FOSSIL CONCRETIONS * Before I reply to Webo, I want to get the following posted. This is from the link I mentioned a few posts back. I'll underline the more pertinent parts. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/carboniferous/mazon.html Localities of the Carboniferous: Mazon Creek, Illinois
- On the dumps of coal strip mines ... not far from ... Chicago, collectors find curious rounded nodules of rock. These nodules are concretions of siderite, or iron carbonate, and naturally split along the middle. With a careful tap from a rock hammer, a split nodule may reveal a beautifully preserved seed-fern leaf, a shrimp or millipede, or even a Tully monster. This is the Carboniferous-age Mazon Creek locality (or more accurately a set of localities called the Francis Creek Shale, of which Mazon Creek itself is one) whose uniquely preserved fossils provide a glimpse of the history of many organisms that would otherwise have left little trace. Similar concretions are found over a wide area of northern and eastern Illinois, at several sites. However, all of these are collectively known as "Mazon Creek" fossils. - Some "Mazon Creek" localities are known for terrestrial fossils, including beautifully preserved plants and, rarely, insects, centipedes and millipedes, scorpions and other arachnids, and even small amphibians. Others, which formed under marine conditions, include jellyfish and other cnidarians, crustaceans, molluscs, worms, and rare fish. Shown here is a polychaete annelid, Fossundecima, preserved in a concretion that has been split open. - The area of the Mazon Creek fossils is riddled with coal seams. The coal seams are composed of alternating layers of coal and shale [like mudstone]. Each coal layer represents the ancient forest, fossilized and compressed into coal. The shale beds above and below the coal seams range in depth from twenty to sixty feet.... In some areas, there are sixteen coal seams [with a] shale bed immediately below each coal layer.... - [C]oal strip mining is common, in which the top layer of shale is cut away in order to expose the coal. The shale that is cut away is deposited in spoil heaps [where] most of the fossils belonging to Mazon Creek are found in nodules of ... iron carbonate.... - The nodules are made from sediment carried down by water, burying the organisms and hardening around them. The sediment was cemented with iron carbonate to form a hard nodule distinct from the shale around it. The nodules range in size from a fraction of an inch to more than twelve inches long. The average size of a nodule is five inches in diameter lengthwise and two inches in diameter [at the width?]. - ... [T]he fossils are mainly [but not all] impressions or incrustations of organisms [after the organism had decomposed, leaving a cavity that would] then be filled with coal, calcite, siderite, or any other form of sediment. By the nature of the formation of impressions, the fossils usually lie parallel to the plane of sedimentation. - ... Many of the specimens occur individually within the nodule, but there are occasions in which animal fossils are found in association with plant debris. It is also sometimes possible to determine the nature of the gut content in soft-bodied organisms through analysis of the fossil. - The presence of upright stems, and bivalves that are not parallel to the plane of sedimentation indicates that the fossils were formed by the quick burial of organisms during some great catastrophe. Other clues leading to this hypothesis are the presence of fossilized upright trees that can reach nine feet in height. There is also no evidence of perturbations [damage by scavenging etc] by animals in some of the fossils. ... Also, if the environment were aqueous, clams and other bivalves would cut through sediment while making their burrows, and while such clam trails are evident, it is sometimes completely absent from a certain layer of shale, suggesting that the layer of shale was laid down quickly and to a great depth. - Other evidence for the quick deposition of sediment on organisms as seen in a great catastrophe is provided by the presence of soft-bodied organisms in the fossil record. In order for such organisms to be preserved in the fossil record, they must be buried rapidly with the inhibition of anaerobic decomposers, and the development of concretions must also be rapid. These conditions can only be met if a catastrophe dumped massive amounts of sediment on the organisms while they were still alive. One side [e]ffect of the rapid burial of the organisms is that they are preserved very well because there was not enough time for the decomposers to decompose the organism. Sometimes the impression is still lined with the [skeletal] chitin present in arthropods. - ... Common groups found in the flora of Mazon Creek are extinct and extant species of pteridophytes[,] ... often ... the size of large trees.... Some examples ... are the lycopod scale trees, which were extremely abundant worldwide and were much larger than lycophytes are today. An undistorted lycopod megaspore with its parenchymatous gametophyte (the gametophyte contained tissue that was capable of dividing) was found by Darrah as mineralized tissue, organic tissue that was replaced with [probably transmuted from] minerals from the environment.
