Evidence of Life on Mars

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Gregg</i>
<br />The nitrogen in the Mars atmosphere has "disappeared" by a chemical mechanism. Extreme oxidation. This places nitrates into the soil and into any aqueous phase on Mars.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Why does the mechanism have to be chemical? The explosion of a nearby parent planet would have removed a substantial fraction of the original atmosphere.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Nitrates are unstable. Given a "prod", they will decompose - releasing oxygen and molecular nitrogen. This action could imitate the evidence of microbial activity. ... Has anyone considered nitrate as a source of oxygen and energy for microbes in the aqueous phase?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">G. Levin claims to have tested every feasible suggestion for how chemistry might emulate the life signatures in the Viking Labeled Release experiment, but found them all wanting. But I've not seen his list, so I don't know if nitrates were on it.

The most recent work by the ESA team has involved finding methane and formaldehyde, both of which are bio-markers under the conditions that exist on Mars (especially, no active volcanism). -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Why does the mechanism have to be chemical? The explosion of a nearby parent planet would have removed a substantial fraction of the original atmosphere.

<i>I have no problem with EPH removing the atmosphere. That may have happened. However, such a blast would have removed all gases equally. The problem is that the amount of Argon relative to Nitrogen is far too high. And the remaining gases are all oxidation products - including a very small amount of NOx. If EPH lead to a vaporization of iron oxide, this material would perhaps expand outward slowly. When the iron oide began to precipitate as a fume (building dust particles up from vapor), this material would be a perfect catalyst to cause Nitrogen to break apart and react with Oxygen. With everything slowly cooling and condensing, the resulting NOx would strongly dissolve in any water. And it would push CO2 out of the water and back into the atmosphere.</i>

The most recent work by the ESA team has involved finding methane and formaldehyde, both of which are bio-markers under the conditions that exist on Mars (especially, no active volcanism). -|Tom|-
[/quote]

<i>I have no problem at all with the evidence and idea that there is life on Mars. CO2 in the atmosphere and nitrate in the water would be an excellent support basis for life. And the biomarkers you refer to seem quite legitimate.</i>

Gregg Wilson

Nitrogen on Mars

When the atmosphere of Mars is compared to the atmospheres of other terrestrial planets, it appears that nitrogen is missing, on both an absolute and relative basis. Since nitrogen is largely non-reactive, there does not seem to be an obvious explanation.

A review of the atmospheres of the terrestrial planets is the beginning point:

__________________________Venus__________Earth__________Mars

Surface Pressure, atm______90.8____________1___________0.0078

Surface Temperature, oF_____867____________59____________-82
(Average)

Gravity____________________0.91_____________1____________0.38

Nitrogen___________________3.5%___________78.1%__________2.7%
Oxygen_____________________zero___________20.9%__________0.13%

Carbon Dioxide_____________96.5%__________0.036%_________95.3%

Water______________________zero_____________1%__________0.021%

Argon_____________________0.007%____________1%___________1.6%

Sulfur Dioxide____________0.015%__________trace__________zero

Nitric Oxide_______________zero___________trace__________0.01%


The planets have been in existence for billions of years and it is a certainty that their atmospheres should be in thermodynamic and chemical equilibrium by now. None of these atmospheres could still contain significant, unreacted fuel and oxidant, for example methane and oxygen. Volcanic eruptions, meteor impacts and lightning would trigger the reaction of fuel plus oxidant mixtures.

On Earth, we have an oxidant in our atmosphere but no fuel (trace levels of methane, etc, cannot generate enough heat to sustain their oxidation). The level of carbon dioxide is extremely low. Almost all of the unoxidized carbon is tied up in vegetation, oil, coal and natural gas. With the Earth’s prevailing temperature range, almost all H2O exists as water or ice. Because of this temperature range and the water, almost all CO2 resides in solution with water or as solid carbonate salts (e.g. CaCO3). We understand that the presence of oxygen in our atmosphere is a result of the metabolism of plant life. Since argon is a noble gas, it does not participate in chemical reactions and simply remains in the atmosphere.

