Re: Endless Oil?

From: charliew2 (charliew2_at_ev1.net)
Date: 09/29/04 

Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:00:07 -0500

Charles Edmondson wrote:
> Fred B. McGalliard wrote:
>
>> "charliew2" <charliew2@ev1.net> wrote in message
>> news:10lj7u4gfmqcm5c@corp.supernews.com...
>> ...
>>
>>> gravity effect involved. Freon 12 is approximately 4 times the
>>> density of air, and without constant mixing, it should be expected
>>> to sink to ground level.
>>
>>
>> You are overlooking the thermal molecular motions that disperse the
>> gas. If there were nothing but Freon 12, no air, it would still form
>> an atmosphere getting thinner with altitude, perhaps just a bit
>> faster than air does. I think the air adds a higher level of
>> molecular motion and disperses the gas to a higher concentration at
>> altitude than would be the case of the pure Freon. It wouldn't
>> settle to the ground for the same reason that nitrogen does not
>> settle to the ground. In general the gas has an independent partial
>> pressure based on it's concentration, and this will drop with
>> altitude because the gas is denser than air, but it still diffuses
>> up because of thermal excitation.
>>
>>
> Ok, back a few years ago, I got to hear a presentation on this stuff,
> so I will pass on the logic of this.
>
> Freon is a very stable gas.

Agreed.

> As such, it doesn't break down readily in
> STP air, but just disperses. Eventually, some of these molecules make
> it to high altitude by normal dispersion.

So the theory goes.

>
> At high altitudes, it enters the ozone layer where it is exposed to
> higher levels of UV than are available at lower altitudes. This UV
> then manages to break down the Freon, causing the release of chlorine
> to high altitudes. Normally, there would be very little chlorine at
> these altitudes, as it would normally would have reacted with water
> and other substances much lower in the atmosphere.

True. However, it would be interesting to take a look at all the different
space missions from various countries, and look at the exhaust gases from
the propellants that are being used. These vehicles necessarily travel
through the stratosphere, meaning that their exhaust gases are injected into
that layer of the atmosphere. I have no doubt that any purported negative
effects will be strongly downplayed by various government entities.

>
> These chlorine atoms, molecules, however they are supposed to exist,
> are the catalysts that cause the destruction of the ozone. The react
> with an ozone molecule, break it up, and then is free to react with
> more molecules.

There is no water vapor in the stratosphere for the chlorine to react with?
If not, what prevents this while still allowing chlorine to get into the
stratosphere?

>
> This was all tested supposedly in the lab, and was observered to
> occur. I haven't seen the actual papers, or have any data on the
> methods used for testing.
>
> Myself, I still would like to have actual observational evidence that
> this process was making significant changes to the ozone level before
> banning Freon,

That makes two of us. In my opinion, your job is only half done when you
demonstrate "cause". If you can't also demonstrate that some cause also has
a demonstrable bad effect, there should be no problem. To do otherwise is
either sloppy or lazy science, or a politicized bunch of BS designed to
siphon money from the public.

> but they had those great visuals of the ozone hole in
> Anartica to use, and politicians that needed campaign issues and money
> to use...
> --
> Charlie

I also noticed the pattern you are noting.

Quantcast