* There are two different groups of fossils from the Mazon Creek area: the Braidwood Biota: a coal swamp forest that is a mixture of ... terrestrial and freshwater environments; and the Essex Biota: a sub-aqueous, interchannel flood plain inhabited mainly by freshwater biota and sometimes by marine biota for brief periods. The Essex ecosystem has 3214 specimens; about 50% are fauna, 45% of which are Arthropods; the Braidwood has 1213 specimens; about 1% are fauna, 79.5% being Arthropods. These marine invertibrates, Coelenterates, echinoderms, and the Tullimonster, are exclusively found in the Essex Biota. * Fauna means animal species. The flora ... compares with that in the tropics today; there are no annual rings, suggesting uniform growing conditions without seasonal fluctuations.
Lloyd
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
HOW DID FOSSIL CONCRETIONS FORM? * [Webo: question below.] In my previous post above about Fossil Concretions, I note that many kinds of plants and animals have been found within concretions. It seems that even live animals[?] are sometimes found in them. So the question is: what is there about plants and animals that might tend to cause concretions to form around them? Oysters form pearls around grains of sand. A solid object rolling down a wet snow-covered slope collects snow as it rolls. Do organisms get rolled up into mudballs as an area floods? What about coal balls? They don't seem to get rolled up mechanically, because plant stems can remain vertical within them and can penetrate beyond the ball. The Mazon Creek oval-shaped concretions are said to lie flat, rather than randomly, as would be the case if mixing up a bunch of ovals and mud and pouring it on the ground. * The up to 16 alternating coal and shale layers at Mazon Creek seem likely to have formed in successive waves of a great flood, as explained at this website, http://www.sedimentology.fr, which was discussed quite a bit in my thread, Rock Strata Formation, and specifically in this post there: http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4~. It explains that a single deposit of sediment naturally sorts itself into several layers of larger and smaller material. So shale mud would likely settle to the bottom and the coal debris would settle on top of the shale. That would occur with each wave. So the bottom layer of shale and coal would be deposited and water would drain out and harden it within hours, then another wave would come in and deposit a similar layer on top of the first one. * Webo, how does methane fit into the flood scenario? What produced the methane? And what made it mix with flood debris? I haven't read all the messages on this thread. Vast amounts of methane are said to exist at the margin of the continental shelf on the ocean floor, I think. Is that the methane source you're suggesting? How would that methane stay in the sediments? Water was mostly squeezed out of the flood sediments and it seems that methane, oxygen etc would mostly escape as well. How does fossilization differ from petrification? In coal beds the coal plant matter etc is fossilized, but the coal balls are petrified. Have you found a detailed explanation for how each process occurs? The Mummified Dinosaurs seems to have fairly detailed explanations for some fossilization.
kiwi
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
* Kiwi, do you mean a live crab was found within a concretion? That's plausible, because my Dad said his older brother found a live frog or toad in a concretion, when working in a rock quarry in the 1930s. He kept it for a while and then gave it to a friend. Amphibians can hibernate and apparently they can achieve suspended animation indefinitely. Maybe crabs can do that too. Don't discount the possibility that electrical forces can sometimes make concretions with relatively cool centers.
Hi Lloyd , This specimen was very much dead, a fossil to all intents, I will try and track down my friend that has it and get a shot, it was used as a door-stop
I have read similar accounts as those related by your Dad , with one reason given that water originates through a chemical process , namely the transmutation of limestone , concluding that water held within rock (namely limestone) is not due to capillary pressure but the combining of Hydrogen and Oxygen as semi-molecules of water, the Toads/frogs are thought to have "germinated" in the rock ( with the "egg" migrating down through rainwater-flow or natural surface movement) as opposed to being encapsulated as an already grown specimen.(rareified gases are also said to nourish the growth)
While reading about caves ( in Europe) said to hold Limestone-"basins" and sarcophygi that seemingly replenish their supply of water with out an open-source visible, on the few occaisions some of these are said to run dry ....
... a powder resembling coal-cinders is found at the bottom of them
Lloyd
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
ELECTRICAL FORMATION OF CONCRETIONS? * Concretions may form electrically, similar to the way new cars are painted using opposite electric charges. Here's a short description from a VW website at http://www.vwvortex.com/artman/publish/vortex_news/printer_~.
The atomized paint is transferred in an electrostatic field to the [car] body, with low losses in the process, and adheres to the metal. ... Electrolytic dip-priming - a new Polo [car] is lowered into the electrolytic dip-priming bath which uses negative charges to adhere paint to all portions of the car to ensure absolute coverage of all exposed metal.
* So, instead of objects rolling around gathering mud, as I speculated above, maybe the objects moving in flood waters, where there were electric fields and currents, got covered with layers upon layers of "static-cling" mud, which electrically hardened into concretions.
* Kiwi, interesting about water and carbonates, but more details might help.
