Peter Savage Novels

For the past several weeks I have been blogging about DNA and how intentional or accidental changes to human DNA—such as by viral insertion of foreign DNA—presents a plausible explanation for massive changes in human physical traits such as is at the core of werewolf sagas. Indeed, if you have read The Devil of Darfur you know that a major plot element revolves around a hypothetical process that uses viruses to insert Neanderthal DNA into human DNA, thereby creating a hominid that has keen senses combined with brute strength and unparalleled endurance.

Of course, we can’t say for sure how far the cutting-edge of science has advanced in the case of military and top secret research—maybe this viral insertion process is more fact than fiction. Who can say with certainty?

However, I came across a fascinating report today that ties into the science presented in Unintended Consequences, and I wanted to take this time to share that report rather than let it grow old and stale.

Geologists from the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History and oceanographers from the University of Rhode Island have studied the composition of glassy igneous rocks (cross-section shown in photo) deposited on ocean beds. In particular, they found that the oxidation state of iron in these rocks correlates with the source of the magma from which the glassy rocks formed—higher concentrations of reduced iron indicates the lava (magma) originated deep within the earth, whereas lower concentrations of reduced iron is indicative of lava sourced closer to the crust.

So what, you ask? Well, iron is not the only trace element in these igneous rock samples. They also contain barium, thorium, rubidium, lanthanum … and carbon.

Carbon is the big surprise … well, really it is the concentration of carbon that is unexpected. Carbon quickly oxidizes—it really, really wants to be carbon dioxide—as magma containing dissolved carbon migrates up toward the crust and encounters oxygen, such as from water and carbonates (sea shells). It has been long established that carbon dissolved in magma is the natural source of diamonds.

Yes, diamonds—now you’re interested.

Evidence from the rock samples suggests that there’s a lot of carbon dissolved in the magma residing far below the mantle. Perhaps as much as ninety-percent of all carbon—in all forms—on Earth is dissolved in the hot liquid magma deep inside our planet. I find that astonishing!

I am confident that this report is being carefully studied by Professor Ian Savage and Professor Kenji Sato. You will recall from their exploits, detailed in Unintended Consequences, that the two good professors are investigating how hydrocarbons may form from the chemical reaction of water and mineral carbonates in the mantle, beneath the crust. They are on the right track, but perhaps it is carbon, dissolved in magma, that is reacting with hydrogen (liberated from water) to yield hydrocarbon deposits. More research is required to answer this question.

Something tells me that Professors Savage and Sato will have plenty of funding to continue their investigations.

Cheers.

When I am not writing the next Peter Savage novel, I am usually working with a talented group of individuals to bring forward new products and processes for the energy sector. Specifically, hydrogen energy. So, I am afforded an excellent opportunity to see a lot of scams–as in maybe one every month or two–based on energy technology.

Usually, these scams involve some type of perpetual motion machine, or a derivative thereof. For the purpose of this blog, I’m going to define “perpetual motion machine” broadly to include any device that purports to deliver more useful energy than the machine consumes.

“Say what?” you ask. Fair enough–let’s break it down to the basics. Most machines do something. A car, train, plane, ship, or bicycle transport people and goods from here to there. A generator produces electricity; so does a battery. All these machine consume energy in order to function. Yes, a battery too consumes energy to reach a state of charge; that is, a state in which the battery is able to release stored electrical power.

This probably makes sense; certainly this is a principle most everyone is familiar with. Everything in the world of science–the world we all live in–is good until someone comes along and says, “You know, I just invented this bicycle that has a fan connected to the wheel. As you ride and the wheel turns, so does the fan. The fan blows air, and in front of the fan I’ve invented this sail to catch the air blown by the fan. That makes the bicycle move forward, and you never have to peddle again once you get the bike moving. Isn’t this wonderful!”

“Rubbish!” you say. And you’d be absolutely right. Trouble is, modern cons aren’t so obvious in their deception. It is also a sad fact that there are many people who simply want to believe a good pitch, even though deep down they may suspect it’s too good to be true. Flash a smile, dress sharply, rattle off a bunch of jargon, and be evasive when answering difficult questions, and you have a good shot at pulling in “investment” money to get your company’s invention developed and into manufacturing. Or so the pitch goes.