What can we say about nitrogen on Earth? Can it be a fuel or an oxidant? Nitrogen can act as an oxidant when it forms metal nitrides or ammonia. However, nitrides and ammonia can be formed only in the complete absence of oxygen. Nitrogen can act as a fuel when it combines with oxygen to form nitrogen oxides, nitrous and nitric acid, and nitrite and nitrate salts. Does this readily happen on Earth? On a large scale, no. Lightning creates only a minute level of nitric oxide. Although the electrical discharge ionizes some nitrogen, the air volume and time span involved are extremely small. In addition, the high temperature of the ionized air causes it to expand. Therefore the pressure is extremely low and there are few collisions between molecules while the ionized gas remains in existence. A very small amount of nitric oxide is formed in the combustion chambers of internal combustion engines. This happens partly because of the high temperature but is mostly due to the iron oxide surface on the metal parts. The iron oxide is a catalyst. Before the first atomic bomb was detonated, the scientists were concerned that such a high temperature fireball could set the atmosphere on fire. They computed that it would not happen and they were obviously right. Although nitric oxide was created in the nuclear fireball, it did not propagate because the heat of reaction of nitrogen with oxygen to form nitric oxide is too small to break additional nitrogen bonds. Nitrogen is not a viable fuel, because the triple bond of N2 is very stable and strong. In fact, the formation of nitric oxide from nitrogen and oxygen at ambient temperature is not favored at all by chemical equilibrium and chemical kinetics. The reaction does not release energy; it consumes energy. For prevailing conditions on Earth, gaseous nitrogen behaves as an inert substance, much like argon.

How are things different on Venus? Because of the temperature of 867oF, there is a great deal of carbon dioxide, and no oxygen or water exist. As expected, all available carbon has been oxidized. Because of the high temperature, all carbonate salts have decomposed to straight oxide salts and gaseous carbon dioxide. For instance:

CaCO3 + heat ---&gt; CaO + CO2

What about nitrogen? Although it is only 3.5% of the atmosphere, its absolute presence is substantial because of the extremely high atmospheric pressure. In fact, the atmosphere of Venus has about 50% more nitrogen than that of Earth. Could there be hidden nitrogen in other forms? The answer is no because nitrite/nitrate salts decompose to straight oxide salts and gaseous nitrogen oxides well below 867oF. Nitrogen oxides have not been detected in the Venusian atmosphere. In essence, the molecular nitrogen of Venus is intact even at the high temperature. It is notable that the absolute amount of argon on Venus is roughly equal to that of Earth.

What is the situation on Mars? The prevailing temperature does not support combustion of hydrocarbons or carbon. Yet the atmosphere is almost entirely carbon dioxide. The polar caps are frozen carbon dioxide and water. Beyond that, all carbonate salts would not only remain intact, they would hydrate with water to form solids. It is apparent that oxidizing events must have occurred in the past but do not exist in the present.

The nitrogen content of the atmosphere is only 2.7% while the argon is 1.6%. On both a relative basis and an absolute basis, nitrogen appears to be missing. If an explosive event occurred, which blew away the Martian atmosphere as a whole, the argon would have been blown away with the nitrogen. The expected ratio of high nitrogen to little argon should have remained intact. It did not. Therefore, the separation of nitrogen from argon must have been based on their differences. While nitrogen is highly resistant to chemical reaction, argon is absolutely inert.

Atmospheric conditions would not precipitate nitrogen as a liquid. Since Venus has retained nitrogen at 867oF, there is no apparent reason to think that nitrogen was oxidized by oxygen simply because of high temperature. Yet on Mars, most of the expected nitrogen is missing. We have a mystery. There is a hint, though. A minute level of nitric oxide exists in the atmosphere.

Let us now examine some general properties of chemical reactions and catalysts. An example reaction is the oxidation of sulfite to sulfate in aqueous water:

2 SO3= + O2 ---&gt; 2 SO4=

Taken at face value, this reaction requires the simultaneous collision of three entities. This simply does not happen. Actual reaction steps involve an absolute minimum of complexity and energy. One might view the reactants as being as stupid and lazy as possible.

If oxygen is blown into water containing sulfite ion, SO3=, and the water is intensely mixed, no oxidation will happen. It is a rule of thumb in chemistry that an increase in temperature by 18oF (or 10oC) will double the rate of a reaction. A temperature increase to this particular process does not work because a rise in temperature volatilizes the oxygen as gas and the sulfite as SO2 gas. They leave the water phase. In the vapor phase, this oxidation reaction also does not proceed.

Back in the water phase, this oxidation reaction can be made to happen by using catalysts. For this reaction, cobalt ion and copper ion act as catalysts:

Co++ + SO3= ---&gt; Co+ + SO3-

SO3- + O2 ---&gt; SO5-

SO3- + SO5- ---&gt; 2 SO4-

Cu+ + SO4- ---&gt; Cu++ + SO4=

Co+ + Cu++ ---&gt; Co++ + Cu+

The above system of reactions may seem daunting and “unknowable” but they can be explained in a practical manner. When ions exist in water, they form a weak association with water molecules. A water molecule has a polar nature with the oxygen atom being negative and the hydrogen atoms being positive. An ion with a negative charge, like SO3=, will become surrounded by the hydrogen portion of several water molecules. In contrast, the oxygen portion of water molecules will surround a positive ion. A dissolved oxygen molecule cannot get “elbow room” to SO3= ion. The cobalt ion, which is highly charged and small, can elbow its way in to an SO3= ion. The cobalt ion accepts an electron from the sulfite ion. With a lower charge of minus one on this sulfite ion, some water molecules give way and an oxygen molecule can reach and attach to the sulfite ion. This forms a large SO5- ion. Another SO3- ion, formed by a cobalt ion, will contact the SO5- ion and extract an oxygen atom, making two SO4- ions. A copper ion will give up an electron to the SO4- ion finally forming a stable SO4= ion. The copper ion will then extract an electron from a cobalt ion. Notice that the cobalt ion and copper ion are renewed by the overall reaction system. This is why they are designated as catalysts, instead of being called reactants or products.

This overall scheme is complex but each collision step is as simple as possible and involves as little energy as possible. Nature has not “planned” the overall reaction to happen this way. This is simply the way it happens. The catalyst removes the need for a trimolecular collision and the instantaneous breaking and forming of three bonds. The catalyst provides a new route for the overall reaction. Because the cobalt and copper ions are solvated in the water, they have a maximum dispersal in the water and a maximization of their “surface area”. Only one part per million of cobalt and of copper converts many thousands of parts per million of sulfite to sulfate each minute.

Now we will examine the oxidation of nitrogen to form nitric oxide:

N2 + O2 ---&gt; 2 NO2

The triple bond of nitrogen is very strong. The temperature must approach 2,000oF to break this bond. This collision is also highly improbable because it requires the instantaneous breaking and forming of four bonds. Is there an easier route?

Ammonia is made by a similar reaction:

N2 + 3 H2 ---&gt; 2 NH3

This is a tetramolecular collision and does not in fact happen. In industry, iron oxide is used as a catalyst and it is in a solid state. The nitrogen and hydrogen gas mixture is passed over a hot iron oxide bed so as to make ammonia. The mechanism is that the nitrogen is physically adsorbed onto the iron oxide and stays in a fixed position. The nitrogen forms a weak nitride bond with the iron. As hydrogen molecules collide with the adsorbed nitrogen, the bonding progressively shifts over from the iron to the hydrogen. When an ammonia molecule is finally formed, it desorbs from the iron oxide back into the vapor phase.

Once a correct solid catalyst is discovered, the “name of the game” is to give it maximum dispersal and maximum surface area. The catalyst facilitates the reaction on its surface. Therefore, maximum surface area maximizes the reaction rate. The reactant molecules must migrate to the catalyst surface and the product molecules must migrate away from the catalyst surface. This migration does not happen on purpose. It occurs by random diffusion. Therefore, spreading the catalyst outward in a highly filamentary and porous manner aids the migration of reactants and products by minimizing the depth of the random diffusion layer between the catalyst surface and the bulk of the vapor phase.

The surface of Mars is said to be “coated” with iron oxide. This is an unusual circumstance for a body that has no iron core, has no magnetic field and is quite likely a moon of a now missing planet. It suggests an external event. The Exploding Planet Hypothesis has proposed that another moon, in orbit with Mars, exploded about 3.2 million years ago. Because of its proximity to Mars, some of the material would have impacted on Mars.

For an explosion to occur, a mechanism has to release thermal energy, which vaporizes what was previously solid or liquid material. It is this transformation to hot vapor that causes the expansion within the body. Much like a hand grenade or artillery shell, the outer crust of the body receives the greatest acceleration and velocity. The newly created vapor expands into a large spherical cloud. It is plausible that much of this vapor from within a planet or moon would be iron/iron oxide. As the vapor expands and cools, it will begin to condense into a fume, which is an extremely fine dust. Because the fume particles inherit the translational energy of the condensing vapor molecules, they remain very hot. If this moon exploded in close proximity to Mars, the cloud of vapor/fume would migrate into the atmosphere of Mars for hours or even days. These iron oxide particles would act as catalyst, which adsorbs nitrogen and then creates nitric oxide when oxygen molecules impact on the adsorbed nitrogen. Such a fume would have tremendous dispersal in the atmosphere and it would have incredibly high surface area. The transformation of nitrogen and oxygen into nitric oxide would be very efficient.

There is a parallel mechanism, which can create nitric oxide from molecular nitrogen and oxygen. Based on experimental results with nuclear fission reactors, the fissioning of one gram of enriched uranium will produce two tons of nitric acid. Apparently, the ionizing radiation breaks apart the molecular nitrogen. Nuclear fission is a plausible, possible cause for an exploding planet. It releases much more energy than chemical reactions. It is questionable that any chemical reaction could release enough thermal energy to blow a planet apart.

What would happen to nitric oxide, once it forms in the Martian atmosphere? The following reaction occurs at moderate temperature in the vapor phase without the aid of any catalyst:

2 NO + O2 ---&gt; 2 NO2

Because the above reaction is a triple collision, what actually occurs is:

NO + O2 ---&gt; NO3

NO3 + NO ---&gt; 2 NO2

The intermediate molecule, NO3, has a very short life span. It turns out that the optimum temperature for the reaction is about 68oF. Above this temperature, the intermediate molecule has too short a life span. Below this temperature, most of the collisions are not strong enough to cause the reaction.

There is much evidence that a lot of water was involved in the EPH which impacted Mars. Although NO is not reactive with water, NO2 will quickly dissolve in water to form HNO2 and HNO3, which are nitrous and nitric acid. The nitrous acid will decompose as follows:

3 HNO2 ---&gt; HNO3 + H2O + 2 NO

The NO, which is not soluble in water, will desorb out of the water and return to the atmosphere. It will then undergo further oxidation if any oxygen is still present. The newly formed nitric acid will react with almost any metal to form a nitrate salt. In particular, iron.

One might ask whether carbon dioxide would dissolve in the water. The solubility of CO2 in water is actually dependent on the following equilibrium:

CO2 + H2O ---&gt; H2CO3 ---&gt; H+ + HCO3- ---&gt; 2 H+ + CO3=

An alkaline water with high pH can dissolve considerable CO2 because it becomes ionized as bicarbonate and carbonate ions. But acidic water (low pH) will not absorb CO2. Any NO2 produced in the Martian atmosphere will dissolve and react with water at a much higher temperature than would be acceptable to CO2. The nitric acid formed by the dissolving of this NO2 would strongly lower the pH. In fact, a nitric acid concentration of only 30 parts per million would prevent CO2 from dissolving in the water. This might explain why large amounts of frozen CO2 are distinct from frozen water on Mars.

After the EPH event, the Martian atmosphere and surface would slowly cool down. The first reaction on the surface would be for the nitrate salts to take up waters of hydration. These waters of hydration cease to be a liquid and become part of a solid crystal. In fact, each molecule of iron nitrate will lock up nine molecules of water. This hydration event will happen well before the temperature drops to freezing point of water. Additional cooling on Mars would lead to ice and then to frozen carbon dioxide. A high majority of the original Martian atmosphere would therefore be transformed into solids lying on the surface.

The existing atmosphere of Mars contains minute levels of NO and O2. Their concentrations and the temperature are so low that further oxidation NO to NO2 is not possible.

The Viking Landers on Mars ran chemical tests with Martian soil to see if microbial life could be present. The signature would be the release of oxygen, and it happened. There have been many debates over whether life was detected or was it simply the activity of “superoxides” such as hydrogen peroxide. Curiously, there has been no mention of nitrate as the “superoxide”. There is microbial life which obtains its oxygen from nitrates.

Nitrate will readily release oxygen to any chemical competitor. This is the basis for nitrate explosives such as TNT (trinitrotoluene). The oxygen in the nitrate portion of the molecule is released by the nitrogen to oxidize the carbon and hydrogen. All the reaction steps are exothermic, thus leading to an explosion.