* By the way, here's a theory about a Dinosaur Heart Concretion - pro and con http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5505/783a#RF7. * Also, at the same site, it says "The only known instance of rapid growth [of concretions] is from the cathodic corrosion of iron ordnance from World War II, which generated concretions 40 cm [about 16 inches] in diameter in 50 years." I don't know if that was underwater or not, but it was apparently electrical. * And almost finally, this site, http://sp.lyellcollection.org/cgi/reprint/143/1/243.pdf, says as that fusain in coal is fossil charcoal and "its formation following wildfire has been firmly established (see Scott 1989a; Jones 1993; Jones et al. 1993 a, b; Scott & Jones 1991a,b, 1994; Winston 1993 and references therein)." And this one, http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=201008~, says the amount of charcoal in coal varies from 4% to 70%. They speculate that the higher levels of charcoal were caused by higher amounts of oxygen in the atmosphere, which made vegetation more likely to burn, but it was more likely due to the Saturn System breakup, though the oxygen content may have been higher or lower at that time. * This webpage, http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net/showthread.php?t=28297, is about using calcium bicarbonate in water with 40 amps of electricity to clean rust off of iron objects. It did the job in a couple hours or so. The rust built up on the electrodes, maybe something like how concretions form[?]. * This site, http://resonatingbodies.wordpress.com/art/bumble-domicile/o~, says:
Electroforming is a process that deposits a thin layer of metal on a matrix, in this case the beeswax hive. The hive is first coated with electroconductive paint and immersed in a plating bath of sulfuric acid and copper sulfate. An electric current is passed through and copper is deposited on the hive until it is of sufficient thickness.
Anodizing is an electrolytic passivation process used to increase the thickness of the natural oxide layer on the surface of metal parts. Anodizing increases corrosion resistance and wear resistance.... [like concretions]
starbiter
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
If carbonates are available from comet dust, especially magnesium carbonate [dolomite], why not consider comet dust as a source of coal balls? Especially in light of our ancestors reporting a comet causing a protracted period of darkness [dust].
michael steinbacher
mharratsc
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
This is the part that confuses me:
Because of the mode in which the fossils were formed, the fossils are mainly impressions or incrustations of organisms. An impression is formed when, for example, a plant part falls into water and the air spaces in the plant are gradually filled with water. The organism thus becomes waterlogged and sinks to the bottom where it is buried by sediment. The sediment then hardens around the organism, forming a nodule. The organism may then rot away, leaving an impression of itself in the sediment that hardened around it. This cavity may then be filled with coal, calcite, siderite, or any other form of sediment.
How did the cavity form with *something* after "sediment hardened around it forming a nodule"? Nothing could seep in... and if the nodule is "hardened around" the "impression" of the organism that supposedly rotted away, there should've been no extra material in the nodule that could flow into the cavity, right?
webolife
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
I have the same questions as Mike Harr about those iron carbonate nodules...
Lloyd, I will defer to Thomas Gold for thorough explanations origin and infusion of methane into sedimentary rock, but to answer your query as to the connection between methane and the flood, basically I see: 1. Crustal upheaval and separation [ie. continental drift] as primary agents in the flood 2. Rapid burial, pressure, compaction and cementation processes, justified by the abundance/prevalence in sedimentary strata of the types of silicate and carbonate [among other] materials needed for cementation to occur 3. Coal and oil being "seeded" by organic materials, then transformed with the assistance of the infusion of abiotic hydrocarbons [methane] 4. Methane as a primordial substance from within, deep within, or below the crust being released by the upheaval and separation that characterized the original flood mechanism 5. I think astronomical [planetoid/meteoric] factors were essential and primary agents in the initial upheaval of the crust, for which view I respectfully credit my inspiration to I. Velikovsky. 6. Electrical discharge considerations are intriguing to me, but don't [for me yet] carry the same evidenciary weight as the other factors... I will keep asking essential questions about this until I am satisfied, but not there yet
Anaconda
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
Sometimes, it's better to sit back and see what others think about an issue, to see what evidenciary standards they apply to the claims they assert (coal is derived from ancient plant material).
In this case, I had to chuckle because Lloyd was willing to make sweeping conclusions based on such a limited amount of evidence.
Now, let's take the evidence in the order it was provided. First, I acknowledge the Wikipedia entry for Albertite hydrocarbons was valuble and provided useful information for this discussion:
Lloyd didn't add any commentary, analysis, or interpretation to the Wikipedia entry for Albertite, presumably because Lloyd felt the Wikipedia entry was self-explanatory. But is it?
