Arrogance and engineering–a deadly combination.

Tuesday, April 15, marks the 102nd anniversary of the sinking of the RMS Titanic. It was a terrible and avoidable loss of life—a tragic Titanicevent, like many others that both preceded and followed, that should never be forgotten. As an engineer and scientist, I have learned how these disciplines can enrich our lives, or cut them short.

Humankind is, by all measure, unique it its ability to manipulate the environment in complex fashion. We design and build wondrous machines that have taken us to the moon and back, as well as the deepest depths of the oceans. We build bridges, tunnels, towering buildings that seem to defy gravity. We mine natural resources from miles below the Earth’s surface and manufacture chemicals that provide high yields of food; textiles that would have earned the praise of kings; plastics and ceramics for just about every purpose imaginable; and wonder drugs that have extended our lifespan. We have learned to manipulate materials at the atomic level to realize advanced semiconductors that are the foundation of modern communications and computers.

Yet despite all these accomplishments, science and engineering are conceptual disciplines that cannot overcome one of the most basic of human emotions—arrogance. This flaw in human psyche contributes to over confidence, a belief that we can manipulate the laws of science and engineering without failure, an egotistical disregard for the human element—error and misunderstanding.

To mark this anniversary, I’ve listed several examples of engineering bungling that led to tragic accidents.

RMS Titanic: Watertight compartments that were not water tight near the upper decks, so as the ship nosed down, water simply flowed from one flooded compartment, over the watertight bulkhead, and into the next compartment. Note, this was a completely avoidable design flaw. Although many experts attribute the sinking to poorly understood metallurgy that resulted in brittle hull plates, I would argue that the true avoidable error was bad design of the watertight bulkheads.

Space shuttle Challenger: Seals on the rocket boosters failed to function as designed because they were operated outside of design Cometlimits (cold temperature) without any supporting data.

De Havilland Comet: The passenger jet age began in 1949 with the Comet. By 1954, several flights had mysteriously crashed, and the plane was grounded for years until the cause was determined—catastrophic metal fatigue originating at the square window corners. The metal fatigue was a result of repetitive cabin pressurization resulting in explosive destruction of the aircraft at high altitude (next time you fly, notice there are no square corners).

Apollo 1Apollo 1: During a launch-pad test of electronic equipment in the Apollo space capsule, a flash fire erupted killing all three astronauts within seconds. The cause of the fire remains unknown, but the speed and intensity of the blaze was due to the Apollo module being unnecessarily filled with pressurized pure oxygen. The astronauts, in their bulky suits and strapped into flight seats, had no chance of egress even if the hatch had been easier to open.

Ford Pinto: The design of the gas tank and filler spout was Ford-Pintovulnerable to rupture in a low-speed rear-end collision. The problem was exacerbated by Ford’s calculated decision to pay victims compensation rather than the more expense recall and fix (less than $20 per automobile).

I could go on—the Deepwater Horizon and Piper Alpha oilrigs, Chernobyl and Fukushima, are some of the more recent and high-profile examples of human arrogance leading to flawed engineering. As I see it, the problem is that technologists have too much faith in technology. This is not a religion, there is no room for faith. Designs must be rooted in cold, hard calculations and science. When we forget that, disaster is only a moment away.

Posted in News, Science for everyone | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

“Crossing Savage” selected for Group Read!

GR 2As an avid member of Goodreads, I enjoy the multicultural and multinational discussion about books and all things related to books. One staple of Goodreads discussions is the group read. I am delighted to share with you that Crossing Savage was selected for the April/May group read in the group A Good Thriller.

If you are a member of Goodreads and want to join A Good Thriller, I’ve linked the group web site for your convenience. GR 1

I want to thank everyone who voted for Crossing Savage. Your continued support is appreciated and humbling. Now the fun begins! I’m looking forward to discussing the book with thriller fans. I hope you’ll join! Cheers!

Posted in Book fun facts, News | Leave a comment

My Writing Process–Action Thrillers!

Let me begin by thanking Trish Jackson for inviting me to contribute to this Writing Process blog tour. It’s my first blog tour, so I’m learning too. Trish writes romantic suspense novels, often set in Africa, where she lived part of her life. I encourage you to visit Trish’s web site where you’ll find her entertaining blog and her books. As someone who appreciates humor, I can recommend Redneck PI and Kick Assitude.

