March 05, 2024, 02:51:08 AM
Forum Rules: Read This Before Posting


Topic: Ionization sharing  (Read 13307 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline resonance

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 26
  • Mole Snacks: +1/-0
Ionization sharing
« on: April 23, 2007, 05:00:46 PM »
I developed a new theory that I would like to share with the community. It came about while trying to show some chemistry anomalies on a physics forum; i.e., things that superficially defy the laws of physics (need chemical explanation). As a way of example, if we start with the metal Mn, it would take a lot of energy to break the grip of Mn's first seven electrons (x-rays). But in the chemical compound Mn(+7) O4-, we can do essentially the same thing at room temperature using only UV. Chemistry allows high energy physics anomalies to occur at low energy.

Ionization sharing is loosely defined as the ionization of electrons, with the difference the central atom still shares them, but they are no longer under their monopoly control. In the case of MnO4-, the shared electrons, are at times, at enough distance to where they would be ionized if Mn was the only atom. Bonding orbitals keep them from escaping allowing the Mn to share but not own these electrons.

The reason I developed this theory was to explain the seismic revealed layers of the inner earth, in terms of the ionization sharing of O. This atom was used because it is the most abundant material on the earth.There is not enough temperature in the earth to ionize oxygen directly, i.e., a la physics. But if O was chemically ionization sharing, only losing monopoly control of its electrons, but still sharing them with other atoms (oxygen still looks the same) one would have a low temperature ionizing affect that can correlate all the layers of the inner earth. Each loss of monopoly control of an electron of oxygen, into the ionization sharing will result in new properties displayed by the materials in that layer and/or the transitions layers. The iron core is reached when O has monopoly control of only the 1s electrons, with all the 2S and 2P electrons shared but no longer under its monopoly control.

If you look at CH4 at room temperature the sp3 hybrid orbitals of C are sharing eight electrons with the H. Even at room temperature C has all its 2s and 2P electrons ionization sharing. The C only has monopoly control over its 1S electrons. It is no giant leap to get oxygen to do the same thing under the extreme inner earth conditions. The way I visualized this occurring is atomic orbitals being pushed together by pressure at high temperature. The result is an extreme pressure/temperature version chemical bonding of O that uses ionization shared electrons. Each addition of an electron to the ionization sharings changes the physical properties of that layer of the earth. 

Offline lemonoman

  • Atmospheric
  • Chemist
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 607
  • Mole Snacks: +71/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ionization sharing
« Reply #1 on: April 23, 2007, 11:55:41 PM »
So, you're suggesting that the atomic (or molecular) orbitals of SiO2 at low density are different than the atomic (or molecular) orbitals of SiO2 at high density?

I'm very interested to hear what else you have to say about this topic.  I googled, "Ionization Sharing" and it is indeed an idea of your own, not well established in Science.  I have some serious doubts though, which are further unsettled when I see your status at ScienceForums is "Suspended".

I don't consider myself a geochemist...but a physical chemist with an environmental twist.  I will watch this discussion intently as it unfolds :) (if it does)



Edit: Made an assumption that may not have been true
« Last Edit: April 24, 2007, 10:19:58 AM by lemonoman »

Offline Maz

  • Physics Bandit
  • Retired Staff
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • Mole Snacks: +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ionization sharing
« Reply #2 on: April 24, 2007, 12:13:47 AM »
I developed a new theory that I would like to share with the community. It came about while trying to show some chemistry anomalies on a physics forum; i.e., things that superficially defy the laws of physics (need chemical explanation). As a way of example, if we start with the metal Mn, it would take a lot of energy to break the grip of Mn's first seven electrons (x-rays). But in the chemical compound Mn(+7) O4-, we can do essentially the same thing at room temperature using only UV. Chemistry allows high energy physics anomalies to occur at low energy.

Could you post some other examples of these anomalies?  It seems like it would be fun to analyze them. 
I am not really sure what you are saying in the Mn example. 

I hope you aren't limiting the "laws of physics" to a Bohr model look at the atom and bonding.  Did you account for a quantum mechanical discussion of atoms before your conclusion that "chemistry allows high energy physics anomalies to occur at low energy"?