Per Wikipedia entry for Albertite:
Albertite is a type of asphalt found in Albert County, New Brunswick. It is a type of solid hydrocarbon.
That's fine, as far as it goes, but it needs to be noted that "asphalt" and "bitumen" can be used interchangably:
Per Wikipedia entry for Bitumen:
Note: The terms bitumen and asphalt are mostly interchangeable, except where asphalt is used as an abbreviation for asphalt concrete.
Why is this important to the discussion and any conclusions about the origins of coal?
Because the vast majority of coal deposits in North America and, in deed, the world are Bituminous coal deposits.
Meaning, a percentage of the coal is hydrocarbon based, i.e., a type of hydrocarbon for which no evidence exists that it can form near surface under low pressures & temperatures. Bitumen is an aromatic (a molecular ring structure) type of hydrocarbon.
Now, the Wikipedia entry for Albertite claims this asphalt or bitumen is from oil shale, with the implication that oil shale is derived from organic detritus, but as has been discussed previously in this post, oil shale is not a product of organic detritus, but, rather, is an abiotic heavy hydrocarbon residue of the natural inorganic formation of hydrocarbons in the crust and shallow mantle of the Earth.
Bitumen is consistent with Type II Kerogen which has quartz alkalic sour, high-sulfur aromatic asphaltic (not all aromatic, asphaltic bitumen has high-sulfur) hydrocarbon.
Per Keith & Swan, Peridotites, Serpentinization, and Hydrocarbons
Type I kerogen in black shale vents from Mg peridotite-sourced brines whereas Type II kerogen in black shale vents from quartz alkalic peridotite-sourced brines. Correspondingly hydrocarbon chemistry divides oil and gas into 2 major types: 1) magnesian sweet, low-sulfur paraffinic-naphtheric, 2) quartz alkalic sour, high-sulfur aromatic asphaltic. Geochemical markers that tie oil and gas to specific peridotite hydrothermal sources include nano-particle native metals and diamonds, and V-Ni porphyrins.
Kerogens mostly consist of heavy hydrocarbons (Carbon: 215 Hydrogen: 330), for which, again, geologists have failed to demonstrate a chemical pathway for these molecules to form in a low pressure & temperaure geological environment.
(Transmutation is about the conversion of one element to another, not about the restructuring of molecular compounds.)
So, while I agree the Wikipedia entry for Albertite was valuble to the discussion, it does not, in and of itself, demonstrate that coal is formed from organic detritus (plant material). Actually, when one considers the physical description of Albertite:
Vein-like deposits of coal [bitumen] have been described, such as the Canadian type known as Albertite, suggesting the possibility that the coal [asphalt] was at one time liquid... It is almost a certainty that the coal [bitumen] was injected as a liquid into the fissures. In the case of Albertite, a vein coal from New Brunswick, Canada, liquid petroleum is found in cavities, as well as in cavities of related shales.
It suggests the connection between Albertite, an asphaltic or bitumen hydrocarbon, and bituminous coal is stronger than the connection between bituminous coal and ancient planet material.
Now, via the Wikipedia entry for Albertite, we know the above is not entirely correct, but we also know that bituminous coal, the vast majority of the coal deposits of North America, is saturated by heavy hydrocarbons (C:215 H:330), just like Albertite, whose formation is inconsistent with near surface physical processes from organic debris, but is consistent with mineralogical processes in the crust and shallow mantle.
How does the majority of coal deposits in North America (bituminous coal) consist of products that are consistent with abiotic formation and inconsistent with formation from plant material?
That's a question Lloyd never got around to answering in his rush to conclude coal is formed from plant material.
Let's move on to the next two authorities cited & linked by Lloyd: Geology.com and "An Introduction To Paleobotany".
What one finds out about these sources upon reading both, is that really there is only one authority, "An Introduction To Paleobotany". And, how do we know that? Well, upon reading into "An Introduction To Paleobotany" it becomes obvious that Geology.com is quoting "An Introduction...", word for word.
So what? Some may ask.
Well, Lloyd is using this source as demonstration that coal is plant material, but, of course, we already know mainstream geology considers coal as ancient plant material, and, also, considers all hydrocarbons as ancient organic detritus, so, it's no surprise when this kind of reference material lays out a "one sided argument" for an organic debris hypothesis for the origin of coal.
The surprise is that Lloyd would so casually swallow, such a "one sided argument", hook, line, and sinker.
But let's get to the arguments, shall we?
