JPP Experts

[Saint Guinefort]

He certainly can be. I tend to like his dry sense of humor. You, on the other hand, are boring. Your religion is known to both of us. We've heard it all before.

 

[IBDaMann]

Nopers. "Total Organic Carbon (TOC) And It's Measurement"

"Total Organic Carbon Analysis"

Shall I go on?

I appreciate your post. You and I have something to discuss.

First, thank you for the references. They gave me a lot to think about.

The first reference makes a solid case to me for having a seemingly contradictory term, i.e.organic carbon. The context is the industry that cares about the source of the carbon and needs a term that doesn't take a full sentence to express. OK, I get it. The example measurements give a big picture overview of reasons one might need to know the source of carbon and the fact that we're talking about commercial products that measure and filter for labs indicates a valid, commercial use ... so I'm sold.

You are the first person to bring this explanation to my attention. Thank you.

You screwed up with the second reference, however. I imagine that you were searching for titles with "organic carbon" in the title, found one and included it, perhaps without having read it. The author, Daniel M Jarvie, is a scheister who doesn't understand how hydrocarbons form in the earth and who doesn't understand the Fischer-Tropsch process, but is nonetheless pretending that oil companies and geologists search for oil based on egregious laymen's misconceptions. I stopped reading after a few sentences.

Your first reference was sufficient and I thank you for it.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

The first reference makes a solid case to me for having a seemingly contradictory term, i.e.organic carbon.

Just to be clear it isn't some "official chemical definition", it's more of a descriptor. Like I said it is often necessary to know if the carbon you are measuring is from an organic material like a kerogen or a bitumen etc. or if is from CaCO3 (calcium carbonate, eg limestone etc.).

That's the reason for the designation. Otherwise you are 100% correct that all carbon is just plain ol' carbon. This is an "accounting" type of measurement. Where is the carbon you are measuring coming from?

You are the first person to bring this explanation to my attention. Thank you.

My pleasure.

You screwed up with the second reference, however. I imagine that you were searching for titles with "organic carbon" in the title, found one and included it, perhaps without having read it.

No, it simply helps establish that the concept of "organic carbon" is well known in the field.

The author, Daniel M Jarvie, is a scheister who doesn't understand how hydrocarbons form in the earth and who doesn't understand the Fischer-Tropsch process, but is nonetheless pretending that oil companies and geologists search for oil based on egregious laymen's misconceptions. I stopped reading after a few sentences.

Umm, you were wrong then. The author is, indeed, telling you about where petroleum comes from. It comes from the diagenetic and catagenetic alteration of vegetal/algal/bacterial sources buried deeply and exposed to both aerobic and anaerobic conditions as well as heat. The reference to Tissot and Welte in the first paragraph is a good one. That was a major resource for me when I was learning organic geochem. The Tissot Diagram is actually a great "summary":

(SOURCE)

This basically shows you how various organics are formed in the geologic setting. The X-axis tells you about Oxygen/Carbon ratios and the Y-Axis shows you H/C ratios the "paths" show what happens to these ratios as you increase temperature (the dashed lines are "vitrinite reflectance" values which are a proxy for temperature as measured by the reflectance of coal macerals called "vitrinites"). As you increase temperature you see a steady decline in both O and H as these are volatilized away as the carbon is altered. The three "branches" you see relate to the type of organic material. You can also see in the side-graphs where petroleum forms vs where gas forms etc.

This is kind of the core of organic geochemistry.

Your first reference was sufficient and I thank you for it.

No prob.

 

[Cypress]

QM is the basis of Chemistry. It is the heart of chemistry.

It's shocking that someone with a PhD in "biogeochem" would write this.

Chemistry, first and foremost, is the study of the reactions and nature of bonds between atoms and molecules based on their valence shell electron state.

The quantum properties of fundamental particles like leptons, quarks, and the rest of the particle zoo is firmly is within the project of physics.

Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Pauli were all physicists.

If you contacted a university and told them you wanted to do a graduate degree in quantum mechanics, 99 times out of 100 they would refer you to the physics department.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

It's shocking that someone with a PhD in "biogeochem" would write this.

Chemistry, first and foremost, is the study of the reactions and nature of bonds between atoms and molecules based on their valence shell electron state.

Those bonds are a function of the electrons around the nucleus. As such it is 100% quantum mechanics. Those bonds define how reactions work.

The quantum properties of fundamental particles like leptons, quarks, and the rest of the particle zoo is firmly is within the project of physics.

Quantum is also related to ELECTRONS.

Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Pauli were all physicists.

Good you can google.

If you contacted a university and told them you wanted to do a graduate degree in quantum mechanics, 99 times out of 100 they would refer you to the physics department.

Bullshit my friend. Bullshit.

You clearly didn't even take an intro chemistry class if you missed that.

What do you think those orbitals are? How do you think people understand chemical bonds????

Wow.

Just. Wow.

You are far less experienced in chemistry than I even imagined!

 

[Saint Guinefort]

It's shocking that someone with a PhD in "biogeochem" would write this.

Chemistry, first and foremost, is the study of the reactions and nature of bonds between atoms and molecules based on their valence shell electron state.

The quantum properties of fundamental particles like leptons, quarks, and the rest of the particle zoo is firmly is within the project of physics.

Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Pauli were all physicists.

If you contacted a university and told them you wanted to do a graduate degree in quantum mechanics, 99 times out of 100 they would refer you to the physics department.

You don't have any chemistry books anywhere around you? Open one up. You'll find it filled to the brim with QM.

(I am honestly confused why you think physics is somehow wholly separable from chemistry as if that makes a difference. But it is clarifying how astoundingly uneducated you are in this area.)

 

[anonymoose]

You don't have any chemistry books anywhere around you? Open one up. You'll find it filled to the brim with QM.

(I am honestly confused why you think physics is somehow wholly separable from chemistry as if that makes a difference. But it is clarifying how astoundingly uneducated you are in this area.)

Cypress actually thinks physics is wholly separable from chemistry??!?! I’d like to see a link to that if he did indeed claim it. Wow.

 

[Cypress]

You don't have any chemistry books anywhere around you? Open one up. You'll find it filled to the brim with QM.

(I am honestly confused why you think physics is somehow wholly separable from chemistry as if that makes a difference. But it is clarifying how astoundingly uneducated you are in this area.)

You said quantum mechanics was the "heart" of the science of chemistry.

Nobody who supposedly has a "biogeochem" PhD would write that.

Chemistry is first and foremost, all about the valence shell electrons, and the reactions and bonds that result from the valence state.

Here's a project for you: starting Monday morning, call ten different universities, and assuming you get someone who knows what they're doing, tell them you want to get a graduate degree in quantum mechanics.

All ten universities are going to ultimately refer you to their physics department, not their chemistry or 'biogeochem' department

 

[Into the Night]

I love how you just ignore stuff that doesn't comport with your views. LOL.

But then you don't really understand any of this stuff. You're probably as poorly educated as Cypress!

I understand your religion perfectly well. I think Cypress is getting a clue as well.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

You said quantum mechanics was the "heart" of the science of chemistry.

It is!!!! Seriously. It is how we define the electrons and how the electrons interact. That is the nature of the chemical bond. That is 100% qm.

What do you think it is?

Chemistry is first and foremost, all about the valence shell electrons, and the reactions and bonds that result from the valence state.

OPEN A CHEMISTRY BOOK.

Seriously dude you are so far off on this you are making a joke of yourself. This is kind of shameful.

What do you think chemistry is?????????????? How do you think electrons are understood.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

You said quantum mechanics was the "heart" of the science of chemistry.

Nobody who supposedly has a "biogeochem" PhD would write that.

Chemistry is first and foremost, all about the valence shell electrons, and the reactions and bonds that result from the valence state.

Here's a project for you: starting Monday morning, call ten different universities, and assuming you get someone who knows what they're doing, tell them you want to get a graduate degree in quantum mechanics.

All ten universities are going to ultimately refer you to their physics department, not their chemistry or 'biogeochem' department

What do you think an orbital is???????

 

[Into the Night]

Just to be clear it isn't some "official chemical definition", it's more of a descriptor. Like I said it is often necessary to know if the carbon you are measuring is from an organic material like a kerogen or a bitumen etc. or if is from CaCO3 (calcium carbonate, eg limestone etc.).

That's the reason for the designation. Otherwise you are 100% correct that all carbon is just plain ol' carbon. This is an "accounting" type of measurement. Where is the carbon you are measuring coming from?



My pleasure.



No, it simply helps establish that the concept of "organic carbon" is well known in the field.