Oh and lemonoman, it seems unlikely to me that "Conceptual" on the science forums is the same as this "resonance".  The last time that post was edited was October...2005.  Or perhaps it has been that long until now, when the theory has been completed?

Offline xiankai

  • Chemist
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 785
  • Mole Snacks: +77/-37
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ionization sharing
« Reply #3 on: April 24, 2007, 05:20:09 AM »
how is it different from covalent bonding? from what i can tell, ionization sharing seems to be about electron sharing.
one learns best by teaching

Offline Mitch

  • General Chemist
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5298
  • Mole Snacks: +376/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • "I bring you peace." -Mr. Burns
    • Chemistry Blog
Re: Ionization sharing
« Reply #4 on: April 24, 2007, 04:06:18 PM »
Do you have a reference for the UV photodissociation of MNO4-
Most Common Suggestions I Make on the Forums.
1. Start by writing a balanced chemical equation.
2. Don't confuse thermodynamic stability with chemical reactivity.
3. Forum Supports LaTex

Offline Sam (NG)

  • Chemist
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 223
  • Mole Snacks: +12/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Surface Modification
Re: Ionization sharing
« Reply #5 on: April 24, 2007, 04:41:00 PM »
Not sure about the Manganese/permanganate bit at the beginning, but this sounds like the nearly free electron model/band structure of solids.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_band_structure

Offline resonance

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 26
  • Mole Snacks: +1/-0
Re: Ionization sharing
« Reply #6 on: April 24, 2007, 08:45:39 PM »
I used the example of MnO4- to help visualize what I meant by ionization sharing. If you look at a group of similar atoms, such as Mn, to get the first seven electrons ionized in all the atoms in the group, so none of these electrons are under the monopoly control of any particular Mn atom, it will take a lot of ionizing energy. If the group is close, the electrons will be sharing among the group, i.e., ionization sharing. In the case of MnO4-, the seven electrons of Mn are essentially doing the same thing, i.e., Mn has lost monopoly control over seven electron, but at room temperature. This is in sharp contrast to only Mn atoms which would require tens of thousands of degrees and a lot of containment pressure. This doesn't violate physics since the EM forces in the orbitals of O are doing a similar thing as the high temperature did for the Mn ionization sharing.

Ionization sharing is similar to the electron sharing in molecules. The latter is a special low temperature case of ionization sharing. When you start dealing with dense fluids at extreme temperature and pressure, such as in the mantle, ionization sharing is forced electron continuity between atoms. Just like in chemical bonding, where the atoms are able to stay close, the mantle forces atoms to remain close inducing ionization sharing. Ionization was theory I came up with a few years ago. It was intended as a brain storming session. The only storm that occurred wanted to put out the fire, to avoid t looking outside the box. The hope was to inspire a creative session.

I visualized an ionization sharing phenomena using the oxygen in the mantle. It you start with O atoms (covalent bonds are gone) and keep removing monoply electrons, and add these to the ionization sharing, it correlates the inner earth layers and transition zones. For example, O atoms have (4) 2p electrons. The first will be relatively easy to add to ionization sharing, because it will leave the 2p half full. This is the equilibrium ionization sharing indicative of the material layer below the crust. Breaking this half fillled 2p stability for further the ionization sharing is a little diffiucult and creates the next transition region, where the material properties change (seismic data). You march from there until the outer core is reached when O only has only (2) 1s electrons under monoply control. The various orbital transitions that should be hard and easy appear to occur at the proper transition layers.



« Last Edit: April 24, 2007, 08:52:38 PM by resonance »

Offline lemonoman

  • Atmospheric
  • Chemist
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 607
  • Mole Snacks: +71/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ionization sharing
« Reply #7 on: April 24, 2007, 11:36:59 PM »
First, just to be clear, I'm assuming you mean 'the silicates and oxides in the mantle' when you say 'the oxygen in the mantle'

So....you're suggesting different electronic structures for each of the chemicals that make up the middle of our earth, due to high temperature and pressure forcing the orbitals to overlap in ways that we haven't yet thought of?

Seems reasonable.

