On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:48:18 -0500, RB wrote:

Whata Fool wrote:
"James" wrote:

"Whata Fool" wrote in message
...
terryc wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:01:22 -0400, James wrote:


Finally, some older oil wells previously regarded as depleted have
been
known to be replenished from below. This is certainly evidence that
oil
is being produced at depths in the earth (where there are no fossil
remains) and being pushed upward by intense pressure from below. The
best example of this is Green Island in the Gulf of Mexico. When all
the
oil that could profitably be extracted had been pumped out, the
wells
there were closed and forgotten about. Then, twenty years later,
those
wells were found to contain more oil than before any had been
removed!
If petroleum is constantly produced by an inorganic process, we are
never going to run out of oil.
Yawn, old pumping and measuring technology Vs new pumping and
measuring
technology.

No, but James may have quoted, or written some wrong assumptions,
it is difficult to tell with him, his newsreader doesn't properly
attribute quoted material, and he doesn't do it either.


For the record I am not claiming that oil is abiotic in nature. Unlike
warmers, who will swear that co2 is the bane of civilisation and defend
that position till hell freezes over regardless of evidence to the
contrary, I am merely saying that the idea of abiotic oil should be
considered. It makes no sense to summarily dismiss it because one likes
the biotic theory better.

The idea of abiotic oil crushes the environmental claim of the world
running out of oil soon and one would expect denial from them. However,
if it exists at all or if it co-exists, it is worth exploring. The
Russians went with the idea in the early 50s and have been quite
successful.


I would say it probably co-exists, but the quantity is
the question, if there is geologic CO2, why not CH4 or other chains.

But I see no reason for oil to move upward except in the
presence of water, and I don't know how deep water is found.

Pressure

Pressure from what? Gas is lighter then oil so any unassociated gas is
always located above the oil zone..


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:48:18 -0500, RB wrote:

Whata Fool wrote:
"James" wrote:

"Whata Fool" wrote in message
...
terryc wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:01:22 -0400, James wrote:


Finally, some older oil wells previously regarded as depleted have
been
known to be replenished from below. This is certainly evidence that
oil
is being produced at depths in the earth (where there are no fossil
remains) and being pushed upward by intense pressure from below. The
best example of this is Green Island in the Gulf of Mexico. When all
the
oil that could profitably be extracted had been pumped out, the
wells
there were closed and forgotten about. Then, twenty years later,
those
wells were found to contain more oil than before any had been
removed!
If petroleum is constantly produced by an inorganic process, we are
never going to run out of oil.
Yawn, old pumping and measuring technology Vs new pumping and
measuring
technology.
No, but James may have quoted, or written some wrong assumptions,
it is difficult to tell with him, his newsreader doesn't properly
attribute quoted material, and he doesn't do it either.

For the record I am not claiming that oil is abiotic in nature. Unlike
warmers, who will swear that co2 is the bane of civilisation and defend
that position till hell freezes over regardless of evidence to the
contrary, I am merely saying that the idea of abiotic oil should be
considered. It makes no sense to summarily dismiss it because one likes
the biotic theory better.

The idea of abiotic oil crushes the environmental claim of the world
running out of oil soon and one would expect denial from them. However,
if it exists at all or if it co-exists, it is worth exploring. The
Russians went with the idea in the early 50s and have been quite
successful.

I would say it probably co-exists, but the quantity is
the question, if there is geologic CO2, why not CH4 or other chains.

But I see no reason for oil to move upward except in the
presence of water, and I don't know how deep water is found.
Pressure

Pressure from what? Gas is lighter then oil so any unassociated gas is
always located above the oil zone..

From gravitation. The material under the earth's crust is under
tremendous pressure. If there is anything liquid down there, say magma,
or petroleum, is tends to squish out every chance it gets.

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:56:47 -0500, RB wrote:

Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:48:18 -0500, RB wrote:

Whata Fool wrote:
"James" wrote:

"Whata Fool" wrote in message
...
terryc wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:01:22 -0400, James wrote:


Finally, some older oil wells previously regarded as depleted have
been
known to be replenished from below. This is certainly evidence that
oil
is being produced at depths in the earth (where there are no fossil
remains) and being pushed upward by intense pressure from below. The
best example of this is Green Island in the Gulf of Mexico. When all
the
oil that could profitably be extracted had been pumped out, the
wells
there were closed and forgotten about. Then, twenty years later,
those
wells were found to contain more oil than before any had been
removed!
If petroleum is constantly produced by an inorganic process, we are
never going to run out of oil.
Yawn, old pumping and measuring technology Vs new pumping and
measuring
technology.
No, but James may have quoted, or written some wrong assumptions,
it is difficult to tell with him, his newsreader doesn't properly
attribute quoted material, and he doesn't do it either.

For the record I am not claiming that oil is abiotic in nature. Unlike
warmers, who will swear that co2 is the bane of civilisation and defend
that position till hell freezes over regardless of evidence to the
contrary, I am merely saying that the idea of abiotic oil should be
considered. It makes no sense to summarily dismiss it because one likes
the biotic theory better.

The idea of abiotic oil crushes the environmental claim of the world
running out of oil soon and one would expect denial from them. However,
if it exists at all or if it co-exists, it is worth exploring. The
Russians went with the idea in the early 50s and have been quite
successful.

I would say it probably co-exists, but the quantity is
the question, if there is geologic CO2, why not CH4 or other chains.

