• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bermuda Triangle - new "methane bubble" twist?

I do remember one of these TLC or Disc channel specials that talked about the methane gas being released from hydrites (sp?) as a possible explanation for sudden disappearances of ships. They did an experiment in a fairly large tank of water equiped with pipes at the bottom to release air. They put a model boat (~8' long) in the middle of it and started releasing air. It took what appeared to be about a minute for the model to finally sink. One thing that I noticed was that the model wanted to move to the side of where the gas was being released but they had it tethered in the middle. If it hadn't been tethered it looked as if it would have been pushed to the edge of where the air was coming up and just floated there.

But, has such a large relase of gas from the ocean floor ever been witnessed?

edit: Oh, and thanks for the welcome to the board!
 
Tricky said:
Methane is a fairly dense gas, actually much denser than air,
Click to expand...

Unh, that sure looks like liquid methane there, not gaseous methane. Gaseous methane, unless it forms complexes, which would be somewhat surprising given its symmetry, is CH4, mole weight of 16, which is just about half that of air.

What's more, I've put methane (natural gas) into a balloon and you know what? The balloon floated.
 
Tricky said:


Now let's talk about airplanes. Methane is a fairly dense gas, actually much denser than air, and would not rise in the atmosphere like helium or hydrogen. To the contrary, it would spread out over the surface of the water. The plane would have to be just skirting the top of the water to encounter any significant concentration of methane from even a very large bubble. Even if it were lighter than air, what with the constant winds over the ocean, the gas would be dispersed before it could reach the altitude an airplane would be flying at.

This BT explanation is nothing but gas.
Click to expand...

Actually, methane is lighter than air. In normal conditions of temperature and pressure, 22.4 l of nitrogen weights 28 g, the same volume of methane weights only 16 g.
The site you gave lists the density of liquid methane.
 
Uh_Clem said:
Edit: Oh, and thanks for the welcome to the board!
Click to expand...
Welcome, Uh Clem, to tomorrowland, and I hope you're enjoying your visit.

:D
 
jj said:


Unh, that sure looks like liquid methane there, not gaseous methane. Gaseous methane, unless it forms complexes, which would be somewhat surprising given its symmetry, is CH4, mole weight of 16, which is just about half that of air.

What's more, I've put methane (natural gas) into a balloon and you know what? The balloon floated.
Click to expand...
Mia culpa. Methane gas is indeed lighter than air. However, I still maintain that it would be dispersed before it reached an altitude to be hazardous to airplanes. But if you assumed the gas didn't disperse much, the extent of the "megabubble" would have to be many meters across in order to affect the instruments of the plane. It might ignite, though.

Still it is a very silly hypothesis. If this happened often enough to account for several missing vessels, we would have observed it by now.
 
The only place that makes me pause is that they found 5 planes, all within 1.5 miles, and all went down at seperate times.
Click to expand...

I remember hearing somewhere that the currents down there can move some things quite a ways over time. I think it was during another TV show search for Flight 19, if I my rememberer is working.

Perhaps wreckage that is light enough is gathered up by the currents and ends up together as it is moved along?
 
jj said:


Unh, that sure looks like liquid methane there, not gaseous methane. Gaseous methane, unless it forms complexes, which would be somewhat surprising given its symmetry, is CH4, mole weight of 16, which is just about half that of air.

What's more, I've put methane (natural gas) into a balloon and you know what? The balloon floated.
Click to expand...

SGT said:


jj tipes faster than me
Click to expand...

I am beginning to strongly suspect that no one reads my posts.

*sigh*

I had a source and everything.
 
We read your posts, Hunstman. It's just that we wish you'd get rid of that horrible avatar!! :D :D :D

(Actually, it's my posts that are ignored.)
 
LTC8K6 said:


I remember hearing somewhere that the currents down there can move some things quite a ways over time. I think it was during another TV show search for Flight 19, if I my rememberer is working.

Perhaps wreckage that is light enough is gathered up by the currents and ends up together as it is moved along?
Click to expand...