What am I working on?Cussler novels

Now that Crossing Savage (Peter Savage #1) has been released, and Peter Savage #2 (working title Relentless Savage) is in the hands of my editor, I have time to get back into writing. I have been ruminating this third volume for some time, inspired by my travels to China. The culture and history of Asia is fascinating, and I truly admire the achievements of these civilizations. But there is also the dark side, in particular the rampant aggression of Imperial Japan in the first half of the 20th century. The story begins in Nanking in 1938. It was a terrible time to be there, but it should never be forgotten.

Peter Savage is teamed up again with his childhood friend, Commander James Nicolaou, as they face the unthinkable—an unknown enemy has a weapon capable of sinking the largest ship in a single blow.

And there is no defense.

How does my work differ from others of the same genre?

That’s a good question. I strive for believable characters, especially the protagonists and antagonists. In particular, Peter Savage and Jim Nicolaou are flawed, as everyone is. They are not super-human in any way, and often find themselves in impossible situations—yet somehow they must prevail. How they do that has to be real. I want the reader to think yeah, I can see that happening, I could do that.

The other differentiator is that I work hard to incorporate real, cutting-edge science and technology into every plot. But I’ll go further and stretch that science and technology into the realm of plausible. My goal is for the reader to be unable to recognize science fact from science plausible. Michael Crichton excelled at this, and his work provides me with encouragement and a very high bar.

Why do I write what I do?

My love affair with fiction began in about 1980 when a good friend gave me a copy of Raise the Titanic, by Clive Cussler. It was wonderful, and over the years I’ve devoured almost everything Cussler wrote. Along the way I discovered other authors of action thrillers, and soon realized that this was my passion. So, when I decided to create a novel, there was never any question as to what genre I would write.

How does your writing process work?

It begins with a seed—an idea that by itself is almost meaningless. In my current work, that seed was the atrocities perpetrated upon the civilian population of Nanking in 1938. How might such a grotesque crime influence future behavior? Might it foment a deep hatred of Chinese for Japan? And how might individuals, with the means, react to this most basic and raw emotion?

Then I go into outline mode. I recently decided to use a corkboard and small cards for this process, because it is more fluid. I’ll write detailed actions and events on the cards and then pin them to the corkboard, moving around the order and identifying gaps and logical inconsistencies. Once I’m happy with the outline, I’ll start to write.

As I’m writing, the plot undergoes further evolution and, as other writers will attest, the characters speak to me and tell me what they are doing, thinking, experiencing. In the end, the story only resembles the original outline.

Here is a link to Crossing Savage on Amazon and my website www.PeterSavageNovels.com

Two wonderful authors, Cynthia Ainsworthe and Cherrye Vasquez will also be blogging, so stayed tuned in!

Posted in Writing | 1 Comment

A Good Thriller–Please vote for “Crossing Savage”!

walrus on subI’m asking that members of Goodreads log in and vote for “Crossing Savage” as the April/May group read for the group A Good Thriller. I appreciate your help and support.

Twenty books have been nominated and each voter is requested to vote for two, this means a 1 in 10 chance of getting selected! The voting goes like this. Follow the link to the discussion group. Message 59 lists all nominated books. You post a comment at the end of the discussion thread and name the two books you vote for (they ask you put in the cover as well). That’s it!

The group moderator has NOT set this up as a poll–you actually have to post a comment Putinthat sates the two choices you vote for.

By the way, both these photos have a direct relationship to the novel. But you’ll have to read it to make the connection!

Posted in News | Leave a comment

Why Europe and the U.S. are screwed–the changing face of geopolitics.

With Russia amassing troops on Ukraine’s border, and the Crimean Peninsula under article-2579168-1C3E1F8F00000578-310_634x414Russian military occupation, what’s next? Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov assures the world that his country has no intention of attacking or invading eastern Ukraine. Maybe. But what’s to stop them?

Europe, and by extension the U.S., are in a tight spot when it comes to Russian aggression. More than a third of Europe’s natural gas is purchased from Russia, and it mostly flows through pipelines that cross Ukraine. In 2006 and again in 2009 that gas flow was shut off by Russia over disputes with Ukraine over alleged siphoning of gas by the Ukrainian government. These events should have been clear warning signs of European vulnerability, but the immense significance of heavy dependence on Russia energy seems to have been missed, or ignored.