Umm, you were wrong then. The author is, indeed, telling you about where petroleum comes from. It comes from the diagenetic and catagenetic alteration of vegetal/algal/bacterial sources buried deeply and exposed to both aerobic and anaerobic conditions as well as heat. The reference to Tissot and Welte in the first paragraph is a good one. That was a major resource for me when I was learning organic geochem. The Tissot Diagram is actually a great "summary":

(SOURCE)

This basically shows you how various organics are formed in the geologic setting. The X-axis tells you about Oxygen/Carbon ratios and the Y-Axis shows you H/C ratios the "paths" show what happens to these ratios as you increase temperature (the dashed lines are "vitrinite reflectance" values which are a proxy for temperature as measured by the reflectance of coal macerals called "vitrinites"). As you increase temperature you see a steady decline in both O and H as these are volatilized away as the carbon is altered. The three "branches" you see relate to the type of organic material. You can also see in the side-graphs where petroleum forms vs where gas forms etc.

This is kind of the core of organic geochemistry.



No prob.

Carbon isn't organic.
You completely ignore the Fischer-Tropsche process.

 

[IBDaMann]

Umm, you were wrong then.

One of us is definitely wrong, and it's not me.

The author is, indeed, telling you about where petroleum comes from.

Nope. He is regurgitating a common laymen's misconception. Chemists know how hydrocarbons form. It would seem that many geologists never got the memo and blunder through life thinking that hydrocarbons form from previous organic matter.

This is not the case. If you are operating under this embarrassing misconception, I would make it a priority to ditch it for the correct understanding.

1. Hydrocarbons form much deeper in the crust, in massive quantities, from natural geological activity, from regular carbon and hydrogen, with a metal catalyst, whenever the conditions for the Fischer-Tropsch process exist.

2. Hydrocarbons form in a matter of hours, not millions of years. They form under conditions of elevated temperatures and pressures which ELEVATE the level of chemical energy, which is why they make such awesome fuels. Hydrocarbons are the Earth's best renewable source of energy.

3. Hydrocarbons, once produced by the geological activity described above, rise towards the surface until they encounter impermeable rock and cannot proceed further, thus accumulating into a well. This places hydrocarbon wells BELOW impermeable rock where no organic matter ever reached.

4. The above has long-since been verified by petroleum companies who, after tapping wells dry and capping them, simply wait for them to refill. Then off comes the cap and pumping resumes. Note: millions of years are not needed for wells to refill.

5. Where there are gaps in the impermeable rock, such as in the Gulf of Mexico, the hydrocarbons rise to the surface. Petroleum companies know where to build their offshore platforms by observing where the hydrocarbons are emerging from the sea floor.

It comes from the diagenetic and catagenetic alteration of vegetal/algal/bacterial sources buried deeply and exposed to both aerobic and anaerobic conditions as well as heat.

Nope. No biological matter is involved. There is nothing preventing you from making any hydrocarbons you want in your garage provided you have the right equipment, some hydrogen, some carbon and the right catalyst (metal). No organic anything will be needed.

This is kind of the core of organic geochemistry.

It would appear that "geochemistry" teaches a long-held religious dogma that has long since been debunked.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=44OU4JxEK4k&t=3s

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=prtmNHkbtYQ

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-I_UtU7zYs0&t=4s

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=To_RJ_mPNqM&t=57s

 

[Cypress]

What do you think an orbital is???????

So you're not really a 'biogeochem' PhD, are you.

You wrote quantum mechanics was the "Heart" of the science of chemistry. Not that there were a couple lectures on it in freshman chemistry.

There is usually never anything more than a passing discussion of wave particle duality and the quantum wave function in introductory chemistry and organic chemistry.

Hey dummy, most of the orbitals aren't involved in chemical reactions, or covalent bonds and ionic bonds. Chemical reaction and bonding is all about the valence shell electrons and filling up the octet in the valence shell to achieve electrical neutrality. Chemistry, first and foremost is the study of reactions and bonds between atoms and molecules based on valence state.

I leave my standing challenge for you: call ten different universities, tell them you want a graduate degree in quantum mechanics, and observe how all the universities will refer you to their physics department, not chemistry department.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

You wrote quantum mechanics was the "Heart" of the science of chemistry. Not that there were a couple lectures on it in freshman chemistry.

I know you are a lying sack of shit but please, open a chemistry book. Look up "orbital". That's QM. Orbitals are how we understand electrons. Electrons are how elements bond. Bonds are the core of chemistry.

It is all QM. Even bonded they form molecular orbitals which are QM.

I don't know what you think chemistry is but you don't seem to have ever taken a class in it.

There is usually never anything more than a passing discussion of wave particle duality and the quantum wave function in introductory chemistry and organic chemistry.