Most of the time, I see claims for vehicle propulsion systems designed for cars and small trucks that supposedly will use surplus energy from the engine to break water into hydrogen and oxygen, which is then combusted in the engine to propel the vehicle and break down more water, and … you get the idea. One of the most infamous examples of this con was carried out by Stan Meyers. He demonstrated a dune buggy retrofitted with his invention, and garnered some news coverage at the time. He was a fraud. There was another example of this con in Japan a few years back, and other people are still trying to perpetrate the same untruth.

One of the more amusing examples I came across just this past week is a machine that a company in Las Vegas is promoting. The machine, it is claimed, will extract hydrogen and oxygen from water without consuming anything more than a tiny amount of electric power.  At the same time, the machine also produces electric power–ten times (or more) than the process consumes. But wait, there’s more … it also generates heat! If only the machine would also generate an abundance of light and you could switch between heat and cool modes, maybe they’d have something (WARNING: sarcasm).

One of the most fundamental laws of science is the conservation of mass (or stuff) and energy. The great one, A. Einstein, extended this law to include his famous equation (E=mc^2) showing that mass and energy may be interconverted. The great Prof. Hawking struggled with conservation of mass and energy in his brilliant work on black holes. This work led to the mathematical discovery of Hawking radiation (if you are interested at all in black holes, learn what Hawking radiation is–fantastic stuff!).

This law of science probably sounds obvious, right? I mean, if you have 1 gallon of water you can’t fill two 1 gal jugs full. Or if you have a ten foot board you can only cut ten 1-foot lengths; not eleven, not twelve. So it is with energy. You cannot get more energy than you start with–unless you are converting mass to energy (this is what happens in nuclear processes, but not chemical process that are pervasive in our daily routines).

In the case of machines, this means the following: add up the total amount of energy going in to make the machine do it’s thing–electricity, gasoline, human power, solar radiation, whatever–sum it up, and the work done by the machine, or the alternate form of energy provided by the machine (diesel generator burns fuel to make electricity) cannot exceed the amount of energy consumed by the machine. This is fundamental, it is a truth that cannot be violated. You cannot get more than you start with. Fact … done.

Sadly, there is no shortage of conniving “entrepreneurs” who have polished their pitch, and they are looking for you. Fortunately, you don’t need a college degree or years of training to spot this scam. In fact, it is childishly simple. Here are the four rules to test any proposal that appears too good to be true:

1. Ask, what is the energy in and the energy out. If they say anything that suggests more energy is liberated by the machine than is consumed, walk away. No, run away.

2. If your question is answered with a lot of jibberish and jargon, especially if they start to lecture you on how traditional science is wrong, and an education simply gets in the way of true breakthrough discoveries, run away!

3. Ask yourself: “If this machine does even 70% of what is claimed why wouldn’t the inventor be selling it like cold water in the desert?”

4. Is there a hint of conspiracy? Typically, this takes the form of either the government or the oil companies don’t want people to have this new energy source. Really??

If we forget about science for a moment, these claims–a car that runs only on water, or a machine that produces a surplus of electricity and heat while also splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen–suffer from a killer logical flaw. If these machines really existed, why are the inventors struggling to make a living? Why have they not revolutionized the products we use and buy? And, along the way, become gazillionaires, gracing the cover of Time Magazine and leapfrogging over Bill gates on the global list of individual wealth? Everyone knows the answer to this question.

I have been deliberately obtuse on naming companies and individuals who are conducting deceptive marketing in the energy sector. If you want to know, or are looking at an investment and just aren’t sure, contact me directly (through this web site). I don’t want to see anyone cheated.

Are you a fan of werewolf movies? I am. There is a certain attraction that I find irresistibly appealing in the notion of a human transforming, mutating, into a beast. The beast, as we all know, has a higher intelligence but is incapable of human speech. There is no clear agreement in the movies that werewolves can understand humans, but in some renditions of the legend they do, at least to a limited degree.

There are a few universal characteristics of the werewolf tales. First, the creature has features that are very much like an animal—a wolf—along with super-human strength and senses. Second, there is the rapid transformation that occurs causing the human to change into the beast. Depending on who is telling the story, the change may occur only during a full moon. Others present a different situation in which the transformation occurs at will.