Despite the outrage and harsh rhetoric from Washington over the invasion and subsequentPutin annexation of Crimea, the supposed punishment—sanctions levied against individuals in Putin’s government—are extremely weak and pale in comparison to sanctions the U.S. has imposed on other countries to punish bad behavior. And the reasons should be obvious.

  1. We are winding down two wars that have raged for more than a decade, on the heels of the first Gulf War (1990 to 1991), and cost trillions of dollars. Thousands of our service men and women have died, many times more have been horribly wounded, and the civilian death toll is even greater. To think that securing petroleum exports from the Middle East had little to do with the wars would be naïve. Brutal political disputes associated with mass murder have transpired in Africa (Rwanda, Sudan, Nigeria, Sierra Leon, Congo, Egypt) with barely any notice from the West. Both Europe and the U.S. were extremely slow to engage in the Balkan war of the 1990s.
  2. As long as Europe is dependent on natural gas from Russia, Putin holds the upper hand. Significant sanctions from the west would be met with an energy embargo. This piled on top of the tenuous economy of Europe could easily push Europe into an economic catastrophe.
  3. As a major trading partner, the U.S. would feel the pain if Europe went into a deep recession. With our economic recovery from the meltdown of 2008 still tenuous, global economic strain is risky, and could trigger a major downturn in our domestic economy and drive up unemployment.

You can say what you want about Putin, but he’s no dummy. He has accurately assessed the vulnerability of the West, and it all pivots around energy supply to Europe.

What can be done? What should have started decades ago. There needs to be political commitment to long-term R&D and investment in infrastructure to support diversified energy independence. At the minimum, energy trade should be between countries that have long-standing, and historically friendly, relations. Europe is vulnerable to Russian aggression as long as Europe needs to import energy from Russia. The U.S. is vulnerable to Middle Eastern politics as long as we rely on oil imports.

In a time of 30 second sound bites and politicians who won’t look beyond the next election (supported voters who won’t demand more), where special interests trump national interest, I have little hope of any real change.

Posted in News | Leave a comment

Win a $10 Starbucks gift card. It’s easy!

starbucks signTo celebrate the e-book release of Crossing Savage I’m starting a new contest. So far hunter 2there are 3 reviews of the book posted on Amazon. I really need to get a total of 15 reviews to open the door to some high-profile promotions. Unfortunately Amazon won’t import the reviews that advance-copy reviewers were so kind to post on Goodreads.

So, I’m again asking for help from avid readers and fans of action/political thrillers. This is where the contest enters the discussion. As I said I really need 15 reviews posted on Amazon, and I’m betting this can be achieved over the next two weeks.

Crossing Savage coverThe first 15 reviewers to post a review of Crossing Savage on Amazon before April 11 will be entered into a drawing to win one of 5 Starbucks gift cards, valued at $10. That’s a 1 in 3 chance of winning! When you post your review, be certain to contact me through this web site (the Contact Us page) with your mailing address. I’ll mail the gift cards to the winners. The drawing will be held on April 12 and the gift cards will be mailed on the same day.

Just to make this interesting, if 15 reviews of Crossing Savage are posted on Amazon by April 5, I’ll double the number of gift cards that are given away. That’s right–10 Starbucks gift cards each valued at $10!

Reviews are very important to authors, and they play a huge role in marketing books. Thank you all for your support, it is deeply appreciated.

To recap: (1) I need 15 reviews posted on Amazon before midnight (PST) on April 11. The first 15 reviewers will be entered into a drawing for a $10 Starbucks gift card.  (2) You must contact me (use the Contact Us page) and provide your mailing address to receive the gift card should you be randomly chosen in the drawing.  (3) If 15 reviews of Crossing Savage are posted on Amazon by the April 11 deadline, I’ll draw draw the names of 5 of the 15 reviewers, each will receive one gift card.  (4) If 15 reviews of Crossing Savage are posted on Amazon by midnight (PST) on April 5, I’ll draw the names of 10 of the 15 reviewers, each will receive one gift card.

Posted in Book fun facts, News | Leave a comment

The importance of energy trade in fomenting global aggression: Crimean annexation

 

In the mid-1970s, when I was in high school and owned my first car, OPEC slapped an oil embargo 1embargo on the U.S. Overnight gasoline prices soared and supply was short, making it difficult to fill your tank. I recall people being in a near panic, and the call for energy independence rang loud and true. There was talk of “peak oil” and looming shortfalls in the not-to-distant future. Before long, the embargo was lifted and things went back to normal, only the price for a gallon of gasoline never went back to its pre-embargo level.

