"Therefore,"
stated Mr. Tappin, "in somewhat analogous fashion with respect to ultraviolet
radiation, in those circumstances when shock-wave energy is present, there are forces,
both of synthesis as well as decomposition, which are taking place, so to speak, side by
side. Are we not dealing here, Professor, with the fact that what is being given with the
hand of synthesis, is, to some extent, being taken away by the hand of
decomposition?"
"Yes,"
replied Dr. Yardley. "This seems to be the case."
"Apparently,"
observed the defense lawyer, "we require some kind of 'net energy yield' figure. We
need to be able to determine whether the upside, or the down side, of photolysis,
pyrolysis, hydrolysis and other factors is dominating any given feature of the Archean era
world. Would you agree with this?"
"Yes, I
do," the professor affirmed, "but this is easier said than done."
"Dr.
Yardley, in the initial origin-of-life experiment performed by Stanley Miller, methane,
ammonia, hydrogen and water vapor were used to simulate what was believed, at least at
that time, to be the composition of the Archean era atmosphere. In addition, a continuous
spark discharge was applied to the gaseous mixture in order to simulate the presence of
lightning in a prebiotic world.
"After
letting this experiment run for a number of days, the materials synthesized during the
course of investigation were examined. Is this very general description of Miller's
experiment accurate for the most part?"
"Yes,"
the professor indicated.
"We
know," Mr. Tappin continued, "that questions have been raised by other
scientists and researchers in relation to whether or not the Archean atmosphere actually
was predominately methane/ammonia in character. I was wondering, however, about the spark
discharge aspect of the experiment.
"What
was the magnitude of the electrical discharge?" asked the defense counsel.
"Somewhere
around two to four watts, I believe," the professor offered.
"Correct
me if I am wrong, Dr. Yardley," requested the lawyer, "but I'm not familiar with
any 2-4 watt lightning discharges which run continuously for several days. Are you?"
"No,"
smiled the professor.
"Dr.
Yardley," stated the defense counsel, "one might assume that continuous spark
discharges from a coil are different in character from lightning bolts and their
associated shock waves. Would such an assumption be correct?"
"Well,"
the professor replied, "the two certainly involve different magnitudes of energy, but
the underlying physics is essentially the same. Of course, lightning would not be
continuous, but the sparking mechanisms used in the experiments are continuous in
nature."
"Would
one be unreasonable," Mr. Tappin queried, "to expect different sorts of outcome
if one, first, were to expose a certain mixture of gases to a single bolt of lightning
and, then exposed the same kind of gaseous mixture to a continuous spark of 2-4 watts for
a number of days?"
"No,"
replied the professor, "such an expectation probably would not be unreasonable, but
neither would one be unreasonable if one were to anticipate some degree of overlap in the
product outcomes of the two experiments. For instance, both the 2-4 watt spark discharge
as well as the lightning bolt might generate some amount of hydrogen cyanide (HCN) in the
right kind of atmosphere."