But it is the process of the change, and the circumstances that cause the “infection”, that I find rich with plausible science. We know how it works, right? A person is bitten by a werewolf and becomes infected. This clearly suggests some type of pathogen—virus, bacteria—that enters the victims blood and wrecks biological havoc. Is this even remotely possible?

Certainly. Bacterial and viral infections are well known to be transmitted into the victim by contaminated blood, saliva, or other bodily fluids. That a werewolf infects through biting suggests that contaminated saliva is the most likely avenue of infection. Many diseases—both bacterial and viral—are transmitted through saliva and mucus. Perhaps one of the most horrendous examples is the Ebola virus; two more common and yet still highly infectious examples are the common cold virus and the influenza virus.

Now, for the human-to-werewolf transformation to occur, there must be a radical alteration in the cellular makeup of the infected human. More specifically, the DNA must be changed in significant ways. But changes to the DNA will not cause the dramatic (and painful) mutation of human to wolf-like beast. There must also be cell division to allow growth at the cellular level—bones, muscles, organs, skin and hair, etc.—resulting in what we all recognize as a werewolf. In other words, the DNA of the infected victim must be modified through the infection, and then the newly infected cells must replicate and carry the new DNA-coded cellular modifications forward—all without killing the host. Indeed, there wouldn’t be any werewolf movies if the victim died as a result of the infection.

Now we are making progress. We have analyzed the problem and identified how a person, once bitten by a werewolf, may be infected with a virus through transfer of saliva, possibly blood. Now what? What does science tell us about plausible mechanisms for the alternation of the victims DNA as a result of the infection? The answer—surprisingly—is a lot.

Humans, mammals in general, are easily infected with viruses that insert their DNA into the host. By some estimates as much as 8% of human genetic material may have been derived from viruses inserting their DAN into the human host. Gene therapy is a process whereby specific DNA is transferred into a host cell using an infecting virus, such as adenovirus. Once inside the host cell, the newly-inserted DNA starts to do its job of manufacturing new proteins that carry out specific functions. Current medical practice views gene therapy as a potentially powerful method to treat certain diseases. But what if that DNA governed the manufacture of proteins that caused other changes such as massive bone structure, bulging muscles, superior senses.

This is how a werewolf—or Homothals in The Devil of Darfur—could plausible result from a viral infection. The science is real. So, next full moon, maybe it would be best to stay inside and lock the doors.

Okay, so I am flirting with violating my number one rule … the prime directive … don’t get political.

Well, I say flirting, because I consider this message to be apolitical.

I care deeply about our country–and the gridlock, rhetoric, posturing, and lack of action that would steer us on a course that is best for “we the people”, has me greatly concerned. And I know I am not alone. Probably everyone who reads this feels the same. Consequently, I don’t believe this is a political statement. But, on the off chance that my messaging here offends anyone, please accept my preemptive apology. Either click on the image to make it larger or go to my FB page to see it there.

Peak oil production. Sure, you’ve heard the term—and you know it means that the global production of oil will reach a peak, or maximum, level, and then decline in subsequent years. Eventually, oil production will dwindle to a fraction of present output. Right?

That certainly is the picture painted by many advocates of alternative energy. But is it true, or is it just a modern rendition of Chicken Little proclaiming “The sky is falling!”

Let’s begin with a short history lesson. The theory of peak oil production is, in fact, a more general theory put forward by M. King Hubbert and presented publicly in 1956 at a convention of the American Petroleum Institute. In his paper Hubbert predicted US oil production would peak sometime between 1965 and 1970. A bold claim at the time—throughout the 1950s and 1960s domestic crude supplied 90% of US demand.

Hubbert’s theory is assumes a limited (finite) supply of a resource and a growing demand for that resource. If demand grows sufficiently relative to the supply, then mathematically one can predict—calculate—when the supply will reach its maximum, or peak, level. This logic makes an infinite amount of sense, but initially few paid much attention to Hubbert’s peak oil theory. In fact, US production did peak in 1970, and when the oil embargo occurred in 1973, overnight Hubbert was viewed as a prophet.

But crude oil production continued to climb through the 20^th century, and forecasts of when—not if—peak oil would occur continued to be pushed out to 2005, then 2007, and 2011. This 2003 graph of global oil production reflects the popular belief at the time that the world was running out of crude oil.