Is there any relevance of this event from 40 years ago to current geopolitics? I think so. The shortage of gasoline and other transportation fuels resulting from an embargo of oil imports points directly to the vulnerability of the U.S. (and other countries) even today. Let’s start with the basics—oil, or more correctly, petroleum.

One barrel of petroleum (42 gallons) yields about 19 gallons of gasoline and 11 gallons of products_from_barrel_crude_oil-largediesel fuel. Average gasoline consumption in the U.S. in 2012 was about 357 million gallons per day! The average consumption of diesel fuel was about half this amount, approximately 170 million gallons per day. To put this in perspective, transportation fuels account for 28% of all energy consumed by the U.S. in 2012. That’s a sobering statistic and points to a significant national vulnerability. Just imagine what would happen to our economy if there was another serious disruption in supply of gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuel? And the U.S. is not alone in this vulnerability—all developed and developing countries are at risk.

The good news is that domestic oil production is on the increase, and the U.S. is projected transportation_by_fuel-largeto eclipse Saudi Arabia in oil production by 2020. Also, there are very compelling reasons to believe that global oil production has not peaked, and the concept of “peak oil” production looks to be false. More on this in a future blog.

In Crossing Savage—released March 6—I have imagined a scenario where certain forces are threatened by the potential of western governments developing the science and engineering to become energy independent. No longer relying on imported oil or, in the case of Europe and Japan, free of imported natural gas and oil, would spur economic growth and security. But there is a threat in striving to upset the status quo. Many OPEC members, including Russia, generate much of their annual revenue from exported energy.

We are eyewitnesses to how the Russian government has annexed regions of Georgia and Ukraine, and is showing threatening moves of continued occupation and annexation, with impunity. How is it that Putin can be so confident that the West will tolerate his aggression? The answer is rooted in the thousands of miles of pipelines feeding Europe more than a third of the natural gas it needs for heating and electrical power generation. And don’t lose sight of the fact that Russia is a major exporter of petroleum. In short, Europe cannot afford to overly offend its neighbor to the east.

Over the past four decades, the U.S. and Europe have been very slow to shake free of reliance on imported energy and the associated threat to global stability and peace. Most progress has been limited to renewable production of stationary electrical energy, only a small fraction of domestic transportation fuel is based on renewables. Our political leaders do not exhibit the conviction and long-range vision to fix this problem which, in my opinion, is one of the biggest—and gravest—challenges we face.

Solutions are available. In Crossing Savage Professor Savage discusses how synthetic fuels have been manufactured from globally available feedstocks since Germany developed the industrial processes in the 1930s to increase supplies of transportation fuels without increasing oil imports. The process is generically called gas-to-liquids (GTL). The wonderful feature of this technology is that any carbon-containing raw material—waste, biomass, natural gas, etc.—can be caused to react with water to make fuels like gasoline and diesel.

With Russia exerting its will, Eastern Europe is in jeopardy. Turmoil and political unrest in the Middle East has already contributed to our involvement in two wars there over the past two decades. Now there is civil strife and political tension in Venezuela without the iron fist of Hugo Chavez to maintain order (Venezuela is an OPEC member and major exported of oil). What does the future hold? I shared one view in my novel, and there are other, even more dire, predictions. Given that energy is essential, it is imperative that countries work collectively toward energy security.

Posted in News, Science for everyone | Leave a comment

Crimea. A rare overt example of the energy weapon.

During a book signing for Crossing Savage a few days ago, the talk russian troops 1inevitably veered to energy production and national interests, a central theme of the novel. This led to discussion of the Russian invasion and occupation of Crimea. Will they go onward into Eastern Ukraine? What will the U.S. and Europe do? Is Putin really so crafty or is the timing just a coincidence?

All good questions. Unfortunately, the answers are not so good if you favor a unified Ukraine. Through the research I conducted for Crossing Savage, it is clear that Russia—and Vladimir Putin specifically—is prepared to wage battles across the European and Asian continents, not necessarily with bullets so much as with energy. (One of the characters in Crossing Savage is Valdimir Pushkin and he bears an uncanny resemblance to Putin.) Europe relies heavily on 481045_561317003896242_1578834893_nnatural gas piped in from Russia, and Putin has demonstrated repeatedly that he has no reservations about turning off the flow of gas to achieve his goals—through negotiation, of course.