I'm only asking for clarification on these things, because I am slightly confused by what you're saying, and a couple others seem to be as well.  No worries though, it's definitely not hurting your readership ;)

Offline resonance

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 26
  • Mole Snacks: +1/-0
Re: Ionization sharing
« Reply #8 on: April 25, 2007, 07:14:29 PM »
If you look at the inner earth, below the crust to the solid core, it is viscoplastic as inferred by seismic data. What this implies is secondary bonding forces are occurring between the atoms. When NASA did a seismic survey of the earth what they also found was that this viscoplastic material had distinct boundaries and transition zones. Logically this would imply distinct changes in the secondary bonding forces as one moved from zone to zone. The question became; what is the basis for these secondary bonding forces changes, to create very distinct zones?

The more traditional explanation is connected to material density gradients with lighter atoms, like Si floating upward toward the crust and heavier atoms like Fe, sinking to become part of the iron core. Being a chemist instead of a physicist, this explanation didn't seem necessarily true. It did not take into consideration possible solvent affects. For example, I could drop a salt tablet into a glass of water and it will sink; heavier materials will sink due to gravity. But if I come back an hour later, the heavier materials are now suspended in the water, defying gravity. The same thing occurs with metal solutions when we form alloys like steel. It also applies to molten flux solutions when we make crystals, like rubies. In other words, solvent affects are able to overcome gravity and suspend heavy atoms in the solvent medium. 

The reason for this digression was that with the mantle showing visco-plastic affects and therefore the affects of secondary bonding, the inner earth may have possible solvent interactions in a dense viscous medium. These were two countering affects that made separation by density less than favorable. It made more sense that the medium itself was undergoing secondary force transition as temperature and pressure was increasing. What I figured, with oxygen the most abundant element on earth and with oxygen the center of surface chemistry, it seemed reasonable that O would continue to be the center of the chemistry that is going on inside the earth; its sets the solvent tempo of the inner earth. Viscoplastic implies we were dealing with secondary forces and not something strong like covalent, with pressure and temperature forcing this weak bonding affect.

Another line of thinking that helped create the necessity for this theory was connected to the theory that water was continuous from the surface to the mantle. This seems counter intuitive if one think in terms of crustal and water densities. But if you look at the hydrothermal affect of critical water, it was quite reasonable. Many years back ,I researched the growing of gem quality crystals using hydrothermal and other techniques. One basic procedure for growing crystals is to suspend crystal seeds on the top and your crude materials at the bottom. You then set up a thermal gradient with the bottom hotter than the top. What happens is the direction of the thermal gradient will cause the water to eat its way downward, i.e., solubility increases with temperature. The dissolved minerals float upward with the convection and will crystallize on the seed. This allows the critical water to be refreshed for further dissolving. The result is the lighter water dissolving downward and heavy minerals ending on the top. This counter intuition is due to a solvent affect as a function of temperature and thermal gradients. It seemed reasonable that the mineral rich oceans, exerting hydraulic pressure down deep cracks in the crust, would eventually become critical water loaded with small dissolved ions. Minerals, especially silicates, don't stand a chance under such solvent conditions, especially with the direction of the earth's thermal gradient (hotter down). Once the water entered the mantle, if seemed reasonable that the solvent power of water would continue to exert a solvent affect as its combined with the continuous oxygen phase in the mantle.

The ionization sharing theory allowed me to connect the critical water to the core, using O as the continuous phase. The oceans have not dropped or increased over the eons, that I know of. This would suggest an equilibrium with the mantle. The transition, where critical water enters the mantle should result in the covalent OH bonds of water being broken. This would result in an O transition before ionization sharing, where secondary forces are low. (no longer covalent and not yet ionization shared). This viscoplastic phase, with minimal secondary forces, theoretically would be the ideal phase for the crust to float on. Thats the broad thinking.

« Last Edit: April 25, 2007, 07:22:16 PM by resonance »

Offline resonance

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 26
  • Mole Snacks: +1/-0
Re: Ionization sharing
« Reply #9 on: April 26, 2007, 05:58:37 PM »
Being the conceptual modeler that I am, I could not stop at the interface between the mantle and the liquid aspect of the iron core. I had to go out on the limb and create alogical intereface with the iron core to complete the continuity of O. There is data which shows that the earth's magnetic field has undergone reversals in the past. One series of data showed the magnetic field wandering around the earth at a rate too fast to explain with simple convection changes in the fluid aspect of the iron core. The fluid iron aspect is too viscous for inversion changes in periods of less than 100,000 years. This rapid reversal and magnetic spike data is often ignored because existing core theory can not accommodate this data.