However, industry analysts are predicting that the US will surpass Saudi Arabia as the largest producer of crude (again) by 2020. And Bob Dudley, BP chief executive, stated that warnings the world is on the path toward peak oil appear “increasingly groundless”.

“The outlook shows the degree to which once-accepted wisdom has been turned on its head. Fears over oil running out – to which BP has never subscribed – appear increasingly groundless. The US will not be increasingly dependent on energy imports, with energy set to reinvigorate its economy. And China and India are expected to need a lot more imports to keep growing,” he said. [The Guardian, Jan 16, 2013, Fiona Harvey]. A current chart of world oil production shows that, contrary to past forecasts, production has been steadily growing.

So, what happened? Why has the theory of peak oil seemingly fallen out of favor? The answer is simple: it is not supported by the facts regarding oil production. In other words, Hubbert’s theory is wrong as applied to oil.

And why is that, you ask? Simple. The theory of peak oil assumes that crude oil is a finite resource in relatively limited supply. However, this assumption does not appear to be correct. Recent investigations of deep-ocean hydrothermal vents that exude hydrocarbons, indicates that hydrocarbons are produced from the reaction of water with surrounding rocks (this, of course, is the research focus of Professor Ian Savage and Professor Sato in Unintended Consequences).

The concept of oil and gas being limited resources produced eons ago from decaying biological material is beginning to seem archaic; perhaps that is fitting with the term fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels. I’ll bet you’ve heard the term countless times, and no doubt you know what it means. But have you ever thought about why this term is used to describe oil, gas, and coal?

Fossil fuels … really? The name implies that our staple forms of energy somehow come from ancient fossils. My mind conjures up images of dinosaur fossils, or something like that. Does this mean that the T-Rex fossilized skeletons we see exhibited at museums were destined to become fuel for our cars? If only they were left in buried in the ground a little longer.

Well, the truth is quite a bit different. The term fossil fuels is probably one of the most notorious misnomers in our modern language; right up there with lead pencil (which, by the way, does not contain any lead but rather a graphite rod that is superbly efficient at making erasable marks on paper).

Although crude oil and coal were known to ancient civilizations, only relatively recently have scientific theories been put forward—and later tested—to explain the formation of these energy sources along with natural gas. The first published theory of oil and gas formation dates back to a scientific text published by the German Georg Bauer (whose Latin name is Georgius Agricola) in 1556. About 200 years later the Russian scientist Mikhail Lomonosov expanded on Bauer’s theory, attributing oil formation to naturally occurring anaerobic decomposition of ancient plant and animal material buried deep beneath sediment layers in prehistoric oceans. In the 1970’s the term fossil fuel was applied, indicating the widespread support for this theory.

Later refinement to the original theories of Bauer and Lomonosov point to oceans full of zooplankton as the primary biological matter that has been cooked and degraded over eons to result in crude oil as we know it. Coal is widely believed to have resulted from similar processes but starting with lush bogs and other plant material. A holistic theory, including carbon dioxide capture from air, results in the carbon-cycle (see figure).

But there are logical discrepancies with the biological theory of oil (hydrocarbons) and gas (methane) formation. The most obvious is that this theory cannot possibly explain the presence of extraterrestrial hydrocarbons. If you’ve read Unintended Consequences, no doubt you’ll recall that this point is debated by Professors Savage and Sato. To give you perspective, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune (the gas giants) are largely composed of methane and hydrogen. Okay, there’s an abundance of methane in the outer plants, so what? What about higher hydrocarbons, what we would consider to be comparable to crude oil?

Good question, and this is where science fact really is stranger than fiction. Titan, a moon orbiting Saturn, has oceans of liquid methane, mountains of solid hydrocarbons—ethane, propane, other hydrocarbons—and the atmosphere is brilliant orange, the result of hydrocarbon smog that would make the skies over Beijing look clear and fresh. If methane and heavier hydrocarbons are so common in our solar system, would it not be logical to expect that these hydrocarbons also became part of the Earth when it was formed?

But long before we launched satellites to the far reaches of our solar system, the idea that crude oil and methane gas could be made within our planet from non-biological chemical reactions was proposed by the great Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev in 1877. He proposed that petroleum was created in the depths of the Earth from chemical reactions between water and iron carbides in the hot upper mantle. This theory was largely ignored, and its supporters dwindled under the mounting evidence of biogenic petroleum formation.

In other blogs I’ve written about the presence of geologic hydrogen venting from the Earth, as well as strong evidence of carbon within the mantle and likely deeper in the core, too. Still, proponents of biogenic oil formation point to organic compounds found in oil that resemble chlorophyll as evidence of a biological origin. I have not found a convincing discussion in the scientific literature addressing the potential that these biological marker compounds could not have come from secondary contamination. Indeed, it is very well established that many types of bacteria feed on crude oil, and this is the favored theory in the biogenic community that some crude oil and gas is contaminated with hydrogen sulfide (sometimes in remarkably high concentration) and why some reservoirs contain very heavy oil rather than all reservoirs filled with roughly comparable crude oil mixtures.

Furthermore, the spontaneous conversion of buried zooplankton and other biological material to complex hydrocarbons violates the laws of chemical thermodynamics. A satisfactory explanation for this exception to thermodynamics needs to be put forward for scientific scrutiny.

One point that both camps—biogenic and abiogenic—agree upon is that there is plenty of oil, natural gas, and coal for a long time. The false argument of “peak oil” is material for another blog.

A strange question, no doubt. But the answer may surprise you. According to prominent scientists from around the world, the same carbon precursors may lead to both diamonds and oil. It all depends on how they are cooked and compressed deep inside the Earth.

Previously I have discussed abiogentic, or abiotic, oil formation–this is a foundation theme in my first novel Unintended Consequences. These terms are used to label naturally-occuring mechanisms for oil generation within the Earth that are not based on biological precursors such as plankton, algae, and ancient plants and animals. So, exactly how is oil—a mixture consisting of a great variety of hydrocarbon molecules—formed within the Earth? The theory is actually rather simple and it is based on carbon, present in magma beneath the crust, reacting with hydrogen. The simplest hydrocarbon molecule is methane, comprising one carbon atom combined with four hydrogen atoms. More complex hydrocarbon molecules merely have more carbon atoms and more hydrogen atoms. Hydrocarbons are a rich class of organic compounds because there is a nearly endless variety of ways that carbon and hydrogen can be chemically bonded to yield unique and interesting molecules.

How do we know that carbon is found deep within the Earth? Another good question. One answer—and the most interesting to most people—is diamonds. This not-so-rare gem stone is pure carbon and it is typically found in ancient lava that was extruded from great depths. For example, ancient lava cores, once the throats of volcanoes, in South Africa and India have historical significance for the diamonds found at these sites (the Great Star of Africa, the Orloff, the Regent, the Koh-i-Noor, the Taylor-Burton, and the blue Hope).

But what about hydrogen, you ask. Well, hydrogen is also found in enormous quantity beneath the crust and it is thought to be dissolved in the molten iron-nickel core of the Earth. There are no reliable estimates of exactly how much hydrogen gas may be trapped deep within the Earth, but all estimates suggest the volume is beyond huge. We know with certainty that hydrogen is present in Earth’s crust based on studies reported by NASA Ames Research Center in 2002. Professor Friedemann Freund and colleagues found extraordinarily high levels of hydrogen gas trapped within samples of granite and olivine. Freund calculated that as much as 1,000 liters of hydrogen may be trapped in each cubic meter of rock.

The prevailing theory is that a large amount of hydrogen was trapped when the Earth was formed along with all of the other mass that makes up our planet. Slowly, hydrogen has been migrating up to cracks and crevices in the crust, and from there this lightest of all gases easily escapes Earth’s gravitational pull and is lost to space forever. But, hydrogen is also being constantly made—or perhaps I should say recycled—by the process of plate tectonics. As sub-ocean crusts, saturated with water, are forced down beneath the opposing plate in subduction zones, the water-rich crustal material eventually is driven deep into the mantle. There, at high temperatures, water reacts with iron-containing minerals to release hydrogen gas. In the process, oxidized iron is a byproduct.

This subduction process is slow, but the amounts of water taken beneath the crust are huge. Notice that this process, as theorized, takes place deep in the crust, if not in the mantle below the crust. Supporters of the abiogenic theory say this makes sense and petroleum should be found in very deep wells as the hydrocarbon soup percolates up toward the surface. Indeed, more than 10 kilometers beneath Texas are rich oil reserves. This is too deep to be the result of decaying biological material.

