« 6TH POPE Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: A Skeptical Scientist Strikes again - about that Martian 'discovery' 

By: monkeytrots in 6TH POPE | Recommend this post (1)
Fri, 16 Aug 24 3:26 AM | 19 view(s)
Boardmark this board | 6th Edition Pope Board
Msg. 56682 of 60008
(This msg. is a reply to 56679 by Zimbler0)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Zim, you'd be a tad surprised at how much water is 'buried' here on earth. Basically, anything down more than a couple of hundred feet or so of the surface, is 100% saturated. Sedimentary, fractured igneous, metamorphic.

Course that doesn't go to the 'center pf the earth - just the first few miles/decades of miles till yah hit the mantle, or it gits so hot that the water de-composes into hydrogen and oxygen.

For shales - the porosities can be less than 1% up to around 11%, depending on type, depth of burial, overpressure, and so on. Now 11% doesn't sound like much, but make that 11% of 5,000 to 30-35,000 feet of sediments, it starts to add up. Limestones and Dolomites are usually on the lower end of porosity - but CAN be quite high (think of burying the Carlsbad Caverns down a few thousand feet).

For sandstones - good clean sandstones are around 30-35% porosity, the younger they are, the better. The max porosity of a sandstone (all grains spherical and of exactly same size) is 47.6% - that comes from straight forward geometrical calculations.

http://wiki.aapg.org › Porosity
Porosity - AAPG Wiki
Sandstone pore systems. Four basic porosity types can be recognized in sandstones: (1) intergranular (primary), (2) microporosity, (3) dissolution (secondary), ... The theoretical maximum porosity for a cubic packed rock, regardless of the value assigned to grain radius, is 47.6%. Porosity values for other ...

Not sure anyone has ever attempted 'calculating' the total amount of 'buried' water that exists on earth ... but twouldn't surprise me if came out to be Atlantic sized volumes, or even more.

Just in the fwiw idlewild speculation arena fur de day.

*w*




Avatar

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good ...




» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: A Skeptical Scientist Strikes again - about that Martian 'discovery'
By: Zimbler0
in 6TH POPE
Fri, 16 Aug 24 1:50 AM
Msg. 56679 of 60008

DeComposed > You're probably right. My fingers are crossed though that there actually is a subterranean (but on Mars) ocean. That would be really wonderful.


My thinking was that it was no where near being considerable as an 'ocean'.

A fair amount of water caught within fragmented rock? Perhaps. But a LOT more rock than water.

And then as Professor MT said - TOOOooo many variables for anything less than wild speculation.

Zim.


« 6TH POPE Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next