Jump to content
Science Forums

Now It's Water On Jupiter


Recommended Posts

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180829153848.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Ftop_news%2Ftop_science+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Top+Science+News%29

 

Water above Jupiter, yes, but water on Jupiter?  (quote):  "The location of a water cloud (above Jupiter) plus the amount of carbon monoxide on Jupiter confirms that Jupiter is rich in oxygen, and thus water.

 

Does that follow?  I know the connection between oxygen and carbon monoxide on Earth.  Isn't this a different process on Jupiter?  How does one link to the other chemically?

 

My first thought was "water on a gaseous planet?".  Then I remembered the core.  That core is, to me, more interesting than the water which could/would easily be there.

 

Hmmm!  If we keep finding water everywhere, we may drown the universe.  :-)    Interesting article, anyway.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They just don't have anything better to do I guess, What is the applications of water on Jupiter...... None , I bet that research cost millions of dollars for absolutely nothing.  What did they do launch like a water probe, lets see how many places we can find that have small amounts of water.

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180829153848.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Ftop_news%2Ftop_science+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Top+Science+News%29

 

Water above Jupiter, yes, but water on Jupiter?  (quote):  "The location of a water cloud (above Jupiter) plus the amount of carbon monoxide on Jupiter confirms that Jupiter is rich in oxygen, and thus water.

 

Does that follow?  I know the connection between oxygen and carbon monoxide on Earth.  Isn't this a different process on Jupiter?  How does one link to the other chemically?

 

My first thought was "water on a gaseous planet?".  Then I remembered the core.  That core is, to me, more interesting than the water which could/would easily be there.

 

Hmmm!  If we keep finding water everywhere, we may drown the universe.  :-)    Interesting article, anyway.

It's a rather poorly written article, that fails to highlight the point of the experiment properly.

 

As I read it, the object of the exercise is to help resolve the question of how Jupiter was formed. Buried in the article is the information that there is or was a school of thought that Jupiter has a composition close to that of the sun and has no rocky core. I recall from years ago an idea that it is a small star that failed to light up. (Jupiter, uniquely among the planets, does in fact emit more radiation than it receives.)

 

The presence of water (detected apparently by its microwave and/or IR spectrum - it is not clear to me which) is significant as it means there a lot more oxygen than in the sun, which in turn means it cannot just be a star that failed - it has more heavier elements. Rocks are largely oxygen (silicates of various sorts).

 

But perhaps like you, I am a bit underwhelmed by this. Water is evidently extremely common in the colder objects of the solar system. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They just don't have anything better to do I guess, What is the applications of water on Jupiter...... None , I bet that research cost millions of dollars for absolutely nothing.  What did they do launch like a water probe, lets see how many places we can find that have small amounts of water.

Read the article. This was done by ground-based telescopes. It will not have cost any more than any piece of lab science work. 

Edited by exchemist
Link to post
Share on other sites

Something Exchemist said reminds me of C S Lewis's science (fiction) series.  CSL kept calling planets "stars".  His series was written in the 30s which excuses a lot of wrong notions but I assure you that we knew the difference between a star and a planet in the 30s.   More could be said about that series but not on this thread.   As for that, he has water on Venus.  Have we found water there yet?  Terribly hot planet for water but maybe water vapor?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something Exchemist said reminds me of C S Lewis's science (fiction) series.  CSL kept calling planets "stars".  His series was written in the 30s which excuses a lot of wrong notions but I assure you that we knew the difference between a star and a planet in the 30s.   More could be said about that series but not on this thread.   As for that, he has water on Venus.  Have we found water there yet?  Terribly hot planet for water but maybe water vapor?

Doesn't seem to be much water vapour (and yes it would have to be vapour) on Venus. There is plenty of oxygen of course, but it seems most of the hydrogen that remains is bound up as sulphuric acid (H2SO4) rather than H2O. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't seem to be much water vapour (and yes it would have to be vapour) on Venus. There is plenty of oxygen of course, but it seems most of the hydrogen that remains is bound up as sulphuric acid (H2SO4) rather than H2O. 

I have read that about hydrogen and sulfuric acid some other time.  How does that happen? Take a tsp and stir?  :-)  No, seriously, is there something special that brings about this chemical mix? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read that about hydrogen and sulfuric acid some other time.  How does that happen? Take a tsp and stir?  :-)  No, seriously, is there something special that brings about this chemical mix? 

Have to say I don't know what theories there may be to account for the composition of the Venusian atmosphere. What I can speculate is that the inner planets, being exposed to higher temperatures and a stronger solar wind, will have been depleted more in hydrogen and other light elements than the gas giants further out from the sun. It may be that the amount of hydrogen on Venus is so low that all the water that can be produced is mopped up by sulphur dioxide/trioxide and is present as sulphur acids. But I'd welcome input from anyone who knows more about planetary chemistry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to say I don't know what theories there may be to account for the composition of the Venusian atmosphere. What I can speculate is that the inner planets, being exposed to higher temperatures and a stronger solar wind, will have been depleted more in hydrogen and other light elements than the gas giants further out from the sun. It may be that the amount of hydrogen on Venus is so low that all the water that can be produced is mopped up by sulphur dioxide/trioxide and is present as sulphur acids. But I'd welcome input from anyone who knows more about planetary chemistry.

So, sulphur absorbs moisture - along with the other actions you've listed.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well not exactly. Sulphur oxides (which are some of the gases involved in acid rain) react with water.

 

Sulphur dioxide (SO2) + H2O -> H2SO3 sulphurous acid. Sulphur trioxide, (SO3) +H2O -> H2SO4, sulphuric acid.  

Oh, all right.  Should have studied chemistry in high school.  They didn't even teach chemistry in high school where I was.

 

Not that I wuold have taken it anyway.  Girls took cooking and sewing.  :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...