I thought about that. Without knowing more about the currents in that area, though, it would be impossible to say. Although it does seem to be smack in the middle of the Gulf Stream, which would seem to move then farther north. The area was first found in 1991, and was in the same place when this research was done (a decade or so later). Currents are possible, but I don't know if that explains is adequately either. Need some detailed maps of that area's sea floor.

I'm thinking along the lines of this being an area in a standard and/or well-used flight path. It's possible that this is a path taken by many planes that, for example, get caught in storms or develop engine problems (like an emergency run back to Ft. Lauderdale). It would still seem a strange coincidence that all 5 feel at the same spot, but it makes it much less of a coincidence. If this is true, I might be able to mark it to chance and let it go.

I'll have to do some research when I get the time. This is one I'd like to look into more.
 
Huntsman said:


He's cute!!!

ANd if you call him horrible again, I'm releasing him into your bed :eek:

:)
Click to expand...

Down, boy. Easy...easy...I was only referring to what *someone else* said.... :)

About the currents, possible to an extent, but like most things, I can't believe it's that simple. Maybe in combination with other explanations, such as amateur pilots/sailors, suddens storms, etc. as well as myriad made up/misremembered/inaccurate stories, etc. IMO, the bt has been so thoroughly debunked the only reason to dredge it up again is ratings.
 
IIRC it wasn't the methane "bubble" that overturned the ships, but rather the dissolved methane in the sea, lowered the density of the seawater so much that ships could no longer remain bouyant.

It still seems highly unlikely, but is very scientific sounding.
 
I heard something about methane releases causing sinkings on a radio show some time ago. I got the impression they were talking about large volumes of gas that were released as tiny bubbles which grew in size as they ascended due to decreasing pressure. These bubbles caused large areas of water to effectively become much lower in density thereby causing boats to simply lose bouyancy. An object floats if weighs less than the water it displaces, if the water it displaces suddenly turns to foam the object stops floating (or possible just floats lower in the water).

I have no expertise in the area so I have no idea if this scenario is more or less feasible than the "one ginormous bubble" theory. It does seem more believable that this sort of event might go unnoticed unless it happened right under you.
 
As told by Tricky: Still it is a very silly hypothesis. If this happened often enough to account for several missing vessels, we would have observed it by now.
Click to expand...
 
Huntsman said:
Now, as to the mthane theory, I also find it highly unlikely. The only place that makes me pause is that they found 5 planes, all within 1.5 miles, and all went down at seperate times. They also reported depressions or sinkholes in the area. Not saying the bubbles are it, and it is outside the area that is known for methane, but it does seem a large coincidence that all crashed into the same spot over about a 2 year period.
Click to expand...

Sorry I don't follow, who found 5 planes where?Has the wreckage of Flight 19 been found, then? What 2-year period?
 
The single giant bubble would be much more devastating...in testing, the smaller bubbles just pushed the boat out of the way, while the large one swamped it.

The question is not can it sink it; we know that a large methane bubble could very well sink a ship..the question is do these large methane releases actually occur. It does seem odd that the only ones to have occured would have been either out of anyone's detection range, or directly underneath a passing ship/plane. So, IMO, while possible, this is in the "highly unlikely" category.
 
Peter Morris said:


Sorry I don't follow, who found 5 planes where?Has the wreckage of Flight 19 been found, then? What 2-year period?
Click to expand...

It was not Flight 19.

In 1991, one of the researchers involved found a group of 5 Avengers in an area 12 miles east of Ft. Lauderdale. In this newer Bermuda Triangle show, he went back with a sub to identify the planes. It turns out they were not from Flight 19 (as was hoped).

However, after collecting the plane's identifying numbers and such, they found that all five planes crashed there, seperately, between (IIRC) 1941 and 1943 (maybe up to 45, can't recall exactly).

Five planes, five seperate incidents, and all ended up within 1.5 miles of each other on the ocean floor. This is, to say the least, highly unlikely.

Thinking about this more, perhaps currents do play a role. The currents might affect planes in the water within a certain region of the surface, carrying them to this location and trapping them in some sort of eddy current or backwater. Once they hit bottem, the force of the water is no longer enough to move them.

Sounds a bit better, but one would have to do some testing of the currents in the area to confirm or falsify it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom