Dr. Skeptic wrote:
H2O2 doesn't exist in the Martian soil but it is part of a reactant cycle of surface materials, though not understood at the time the Viking Landers first verified the existence of H2O2 in the 70's and has had confirmation by the rovers, Mars Orbiter ....
Then you can tell me which instrument(s) were used to find these hypothetical peroxides. Viking was not capable of identifying peroxide, nor did it identify peroxide. No lander or orbiter has yet been equipped with the hardware needed to locate or identify peroxides of any type on Mars.
The presence of peroxides was theorized by researchers trying to find an alternate explanation to the results of Viking; those results seemed to indicate both life and organic compounds. A flawed instrument, the GCMS, which is literally blind to organic compounds, was used to dismiss the results of the detection of organic matter even though it could not be relied on to even find organic matter (or its absence).
In short, no peroxides have ever been found on Mars. This is all theories and wishful thinking by people who do not want to face the fact that processes and tests indicated the presence of life.
Now let's look at the new information and papers in question to help resolve this clearly.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0610/0610093.pdf
From the original paper:
(2) Chemical explanations for the Viking lander experiments (particularly the evolution of O2 upon wetting) require a strong oxidizer at sufficiently high concentration, which has still not been identified.
In other words, they do not know what chemical might have done this. This does not say that peroxide was identified.
(3) There is no satisfactory explanation for the 30 % rise in CO2, the near doubling of N2, or the surprising large rise of O2, from 4 nmol to about 520 nmol, in the GasExchange Experiment.
They are saying that if you take only chemistry as the explanation, they cannot account for what they saw.
NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION, including hypothetical peroxide molecules.
(4) No convincing mechanism had been proposed for the small but significant synthesis of organic material in the Pyrolytic Release Experiment (Table 1). This amount could not come from the synthesis by UV radiation since an optical filter to screen out the UV wavelengths below 320 nanometers was included in the experiment.
Take special notice of this statement. Organic matter was formed when the Pyrolytic Release Experiment was performed. Something in the test chamber made more organic molecules than when the experiment started. This is called "life". They made certain that ultraviolet light could not have done this, so that eliminates any reasonable explanation other than the presence of life.
Now let's look at the news release.
http://www.wsutoday.wsu.edu/Print_compl ... oryID=3551
Hydrogen peroxide is a powerful oxidant. When released from dying cells, it would sharply lower the amount of organic material in their surroundings.
NOTE: the presence or existence of these organisms is still speculative.
This would help explain why Viking’s gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer detected no organic compounds on the surface of Mars.
NOTE: The GCMS was not capable of detecting organic compounds if less than a billion cells per gram are present. The instrument is in effect blind.
This result has also been questioned recently by Rafael Navarro-Gonzalez of the University of Mexico, who reported that similar instruments and methodology are unable to detect organic compounds in places on Earth, such as Antarctic dry valleys, where we know soil microorganisms exist.
NOTE: The GCMS is not capable of detecting organic matter (as shown by this article) yet other instruments did in fact indicate organic matter.
The possibility that the tests killed the organisms they were looking for is also consistent with the results of the Pyrolytic Release experiment, in which radiolabeled CO2 was converted to organic compounds by samples of Martian soil. Of the seven tests done, three showed significant production of organic substances and one showed much higher production.
NOTE: Actually, seven of nine tests performed indicated the presence of organic matter. But also notice that in the past, they denied any organic matter being found, yet now they admit that four tests were actually positive. In other words, now they have changed their story.
So just in these short paragraphs, we find that they now admit that some of the test show the presence of organic matter in the Martian soil, that some of the tests showed that something in the soil was making new organic matter, that they did not actually identify peroxides, and that the GCMS, the instrument claimed to discount life, was in fact blind to the presence of organic matter.
BUt still, NASA insists that there is peroxide in the soil, not just at the surface. Let's see.
In a recent article in National Geographic, the following statement appears:
“Dust storms on Mars appear to be creating a snow of bleachlike chemicals that make their way into the planet's soil—rendering life as we know it impossible on the red planet's surface, scientists report.”
They are clearly stating that the peroxide is getting into the soil, not just on the surface.
The next line in the report reads:
“The announcement comes close to the tenth anniversary—August 6, 1996—of the now discredited claim by NASA scientists that they had discovered evidence of life on Mars inside a Martian meteor found in Antarctica.”
Here is a problem- the claims were never "discredited", simply dismissed. Nobody has yet found a way to discredit the ALH84001 results. Instead, they ignore them or sweep them under the rug. That is why there is still such a controversy among the researchers. If the results were discredited, then there would be an article showing exactly how and why. No such article exists.
Let’s look at the next statement.
“The toxic chemicals cited in the new study, including hydrogen peroxide, are created by the action of static electricity generated by dust devils.”
No, the toxic chemicals are theorized to be created by the action of static
electricity in dust devils. Already, the logical disjoints are showing up. This is still purely a theory, and no such observations have in fact been made. All they have at this point is a pretty theory. Let’s move on.
“Dust devils are swirling vortexes that can tower several miles high and a quarter-mile (about a half a kilometer) wide at the base. They're not tornados, but on Earth they can pack enough punch to knock people off their feet.”
This is a true statement. Dust devils are also seen on Mars and have been photographed many times by satellites orbiting the planet as well as rovers on the surface. So far all we really know for sure is that there are dust devils on Mars.
“The new research applies what is known about Earthly dust devils to conditions in the thinner Martian atmosphere.”
This is typically a fairly safe move- study a phenomenon and then apply it to other cases. This sounds like a reasonable step for a researcher. Let’s see how it evolves:
“We spent years chasing dust devils in the Arizona desert with a special instrumented truck," said Gregory Delory, a physicist from the University of California, Berkeley. Delory is the lead author of one of two papers on the subject published in the most recent issue of the journal Astrobiology.
So we have a physicist who has studied dust devils and is applying his
expertise to Martian dust devils. Again, this is probably a safe step. Now they state:
“The researchers found that Martian dust devils would create large amounts of static electricity.”
How did they find this out? Did they create a dust devil in a near vacuum? This part is a little hazy.
"It's analogous to rubbing your feet against the carpet and shocking someone," Delory said.”
Static is in fact generated easily by dry moving air, so there is some merit to this concept.
“The static fields aren't strong enough to produce lightning bolts, but they do produce sparks.”
Here again it is a little hazy. The statement is that the static electricity
made by these dust storms is not very great. But in the thin atmosphere of Mars, we would expect a soft glow discharge like the interior of a plasma ball. Charged objects might have a faint glow and the discharge would quickly drain away the static.
Moving right along:
“These sparks break water and carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere apart and allow them to recombine into bleachlike chemicals, including hydrogen peroxide, the scientists say.”
Well, yes, this is known to be possible on Earth where there is a thick
atmosphere to help the buildup of a static charge. But on Mars, we would expect that the charge would bleed away rapidly like a fluorescent tube or plasma ball, and not accumulate well on an object. If you think about how thin the air is, this makes perfect sense. Now for the next statement:
“So much hydrogen peroxide is formed, in fact, that it would fall to the ground as snow.”
Wait a minute- just a moment ago we were discussing a theory, but now, somehow, this is “in fact”. No such observation has been made, no such experiments have been documented, and remember that NASA strongly stresses how rare water is in the Martian atmosphere. Suddenly there is “in fact” enough to snow hydrogen peroxide on the ground when there is a dust storm.
“This explains a conundrum dating back to 1976, when the first Mars landers, Viking 1 and Viking 2, failed to find any trace of organic matter in the Martian soil.”
This is absolutely false. The Pyrolytic Release Experiment found organic
matter in 7 of 9 samples tested. Plenty of organic matter showed up in the Martian soil, but this result, like the LRE results and the Martian meteorite results, are being ignored. And just a few paragraphs above, NASA has finaly admitted to four of the tests showing organic matter. So which is it? NASA has supplied two differing "facts" here. In one, there was no organic matter found. In another, the tests showed organic matter in 4 cases. In fact, tests showed organic matter in 7 out of the 9 cases.
So here you see that NASA itself has made different claims on the same material, that some researchers using the data have found that organic matter is in fact forming in the tests, that no peroxides have been found, but only theorized about. We also see how they bring a lie to life- "so much peroxide is formed in fact" when no such fact exists. It is no more than a pretty story.
Now, let's face head on one other issue that is totally ignored in the above National Geographic article. For one mole of hydrogen peroxide to form, you must start with two moles of water.
The reaction is simple: (2)H2O + UV = (1)H2O2 + (1)H2
Again, no weasel words, and no waffling. This is a physical fact. If enough hydrogen peroxide were present to snow out on the ground, there would already be conditions to produce twice as much snow in the form of water ice. And, it would form more readily since snow forms at a higher temperature than hydrogen peroxide snow.
In summary: Meridiani is in fact a seabed, there are present day fossils, the soil is muddy with brine, and geysers are presently erupting there now. There is no peroxide in the soil, because iron sulfate salts will instantly destroy it, there is no peroxide snow because water ice would form twice as much and much more easily. The mysterious "car wash" incidents that keep cleaning off Opportunity's solar panels are exactly that, most likely from geyser spray. And, NASA will keep lying or omitting just as these article show because they are not willing to admit that there is life on Mars and that there has been life on Mars.
Dr. Skeptic wrote:
So it's not H2SO4, there is a evidence of a multitude on compounds that the only explanation of there existence is by precipitating from a strong acidic environment equivalent to the re-activeness of sulfuric acid, and I'll spot you a point for the molar concentration.
You are backpedalling from your claims of "battery acid." But show us the evidence. There are sulfates on Earth, are you claiming that we had oceans of sulfuric acid here? That fact destroys your theory. Sulfates are easily created in low concentration reactions that would be perfectly safe for living organisms. There is no need to invoke extremes of chemistry or condition. Once the water dries up or freezes, the minerals and salts are left behind.
(No Martian organisms were dipped in sulfuric acid during the production of this posting.)
