Beberapa bulan yang lalu, saya surprise dan sedikit terkejut, karena
posting saya di IAGI-net ada yang membaca di Qatar, oleh orang bukan
Indonesia,
dan memberi komentar tentang posting saya.
Hari Jum'at kemarin lebih terkejut lagi, kalau ternyata posting saya ada
yang membaca di RUSSIA !!!
Memang hebat mailing list kita ini. Tapi ini tentu saja yang diluar 'junk
mails' yang masuk ke mailing list ini, seperti yang nawarin bussiness yang
tidak karuan.
Anyway, silahkan simak komentar dari salah satu penganut faham abiogenic
theory dari Russia.
Salam,
Teguh P.
----- Forwarded by Teguh Prasetyo/MAL/MOC on 06/28/2004 08:35 AM -----
"J. F. Kenney"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc:
Subject: [iagi-net-l] The Origin of
Petroleum
06/25/2004 11:18
AM
Please respond to
JFK
Dear Sir:
ÂÂÂ I have just had brought to my attention your page on a web site on
which is discussed some notional "debate" as to whether natural petroleum
might somehow have obtained (miraculously) from biological detritus in the
thermodynamic regimes of temperatures and pressures found in the
near-surface crust of the Earth. Please understand that competent
physicists, chemists, chemical engineers, and all men (even) minimally
cognizant of the constraints of fundamental physical laws, particularly
the laws of chemical thermodynamics, have rejected the notion that natural
petroleum might be spontaneously generating in such regimes.
ÂÂÂ For a very brief review of these facts, I refer you to the article in
the European journal Energia, published in 2001:ÂJ. F. Kenney, I. K.
Karpov, A. Y. F. Shnyukov, V. A. Krayushkin, T. I. Tchebanenko and V. P.
Klochko, "The constraints of thermodynamics upon the evolution of
hydrocarbons: The prohibition of hydrocarbon genesis at low pressures,"
Energia, 2001, 22, 18-23.
ÂÂÂ In your web posting, you have cited some of the traditional nonsense
which used to be claimed to constitute various sorts of "evidence" for a
biological connection of natural petroleum. Specifically, you have
recited (parrot-like) the silliness about the observations of optical
activity in natural petroleum and the small odd-even asymmetry of linear
molecules. Both of these spurious claims (as well as all others offerred
as such "evidence") have been discredited more than thirty years ago.
1.)ÂÂÂ The observations of optical activity in natural petroleum
constitute no evidence of any biological connection whatever. To begin,
the optical activity observed in natural petroleum lacks, always, the
homochiral distribution of enantiomers which characterize such molecules
that result from biological processes. The distribution of
optically-active enantiomers in natural petroleum is always scalemic.
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Furthermore, such optical activity has been observed in the
clearly abiotic petroleum fluids extracted from the interiors of
carbonaceous meteorites. Please understand thatÂthe ordinary, - and
emphatically, non-biological, - effects of pressure and density create the
type enantiomeric distributions which give rise to the optical activity
observed in natural petroleum.
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ When properly understood, the observations of optical activity in
natural petroleum are powerful evidence for the high-pressure (i.e., deep)
origin of petroleum. For further reading on this subject (which you ought
to have done before writing as you have done on the web), you are referred
to the article in Physical Chemistry - Chemical Physics published in
2000:Â J. F. Kenney and U. K. Deiters, "The evolution of multicomponent
systems at high pressures: IV. The genesis of optical activity in
high-density, abiotic fluids," Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2000, 2,
3163-3174.
2.)ÂÂÂ The small odd-even asymmetry in linear molecules constitutes no
evidence of a biological connection for natural petroleum.ÂÂÂSuch is a
common property of linear molecules bound by highly-directional, covalent
chemical bonds. This property can be observed in the hydrocarbon molecules
produced by the industrial Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. The origin of this
phenomenon is simply a consequence of geometry of linear molecules combined
with the constraints of statistical mechanics, and was recognized as such
more than a half century ago.
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Scientifically illiterate British and American geo-phrenologists
continue to make silly noises about "the odd-even asymmetry," hoping no
one knows better. Understand better that many men do know better.
ÂÂÂ Since the notion of a biological-origin-of-petroleum [BOOP] stands
glaringly in contradiction to fundamental physical law, there cannot ever
be any "evidence" that might support such nonsense, - and, indeed, every
so-called evidence claimed to support a biological connection of petroleum
has been thoroughly discredited. A review of this fact is written up
alsoÂin the European journal Energia, published in 2001:Â J. F. Kenney, Y.
F. Shnyukov, V. A. Krayushkin, I. K. Karpov, V. G. Kutcherov and I. N.
Plotnikova, "Dismissal of the claims of a biological connection for
natural petroleum," Energia, 2001, 22, 26-34.
ÂÂÂ You would do well to bear in mind, henceforth, the words of the famous
British scientist (not geologist[sic]), Fred Hoyle, almost twenty years
ago:
âThe suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation
of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to
have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended
period of time.âÂ- Fred Hoyle, (1982).
Sincerely yours,
Dr. J. F. Kenney
Russian Academy of Sciences - Joint Institute of the Physics of the Earth
Gas Resources Corporation
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.GasResources.net