THAT IS A LIE. Wow. The lie of all lies. We spend days, weeks, months of lecture on the orbitals. Orbitals are the solutions to the Schroedinger Equation. It don't get more QM than that.

Hey dummy, most of the orbitals aren't involved in chemical reactions, or covalent bonds and ionic bonds.

The valence ones sure as fuck are.

And the non-valence electrons also help define the CHEMICAL FEATURES. The size of the atom, the charge/size ratio. This all impacts how elements bond. Remember talking about Si based life? You didn't understand why Si doesn't self-catenate like C does even though both have the same valence configuration. The difference is in the size of the atom. Si has an additional level so the atom is a different size and the bonds it forms differ from C. But both have a 4 electron valence shell.

I am starting to get a clearer picture of your failure in this end of science. You simply didn't have any chemistry classes at all.

Chemical reaction and bonding is all about the valence shell electrons and filling up the octet in the valence shell

Good googling again. Kudos on "octet". But you should also realize there are "expanded valence shells" like in P or S which have more than an octet. But the point is that "octet" is really just the s and p orbitals filling up. 8= 2 s and 6p electrons. It gets more complex when you have d orbitals or f-orbitals which have many more electrons. The whole point being that those s and p and d and f orbitals are quantum mechanics. And when you fill those orbitals remember Hund's rule? Yeah, the SPIN of the electrons has to be paired. That's QM again. 100% QM right down the line. You surely remember how to fill the p orbitals right?

I leave my standing challenge for you: call ten different universities, tell them you want a graduate degree in quantum mechanics, and observe how all the universities will refer you to their physics department, not chemistry department.

I challenge you to open a chemistry text book. Try learning this stuff.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

One of us is definitely wrong, and it's not me.


Nope. He is regurgitating a common laymen's misconception. Chemists know how hydrocarbons form. It would seem that many geologists never got the memo and blunder through life thinking that hydrocarbons form from previous organic matter.

This is not the case. If you are operating under this embarrassing misconception, I would make it a priority to ditch it for the correct understanding.

1. Hydrocarbons form much deeper in the crust, in massive quantities, from natural geological activity, from regular carbon and hydrogen, with a metal catalyst, whenever the conditions for the Fischer-Tropsch process exist.

2. Hydrocarbons form in a matter of hours, not millions of years. They form under conditions of elevated temperatures and pressures which ELEVATE the level of chemical energy, which is why they make such awesome fuels. Hydrocarbons are the Earth's best renewable source of energy.

3. Hydrocarbons, once produced by the geological activity described above, rise towards the surface until they encounter impermeable rock and cannot proceed further, thus accumulating into a well. This places hydrocarbon wells BELOW impermeable rock where no organic matter ever reached.

4. The above has long-since been verified by petroleum companies who, after tapping wells dry and capping them, simply wait for them to refill. Then off comes the cap and pumping resumes. Note: millions of years are not needed for wells to refill.

5. Where there are gaps in the impermeable rock, such as in the Gulf of Mexico, the hydrocarbons rise to the surface. Petroleum companies know where to build their offshore platforms by observing where the hydrocarbons are emerging from the sea floor.


Nope. No biological matter is involved. There is nothing preventing you from making any hydrocarbons you want in your garage provided you have the right equipment, some hydrogen, some carbon and the right catalyst (metal). No organic anything will be needed.


It would appear that "geochemistry" teaches a long-held religious dogma that has long since been debunked.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=44OU4JxEK4k&t=3s

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=prtmNHkbtYQ

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-I_UtU7zYs0&t=4s

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=To_RJ_mPNqM&t=57s

I will recommend you look up something called "biomarkers". Oil contains a lot of biomarkers indicative of a photosynthetic source, eg algae. Porphyrin rings and pristane/phytane ratios all point to where it comes from.

The amount of organic material made in the deep crust through just cobbling together small organic molecules is vanishingly small and would result only in small molecules for the most part. Certainly wouldn't spontaneously form things which are EXACTLY LIKE CHLOROPHYLL Chunks which is what porphyrin rings are. That's why we know where oil comes from.

Even the "deep hot biosphere" can't explain the presence of these chlorophyll-derived biomarkers. One of the key biomarkers for estimating maturity of the oil is "pristane/phytane ratio". These are long tailed hydrocarbons which cleave off of chlorophyll molecules and break down in a predictable fashion.

