[larens (OP)]

All right then, so we agree that water in itself won't destroy hydrogen cyanide or formaldehyde. So what about those catalysts you speak of? Which ones in particular did you have in mind?

Minerals with transition metals.

[Bored chemist]

The high temperatures to create lava come mostly from the decay of radioactive isotopes. Larger bodies lose heat more slowly so become hotter.

Ok, let's make an assumption- there's the same percentage radioactive "stuff" in Vesta as in Earth.
It's questionable but it's a start.
Vesta is small- radius 263 km.
Earth's much bigger 6,371 km

Vesta has about 4% of the radius of Earth
So it's got about 0.04^3 of the amount of heat generation.
But 0.04^2 times the area
So the heat per square metre is only about 4% of that of the Earth.
And much of the water on Earth is frozen, even though the Earth's near the Sun..

So the heat output from Vesta wouldn't be enough to thaw the water, would it?

Vesta was hot enough to melt. Its surface is igneous. There was a lot of radioactive aluminum-26 in the early Solar system.

OK, so it was bone dry.
And, like dry bones, devoid of life.
Looking on the bright side, we should have lost any interest from Puppypower.

It's conceivable that there might be some tarry stuff with organic stuff in it. But with no water we won't have anything that looks liek life as we know it.

[Kryptid]

Minerals with transition metals.

Which raises some further questions:

(1) How fast is the breakdown process? Is it faster than the rate that formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide can accumulate in them?
(2) Would all warm springs on Earth have necessarily had such minerals in them (at least in the quantities needed to destroy those organic molecules)?
(3) Why would your hypothetical satellite be exempt from having transition metal minerals in its same warm springs?

[Bored chemist]

There was a lot of radioactive aluminum-26 in the early Solar system.

Where from?
It's got a half life of about a million years so it would have to have been added somehow.
Where did it go?
It decays to an isotope of magnesium- which isn't a very common isotope.
If there was enough 26Al to melt Vesta then what happened on Earth?
It's about 25 times bigger so (for the same composition) that's a 25 fold higher power density at the surface.
That needs to be radiated off as heat.
Radiative cooling scales as the 4th power of the temperature.
So 25 times more power per square meter needs a temperature 25^ 0.25= about 2.3 times higher
Rocks- quartz for example- melt at about 1700C or 2000 K
And if the temperature of VEsta reached that, the temperature of Earth should have reached about 4500K

But quartz boils at about 2300C
So, if the heat generation in Vega was high enough to melt it, the temperature of the Earth should have been high enough to boil it.
We are here.
It didn't boil.

[larens (OP)]

Minerals with transition metals.

Which raises some further questions:

(1) How fast is the breakdown process? Is it faster than the rate that formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide can accumulate in them?

On Earth clearly. On an asteroid the conditions have to be just right to accumulate them. This can lead to a large Drake factor.

(2) Would all warm springs on Earth have necessarily had such minerals in them (at least in the quantities needed to destroy those organic molecules)?

Irrelevant.

(3) Why would your hypothetical satellite be exempt from having transition metal minerals in its same warm springs?

The springs would have required transition metal minerals for the protobiological reactions to work. We can tell which minerals these were from enzymatic cofactors. They are typical of hydrothermal deposits.

[Kryptid]

On Earth clearly.

Clearly, how? Can you support that statement?

Irrelevant.

How can it be irrelevant when that's the entire point of the discussion?

The springs would have required transition metal minerals for the protobiological reactions to work. We can tell which minerals these were from enzymatic cofactors. They are typical of hydrothermal deposits.

So let me get this straight. You claim that water plus transition metal minerals on Earth are bad because they cause the breakdown of hydrogen cyanide and formaldehyde, while at the same time you claim that the presence of water plus transition metal minerals on your satellite is good because they allow for needed chemical reactions. Are the laws of physics different on your satellite or something? You can't have it both ways. If one is bad on Earth, it must be bad on your satellite. If it is good on your satellite, it must be good on Earth as well.

[larens (OP)]

Vesta was hot enough to melt. Its surface is igneous. There was a lot of radioactive aluminum-26 in the early Solar system.

OK, so it was bone dry.
And, like dry bones, devoid of life.

We all agree that Vesta has been devoid of life. The discussion, however, is on its former carbonaceous satellite.

There was a lot of radioactive aluminum-26 in the early Solar system.

Where from?

From supernovas.

Where did it go?

It decayed.