Despite the dire warnings over the past four decades that we are on the verge of running out of oil, annual global production of oil has actually increased every year, and is expected to continue this trend in 2013 and beyond. In fact, production of crude oil in the United States is at an all-time high, and the U.S. is forecast to overtake Saudi Arabia and become the largest oil producer by 2020.

Unintended Consequences is, of course, a work of fiction.  As the story unfolds, we see that those countries that are currently oil rich may not respond favorably to the West becoming less dependent on imported oil. Could an understanding of this mind set help to explain the actions of the government of Iran?

A major theme in Unintended Consequences is that natural gas and oil maybe formed within the Earth by non-biological processes. Such chemical routes are referred to as abiogenic or abiotic processes. Imagine for a moment that this is true, and now imagine that with a detailed understanding of the chemistry, the process may be engineering into an industrial route to economically synthesis fuels.

This provides a motive for the mayhem that unfolds in the novel since, obviously, the United States and Western countries would covet such a process for manufacturing fuels. Clearly, if such were possible and economically practical—note that this is a vital requirement—then we could be truly independent of imported oil. In fact, we wouldn’t need to drill our own reserves, saving the environment from certain future harm.

Keeping with my need to write plausible science (not complete fiction—I like science fiction as a genre, but it’s not what I want to write), the chemical reactions thought to be occurring within the Earth’s crust are described as the plot unfolds, albeit somewhat vaguely. To be fair, one of the protagonists—Professor Ian Savage—is conducting research to reveal the specific chemical mechanisms.

So, why rehash this? If you have read Unintended Consequences, you know this already. Well, recently I started following a group on LinkedIn that is discussing the science of hydrogen venting from the Earth. Fascinating stuff, and possible an explanation for all kinds of bad things—but I’ll save that discussion for another time.

As it turns out the suggestion that the Earth has huge stores of hydrogen is a fairly old concept (pioneered by Russian scientists). But over the last decade there have been many scientific publications that address not only the fact that hydrogen is escaping through the crust of the Earth, but also how hydrogen is formed from inorganic reactions. This is exciting, because that is exactly what Professor Ian Savage speculates in the book.

Moreover, research carried out by the University of Washington under a grant from the National Science Foundation, has revealed that inorganic chemical reactions of hydrogen with carbon dioxide from mineral carbonates (think sea shells) yields synthetic hydrocarbons—oil and natural gas. This work was centered on a particularly active spot in the mid-Atlantic call the Lost City. The process is believed to involve hydrogen generated from a particular type of iron-bearing mineral and water. So, maybe Professor Savage is on to something? And maybe, just maybe, we will find a chemical route to make hydrocarbon fuels from water and rocks!

If you are a member of LinkedIn, check out the group called “Hydridic Earth”. This group discusses a theory that the Earth, and many other planets with a rocky core, actually have immense internal stores of hydrogen. It is an interesting theory, and from a chemical perspective, completely compatible with the common belief that the Earth has a molten nickel-iron core. You see, hydrogen is soluble in nearly all metals, and iron and nickel are no exceptions.

So, what is the significance of this theory? Well, let’s assume that hydrogen is stored within the core, then it may also be liberated as the gas diffuses away from the high heat and pressure within the core. In my first novel, Unintended Consequences, the plot revolves around the theory of abiogenic (or abiotic) oil formation. One of the challenges I faced in writing Unintended Consequences was to come up with a scientifically plausible hypothesis for the formation of hydrogen within the crust that could then lead to production of oil and natural gas. By the way, it is an interesting side note that the theory of a hydrogen-rich Earth was first put forward by Russian scientists, and the same is true for the abiogenic theory of oil formation.

So, if hydrogen is available in the crust, or deep within the mantle, then it is far easier to postulate chemical mechanisms for the reduction of minerals (such as carbonates) to yield hydrocarbons. This fits nicely with Unintended Consequences, and provides another plausible mechanism to explain why petroleum maybe be constantly produced rather than a finite resource derived from decomposed plants and dinosaurs. Cheers!

I hope you enjoyed the latest Peter Savage Novel. Please post your review of The Devil of Darfur on AskDavid.com