[AntonioLao]

Among the thousands of organic compounds listed in the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (62nd edition) only one has an attached iron atom called Ferrocene or Dicyclopentadienyl iron, chemical formula is C10H10Fe. The single iron atom is sandwiched between two parallel pentagonal rings of C5H5 oriented 36° rotational symmetry from each other. Is this a fluke of nature for organic compounds to associate with metallic ions? Maybe only diehard chemists could supply any plausible explanation.

Generally, most nuclear chemists would agree that iron (Fe) is a metal belong to group 8 in the periodic table of chemical elements. Atomic number is 26. Electron configuration is 1s2-2s2-2p6-3s2-3p6-3d6-4s2. The weight of the most stable isotope is 56. Iron-56 is the end product of nucleosynthesis at the ignition temperature of 4 billions kelvins when fusion occurs for two silicon nuclei. These were formed by fusion of oxygen nuclei at lower temperature of 1.5 billions kelvins. In turn, these were formed by fusion of carbon nuclei and helium nuclei at lower temperature of 1/10 of a billion kelvins. Same temperature allows carbon nuclei to form from fusion of beryllium and helium nuclei while the beryllium nuclei were formed from fusion of 3 helium nuclei. At 10 millions kelvins the helium nuclei were formed from fusion of 4 hydrogen nuclei (4 protons). Above 6 billions kelvins the photodissociation of Iron-56 occurs by fission forming 13 helium nuclei and 4 neutrons.

The irony of this nuclear chemistry is the origin and whereabouts of negative ions (electrons) for neutralizing electric charge. If they are not formed by either fusion or fission where are they coming from? Another mystery is the rise and fall of temperature without knowing the real heat source. Some would say gravitational collapse. But this only accounts for the rise in temperature. What mechanism would be responsible for falling temperature?

[mkirkpatrick]

My warrior friend,prehaps as has been suggested by several climatoligists that the earth
naturally warms and cools,ice ages come and go,antartica was once tropical,coconuts
grew there,long before we started burning fossil fuels,so prehaps we are just speeding
up a natural climate change by a few hundred years?




regards michael.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick prehaps as has been suggested by several climatoligists that the earth naturally warms and cools,ice ages come and go

If that is the case then there is nothing we can do about global warming since these are consequences of sunspots minor cycles, major cycles, and supercycles.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao If that is the case then there is nothing we can do about global warming since these are consequences of sunspots minor cycles, major cycles, and supercycles.

I am beginning to suspect that we are in effect speeding up a natural process,that does not mean though that we do nothing,quite the contrary,but we need to recogize that we
are doing in one hundred years,takes nature prehaps several thousand years.



regards michael.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick I am beginning to suspect that we are in effect speeding up a natural process,that does not mean though that we do nothing,quite the contrary,but we need to recogize that we are doing in one hundred years,takes nature prehaps several thousand years.

This is intimately related to global population and its eating habit (survival). But man-made photosynthesis would eliminate the CO2 faster than its deposit into the atmosphere.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao This is intimately related to global population and its eating habit (survival). But man-made photosynthesis would eliminate the CO2 faster than its deposit into the atmosphere.

Then we need to form a circle,and meditate on the next plan of action.



regards michael