Geology.com bases its conclusion on this argument:
If you think that coal is a boring black rock then you have never seen it through a transmitted light microscope. The microscope reveals coal's hidden beauty as well as its composition. Coal seams form from thick accumulations of plant debris, usually deposited in a swamp. The tiny particles of plant debris and swamp sediment give a spectacular show when viewed through the microscope. Well preserved woody material is bright red, spores are brilliant yellow, algal material is yellow-orange, charcoal and opaque minerals are black, and grains of many transparent minerals are white. It's hard to believe that coal can be so colorful!
Sounds rock solid, right?
Problem is that all those claims of fact, are actually mere assertions of theory. In other words, the Geology.com article and, by extension, "An Introduction To Paleobotany", are making assumptions about what these shapes, colors & compositions actually represent.
But what's more important, is what this source does not talk about and leaves out of the discussion.
Nowhere is there a discussion of what elements coal is made out of.
Did you know that coal has heavy metals in it, you wouldn't, if you relied on these two sources like Lloyd did to reach his conclusion.
Lloyd confidently asserted:
What percentage of average coal consists of plant or organic material? In reviewing literature, it appears to me that the percentage is very high. So it seems highly unlikely to be produced abiotically.
Here are the heavy metals found in coal (of course, it varies from deposit to deposit):
Per "Heavy Metals and Coal":
Coal contains many environmentally and biologically toxic elements. Among them are lead, mercury, nickel, tin, cadmium, antimony and arsenic. Radio isotopes of thorium and strontium are typical as well.
And, this is only a partial list of the heavy and rare-earth metals that are found in coal.
What is striking about this list of heavy metals in coal, is that none of them is consistent with ancient plant material, but what are they consistent with?
Answer: The heavy metals that are native to oil. That is, the rare-earth metals that are rare in the shallow crust and non-existent in surface detritus (presumably where coal forms per standard hypothesis).
How do those heavy metals get into coal, if coal never is in an environment where there are any heavy metals.
Let's check out this list of heavy metals found in oil (hydrocarbon) deposits, "Inorganic Geochemistry of Oil: First Results of the Study Using the ICP-MS Method of the East-European and West-Siberian Oil Deposits": http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/abstr ... ivanov.htm
The elemental distribution in the crude oil from all studied deposits does not match such of any known crustal rock.
Neither do the heavy metals in coal match any known crustal surface rock.
Also, much coal (although, cetainly not all) has a high sulfur content, which if one has studied this thread, one knows sulfur is associated with oil deposits and specifically, aromatic, asphaltic heavy oil. In other words, bituminous heavy oil deposits, just like bituminous coal deposits.
Now, lets get back to the main assumption in the Geology.com article and its parent, "An Introduction To Paleobotany", where they make assumptions about what the shapes, colors & compositions actually represent.
How do I know they are making assumptions?
Here is an article, "Chemical Structure of Bituminous Coal" (warning PDF file):
What becomes crystal clear upon reading the article, "a ways", (I say, "a ways", because it is a lengthy and exhausitve article) is that the claims made about what certain shapes, colors, and compositions actually represent when discussed by experts within the field, itself, to each other, is not nearly so clear cut. In fact, mystery abounds when considering the minute and molecular structure of coal.
Lloyd, you jump to conclusions because it facilitates the bias & prejudice for your pet theories.
But that is not good science. Lloyd, you really need to look in the mirror and consider whether your "pet theory" mentality doesn't get in the way of your ability to draw objective conclusions from scientific evidence.
Now, Lloyd, go back and consider all the physical evidence, including the evidence I've presented, here, in this comment, not just evidence that helps your pet theories.
Anaconda
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
It seems that the presence of heavy metals in coal must be given more consideration when attempting to determine the origin of coal.
To that end, here, is another list of heavy metals found in coal and coal sludge:
Heavy Metals Naturally Present in Coal & Coal Sludge
The heavy metal content of coal varies by coal seam and geographic region. A variety of chemicals (mostly metals) are associated with coal that are either found in the coal directly or in the layers of rock that lie above and between the seams of coal. Some of the most commonly found chemicals in coal and coal waste are listed below.
Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Strontium Tin Vanadium Zinc
Notice that many of the listed metals are rare-Earth or heavy metals that are not known to concentrate on or near the surface, such as would be necessary if coal is only a product of surface breakdown of ancient plant material, but, instead these metals are generally found in the deeper rock strata of the geologic column.
The above list of metals in coal and closely associated sedimentary rock structures strongly suggests the possibility that coal initially takes a liquid form and acts as a solvent of heavy metals, "washing" the heavy metals from deep rock strata as it rises to the surface in copious quantities and pools in low spots in the topography of the geographic region erupted from.
