fact. What hooks me the most is the possible explaination for the source of all the carbon. Has anyone calculated an approximation of how much of it there is in that layer, globally? And, what other source could there be? Now we add the tectonic nudge idea... Don't stop now! "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 there has apparently been quite a bit of analysis regarding this question. boom anyone who's used some of the torches that burn a combination of hydrocarbon fuel and oxygen has experienced the rapid creation of soot prior to the addition of sufficient oxygen to the mix. asteroid impact in an area with sufficient hydrocarbons would seem to be enough to explain why there was lots of soot created and not charcoal. i am not knowledgeable enough to know how well existing data and computer modeling could establish the distribution and amount globally of carbon and what it would have taken to achieve it, but all other things being equal, i trend toward preferring that the simplest explanation be determined to be incorrect prior to the examination of more complex possibilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpbowden Posted February 22, 2009 Author Share Posted February 22, 2009 Yes and all from the same people that said there was acid rain, dead dino's laying all over the place and on and on. None of this fits the facts though, there was no charcoal in the carbon, no sulfur for the acid rain, and no dead dino's laying about decomposing. But there are clues, there is a carbon layer without the sulfur! Where did it go, most burning hydrocarbons gives up sulfur, even salt water gives it up. So, where did it go, have you ever driven along the Gulf Coast and seen those building size box of yellow in the distance, thats sulfur, and right beside it are really big salt domes. Stay with me here, First: Big rock cuts through outer fat layer of Van Allen Belt picking up really big negative charge along with radiation. Second: Big rock moves on to close fat layer of Van Allen Belt, picking up so much of a charge it might have glowed. Three: Big rock now enters the atmosphere, earths core is now out of balance and moves into wobble, outer belt and inter belt discharge pass big rock to earth so does big rock. Discharge now reaches over 15,000 C and higher. Four: Big rock has now found fuel, vast amounts of methane hydrates, H2o, Here you have high temp uber power, uber fuel, and my favored, total chaos. Five: Methane hydrates, Oxygen, high voltage, whats needed for plasma, the salt water will give up its salt and sulfur and leave it laying about, the carbon will cover the earth and the Big rock will now fly up and fall down everywhere. Six: The big rock is now gone, the core finds center but we don't get cold, we get hot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest solius symbiosus Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 1 and 2) What is the evidence that meteors pick up large charges, and what is mechanism for this large ΔQ? 3) ...earths core is now out of balance and moves into wobble ??? Once again, where is the evidence? How could such a small body have any(noticeable) effect upon such a large field? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpbowden Posted February 22, 2009 Author Share Posted February 22, 2009 there has apparently been quite a bit of analysis regarding this question.boom anyone who's used some of the torches that burn a combination of hydrocarbon fuel and oxygen has experienced the rapid creation of soot prior to the addition of sufficient oxygen to the mix. asteroid impact in an area with sufficient hydrocarbons would seem to be enough to explain why there was lots of soot created and not charcoal. i am not knowledgeable enough to know how well existing data and computer modeling could establish the distribution and amount globally of carbon and what it would have taken to achieve it, but all other things being equal, i trend toward preferring that the simplest explanation be determined to be incorrect prior to the examination of more complex possibilities. First aciniform carbon is not soot, one way they get it today is from burning acetylene, acetylene on the other hand can be made directly by combining pure hydrogen with carbon using electrical discharge of a carbon arc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest solius symbiosus Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Have you seen this paper? Geology; May 2008; v. 36; no. 5; p. 355-358; DOI: 10.1130/G24646A.1 The abstract: Combustion of fossil organic matter at the Cretaceous-Paleogene (K-P) boundary Mark C. Harvey, et. al. Recognition of elevated concentrations of aciniform soot in Cretaceous-Paleogene (K-P) boundary sediments worldwide led to the hypothesis that global-scale forest wildfires could have been generated by the K-P boundary bolide impact and might have contributed directly to the extinction event. The wildfires are estimated to have injected 1013 t of CO2 into the atmosphere, resulting in an interval of greenhouse warming. Yet minimal amounts of charred plant remains and abundant noncharred material occur in various K-P boundary locations across North America. This refutes the inference that wildfires occurred on a global scale, and requires an alternative explanation for the aciniform soot. Here we describe significant concentrations of carbon cenospheres in K-P boundary sediments from New Zealand, Denmark, and Canada. Carbon cenospheres are thought to derive solely from incomplete combustion of pulverized coal or fuel-oil droplets, which suggests that the impact may have combusted organic-rich target crust. The Chicxulub impact crater is located adjacent to the Cantarell oil reservoir, one of the most productive oil fields on Earth. This indicates that abundance of organic carbon in the Chicxulub target crust was likely to have been above global mean values. But even if we discount Chicxulub's organic-rich locality, the global mean crustal abundance for fossil organic matter is more than adequate to account for observed concentrations of both carbon cenospheres and aciniform soot, therefore making the global wildfire hypothesis unnecessary. http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/con...stract/36/5/355 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpbowden Posted February 22, 2009 Author Share Posted February 22, 2009 Are not the oil deposits still there, why yes they are, and its full of sulfur. Not to mention the high pressure gas deposits but the point is that plasma will burn anything, even metal. I think you guys are missing the point here there are two types of soot and its not hard to find out where they have come from. All crude has a finger print as to where it comes from, I have had my hands full of crude from just about everywhere, you can tell good from bad just by the smell, and sometimes where it comes from. Now I have said that the electron flow would come down that was just to may things a little simpler, it flows up. We are not talking about a lightning strike. This is the whole jest of what I would like to get across. Something like this would cause the planet to shutter, a planetary short circuit so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest solius symbiosus Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Maybe I'm missing something here, but I still don't see how such a small body could amass that much of an energy differential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 well, the real question, for me, was why your discussion of high heat flamin' the earth led to the sudden heat in this forum with the singles. but then it suddenly was clear to me - you started it by talkin' about... ...Chicxulub you get it, don't you? chicx u lub? <calling off camera> auuuuspexxxxx! get in here, please! my funny's broken again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpbowden Posted February 22, 2009 Author Share Posted February 22, 2009 well, the real question, for me, was why your discussion of high heat flamin' the earth led to the sudden heat in this forum with the singles. but then it suddenly was clear to me - you started it by talkin' about... ...Chicxulub you get it, don't you? chicx u lub? <calling off camera> auuuuspexxxxx! get in here, please! my funny's broken again! ??????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpbowden Posted February 22, 2009 Author Share Posted February 22, 2009 Maybe I'm missing something here, but I still don't see how such a small body could amass that much of an energy differential. It didn't, the Van Allen Belts comprise of free electrons and massive amounts of radiation collected from space and solar flares, the mass was just a bucket brigade to get almost infinite energy to this planet. Look at it this way, take a 3 phase 138K circuit with no stops, feeding power to a 27,000 ac motor with an exposed winding. Here it is running along at 900 rpm, everything is fine, pulling 8000 amps, then you pull out your trusty 20mm AT round and pop one into it. This round cuts the first layer of insulation arcs, and heads on in, taking with it molten copper and plasma with it, by this time you will notice that the motor is starting to behave badly. Now this motor is as big as a building and the round, well you get the picture. This motor will blow up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts