Metallic Hydrogen Canopy?

[notto]

This supposed phenomena has been mentioned in a few threads so I thought we could bring it out and discuss it on its own.

There are several problems I can see with this model, mostly dealing with the energy of the reactions and process it would take to turn metallic hydrogen into water for use in a flood model. It would be interesting to see some numbers (grams, Joules, etc) put to these but this is only a start. Please let me know if any of the assumptions made below are incorrect or need to be adjusted.

1) Metalic hydrogen must first be converted into a gas, whether it goes through a liquid phase or directly to gas is unknown, but either way, it would take a lot of energy from the surrounding enviroment to do this. Not sure where this energy comes from. It would have to come from an outside source or the process sucked a lot of heat out of the atmosphere. (Welcome to the ice age)

2) Once we have gaseous hydrogen, it would take up a lot of space. This would cause the barometric pressure to increase dramatically and also cause much of the hydrogen to be lost to space. The hydrogen would not fall to earth, it would rise up as a gas. (Even if the metalic hydrogen "broke" up and fell to earth, it would need to become a gas on its way down before it could be used to create water). (Breathing would be rather difficult at this point with the high pressure).

3) Now, we need to add oxygen to the hydrogen to make water. It would take 8 times the weight of the hydrogen in oxygen to do this. Was there a solid oxygen canopy as well to provide this oxygen? If not, this reaction would suck oxygen out of the atmosphere. (Breathing becomes even harder with low oxygen and high pressure)

4) The reaction of hydrogen and oxygen is extremely violent and produces a lot of heat (Hindenburg). To get any usable water out of this process, the resulting reaction would certainly cook the earth or the atmosphere. This reaction would also take energy to get it going. If this reaction took place close to the surface, it would ignite the world (and any wooden arks around). (Breathing becomes even harder with low oxygen, high pressure, and high temperature)

5) After the reaction, we have a extremely heated super saturated atmosphere full of super heated steam, which as it condensed, would again, suck a lot of heat out of the atmosphere.

So as I see it, there would be several extreme cycles of cold/hot generated by this process. If this model is to hold any credibility, it would be encouraging to see the mathematics dealing with the energy involved to see if it is even plausible or possible for this transformation to occur.

These problems don't deal with the issues of having a hydrogen canopy in the first place (which have been discussed elsewhere) but only deal with problems of energy if it was used to create liquid water.

This model seems less credible than the water canopy model.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

This solid hdyrogen firmament has to rate near the top of ridiculous ideas coming from YECs and that is really saying something.  Whether burning it to form water would cook the earth to death depends on how much there was. You obviously can't get a signficant amount of global rain this way without releasing enough heat to cook the earth to death but I am not sure it is really postulated as a source of water and I don't have time to look that up right now. It doesn't matter anyway because the whole thing is physically absurd.  Here is essentially what I wrote in my last post on it on the fun with flood math thread.

The whole silly hydrogen firmament idea seems to come from Carl Baugh and even AiG says it is nonsense. When AiG, prime purveyors of YEC nonsense themselves say that something promoted by another YEC is nonsense you know it's really  nonsense.  Here's a reference.

target=_blank>http://members.aol.com/Paluxy2/whatbau.htm

Arguments by Baugh are on AiG's shouldn't use list.

target=_blank>http://www.answersingenesis.org/Hom...aq/dont_use.asp

Even so I have been investigating this a little further since the phase behavior of hydrogen is itself of interest.  We need to distinguish the known and postulated phases of hydrogen and their behavior to understand these arguments. Of course we all know hydrogen gas and have heard of liquid hydrogen. Crystalline hydrogen  is also known. Crystalline hydrogen exists only at low temperatures. Its melting point is 14 K or 14 degrees above absolute zero. Hydrogen boils at 20K at 1 atm.  

Crystalline hydrogen is transparent and it is a semiconductor, meaning that it has high electrical resistence. However, the phase behavior of crystalline hydrogen is also known so it is known that a "firmament" of crystalline hydrogen surrounding the earth is not physically possible.  The triple point of hydrogen is about 14 K at 0.07 atmospheres. At the triple point gas, liquid and crystalline solid are in equilibrium.  At lower pressures or higher temperatures the liquid or the gas phase prevails depending on T and P.

target=_blank>http://www.trgn.com/database/cryogen.html

The metallic hydrogen that has been produced in laboratory experiments and thought to exist at the center of jupiter is liquid metallic hyrogen. It can only exist at high pressure and will instantly evaporate when the pressure is released. Of course any liquid boils in the vacuum of space and and many solids will sublime in vacuum as in freeze drying. 

The minimum temperature of the ionosphere, where this firmament is supposed to have existed is about 133 K, far above boiling point of hydrogen at 1 atmosphere and the pressure is far below the triple point pressure.  From about 100 km on up the temperature of the upper atmosphere actually increases as the thermosphere is approached and entered. If the hydrogen firmament was located 100 mile up, it was in fairly warm spot with very low pressure and it would boil away to gas very rapidly.  Anywhere you put it crystalline hydrogen will disappear pretty fast if not under pressure because of sublimation.   The thermosphere is really quite hot and extends to about 600 km above the earth

target=_blank>http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfjps/1400/atmos_struct.html 


http://www.schooltv.com/thermosphere.htm


It may be possible to produce solid metallic hydrogen. The group discussed at the link below produced an opaque material at about 320 GPa (about 3 million atmopheres) that was said to be stable if the pressure stayed above 160 GPa but the material was still a semi-conductor.
target=_blank>http://physicsweb.org/article/news/6/4/6
They predict it might become metallic at about 4.5 million atmospheres.

There is speculation that solid metallic hyrogen might be metastable. Perhaps it could continue to exist, if once formed at least below certain tempertures.  No one knows if this is true but I rather doubt that it would continue to exist unless pressure are kept high and temperatures kept low.  Metastable phases exist, for example crystalline polymorphic phases that form during rapid freezing of some materials but I don't see how a metastable solid phase of an element could continue to exists hundreds of degrees above the melting and boiling points of the element. If a metastable solid hydrogen did exist I would think it would be highly unstable. However, from the phase properties of cyrstalline hydrogen it is quite clear that a crystalline hydrogen "firmament" as speculated about on the web page that Look linked to, would not be stable.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[look]

Today at 09:48 AM Frumious Bandersnatch said this in Post #2

This solid hdyrogen firmament has to rate near the top of ridiculous ideas coming from YECs and that is really saying something.  Whether burning it to form water would cook the earth to death depends on how much there was. You obviously can't get a signficant amount of global rain this way without releasing enough heat to cook the earth to death but I am not sure it is really postulated as a source of water and I don't have time to look that up right now. It doesn't matter anyway because the whole thing is physically absurd.  Here is essentially what I wrote in my last post on it on the fun with flood math thread.

The whole silly hydrogen firmament idea seems to come from Carl Baugh and even AiG says it is nonsense. When AiG, prime purveyors of YEC nonsense themselves say that something promoted by another YEC is nonsense you know it's really  nonsense.  Here's a reference.

target=_blank>http://members.aol.com/Paluxy2/whatbau.htm

Arguments by Baugh are on AiG's shouldn't use list.

target=_blank>http://www.answersingenesis.org/Hom...aq/dont_use.asp

Even so I have been investigating this a little further since the phase behavior of hydrogen is itself of interest.  We need to distinguish the known and postulated phases of hydrogen and their behavior to understand these arguments. Of course we all know hydrogen gas and have heard of liquid hydrogen. Crystalline hydrogen  is also known. Crystalline hydrogen exists only at low temperatures. Its melting point is 14 K or 14 degrees above absolute zero. Hydrogen boils at 20K at 1 atm.  

Crystalline hydrogen is transparent and it is a semiconductor, meaning that it has high electrical resistence. However, the phase behavior of crystalline hydrogen is also known so it is known that a "firmament" of crystalline hydrogen surrounding the earth is not physically possible.  The triple point of hydrogen is about 14 K at 0.07 atmospheres. At the triple point gas, liquid and crystalline solid are in equilibrium.  At lower pressures or higher temperatures the liquid or the gas phase prevails depending on T and P.

target=_blank>http://www.trgn.com/database/cryogen.html

The metallic hydrogen that has been produced in laboratory experiments and thought to exist at the center of jupiter is liquid metallic hyrogen. It can only exist at high pressure and will instantly evaporate when the pressure is released. Of course any liquid boils in the vacuum of space and and many solids will sublime in vacuum as in freeze drying. 

The minimum temperature of the ionosphere, where this firmament is supposed to have existed is about 133 K, far above boiling point of hydrogen at 1 atmosphere and the pressure is far below the triple point pressure.  From about 100 km on up the temperature of the upper atmosphere actually increases as the thermosphere is approached and entered. If the hydrogen firmament was located 100 mile up, it was in fairly warm spot with very low pressure and it would boil away to gas very rapidly.  Anywhere you put it crystalline hydrogen will disappear pretty fast if not under pressure because of sublimation.   The thermosphere is really quite hot and extends to about 600 km above the earth

target=_blank>http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfjps/1400/atmos_struct.html 


http://www.schooltv.com/thermosphere.htm


It may be possible to produce solid metallic hydrogen. The group discussed at the link below produced an opaque material at about 320 GPa (about 3 million atmopheres) that was said to be stable if the pressure stayed above 160 GPa but the material was still a semi-conductor.
target=_blank>http://physicsweb.org/article/news/6/4/6
They predict it might become metallic at about 4.5 million atmospheres.

There is speculation that solid metallic hyrogen might be metastable. Perhaps it could continue to exist, if once formed at least below certain tempertures.  No one knows if this is true but I rather doubt that it would continue to exist unless pressure are kept high and temperatures kept low.  Metastable phases exist, for example crystalline polymorphic phases that form during rapid freezing of some materials but I don't see how a metastable solid phase of an element could continue to exists hundreds of degrees above the melting and boiling points of the element. If a metastable solid hydrogen did exist I would think it would be highly unstable. However, from the phase properties of cyrstalline hydrogen it is quite clear that a crystalline hydrogen "firmament" as speculated about on the web page that Look linked to, would not be stable.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

Whatsamatter? Of course using today's technology it is impossible to have crystalline Hydrogen to use for a canopy, but what's impossible today, may be possible tomorrow.

As a question, what would you use to make a Dyson sphere? Just curious... How about a ring world?

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

This has less to do with technology available than it is the physical properties of matter which render this model an impossibility.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Whatsamatter? Of course using today's technology it is impossible to have crystalline Hydrogen to use for a canopy, but what's impossible today, may be possible tomorrow.

Did you actually read my post? As MB has pointed out it is the physical properties of crystalline hydrogen that make this impossible. Crystalline hydrogen is known and can be studied. It has a melting temperature of only a few degrees above absolute zero and if it did exist above the earth it would either melt and boil away or quickly sublime away. The solid hydrogen firmament is impossible.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[ikester7579]

Here's the machine that the metallic hydrogen was made in. The only problem I see with this is they could not reproduce what it would have been like in the upper atmosphere. Tempature, magnetic field etc.. Heres the link on what they did and how they did it. http://www-phys.llnl.gov/H_Div/GG/metalhydrofact.html I take from reading it that they just wanted to see if it could be done. Other experiments would have to be done to see if they can get it to hold together after the pressure drops. Also how can it be suspended with out crushing everything? Would it be effected by a magnetic field in our upper atmosphere? I wonder if they tried reducing pressure and applying sub zero temps? Maybe it does the same thing in low tempature and low pressure.

 Now it's already known that the barometric pressure was twice that(before the flood) of what it is today. Also oxygen and CO2 was twice as much. This was proven when some air pockets in some rock was found and a probe was inserted to take a sample of the air pocket and in each case it was the same results. And no this was not done by Mr. Baugh. I found this information while doing a search. I can look it back up if you need a link to read it.

 

[notto]

But what good does a hydrogen canopy do for flood theories? Converting a large enough amount of hydrogen to water in any amount large enough to affect flood calculations would be disasterous to the atmosphere and the earth itself. The energy transfers would be disasterous and leave the atmosphere depleated in oxygen, full of steam, and HOT.

This is just another ad-hoc explaination that is lacking in both scientific and scriptural support. Why not just stick with "God made the water". It is more credible both scientifically and scripturally. Miracles are more probable than impossibilities.

 

[ikester7579]

Question to be answered:

1. How was the hydrogen formed in the upper atmosphere?

2. How was it sustained?

3. How did it stay suspended in our atmosphere?

4. Would light pass through it?

5. How would enough pressure be produced to create this?

Some answers that bring up more questions:

1. I look in God's word and found that the earth was created before light was introduced. Which would mean that one of the conditions was met in the creation model to form the metallic hydrogen. Sub zero tempatures. 

2. Not sure, but I would like to see if a lower air pressure would recreate this metallic like substance. I also think that the magnetic field would have something to do with it holding together, since it would have had to stretch all around the earth.

3. Not sure, but the rotation of the earth had something to do with it. For if you stop the rotation of the earth the satalites in orbit would crash to earth.

4. Yes. Most metal in their purest form are transparent in thin sheets. Like the Gold used on a astronaut's sun visor for his helmet. It's 24k gold in a thin layer.

5. I have rattled my brain with this one. Which brought me to a question. If the earth was not spining, how would that effect everything as we know it now. Because when the earth was created does not mean it was spining yet which could have produced this pressure. Then when the earth started spining this metallic hydrogen would have been lifted up and out to the upper atmosphere. Which poses another question. Did the earth spin faster back then? This may explain why people lived longer back then because their days may not have been 24 hours.

 

[ikester7579]

Today at 09:16 AM notto said this in Post #7

But what good does a hydrogen canopy do for flood theories? Converting a large enough amount of hydrogen to water in any amount large enough to affect flood calculations would be disasterous to the atmosphere and the earth itself. The energy transfers would be disasterous and leave the atmosphere depleated in oxygen, full of steam, and HOT.

This is just another ad-hoc explaination that is lacking in both scientific and scriptural support. Why not just stick with "God made the water". It is more credible both scientifically and scripturally. Miracles are more probable than impossibilities.

Did not know we were talking about the flood? And I tried to stay away from it in my answers. But if you insist we can but for now lets try to stick with the subject.

 

[MartinM]

Yesterday at 02:43 PM ikester7579 said this in Post #8 I look in God's word and found that the earth was created before light was introduced. Which would mean that one of the conditions was met in the creation model to form the metallic hydrogen. Sub zero tempatures. 

But it would have to remain unbelievably cold even after the Sun was created. No chance.

Not sure, but I would like to see if a lower air pressure would recreate this metallic like substance. I also think that the magnetic field would have something to do with it holding together, since it would have had to stretch all around the earth

The magnetic field is rather puny, relative to the insane pressures required.

Not sure, but the rotation of the earth had something to do with it. For if you stop the rotation of the earth the satalites in orbit would crash to earth

...eh, no they wouldn't. Who told you that?

Yes. Most metal in their purest form are transparent in thin sheets. Like the Gold used on a astronaut's sun visor for his helmet. It's 24k gold in a thin layer

Perhaps, but if it were that thin there wouldn't be that much of it in the first place, which rather defeats the purpose, no?

I have rattled my brain with this one. Which brought me to a question. If the earth was not spining, how would that effect everything as we know it now. Because when the earth was created does not mean it was spining yet which could have produced this pressure. Then when the earth started spining this metallic hydrogen would have been lifted up and out to the upper atmosphere. Which poses another question. Did the earth spin faster back then? This may explain why people lived longer back then because their days may not have been 24 hours.

We're talking 3 million atmospheres here. I don't think you realise quite how extreme that is.

 

[notto]

Yesterday at 08:43 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #8

4. Yes. Most metal in their purest form are transparent in thin sheets. Like the Gold used on a astronaut's sun visor for his helmet. It's 24k gold in a thin layer.

Can you support this "most" with a reference? Metal plating is far different than thin sheeting. They don't use gold because of its transparency, but because it is opaque and reflects light and partially blocks the light (otherwise it wouldn't do much good) . Much thicker and the astronauts couldn't see at all .

 

[ikester7579]

Yesterday at 07:09 AM MartinM said this in Post #10



But it would have to remain unbelievably cold even after the Sun was created. No chance.

Are you 100% sure. I here that stars like our sun put out some incredible heat as they are born.

The magnetic field is rather puny, relative to the insane pressures required.

At the point of creation of this earth it could have been that of a black hole for all you know. We can only guess what happens when a star our a planet is born. Unless you know something that the scientific world does not even know?

...eh, no they wouldn't. Who told you that?

Guess you don't know much about magnets and magnetic fields. If you spin a magnet it generates a stronger magnetic field. These fields extend out from the magnet like magnetic bands.

I used to work for a company that had specialized in using magnets for pain, increased blood flow and to speed up healing. By taking a flat magnet and making triagles of opposite fields and putting them together on the same side, this would disrupt the pain signal to the brain with no side effects. This was also used for insoles in shoes and had dramatic effects on those who had diabetes and their feet were bad off. In less than a month their feet looked normal. I know this was not part of the subject, Just thought it might be interesting for the readers.

Perhaps, but if it were that thin there wouldn't be that much of it in the first place, which rather defeats the purpose, no?

Since we do not know much about the metallic hydrogen, we cannot make that assumption.

We're talking 3 million atmospheres here. I don't think you realise quite how extreme that is.

If you can break a diamond, like those other guys did trying to recreate it, I very much can phantom this. But again, to make assumption about something we do not have much data on is premature at this point.
 

 

[notto]

Today at 02:37 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #12

Guess you don't know much about magnets and magnetic fields. If you spin a magnet it generates a stronger magnetic field. These fields extend out from the magnet like magnetic bands.

What does this have to do with satelites in orbit and why would stopping the spinning of the earth cause them to crash to the surface?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Here's a question: Where in the Bible does it say there was a pre-Flood canopy made of metallic hydrogen?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I don't understand why everyone can't see by now that this crytalline/metallic hydrogen firmament is physically impossible and total nonsense.

Here is the link that was first brought up

http://www.layevangelism.com/advtxbk/sections/sect-10/sec10-1c.htm

What metal was the firmament composed of? At Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory they did some experiments with water. They compressed the water. The oxygen and hydrogen atoms separated and the oxygen was distinguishable by its blue color

They didn't compress water, they compressed liquid hydrogen. Pretty big diference there. It seems to me that water will not decompose to oxygen and hydrogen under pressure and the measurements have have been made on water up to about 6 million atmospheres but I could be wrong. I'll look in to it. In any case the Livermore experiments clearly used liquid hydrogen and not water so the writer starts off with a big mistake right away. Further the metallic hydrogen they made was liquid metallic hydrogen so it would boil away into space instantly if the pressure amounting to millions of atmosphere was released.

Superconductivity is a very special phenomena. The firmament was transparent. The opaque hydrogen metal was only in thin veins throughout the firmament.96/1463 The conductive hydrogen has a very special purpose in the firmament. Acting like a repelling magnet to the earth, these veins of opaque hydrogen held the firmament ten miles above the surface of the earth in suspension.97/Cover, 94/10

When crystalline hydrogen is energized it gives off a gentle glow that is 6365 angstrom magenta (pink).

This should be the final falsification of this nonsenses. Solid metallic hydrogen is not known, but may exist. However, crystalline hydrogen which is transparent and is a semiconductor is known. It has a melting point of 14 degrees above absolute zero and at 14 K and 0.07 atmospheres gas, liquid and crystalline solid are in equilbrium. At lower pressure and higher temperature, both of which are present 10 miles above the earth, the material will quickly turn into a gas so it would hardly be a firmament.

This hydrogen firmamant is in reality only a figment of Baugh's immagination.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[MartinM]

Today at 08:37 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #12 Are you 100% sure. I here that stars like our sun put out some incredible heat as they are born

Which would, in fact, be my point. That heat would put paid to any metallic hydrogen.

At the point of creation of this earth it could have been that of a black hole for all you know

Your scientific evidence for this? In any case, black holes need not have any magnetic field.

We can only guess what happens when a star our a planet is born. Unless you know something that the scientific world does not even know?

I know the metallic hydrogen canopy is impossible. So does the rest of the scientific world.

Guess you don't know much about magnets and magnetic fields. If you spin a magnet it generates a stronger magnetic field. These fields extend out from the magnet like magnetic bands

Satellites stay in orbit because they fall toward the Earth and miss. It has nothing to do with magnetic fields.

Since we do not know much about the metallic hydrogen, we cannot make that assumption

Sure we can. We know enough.

If you can break a diamond, like those other guys did trying to recreate it, I very much can phantom this. But again, to make assumption about something we do not have much data on is premature at this point.
 

We've got bucketloads of data on it. Every datapoint we have on hydrogen tells us that at the temperatures and pressures we're talking about it won't crystallise or solidify.

 

[Arikay]

Frum, you left out the fun parts of that paper, like where they say the sky is blue because of phlouresing (spelling?) Oxygen.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Today at 09:06 PM Arikay said this in Post #17

Frum, you left out the fun parts of that paper, like where they say the sky is blue because of phlouresing (spelling?) Oxygen.

I think you mean fluorescence.

You are referring to this nonsense

When crystalline hydrogen is energized it gives off a gentle glow that is 6365 angstrom magenta (pink). This color can often be seen at sunrise and at sunset as a pink glow. This happens as a result of water molecules in the atmospher becoming charged as a result of the lower level intense rays of the sun’s energy passing through them. As the sun’s rays pass through them you see blue sky because of the oxygen, but during sunrise and sunset, for a short period, because of these lower level intense rays of the sun, the energized hydrogen overpowers the oxygen and you see a pink glow in the horizon.97/19 What this suggests is that before the flood when the firmament was in place above the earth, you would see a pink sky instead of a blue one. Also on the dark side of the earth there would be a gentle pink glow at night.

I think we already addressed why the sky is blue in the day and sometimes red at sunset in the other thread. Blue light is scattered around by air molecules so that we see it. Without the air the sky would be black.  When the path length is longest as in right right before sunset enough blue light is scattered away that the sky looks pink. This effect is enhanced by dust or smoke in the air. It has nothing to do with emission from hydrogen. It has to do with the fact that light scattering by objects the size of air molecules is inversly proportional to the 4th power of wavelength as was explained by Lord Rayleigh in 1871. 

There is a hydrogen emission line at 6565 A which is close to what the author says but the red sky at sunset has absolutely nothing to do with it. You have probably seen the effect of light scattering on color yourself if you ever shined a bright flashlight through you hand on a dark night or in a dark room.


This hyrogen firmament stuff is so bad that it goes beyond pseudo science to total absurdity.  I can hardly believe that anyone could take it seriously. That fact that anyone does speak very poorly of science education in this country.


The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Arikay]

Yeah, thanks, for some reason how to spell that word just wont stick in my head.

Yeah, ive addressed it before too, but I still think its funny. I keep seeing a comercial on TV where a little girl tells her daddy why the sky is blue (its a comercial about keeping girls interested in Science and Math) and I think of this article and shake my head, and think how could anyone believe this article.

Today at 02:41 PM Frumious Bandersnatch said this in Post #18



I think you mean fluorescence.

You are referring to this nonsense

I think we already addressed why the sky is blue in the day and sometimes red at sunset in the other thread. Blue light is scattered around by air molecules so that we see it. Without the air the sky would be black.  When the path length is longest as in right right before sunset enough blue light is scattered away that the sky looks pink. This effect is enhanced by dust or smoke in the air. It has nothing to do with emission from hydrogen. It has to do with the fact that light scattering by objects the size of air molecules is inversly proportional to the 4th power of wavelength as was explained by Lord Rayleigh in 1871. 

There is a hydrogen emission line at 6565 A which is close to what the author says but the red sky at sunset has absolutely nothing to do with it. You have probably seen the effect of light scattering on color yourself if you ever shined a bright flashlight through you hand on a dark night or in a dark room.


This hyrogen firmament stuff is so bad that it goes beyond pseudo science to total absurdity.  I can hardly believe that anyone could take it seriously. That fact that anyone does speak very poorly of science education in this country.


The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Jet Black]

having a metallic hydrogen canopy would be like living in the centre of Jupiter.

no thanks.