Lloyd
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
* Cut out the condescending attitude, please. You sound like you consider me to be a naughty or incompetent child. I did not have a pet theory when I read your suggestion that coal is formed abiotically. I simply did a net search on Albertite and was surprised to find that it seemed to be correctly regarded as a product of oil shale, not coal formation. I asked several times if anyone disagreed with that claim, which was not my claim, but was the claim of the referenced websites, and I heard nothing from you or anyone to the contrary, until this late hour. So far, it still seems more likely that Albertite is indeed from oil shale. * I have no problem considering your or other people's theories, but it's not fun to be objective with anyone who portrays me as a sucker. * But I plan to consider what you've said anyway and do more searching on the heavy hydrocarbons issue, only because I want to learn truth, regardless of whether it seems likely or unlikely. I doubt if you're as objective as you condemn others for. * By the way, one thing that occurs to me already is that, if heavy metals were produced by electrical transmutation, and if electrical currents occurred at both the surface and far under the surface, that could conceivably account for those metals in both kinds of hydrocarbons. Also, sulphur is especially likely to be a product of electrical transmutation of oxygen, the commonest element in the Earth, I think. See TPODs about Io and Europa, for example.
Lloyd
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
Webo said: Electrical discharge considerations are intriguing to me, but don't [for me yet] carry the same evidenciary weight as the other factors...
* If you don't think concretions, including coal balls, formed electrically, how do you think they formed? You're not impressed by the electrolytic painting evidence I posted etc and the likelihood that Earth was more charged in ancient times than it is now, and like Venus still is?
kiwi
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
If you think that coal is a boring black rock then you have never seen it through a transmitted light microscope. The microscope reveals coal's hidden beauty as well as its composition. Coal seams form from thick accumulations of plant debris, usually deposited in a swamp. The tiny particles of plant debris and swamp sediment give a spectacular show when viewed through the microscope. Well preserved woody material is bright red, spores are brilliant yellow, algal material is yellow-orange, charcoal and opaque minerals are black, and grains of many transparent minerals are white. It's hard to believe that coal can be so colorful!
you would have to ask your self bwhy this material is till in its natural form and has not itself been transformed into coal? the plant material Im referring to
* Kiwi, interesting about water and carbonates, but more details might help.
still looking about Lloyd ... I have trouble reading wall-o-type technical descriptions and spotting any relevant parts, this is a great thread and am just as happy to sit back and listen
interesting information on the heavy elements by Anaconda ... its a real team effort around here
Anaconda
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
Let's be clear, if coal is abiotic (obviously, it's a controversial conclusion, inspite of the bituminous coal evidence and the heavy metal evidence), a large amount of energy would be needed to extrude the massive amounts of coal found spread-out over vast expanses near the surface all over the world.
And there is a substantial body of evidence to support a mechanism to introduce large amounts of energy into the Earth's crust & mantle:
I subscribe to Dr. Anthony L. Peratt's theory that a High-Current, Z-Pinch Aurora enveloped the Earth and most likely has enveloped the Earth many times in the Earth's past.
Here are the peer-reviewed scientific papers which support my position:
Dr. Peratt laid out the scientific evidence for such a High-Current, Z-Pinch in two scientific papers published in the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE:
Characteristics for the Occurrence of a High-Current, Z-Pinch Aurora as Recorded in Antiquity (I & 2) by Dr. Anthony L. Peratt:
Dr. Peratt's reputation & understanding of plasma phenomenon both in the laboratory and in the field is unmatched.
The process Dr. Peratt describes based on his laboratory work with plasma phenomenon & field work cataloging petroglyphs is exhaustive.
Per Anthony L. Peratt:
The discovery that objects from the Neolithic or Early Bronze Age carry patterns associated with high-current Z-pinches provides a possible insight into the origin and meaning of these ancient symbols produced by man. This paper directly compares the graphical and radiation data from high-current Z-pinches to these patterns. The paper focusses primarily, but not exclusively, on petroglyphs. It is found that a great many archaic petroglyphs can be classified accoridng to plasma stability and instability data. As the same morphological types are found worldwide, the comparisons suggest the occurance of an intense aurora, as might be produced if the solar wind had increased between one and two orders of magnitude, a millennia ago.
And, it turns out that Science has observed & measured stars that have powerful electromagnetic current sheets radiating out from their equators:
This would seem to offer observational confirmation that aurora current sheets can exist which are orders of magnitude stronger than the present heliopheric current sheet.
And these plasma, electric current sheets would introduce huge amounts of electromagnetic energy into the Earth's crust and mantle, plus, this energy level given off by the Sun likely was repeated numerous times in Earth's past.