But I see no reason for oil to move upward except in the
presence of water, and I don't know how deep water is found.
Pressure

Pressure from what? Gas is lighter then oil so any unassociated gas is
always located above the oil zone..

From gravitation. The material under the earth's crust is under
tremendous pressure. If there is anything liquid down there, say magma,
or petroleum, is tends to squish out every chance it gets.

Gravity? You mean that the closer to the center of the earth we get
the higher the gravitational force? Amazing!

And what about the formations that have no "drive", i.e., pressure?
There are many oil bearing formations that contain oil but without
sufficient pressure to cause the oil to migrate out of the rock.

How does your gravity theory account for these? Selective
gravitational fields?


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

Bruce in Bangkok wrote:

Gravity? You mean that the closer to the center of the earth we get
the higher the gravitational force? Amazing!

I hope that is the case. Mass has the property of gravity if I remember my highschool
physics correctly. Standing on the surface of the earth the cetripetal force from the
earth spinning, reduces our attraction to our planet.

I've always wondered what the percentage increase in weight, standing on my spring scale,
would be under the day the world stopped senario.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

In article ,
Wes wrote:

Bruce in Bangkok wrote:

Gravity? You mean that the closer to the center of the earth we get
the higher the gravitational force? Amazing!

No, it's odder than that. The force of gravity is maximum at the
surface, and drops to zero in two places, being the center of the earth,
and at infinity, beyond the stars. The pressure is maximum at the
center.

http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfadd/3050/Ch09Gravity/GrvFld.html


I hope that is the case. Mass has the property of gravity if I remember my
highschool physics correctly. Standing on the surface of the earth the
cetripetal force from the
earth spinning, reduces our attraction to our planet.

I've always wondered what the percentage increase in weight, standing on my
spring scale, would be under the day the world stopped senario.

I don't have a number at hand, but it is significant, and is the reason
the earth bulges near the equator.

Joe Gwinn

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 17:55:11 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
Wes wrote:

Bruce in Bangkok wrote:

Gravity? You mean that the closer to the center of the earth we get
the higher the gravitational force? Amazing!

No, it's odder than that. The force of gravity is maximum at the
surface, and drops to zero in two places, being the center of the earth,
and at infinity, beyond the stars. The pressure is maximum at the
center.

Which is a consequence of an even weirder fact - a mass inside a
uniform sphere of finite thickness will experience no net attractive
force from the sphere. Gravity decreases linearly as you penetrate
into the earth.


http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfadd/3050/Ch09Gravity/GrvFld.html


I hope that is the case. Mass has the property of gravity if I remember my
highschool physics correctly. Standing on the surface of the earth the
cetripetal force from the
earth spinning, reduces our attraction to our planet.

I've always wondered what the percentage increase in weight, standing on my
spring scale, would be under the day the world stopped senario.

I don't have a number at hand, but it is significant, and is the reason
the earth bulges near the equator.

Joe Gwinn

a = w^2 * R

where;

a = acceleration
w = earth spin rate = 360 deg/24 hr = 2*pi radians/86400 sec = 7.3E-5
rad/sec
R = earth radius ~= 3960 miles = 20.9E6 ft

so:

a = 3.8E-13 * 20.9E6 ~= 8E-6 ft/sec^2 = 0.25 microg

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

No, it's odder than that. The force of gravity is maximum at the
surface, and drops to zero in two places, being the center of the earth,
and at infinity, beyond the stars. The pressure is maximum at the
center.


You sure are correct. At the center of the earth, attraction to mass around me would be
be in equilibrium. Maybe this weekend, I'll calculate what I weigh at 40,000 ft, as in an
air liner.

Wes

Marv wrote:

Which is a consequence of an even weirder fact - a mass inside a
uniform sphere of finite thickness will experience no net attractive
force from the sphere. Gravity decreases linearly as you penetrate
into the earth.

Hi Marv,

I got the center of the earth thing as soon as it was pointed out. I don't seem to be
able to grok your paragraph above.

Btw, you the Marv with all the neat metalworking programs? If so, thanks for putting that
stuff out. Still have not got around to porting to my palm pda. Sure would like to move
the gage block stack one first.

Wes

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:57:28 -0400, Wes wrote:

Marv wrote:

Which is a consequence of an even weirder fact - a mass inside a
uniform sphere of finite thickness will experience no net attractive
force from the sphere. Gravity decreases linearly as you penetrate
into the earth.

Hi Marv,

I got the center of the earth thing as soon as it was pointed out. I don't seem to be
able to grok your paragraph above.

Btw, you the Marv with all the neat metalworking programs? If so, thanks for putting that
stuff out. Still have not got around to porting to my palm pda. Sure would like to move
the gage block stack one first.

Wes

A point mass inside a spherical shell will experience no net force
from the shell, regardless of its location within the shell. All the
gravitational forces from the shell material balance out perfectly at
every location so the net force on the particle is zero. Thus, if
you're inside the earth, the only part of the mass that exerts a force
on you is the mass between you and the center of the earth - you can
ignore the mass in the shell above you. So, as you penetrate deeper,
the gravitational attraction you experience declines linearly from its
value at the surface, eventually reaching zero at the center.

And, yes, I'm that "Marv". Glad you like the programs. They include
the source code so it shouldn't be too hard to port to other devices.

Regards, Marv

Home Shop Freeware - Tools for People Who Build Things
http://www.myvirtualnetwork.com/mklotz