One logical way to explain this is by using the solvent affect of ionization shared oxygen at the interface between the mantle and the fluid aspect of the iron core to form something loosely analogous to Fe..O. For one thing, natural magnetic lodestone is composed of FeO, so this is not an unprecedented jump. At the same time, on the surface of the earth, there is a reasonably strong electrochemical potential between iron and oxygen, with ionization shared oxygen relatively electrophilic due to its ionization aspect. What I saw was a type of solvent affect between the O and the Fe, with a possible electrochemical potential, that adds another potential into the fluid iron convection. How mantle convection, O solvent migration, ionization sharing and electrochemical interaction between Fe and O ,and the molten iron convection combine is difficult to say, but the extra potentials might be sufficient to account for the rapid movement of the magnetic field that occurs periodically. If one works under the assumption of the formation of some type of Fe...O, the possible loss of electrons by the iron could theoretically conduct, via the ionization sharing and reach the surface water due to the continuity of the O. This may account for the slight alkaline (slightly negative) pH of the oceans.

One of the conceptual problems this analysis created was if Fe is becoming Fe...O, and the ionization sharing is a type of solvent medium, shouldn't more Fe reach the surface due to the huge size of the iron core and the huge concentration gradient with the surface? One possible reason for the relatively low iron concentration on the surface is that the magnetic properties of the iron core will supersede both the solvent and concentration gradient affects and confine the iron close to the core. If you look at Mars, which has lost its magnetic field (almost) the magnetic confinement may have been broken, causing mass Fe migration to the surface due to the concentration gradient and solvent potentials becoming more dominant.

Offline lemonoman

  • Atmospheric
  • Chemist
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 607
  • Mole Snacks: +71/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ionization sharing
« Reply #10 on: April 26, 2007, 11:13:20 PM »
So far what you've said all seems like a logical progression.  Maybe you're on to something, I don't know.  Maybe you're not, maybe you're some kind of crazy person lol...

There's only one way to find out. 

Scientists test their theories by making predictions and testing those predictions.

Make predictions based on your model, and to test them out.  Preferably something that couldn't be explained any other way.

Collect some data, crunch some numbers, show some correllations.  Not necessarily to us, but to other peers, who can see whether or not your predictions are valid.  Once you've explored ALL possible avenues (a lot of good questions have been raised here)...if you're ready to refute them all, maybe write a journal article about it and have it peer-reviewed.  That would be the ultimate test.

And, if you think this is one of those things, that people just won't believe until you've proven it for absolute certain (like an 'earth-is-round' thing) ... you can always write a book!  Any random can write a book...but if what you theorize turns out to be true, at least, 200 years later, you'll have gotten the credit for it! :D hehe

Offline enahs

  • 16-92-15-68 32-7-53-92-16
  • Retired Staff
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2179
  • Mole Snacks: +206/-44
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ionization sharing
« Reply #11 on: April 27, 2007, 08:50:29 PM »
If I understand the gist of what you are saying, the anomaly you are trying to figure out is well documented. If I read what you are saying correct is about the molecular orbitals being different at different pressures and temperature, basically?

If so, you should look into Ice. Yes, plain old Ice. Most people do not realize that there are many different types of Ice. These different types of Ice have distinct different chemical and physical properties then of the ice we have here on the surface of the earth; which these types of ice occur at various pressures and temperatures.

This is not my field of expertises (I am not even an expert in anything yet but procrastinating with my school work). But as far as I know, there has not been any good explanations for this phenomenon. There have been explanations that seem to account for one of the different types of Ice, but does not work for the others.

You might look into the research and literature on this subject, as it seems to correlate a lot with what you are talking about.

Now, these distinct different chemical and physical properties can be correlated to the different structure of the ice crystals, but not good general explanation as to why the structures are different.