So why is Russia in Ukraine? Easy. Do a quick Google search and you’ll learn that many of the major gas pipelines to Europe pass through the Ukraine.

OPEC—the Oil Producing and Exporting Countries—has long favored embargoes as a weapon to achieve political goals. In the 70s these embargoes were felt by nearly every consumer in the U.S., and there was an outcry of energy independence. While it is true that 40 years later the U.S. is enjoying a glut of natural gas and domestic oil embargo 1production is on the increase, we have not achieve true energy independence. We still import huge quantities of oil from nations and governments that are not really friendly to the U.S. Is it any wonder that the past 20+ years of U.S. foreign policy is dominated by warfare in the Middle East?

Living with the threat of an energy embargo by a hostile nation is difficult. Has this shaped U.S. policy? What about Europe? Does the West really think that sanctions against Russia will be effective when the recourse will likely include shutting off gas supplies to Europe? As long as we are dependent upon imported energy, we are vulnerable—we intuitively know this.

The investment that made in solar energy and wind energy has beenoil rigs 1 significant, and it should continue since these renewable energy supplies can offset the burning of coal and natural gas for electricity production. But don’t take comfort in this. Stationary energy production is not where our vulnerability lies. Rather, it is with imported oil—the raw material from which transportation fuels are made at refineries. Sadly, the technology exists to synthesize transportation fuels from renewable domestic sources—biomass, garbage, sewage—as well as from domestic natural gas, however there is no political appetite to drive this shift away from petroleum feedstocks.

A conspiracy theorist might be tempted to suggest that the government policy makers are consciously steering away from renewable-based liquid fuel production in order to avoid a crippling energy embargo, retaliation from the OPEC members who rely on export of petroleum. After all, if gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel could all be synthesized, why would anyone need to buy oil? Or maybe our elected representatives are simply being paid by the large oil companies to ignore renewable-based technology. But does that make any sense? After all, the oil companies own the refineries, and it is exactly this level of engineering expertise that would be called upon to make synthetic fuels. Maybe the price of making synthetic fuels is too high? Well, Germany made synthetic gasoline throughout the 30s and into the 40s until Allied bombers destroyed their production plants. South Africa has made synthetic transportation fuels for several decades. Clearly the economics work in these two historical examples, while in the U.S. transportation and fuel prices continue to increase.

I’ll leave you with this thought. The price we pay for fuel at the pump is not the true price. How much is the cost of maintaining the industrial-military complex? How much is the value of lives destroyed in the wars fought over access to petroleum? Maybe it’s time to seriously pursue a sustainable approach to energy.

Posted in News, Science for everyone | Leave a comment

Just say NO! to banned books.

“Crossing Savage” was officially released three days ago (in paperback—the Kindle version will release on March 26) and I want to thank banned books slogon everyone who read one of the advance review copies and provided a review for Goodreads or blogged it. The reviews are posted on Goodreads and hopefully will be uploaded to Amazon in a few days.

Of course, “Crossing Savage” is an action/political thriller. The plot revolves around a central theme of energy supply as an offensive political weapon, and energy independence as the ultimate defensive strategy. As one would expect for this genre, there is violence depicted in the story, but my goal was to refrain from gory, graphical depictions. This may not suit everyone, but I’m just following my personal sensibilities.

read speak knowRecently there has been an energetic dialog on Linked In about whether violence is appropriate in fiction. The theory is that violence as a form of entertainment (books, TV, movies, video games) encourages violent behavior and has an adverse impact on society. At least in the context of TV and movies, this debate goes back many decades, as far as I can remember. For all I know the debate may predate television and film.

I’m not a fan of government censorship when it comes to art. Don’t get me wrong, I’m also not in favor of hateful speech or obscene works of so-called art. But I am a firm believer in personal responsibility. We all have the ability to read or not read a particular book, or watch or not watch a movie or TV program. So, we each have the power—and yes, it is a powerful right—to self-edit the content we take in.

banned books shelvesIn the early 70s comedian Flip Wilson generated a lot of laughs with the phrase “the devil made me do it” and it became a pseudo anthem for shirking self-responsibility. That’s not the direction society should go. We should not surrender our freedom of choice to a bureaucratic agency that has the power to decide what we can read or view.