Regardless of the exact age of the Earth (I agree no one knows), it does appear that abiotic coal formation epochs were repeated across the great expanse of Earth's history. These abiotic coal epochs were catastrophic in effect and extent. And, beyond the extruding of coal up to the surface, likely, there were many secondary electrmagnetic effects and phenomena. It seems quite possible that coal balls are one of those effects.
Another, physical effect would be an increased volcanism at perhaps catastraphic activity levels.
At times in Earth's history, the surface was a very inhospitable place to be.
Lloyd
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
SOME MAIN POINTS? * Firstly, sorry if I overreacted, but I don't know if I did. * I tried to review the history of this thread, but I didn't get very far, because I kept researching things that I read about. * First, StefanR referenced: http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=2~
The observations indicate that carbonaceous material may exert a primary control on crustal electrical conductivity because it may be present as interconnected arrays in grain boundaries or microfractures or in megascopic, throughgoing fractures.
ethane and heavier hydrocarbons can be synthesized under the pressure-temperature conditions of the upper mantle[or electric discharge?]
* Then Anaconda said:
now with oil found off the coast of Brazil, the Gulf of Mexico, and the West African coast that is below the salt barrier, sometimes as deep as 25,000 feet below the sea floor and in water over 5,000 feet deep, at pressures and temperatures that violate all [tenets] of the so-called "oil window" corollary of how oil would form in the "fossil" theory, it's becoming increasingly apparent that oil is abiotic. A majority of the giant and super giant oil fields are located above deep faults in the Earth, commonly called "tectonic faults" (see link below): http://www.hgs.org/en/articles/printview.asp?236
And here is an additional abstract that gives more detail of abitoic oil formation and even explains the reason for the difference for high sulphur "sour" oil and low sulphur "sweet" oil (see link below): http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2006/06088houst~
A passage from the abstract: "We suggest a third possibility--the generation of methane and heavier hydrocarbons through reactions that occur during cooling, fractionation, and deposition of dolomitic carbonates, metal-rich black shales, and other minerals from hydrothermal metagenic fluids. These fluids are proposed to be the product of serpentinization of carbon-rich peridotites under hydrogen-rich, reduced conditions."
DOLOMITE * So I looked up heavy hydrocarbons, dolomite, serpentization, peridotites, etc. It was noted early on in this thread that dolomite is often present near oil fields.
Wikipedia: [Limestone is CaCO3] ... In the 1950s and 60s, dolomite [CaMg(CO3)2] was found to be forming in highly saline lakes in the Coorong region of South Australia. Dolomite crystals also occur in deep-sea sediments, where organic matter content is high [Organic matter surely includes bacteria, which can likely transmute calcium to magnesium, or lime to dolomite]. ... One interesting reported case was the formation of dolomite in the kidneys of a Dalmatian dog. This was believed to be due to chemical processes [or transmutation] triggered by bacteria. ... This dolomite is termed "organogenic" dolomite. Recent research has found modern dolomite formation under anaerobic conditions in supersaturated saline lagoons. ... Much modern dolomite differs significantly from the bulk of the dolomite found in the rock record, leading researchers to speculate that environments [such as the electrical environment; see below] where dolomite formed in the geologic past differ significantly from those where it forms today. ... For a very long time scientists had difficulties synthesizing dolomite. However, in a 1999 study, through a process of dissolution alternating with intervals of precipitation, measurable levels of dolomite were synthesized at low temperatures and pressures.[6] [So it could have formed on Earth's surface as well as in the depths.]
* It's possible that electric currents could convert limestone [CaCO3] to dolomite, by transmuting calcium to magnesium. The electric forces of Earth today are likely weaker than in the past, when older dolomite was formed. So that could explain the differences between modern and ancient dolomite. * For transmutation, start with 2 lime molecules in limestone CaCO3 + CaCO3; Transmute one calcium to magnesium + oxygen: Ca:20 > Mg:12 + O:8; This gives CaCO3 + MgCO3 + O; The calcium and magnesium carbonates combine to form dolomite: CaCO3 + MgCO3 > CaMg(CO3)2. SERPENTINIZATION
GeoMan: http://jersey.uoregon.edu/~mstrick/AskGeoMan/geoQuerry45.ht~ Serpentinization is a processes whereby rock (usually ultramafic) is changed, by the addition of water into the crystal structure of the minerals found within the rock. The most common example is the serpentinization of peridotite (or dunite) into serpentinite [Mg3Si2O5(OH)4] (the metamorphic equivalent).
