jlindgaard

@All, If an element can absorb it's own electrons,I would say it's not my concern but it does expalin how 2 molecules can provide the material for a number of gases in our atmosphere. And I keep hearing prove it. It takes more than a couple of posts. An example is that glucose has the same molar mass as 6 formaldehyde molecules. And yet glucose can release energy. Why ? And I can't prove why. Have no need but an element increasing it's density to conserve it's momentum could be one explanation. But it is not an accepted principle in physics that matter can conserve it's own momentum and various examples can not be cited as this is considered being all over the place. An example of being all over the place is saying let's consider CH2, CH4 and CCl4. Now we are all over the place and should only consider CH2. Not much to consider. And we also can not say that CH2 + CH2 > CH4 and C. And since there is an industrial release of Cl from industrial sources, we shouldn't say that it migrates upward in our atmosphere and somehow bonds with C. We can't say charge relative to kinetic energy and the potential of the surrounding field. Kind of why I think I'll stick with mechanical engineering. Need to develop a seal using water that can allow for a vacuum possibly in excess of 29 hg's. And I think developing a mechanical system is what I will limit myself to doing. edited to add; I know I'm probably wrong for mentioning this or asking such a dumb question but if a carbon element absorbed some of it's own electrons, then could it share elctrons with something(s) like 4 chlorine molecules that have a positive charge or polarity ? Of course, I could be wrong and the chlorine molecules absorb one of their own and the carbon element has to share it's electrons with the chlorine molecules.. You know, chlorine being a more massive molecule.

Swansont, You can delete my account if you want. Dr. Pan at WKU knows what I think. Still, not sure if conserving momentum by absorbing some electrons would allow the nuclei of gaseous molecules in the upper atmosphere to avoid catastrophic entropy due to the lack of energy/matter where there is little pressure and the temperature is -40 C or more. Can't prove it and it's not my problem. But if it can reduce co2, don't care any more. Have gotten the message that doing nothing is preferable to trying something Why I am proud to be an American disabled Veteran. I love living in a country where having imitative is frowned upon. By the way, there is one small catch, the vacuum chamber needs to be something like a hydraulic cylinder. The more molecules, the more energy, etc. And since expansion needs to be limited to be efficient, a hydraulic cylinder will convert kgf/cm^2 into vacuum, could be measured as a drop in the temperature of gases or just the loss of pressure or both. That conservation thingy. Why has this been missed ? Conventional vacuum pumps transfer angular momentum so it creates a wind chill effect. That and the hydraulic cylinder might need a charge to give water molecules increased kinetic potential. Am not sure if Dr. Pan or anyone else will find this interesting but am burned out on it myself.

Mordred, While it might be inconvenient, this is the weekend. I will need to give the professors whom I have contacted time to consider my perspective.

Physica and Sensei, I don't take this personally and hope no one else does. But I am celebrating tonight because I know what I have realized. And probably the only people who will care about this will be environmentalists and maybe atmospheric scientists. For what has been studied by members of this forum, I am not sure if someone focused on atmospheric phenomena. If not, can't really expect them to be concerned that much about this. Jim

@All, Not that it matters, I have asked someone to consider CO2 becoming negatively ionized as one of the driving forces behind how gases occur in our atmosphere. I did explain specifically what I mean by this. With negative ionization, it would probably take a physicist to prove it. The person I contacted, while they have my same interest, coal emissions, they might find it worth consideration. And with something like this, only physical testing will determine anything. And with this, is it an affront to mainstream science ? It's not. Also, one thing I am aware of is that I am not in school and as it turns out, some scientists do pursue research projects. Of course, if I am right, then the moderators in this forum would need to go to school to learn what I know. Of course, there are Cliff Notes and quick online searches. But nothing replaces taking the time to consider something. An example is negative ionization. An important talking point but one that was missed by the moderators.

strange, I think it's unrealistic to expect me to remember what specific book I read 40 years ago. For all I know it was Planck's autobiography. But as has been mentioned, if it can't be googled...

I'm not going to worry about it John. As I mentioned in my first post, if my current project works, I'll mention this. By this I mean that expanding gases could cause them to collide and who knows, if water absorbs more solar radiation than a gas, it might cause more interactions. At present, I don't know anyone who cares.