And, finally, the carbon isotopes are more akin to vegetal sources. Rich in 12-C vs 13-C because plants and algae naturally fractionate more 12-C than 13-C. That's why we can even see that fingerprint in atmospheric CO2. We know that burning coal and oil pumps a lot more 12-C into the atmosphere and we even see an increase over the last 150 years in 12-C content of atmospheric CO2.

 

[IBDaMann]

Chemistry, first and foremost, is the study of the reactions and nature of bonds between atoms and molecules based on their valence shell electron state.

You can't say this.

Chemistry is the science of matter, period. Tomorrow our existing models of bonds between atoms and molecules might be falsified and replaced with different models. Chemistry will remain the science of matter, whatever the existing models might be.

The quantum properties of fundamental particles like leptons, quarks, and the rest of the particle zoo is firmly is within the project of physics.

Sure, but they are highly speculative ... in science terminology we say "purely theoretical." Anyone might be falsifying them tomorrow. Anyone is welcome to use his own conceptual models and notation if it helps.

If you contacted a university and told them you wanted to do a graduate degree in quantum mechanics, 99 times out of 100 they would refer you to the physics department.

Not likely. They would tell you that they can offer you a degree in physics or a degree in math, and that you would have to choose which one you wanted, but that you would just need to include a certain concentration in statistical math and a course or two in quantum physics in the physics department.

 

[AProudLefty]

You can't say this.

Chemistry is the science of matter, period. Tomorrow our existing models of bonds between atoms and molecules might be falsified and replaced with different models. Chemistry will remain the science of matter, whatever the existing models might be.

Geology is also the science of matter. Nice try.

 

[Cypress]

I know you are a lying sack of shit but please, open a chemistry book. Look up "orbital". That's QM. Orbitals are how we understand electrons. Electrons are how elements bond. Bonds are the core of chemistry.

It is all QM. Even bonded they form molecular orbitals which are QM.

I don't know what you think chemistry is but you don't seem to have ever taken a class in it.



THAT IS A LIE. Wow. The lie of all lies. We spend days, weeks, months of lecture on the orbitals. Orbitals are the solutions to the Schroedinger Equation. It don't get more QM than that.



The valence ones sure as fuck are.

And the non-valence electrons also help define the CHEMICAL FEATURES. The size of the atom, the charge/size ratio. This all impacts how elements bond. Remember talking about Si based life? You didn't understand why Si doesn't self-catenate like C does even though both have the same valence configuration. The difference is in the size of the atom. Si has an additional level so the atom is a different size and the bonds it forms differ from C. But both have a 4 electron valence shell.

I am starting to get a clearer picture of your failure in this end of science. You simply didn't have any chemistry classes at all.




Good googling again. Kudos on "octet". But you should also realize there are "expanded valence shells" like in P or S which have more than an octet. But the point is that "octet" is really just the s and p orbitals filling up. 8= 2 s and 6p electrons. It gets more complex when you have d orbitals or f-orbitals which have many more electrons. The whole point being that those s and p and d and f orbitals are quantum mechanics. And when you fill those orbitals remember Hund's rule? Yeah, the SPIN of the electrons has to be paired. That's QM again. 100% QM right down the line. You surely remember how to fill the p orbitals right?



I challenge you to open a chemistry text book. Try learning this stuff.

Looks like I got you frantically googling again.

The only poster who has been caught red handed googling and stealing language for other sources is you. I haven't used Google one single time on this thread.

Other than the Bohr model of the atom (which technically isn't even correct from a quantum perspective), there is only passing discussion, if that, of wave particle duality, the dual split experiment, quantum chromodynamics, quantum wave collapse, quantum entanglement in introductory chemistry and organic chemistry.

The fact that you claimed quantum mechanics is the very heart of the science of chemistry was your biggest red flag yet that your 'biogeochem' PhD is a figment of your imagination.

 

[Walt]

When leftists shout "education!" they mean "indoctrination of our children into Marxism so we can easily control the next generation!" which of course has no value to anyone except to the leftists shouting "education!" When leftists shout "Support our children!" they mean "Give more power to the teachers' union and alleviate their debilitating accountability to parents for results!"

"Education" is the left's euphemism for "fascism."

Maybe when Into the Night offers to teach you something, you should consider checking your hatred for learning at the door and take some notes. You might find it useful not being as stupid as a 25-lb bag of compost.

Wow, the people who want to shutdown schools, and burn books want to teach me something. The sad part is that IB does not realize how pathetic he sounds.