If there was enough 26Al to melt Vesta then what happened on Earth?
It's about 25 times bigger so (for the same composition) that's a 25 fold higher power density at the surface.
That needs to be radiated off as heat.
Radiative cooling scales as the 4th power of the temperature.
So 25 times more power per square meter needs a temperature 25^ 0.25= about 2.3 times higher
Rocks- quartz for example- melt at about 1700C or 2000 K
And if the temperature of VEsta reached that, the temperature of Earth should have reached about 4500K

But quartz boils at about 2300C
So, if the heat generation in Vega was high enough to melt it, the temperature of the Earth should have been high enough to boil it.
We are here.
It didn't boil.

More crackpot thinking - More heat mainly means longer cooling time.

[Bored chemist]

It decayed.

No
If it decayed then it made magnesium 26, but there's not much of that.

[Bored chemist]

its former carbonaceous satellite.

Remind me; what's the physical evidence for the existence of that satellite?

[Kryptid]

More crackpot thinking - More heat mainly means longer cooling time.

Longer cooling time, yes, but it also means that the object in question becomes hotter because heat is being produced at a faster rate than it can be radiated. That's how scaling laws work.

[larens (OP)]

its former carbonaceous satellite.

Remind me; what's the physical evidence for the existence of that satellite?

Spectra of Vesta and the moons of Mars in concert with carbonaceous meteorites and astrobiology.

It decayed.

No
If it decayed then it made magnesium 26, but there's not much of that.

The increase in magnesium-26 is how the initial amount of aluminum-26 is determined. Radioactive decay is very energetic so it does not take a high concentration of the isotope to heat up material.

[larens (OP)]

More crackpot thinking - More heat mainly means longer cooling time.

Longer cooling time, yes, but it also means that the object in question becomes hotter because heat is being produced at a faster rate than it can be radiated. That's how scaling laws work.

Notice that I used the word "mainly". Cooling time increases more than does temperature.

On Earth clearly.

Clearly, how? Can you support that statement?

Yes. It is true for any plausible early Earth atmosphere. I am not going to get into a long discourse on atmospheric models, however.

Irrelevant.

How can it be irrelevant when that's the entire point of the discussion?

Its irrelevant because the chemicals in question would be nearly completely destroyed before they got into any spring on Earth.

The springs would have required transition metal minerals for the protobiological reactions to work. We can tell which minerals these were from enzymatic cofactors. They are typical of hydrothermal deposits.

So let me get this straight. You claim that water plus transition metal minerals on Earth are bad because they cause the breakdown of hydrogen cyanide and formaldehyde, while at the same time you claim that the presence of water plus transition metal minerals on your satellite is good because they allow for needed chemical reactions. Are the laws of physics different on your satellite or something? You can't have it both ways. If one is bad on Earth, it must be bad on your satellite. If it is good on your satellite, it must be good on Earth as well.

The difference is that the Earth has an atmosphere so we are talking about the whole planet while on the satellite we are just talking about the spring.

[Bored chemist]

astrobiology.

I asked for physical evidence.

Spectra of Vesta and the moons of Mars in concert with carbonaceous meteorites

Would you like to expand on that?
(I'm a spectroscopist, btw)

[Bored chemist]

Its irrelevant because the chemicals in question would be nearly completely destroyed before

By what?

[Bored chemist]

More crackpot thinking

I'm glad I made you think.
Now, do you plan to refute the maths?

[larens (OP)]

astrobiology.

I asked for physical evidence.

Astrobiology includes planetary science.

Spectra of Vesta and the moons of Mars in concert with carbonaceous meteorites

Would you like to expand on that?
(I'm a spectroscopist, btw)

Both have anomalous spectra for their locations in the Solar System. Vesta has hydroxyl radicals. The moons of Mars have organic compounds plus Mars ejecta. These plus the orbits of the moons are indicative of the disruption of the satellite system by a close encounter with Mars.

Its irrelevant because the chemicals in question would be nearly completely destroyed before

By what?

By the class of reactions I mentioned.

More crackpot thinking

I'm glad I made you think.
Now, do you plan to refute the maths?

What maths? No one has presented a serious counterargument.

[Kryptid]

Yes. It is true for any plausible early Earth atmosphere. I am not going to get into a long discourse on atmospheric models, however.

Its irrelevant because the chemicals in question would be nearly completely destroyed before they got into any spring on Earth.

There aren't any transition metal minerals in the atmosphere and we've already agreed that water doesn't destroy them on its own. So what destructive mechanism are you talking about? I've found some sources that say formaldehyde can persist in the modern atmosphere with a half-life ranging from 1.6 hours to 160 days (depending upon the specific circumstances): http://www.inchem.org/documents/cicads/cicads/cicad40.htm Hydrogen cyanide has an atmospheric half-life of 1 to 5 years: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxguides/toxguide-8.pdf

There would have been significantly less oxygen in the Earth's early atmosphere, so the atmosphere would have been less corrosive to those substances back when the Earth was primordial. Admittedly, the ultraviolet light due to a lack of an ozone layer could have been a problem, but that is at least partly alleviated for the night side of the planet. Or for reactions that take place below ground.