PERIDOTITE
Wikipedia: ... A peridotite is a dense, coarse-grained igneous rock, consisting mostly of the minerals olivine [Mg2SiO4 or Fe2SiO4] and pyroxene [esp. Ca2Si2O6, Mg2Si2O6, or Fe2Si2O6, or with Al replacing Si, etc]. ... The compositions of peridotite nodules [concretions?] found in certain basalts and diamond pipes (kimberlites) are of special interest, because they [supposedly] provide samples of the Earth's Mantle roots of continents brought up from depths from about 30 km or so to depths at least as great as about 200 km.
*This is contradicted by EU theory, which shows that kimberlite pipes and diamonds are formed by megalightning, or the like. See this TPOD: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/arch10/100125kimberl~. Anaconda referenced this recently, but didn't seem to note the connection that suggests that electric discharge forms peridotite nodules. Initially, it was stated that heavy hydrocarbons form from carbon-rich peridotites. Diamonds are carbon-rich too, so it's natural that carbon-rich peridotite nodules would be found with diamonds. It was stated in this thread, maybe recently by Anaconda, that nanodiamonds are found in all or nearly all petroleum deposits. This suggests that electric forces were involved in forming petroleum, as well as the diamonds, the sulfur, the heavy metals etc found in it. I think Anaconda stated something like this as well, recently. The high pressures that apparently help form petroleum could come from the same electrical source, the Z-pinch as that which forms diamonds. BITUMEN * Lately Anaconda said the bitumen in coal and that in petroleum are formed in the same place. I think he stated early on that deep petroleum under pressure surfaced and flooded surface vegetation and forests to form coal. That's plausible, but there seems to be from 4% to 70% charcoal in coal and that seems to be from burnt vegetation. * I found more nodules, i.e. possible concretions at http://econgeol.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/96~, which says this.
... [S]andstones from the Perth basin of Western Australia contain solitary bitumen nodules that are analogous to uraniferous bitumen nodules (or fly-speck carbon) in Late Archean Witwatersrand gold-uranium-pyrite ore deposits. Nodules in both contain cores of radioactive minerals [like geodes, some of which contain petroleum under pressure] and occupy depositional sites where heavy minerals were concentrated. Solitary bitumen nodules in the Dongara Sandstone formed during burial by radiation-induced polymerization of liquid hydrocarbons migrating through primary porosity around detrital monazite grains. Similar bitumen nodules in Witwatersrand ore deposits are likewise interpreted to have formed during burial, although the radiation-emitting detrital grains were uraninite. Carbon seams in Witwatersrand ore deposits are stratiform bodies of coalesced bitumen nodules. By analogy with solitary nodules, individual nodules in carbon seams formed during burial as liquid hydrocarbons migrated through primary porosity past detrital uraninite grains, but they differ from solitary nodules in that many have been stretched [similar to stretched coal balls] perpendicular to bedding to form an ellipsoidal or columnar structure.
* I searched to see if bitumen could be produced electrically. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_ud~ Formation of C60 and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons upon electric discharges in liquid toluene ... The formation of C60 besides a great number of polycyclic aromatic compounds occurs when electric discharges(20 kV, AC) are made in liquid toluene. http://internet.ktu.lt/doktorantura/marcinauskas/marcinausk~ FORMATION OF AMORPHOUS CARBON COATINGS FROM ACETYLENE AND SATURATED HYDROCARBONS USING ELECTRIC ARC http://przyrbwn.icm.edu.pl/APP/PDF/116/a116zs38.pdf Carbon Deposit Formation in Normal-Pressure Electrical Discharges in Hydrocarbons In the discharge, different carbon deposits were obtained: carbon nanofilament or carbon fiber, depending on the discharge current. * I think bitumen is said to be about 90% carbon and 10% hydrogen, so I thought soot etc is close to that. * One article suggested that methane etc in gas giant planet atmospheres could produce hydrocarbons with aid of shock waves. Lightning produces shock waves. That would be true underground too. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/lightning_backgrounde~
Thunder: The air around a lightning bolt is superheated to about 54,000 degrees Fahrenheit (five times hotter than the sun!). This sudden heating causes the air to expand faster than the speed of sound, which compresses the air and forms a shock wave; we hear it as thunder. Since the bolt is actually several short bursts strung together, multiple shock waves are created at different altitudes; this is why thunder seems to rumble — each shock wave takes a different amount of time to reach your ear.
* I noted before elsewhere on the forum that shattercones in impact craters are said to be produced by shockwaves from impacts, but lightning produces such shock waves. And some shattercones are found to be magnetized and that's a signature of electric current.
kiwi
Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?
... One interesting reported case was the formation of dolomite in the kidneys of a Dalmatian dog. This was believed to be due to chemical processes [or transmutation] triggered by bacteria.