Offline resonance

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 26
  • Mole Snacks: +1/-0
Re: Ionization sharing
« Reply #12 on: April 28, 2007, 03:01:23 PM »
I would like to put things into perspective. There is no technical way to take direct in situ data of the inner earth. What that means all theories for the inner earth have zero direct proof. Concensus does not guarantee reality without direct proof. One may market theories that way to get funding, but funding alone also does not guarantee reality, although it may help shape concensus. That being said, if one realizes that nobody can definitively prove anything, we need to use another litmus test to determine how we can get closer to reality. One possible litmus test is the integration of phenomena. In other words, no matter where one looks in physical reality, systems tend to be highly integrated, where all the parts work together to produce an integrated affect. For example, if you look at atoms these are integrated phenomena; molecules are also integrated with parts affecting the activity of other parts. If you look at cells, these are also highly integrated, as are entire multicellular organisms. If one scales up even further, entire eco-systems is also highly integrated with minor perturbations able to affect the whole system due to this natural integration. The earth from the surface, to the core, should be highly integrated. To assume otherwise is more for investigative convenience. Science breaks things into small piece to make it easier. 

The spectrum of existing theories have a problem integrating the entire earth, in a way where perturbations in one part are able to create perturbations in the sum of the parts like one would expect from an integrated system. This practical limitation of existing theory is an artifact of specialization. Let me explain this subtlety with an example. Say we look at an car; it is an integrated system of parts that work together as one entity. If an integrated car was not a constraint, and we asked several teams of engine specialist to build an engine, one team may build for performance, another for economy, another team using exotic materials, another team for unique geometry, etc.. Under those conditions the results could be four distinct modern marvels of design and function. One the other hand, if before the engine design teams began, we told them the engine also needs to fit into this volume, it needs to cost $3500 to manufacture, it needs this range of HP and emissions, the results from the designs teams will  change. The final results will now look almost the same with only slight differences due to specialty ssignatures One may no longer get the marvels of design but one will get something that will fit.

With respect to specialization, there is so much data within any specialty, it is very ddifficult to know the same level of detail as specialists twice removed. It is sort of like the body specialists not being aableto fully ccommunicate with the engine specialists. Both create mmagnificent designs, but it could be hit or miss whether the two will ever fit together in one integrated entity. My approach was that of a generalists. I tried to learn a little from all the specialist, enough to get the gist of their design parameters. Knowing that, I tried to may sure all the parts would fit together in an integrated way. If thy didn't, then adjustments needed to be made. The problem with constaining oneself to integration, in the world of specialists making modern marvels, is that often the adjustments look like one is regressing design perfection. There is truth to this, but not for the reason one may think. From the point of view of the generalists the goal is an integrated entity such that all the modern marvels may not fit all together. I tried to distribute the adjustments as equally as possible, although I may have favored chemistry due to my background.

I was a chemical engineer by training My approach was centered on chemistry but projects required wearing many hats that put constraint on chemical designs. The final product needs to satisfy all these pressures. I was a development engineer from the lab, to pilot plant to production. In the lab, one can get exotic, but production can not alway support exotic. Sometimes the simple and boring becomes the best choice when it come to meeting the needs of all the other practical constraints. When I looked at the earth, I tried to put on the physics, chemistry, materials, geology, mmeteorology etc., hats. Each is pushing the boundaries of science in their labs, so to speak. Production required the integration of all these things so they all can overlap. Sometimes the exotic wasn't practical for the needs of the big picture. I figured, simplicity is closet to perfection. This became my main design parameter.  That is why oxygen became the center of the design. It is the center of earth chemistry, it is the major atom of the earth and it continuous from the surface to the core.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2007, 03:10:53 PM by resonance »

Offline resonance

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 26
  • Mole Snacks: +1/-0
Re: Ionization sharing
« Reply #13 on: April 29, 2007, 12:49:15 PM »
If you took the average atomic composition of the earth and heated these atoms to moderately high temperature one would expect to get a lot more FeO than is assumed on the earth. Almost all the iron is assumed to be elemental iron within the iron core.The question became why doesn't the earth have much more FeO with the amount of Fe so high in the earth's atomic balance ? One way to maintain atomic Fe, under these heating conditions, is by adding a source of reduction potential such as H or C to tie up the oxygen so the Fe can escape oxidation. But the amount of H2O and CO2 on the earth is not enough.

