Posted by Tim Keating on April 8, 2005, 12:58 am
You missed some fundamentals..
1. O3 is far more reactive than ordinary O2.
2. Likewise O2 gas will remain closer to ground. As it's density is
greater than our atmosphere.. (Ever seen an O2 balloon float.. It
3. Meanwhile H2 has far less density, thusly any leakage will ascend
Posted by N9WOS on April 8, 2005, 3:13 am
No, oxygen doesn't stay close to the earth.
The atmosphere is far more complicated than that.
Yes, the O2 concentrations, based on percentage of total gas volume, no
longer make up the normal percentage, at altitude. Interestingly enough the
percentage of O2 remains about the same when compared to N2 and Ar.
All three evenly reduce in density as altitude increases past 800km+.
The ozone layer is around 20 to 30 Km above the earth's surface. Some say
10 to 70Km
Notice that the H and H2 levels don't start rising from natural hydrogen
buoyancy until about 150Km
But, elementary oxygen "O" becomes the primary atmosphere component from
250Km to 700Km. O is broken down from O2 by light.
Anything above 500Km, O and H2 are the primary substances.
Anything above 600Km, O , H2 and H are the primary substances.
Anything above 700Km, H2 and H are the primary substances.
Notice that 700Km is way above the top of the ozone layer.
The hydrogen concentrations, based on total gas density, at the ozone layer
The enriching effect from it's buoyancy doesn't make it a major part of the
until you get past the 200Km range.
Thus, no affect on the O3 layer, because the hydrogen is way above the O3
O concentrations at those altitudes will produce a decent amount of
attrition of the H and H2 molecules.
If you raise the O2 levels at ground, the O2 concentrations at altitude will
naturally even out. And since the O level is directly feeds off of the O2
layer by photonic actions. I can easily say that O concentrations will
Thus, I can postulate that a hydrogen based economy, based off of the
splitting of water, with a large portion of hydrogen in storage, and oxygen
vented, will actually reduce the hydrogen content of the upper atmosphere,
as a result of hydrogen attrition from elevated oxygen levels.
And, as a result of elevated O2 And O levels, the natural production of
ozone will actually increase. :-)
Posted by Tim Keating on April 8, 2005, 7:33 am
Data points irrelevant.
1. Your dealing with log rhythmic tables..
2. Atmosphere above 100km.. is officially defined as space..
(very thin- Aerodynamic surfaces no longer function. )
Again.. non-sequitor.. (measuring space. atmosphere density too low
to have any impact.) )
As for low H2 density.. below 100Km.. It's as expected since the
overall reaction equilibrium heavily favors the water vapor/o2 side
of H2 + O3 -> H20 +O2. One would expect low H2 concentration.. And
that doubling atmosphere H2 inputs would continue to drive the
reaction with available O3.
snip.. the rest.. you've gotten so far off base..
Tropospheric 0-18 km..
(The ozone layer most of which tops out at 35 km.).
Above that O3 density too low to do anything of value..
Posted by N9WOS on April 8, 2005, 4:06 pm
And the reactable area is logarithmically larger too. The is a substantial
quantity of gas in that area, even at the vastly reduced pressures, and
What the hell does that have to do with this discussion?
What the hell does the ability to use aerodynamic surfaces, got to do with
it's contribution to the chemical reaction.
There is many more metric tons of H2 in that area than the human race will
ever create in are lifetimes, and you say it won't have an impact?
You talk about me coming to conclusions that have no basses.
Now that is a conclusion with no basses.
You are stretching it a bit thin here.
To do anything of value, in reference to blocking UV rays. But that has no
bearing on it's contribution to the chemical reaction, formation, and
destruction of the 03 layer. Do you actually think that the formation, and
destruction of the 03 that feeds the ozone layer only happens in the areas
that it is dense enough to perform it's primary beneficiary act? That being
blocking UV light.
Posted by N9WOS on April 8, 2005, 6:10 pm
Strike that remark.
After doing some calculation.
We could produce that much.
100,000's of cubic Km's but it's could be surpassed.