In conclusion, there are several pieces of evidence for the reaction of molecular nitrogen and oxygen to form nitric oxide in the Martian atmosphere:

· The amount of nitrogen in comparison to the argon is very low.
· The overwhelming amount of CO2, both vapor and frozen, indicates a planet wide oxidation event.
· The surface of Mars has iron oxide.
· The atmosphere has a residual NO concentration.
· The Viking Lander experiments detected a significant oxygen release from the soil.
· An exploding planet or moon could readily provide hot iron oxide and ionizing radiation to break apart the molecular nitrogen.



Gregg Wilson

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The nitrogen content of the (Martian) atmosphere is only 2.7% while the argon is 1.6%. On both a relative basis and an absolute basis, nitrogen appears to be missing. If an explosive event occurred, which blew away the Martian atmosphere as a whole, the argon would have been blown away with the nitrogen.

Yet on Mars, most of the expected nitrogen is missing. We have a mystery.

The surface of Mars is said to be “coated” with iron oxide. This is an unusual circumstance for a body that has no iron core, has no magnetic field and is quite likely a moon of a now missing planet. It suggests an external event

It is plausible that much of this vapor from within a planet or moon would be iron/iron oxide. As the vapor expands and cools, it will begin to condense into a fume, which is an extremely fine dust. Because the fume particles inherit the translational energy of the condensing vapor molecules, they remain very hot. If this moon exploded in close proximity to Mars, the cloud of vapor/fume would migrate into the atmosphere of Mars for hours or even days. These iron oxide particles would act as catalyst, which adsorbs nitrogen and then creates nitric oxide when oxygen molecules impact on the adsorbed nitrogen. Such a fume would have tremendous dispersal in the atmosphere and it would have incredibly high surface area. The transformation of nitrogen and oxygen into nitric oxide would be very efficient.

The Viking Landers on Mars ran chemical tests with Martian soil to see if microbial life could be present. The signature would be the release of oxygen, and it happened. There have been many debates over whether life was detected or was it simply the activity of “superoxides” such as hydrogen peroxide. Curiously, there has been no mention of nitrate as the “superoxide”. There is microbial life which obtains its oxygen from nitrates. [Gregg Wilson]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

If I understand you, you have added at least 2 new lines of evidence in support of an EP event in the vicinity of Mars, and have also provided good deductive evidence in support of current microbial life on Mars. Impressive.

Neil DeRosa

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>

If I understand you, you have added at least 2 new lines of evidence in support of an EP event in the vicinity of Mars, and have also provided good deductive evidence in support of current microbial life on Mars. Impressive.

Neil DeRosa

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hi Neil

Converting molecular nitrogen to NH3 or NOx requires a solid catalyst. It is not an option. The only thing that comes to mind is a fume of iron oxide from a nearby EPH, which descends into the Martian atmosphere over hours or days.

Any microbial life is unlikely to be our standard form here with access to water, CO2 and sunlight. But we have "odd" forms of life in or near surface volcanoes and also at thermal vents at the bottom of the oceans. The little green men might be purple.


Gregg Wilson

Continuing on with my folly....

If vegetative life as we know it, utilizing CO2 and H2O as the primary feedstocks and the release of O2 as the primary side product, were dominant on Mars, then the atmosphere would have already been converted from CO2 to O2. Apparently hasn't happened. So, our version of vegetation is "on hold" or dormant. The combination of intense radiation and very low temperature may be what stops such vegetation.

However, life could exist within the dry ice, water, dirt matrix beneath the surface. A recent report by scientists indicates that microbial life imbedded within Antarctic ice and soil can be revived. They have also claimed that these life forms have survived for millions of years within these Antarctic matrices. My knowledge of boilogy is limited so I will not pass judgement on their claims.

A very recent report by a German scientist has the claim that the Viking Landers did discover life, which was partially based on hydrogen peroxide. Aside from my active knowledge that H2O2 is notoriously unstable, I will withhold further judgement.

From a chemistry viewpoint, I find it quite interesting that the Martian poles have large amounts of solid CO2. This implies that the CO2 could not dissolve in water and proceed forward to being metal carbonates. This is another hint that the water may contain significant NO3, which would strongly lower the pH - and that would keep CO2 out of the aqueous phase.

Well, the more we know, the less we know....

Gregg Wilson