Be wary of discussions that use vague adjectives to sway the debate toward censorship. The discussion on Linked In began with a simple question: should authors glamorize violence in books? Herein lies the problem. What does glamorize mean? Or gratuitous? It’s tempting to agree that glamorizing violence or depicting gratuitous violence is unnecessary and counterproductive, serving only to feed depraved minds. However, without an unambiguous definition of these adjectives we are left to defining them subjectively, where ten people will give you ten different—yet equally valid—definitions.

Freedom to choose what we read, what we watch, what we listen to, is a powerful right. There’s a reason that freedom of speech is the first amendment in our Bill of Rights. Protect it, cherish it, but don’t abdicate personal responsibility.

Posted in News, Writing | Leave a comment

Diamonds and oil have more in common than you may think! by Professor Ian Savage

hope 1Following the interest in my last discussion about competing theories for oil formation—one based on a biological route and the other based on non-biological chemical reactions within the Earth—I thought I would discuss the presence of carbon deep within our planet. If you subscribe to the abiological theory of oil formation, the presence of carbon and hydrogen in the Earth’s mantle are key.

Carbon is a chemical element (number 6 in the Periodic Table) and it is present in all living organisms. It is also common in many minerals, such as carbonates—calcium carbonate is found in sea shells, for instance. If you read my previous post, you know that conventional science theory says that organisms decay under heat and pressure in the absence of air at relatively shallow depths of about 3 to 6 kilometers, and oil (petroleum) is the result if the conditions are just right. The abiological (or abiotic) theory says that carbon found within the Earth somehow reacts with hydrogen or water (each molecule of water contains two hydrogen atoms) to make the complex mix of hydrocarbons we know as oil. So, if this is true, there must be vast supplies of carbon beneath the Earth’s crust. Is there evidence to support this?

The answer is yes. If you wear a diamond ring, the proof is resting on natural diamonds 1your finger. Diamonds are carbon, very pure carbon indeed, if the diamond is colorless. The color imparted to rare diamonds is from trace impurities (nitrogen yields yellow to orange hues, boron gives blue coloration) or crystal defects (pink, purple, green). Diamonds are very old gemstones, having been created hundreds of millions to billions of years ago in the magma beneath the crust (the upper mantle). The diamond formation 1first diamonds were found in remnants of ancient volcanoes, in a mineral called kimberlite. You see, diamonds are formed when pure carbon is subjected to very high pressure and temperature. In nature, these conditions are only found at depths of about 150 kilometers within the molten rock in the mantle layer. When this molten rock is ejected through volcanoes, we occasionally find diamonds.

The next question, then, is where does this carbon come from and how does it get deposited so deep inside the Earth? After all, carbon is in living things like trees and people, and there is no clear pathway that gets these carbon-containing organism to a depth of 150 kilometers beneath the Earth’s surface!

subduction 7Again the answer may be surprising. In fact, there is a direct path for injecting organic detritus into the mantle and it is due to plate tectonics; that is, the slow but irresistible drifting of continental plates. As an ocean plate is pushed down, or subducted, beneath the neighboring continental plate, everything associated with the ocean plate is drawn down into the upper mantle. Subducted ocean plates are rich in dead marine organisms and carbonates from shell, accumulated over eons, as well as an enormous amount of water.

According to the abiogenic theory, this carbon-containing material is the basis of diamonds and oil. But there is a problem with this theory. The oldest diamonds predate life on Earth. Therefore, there must be another source of carbon that goes back to the formation of our planet. The accretion model of planetary formation describes how matter agglomerated into sufficient mass resulting in the planets as we know them. During this period, heavier material would be drawn closed to the sun and lighter material would constitute planets farther from the sun. As a result, the gas-giants—Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus—are locked in remote orbits while the rocky planets—Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars—orbit close to the sun.

Since carbon in commonly observed in interstellar space as well as on Earth, we can be quite confident that carbon was present at the time material aggregated to form our home planet. The carbon was likely distributed throughout the Earth during formation, eventually rising (since the density of carbon is less than the density of iron and nickel, which comprise the core) to the mantle, upper mantle, and crust. Ancient diamonds are best explained as resulting from carbon already present in the upper mantle prior to the evolution of life.

In another blog I’ll address the distribution of hydrogen in the mantle, as both carbon and hydrogen are necessary for oil to form.

Posted in Guest blogs, Science for everyone | Leave a comment