The work around the Fe oxidation problem, is connected to an asteriod model for the earth's formation that allows large blobs of iron to bombard the earth. With this scenario one may get some oxidation, but with the contact surface area much smaller, most of the iron remains in tact to sink due to gravity. One possible problem with this theory is that even if this did occur, shouldn't the heating, caused by the high energy collisions with the earth, neutralize the magnetic properties of this iron? .

There is a possible work-around using a combination of dust debris and asteroids to the form the iron core.This is to assume that the earth's iron core formed first, using the slight magnetic attraction between the iron particles. Although slight, this attraction should still be stronger than gravity, allowing one to build a good size iron core seed before gravity begins to dominate. As the magentic iron core builds up, its gravitational pull would increasingly attract other materials.The oxygen would be double attracted to the iron core seed, both due to the chemical potential with the elemental iron and as well as due to gravity. The buildup of gravity would also result in a density gradient forming around the magnetic iron core with lighter inert mateirals adding later.

Rather than just need the oxygen requirement of the earth, being in the right place at the right time, the metallic iron migration toward the magnetic core seed will preferentially attract the oxygen due to the chemical potential. If one looks at the ratio of O to Fe on the earth, it is nearly 1 to 1, more or less. This ratio is close to what would be needed to form FeO from all the iron and oxygen.

Shifting gears, I often wondered why the O2 levels in the atmosphere sort of peak out at its current concentration. In other words, if life formed the oxygen, the O2 levels rose from zero to the current ceiling level and stopped. This could be due to the amount of photosynthesis peaking out, although evolution should have been increasing effeciency such that oxygen be higher today that ever before. This ceiling might be explain as being due to the increasing O potential with the iron core. Oxidizing O2 should be making its way into the mantle via the hydrothermal continuity, in response to the iron core potential.

Offline resonance

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 26
  • Mole Snacks: +1/-0
Re: Ionization sharing
« Reply #14 on: April 30, 2007, 01:32:22 PM »
The idea of the iron core forming first, followed by the oxygen helps to explain the NASA observation that the solid core iof the earth, is rotating faster than the surface, about one turn every 500 years. This may be an artifact of the original separation between the core and the mantle. For such a phenomena to linger for billions of years implies "grease" at the solid core interface, where secondary bonding forces drop due to chemical change. It also suggests an engine of sorts that will require a power source to be able to keep the core rotating faster even after billions of years. At the same time, we have the constraint that the extra rotation of the core does not invert when the magnetic field reverses; it continues to rotate in the same direction. One possble scenario is a motor using a magnetic core and an external current winding, with the ciurrent souce lowering secondary bonding forces.

If you look at an electric motor it has a magnetic core with windings around it, where the current flows. The magnetic field of the current result in a right hand rule force that causes the magnetic to spin. The solid earth's core is our magnetic, while the windings are the spiral current path, through the oxygen continuum, due to the rotation of the earth. We can add pseudo-AC current affect, if one takes into consideration the energy of the sun. The sun is only able to shine on one side of the earth at any one time. It is possible that the rotation of the earth is causing the continuous change in the maximum current direction. The questions becomes how could the sun play such a role with respect to the flow of current. The most likely answer has to do with the evaporation of water that is maximized during the day. The question becomes how could the evaporation of water help to induce current through the continuity of oxygen from the core to the surface?

If you look at a water molecule, oxygen is more electronegative than the hydrogen and will therefore shift the electron density in the covalent bonds with hydrogen, toward itself. This will make the hydrogen slightly postive and the oxygen slightly negative. This induced dipole allows the oxygen to increase stability but offering more favorable magnetic addition in its orbitals. The net result is that hydrogen carries the primary burden of potential. In other words, the oxygen would not have taken the extra electron density from hydrogen to become slightly negative, in the first palce, if this did not lower its overall potential, i.e., sum of electrostatic and orbtial magnetic forces. The hydrogen is induced into a potentiated state because of this oxygen stability. The evaporation of water implies that the atmosphere will increase with hydrogen potential (because the highly electronegative oxygen is stabilized). This amounts to solar evaporation increasing the net electrophilic potential of the atmosphere, while being maximize where the earth is seeing the light of day, especially at the equator. This increases the electrophilic potential with the electron rich solid iron core, directionally rotating the core magnet. 