Then you have the option of carbonaceous chondrites delivering organic compounds directly into the Earth's crust via impacts. We know that organic molecules can endure such impacts (as the Allende meteorite has shown).

The difference is that the Earth has an atmosphere so we are talking about the whole planet while on the satellite we are just talking about the spring.

Would you like to enlighten me on:

(1) how an atmosphere has anything to do with whether or not there are transition metal minerals present, and
(2) how that answers the question of whether transition metal minerals are good or bad for the formation of life?

[larens (OP)]

Yes. It is true for any plausible early Earth atmosphere. I am not going to get into a long discourse on atmospheric models, however.

Its irrelevant because the chemicals in question would be nearly completely destroyed before they got into any spring on Earth.

There aren't any transition metal minerals in the atmosphere and we've already agreed that water doesn't destroy them on its own. So what destructive mechanism are you talking about?

Any water in a spring on Earth or on a planet with an evaporative hydrological cycle will have gone through an aquifer which will have had transition metal minerals that catalyze organic reactions in general. Methyl formate is thermodynamically downhill from formaldehyde. This and cyanide will undergo hydrolysis from the water. They will undergo reduction by hydrogen which is ubiquitous in small amounts. The real situation is more complicated because a large range of organic chemicals will be formed with a tendency toward higher molecular weights. Chiral chemicals will be racemic, so will interfere with protobiochemistry.

When still in the atmosphere they will be oxidized if oxygen is present. Oxygen may be generated by the UV dissociation of water and escape of the hydrogen. If oxygen is not present, there will be no ozone so the low altitude UV creation of reactive molecules will be even more intense.

Would you like to enlighten me on:

(1) how an atmosphere has anything to do with whether or not there are transition metal minerals present, and

It doesn't.

(2) how that answers the question of whether transition metal minerals are good or bad for the formation of life?

They are necessary, but organic precursors need to kept dry until they get to the protobiological site.

[Kryptid]

Any water in a spring on Earth or on a planet with an evaporative hydrological cycle will have gone through an aquifer which will have had transition metal minerals

Why must that be so? Why must an underground water supply on Earth have those minerals but your satellite does not?

When still in the atmosphere they will be oxidized if oxygen is present. Oxygen may be generated by the UV dissociation of water and escape of the hydrogen. If oxygen is not present, there will be no ozone so the low altitude UV creation of reactive molecules will be even more intense.

You may not have seen my edit, but I addressed those in my prior post.

They are necessary, but organic precursors need to kept dry until they get to the protobiological site.

Which means the other mechanism I mentioned (carbonaceous chondrites delivering those materials to Earth) can still work.

[larens (OP)]

Any water in a spring on Earth or on a planet with an evaporative hydrological cycle will have gone through an aquifer which will have had transition metal minerals

Why must that be so? Why must an underground water supply on Earth have those minerals but your satellite does not?

On an asteroid there can be two major systems of transport. One is a closed hydrological system with freezing at the top for desalinization and radioactive heating at the bottom for convection. This concentrates the inorganic elements necessary for biology at the top. The second system is surface transport by impact ejection and UV induced electrostatic levitation. The latter process is important for small particles that collectively have a high surface area for absorption of small reactive organic molecules. e.g., HCN and HCHO. If the top of an aqueous circulation system is in a topographically low area, it will be constantly being buried in this dust and having its supply of reactive organic molecules renewed. In the early heating era these molecules will have ultimately come from the Solar nebula where they will have been created by UV and ionizing radiation and shock waves.

When still in the atmosphere they will be oxidized if oxygen is present. Oxygen may be generated by the UV dissociation of water and escape of the hydrogen. If oxygen is not present, there will be no ozone so the low altitude UV creation of reactive molecules will be even more intense.

You may not have seen my edit, but I addressed those in my prior post.

I had not seen the edit. Thank you for supplying some real half-lifes. The concentrations will still be quite low since they will have been diluted by the atmosphere. Dust can supply concentration by thermal migration and storage for intermittent sources.

They are necessary, but organic precursors need to kept dry until they get to the protobiological site.

Which means the other mechanism I mentioned (carbonaceous chondrites delivering those materials to Earth) can still work.

Carbonaceous chondrites have already undergone the process of forming high molecular weight molecules that I described in my section on underground aquifers. Heating them to produce smaller molecules will produce mainly natural gas and coal - not useful for protobiology.