If you look at weather models most are based by thermal currents and high and low pressure.  We also have our solar induced hydrogen potential increasing during the day. If you look at a hurricane, such extreme phenomena do not form on earth, unless water is present. In other words, thermal and pressure gradients alone, without water, do not create phenomena with the same magnitude of power as hurricanes. This would suggest the atmospheric hydrogen potential, being an important part of hurricane dynamics. What this also suggests is that thermal currents and pressure gradients are only part of the story when it comes to weather. A more intergated model would have thermal currents working in conjunction with the hydrogen potential in the atmospheric water. In the case of a hurricane, the hydrogen potential in the water becomes amplfied, increasing the local potential with the earth's core, more than the affective current. The unpredicable drift of hurricanes could be due to the hurricane's excess hydrogen potential causing it to wander into directiions that help minimze O continuity potential. In other words, it is being stirred by thermal and pressure gradients while also seeing the O continuity potential, attempting to move in the direction of the lowest overall potential.

If one looks at weather, there are two paradoxes with respect to water. Water evaporates easier at low pressure yet low pressure is where water will condense in weather, i.e., rain. On the other hand, water evaporates less at higher pressure, yet high pressure is the most favorable condition for surface water evaporation. There are many factors involved, but I wondered, how would the earth be different if water evaporated in lower pressure systems and condensed in high pressure systems, like in the lab. The result would be far more water in the atmosphere. The excess water, in turn, would add a greenhouse affect that would melt the polar caps, alterring the thermal gradients, making the earth more uniform in temperture. This would require hydrogen potential play a more important role in weather, with more hurricanes needed to reduce the atmospheric potential. It mat not be a cooincidence that the polar caps are ice and align with the earth's magnetic field, allowing the creation of the contrary evaporation-pressure gradients that help limit atmospheric water.

For example, the polar ice caps were not always there. The old time earth did not have ice at the polar caps and had far more water in the atmosphere due to being warmer. One possible way to explain the change into the modern lower atmopheric water situation, is that the oxygen continuity may not have been fully developed yet in the ancient earth. The cooling earth's surface solifiied the crust before the oceans could fully condense. This originlaly made the surface water insulated from the mantle O. When the surface water finally hooked up with the mantle, via hydrothermal connections, the potential seen by the atmospheric water changed. The weather patterns became modified to reflect the new steady state potential. The formation of the ice caps may reflect the needs of the alterred potentials.

The change of the earth having ice caps at the poles, is often contributed to geothermal cooling. But global warming considerations imply that even with planet earth geothermally cooler than it has even been, tweaks in the atmosphere can still alter thermal gradients in the atmosphere. For example, geothermal cooling without addressing the CO2 would not have allowed the ice caps to form. The formation of the ice caps would not only require the earth geothermally cooling but also require an induced change in the atmospheric composition. The hydrothermal hookup would cause the oceans to become more basic. This would make CO2 more soluble in the oceans at the same time the atmosphere is lowering its equilibrium water concentration, i.e., water vapor could now lower hydrogen potential easier by becoming part of the more electrophobic oceans. The result was a movement of the weather potential toward a steady state that is more in line with the overall O gradient potential. This tranformation involved ice caps at the poles, in line with the magnetic field. This allowed the contrary evaporation-pressure gradients, limiting solar induce potential to the earth pole, using water as the interface. 

If you look at the long term cycles of global warming and global cooling, the above analysis offers an easy explanation for these cycles. What if crustal migration, due to continental drift, peridically sealed the hydrothermal continuity here and there, i.e., land shift. This could change the net conduction from the core to surface, allowing more water to evaporate or remain in the atmosphere longer. The CO2 equilibrium is also shifted more toward the atmosphere than the oceans. The hydrothermal water will still try to eat its way back to the mantle to hooked up the potential back up. When it does, the atmospheric dynamics change potential, more in line with a coolling cycle. This scenario connects plate techtonics to the current flow in the O continuity. For example, when crustal material enters the mantle the oxygen is no longer oxide, i.e., ionized, making it diffuclt to support oxide based solids. The steady electron current from the core, allows the subsurface oxygen to see more electron density, shifting the oxide equilibirum, increasing crustal production and/or lowering recycle. This material periodically bites the hands that feeds it, by shifting the crust, sealing or limiting the hydrothermal vents. 


Sponsored Links