Swansont, If Asst. Prof. Dr. Nee has no interest in my experiment, I'm not going to worry about it. It does cost money and does take time to set something like that up. Besides, it was supposed to break 100 degrees in Portland. I am sure they enjoy having warm summers. And since Sen. McConnell is from Ky., he doesn't support lowering CO2 emissions or the EPA. And Dr. Nee is in Ky. and works at a state university. Who knows, I might be better off doing what ever Sen. McConnell would like. After all, politics can be a messy thing such as if universities want money for something in their budget. And as Sen. Majority Leader, Sen. McConeel probably weilds a lot of influence.

Swansont, I wish you the best in pursuing 30,000 posts. http://www.wku.edu/chemistry/faculty/matthew_nee ResearchLaser spectroscopy of photochemical processes in atmospheric and environmental chemistry What is atmospheric and environmental chemistry research ? And photo chemical ? This has to be some media hype. Of course, if people have never shown any interest in our atmosphere, then they might not know that, hmm, why is it again that NASA and NOAA along with an unnamed committee at the U.N. making everything known ? Maybe if you wish to disagree with me, you'll post some facts ? I haven't seen any. But I guess there is a discussion going on about why most computer models are wrong. And Swansont, my favorite one is the EPA saying that NO2 has an impact 24 times greater than CO2 but CO2 is the problem. Care to explain ? I mean NO2 has a GWP of 310 to CO2's 1. And when the amount of each released into the atmosphere actually demonstrates that NO2 is the real cause of Global Warming according to the EPA. Check their web site, I did. Here's the link; http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions

@Mordred, Both NASA and NOAA say that Global Warming is happening at a much slower pace than what their computer models say. And as you say, that is not real science. Any more, I think anyone that anyone who has the time to post 29,000 times doesn't have much else to do. Of course, I am pursuing a woman who doesn't want to be caught. I think that is better than not pursuing a relationship with a woman. @everybody else, scientists have missed a lot. basic clue, water vapor does not exist. Yet it is accepted as mainstream science.

Endy, Swansont is knowledgeable in all facets of science. He can't be questioned. And if you want a good laugh, search my name on youtube along with black body radiation. It seems that history has been rewritten because Planck's work was disregarded until the 1970's when it was revived/ Some idiot thought that black light could emanate from a dense body. Can't find it on the internet. Still, go through reader's digest of the 70's and am sure you'll find the story. It's funny though, to read about black body radiation today, it is made to sound like it's always been known but no research, etc. is shown. All info is recent. I guess though most people are not familiar with the history of physics. A lot can be missed because of that @Swansont, you're not 007 and haven't climbed the Eiger, sorry. @All, Am sorry to disagree with mainstream science but Global Warming coincides nicely with ozone depletion and recovery.

@All, I have another project that I am working on. If it works, I will mention this.because whether it is photosynthesis or how molecules interact in our upper atmosphere, there is one odd thing about it. If a hydraulic cylinder with only atmospheric gases in it, when expanded would become quite cold. This is because the gaseous molecules would be conserving energy. And yet the hydraulic unit itself could stay at room temperature. You see, if the cylinder has an electrical current running through it, then the expanded gases could draw energy from the cylinder without it having an appreciable drop in temperature. And if the hydraulic cylinder is not electrically charged, then a sufficient expansion of gases in it's housing would cause frost to develop on the exterior of the hydraulic unit. Rather basic but still would probably be something that atmospheric scientists would find fascinating.

@All, I have contacted a Dr. Nee at Western Kentucky University (he is the Dept. Head for Atmospheric Sciences) and have asked him if he would like to become involved in an experiment to try and demonstrate how solar radiation breaks down molecules. And while the upper troposphere, the tropopause and lower stratosphere are quite cold and have a vacuum that is above 29 hg's, it might be possible. I let Dr. Nee know that I believe that water molecules in our atmosphere become positively charged due to solar radiation. And when the lack of pressure and heat type energy place gaseous molecules in a negative state, that positively charged water molecules and negatively ionized gases become attracted to each other. And when this happens, collisions occur. The attachment is to a basic diagram that shows how a hydraulic cylinder can be modified to replicate the basic mechanics of our upper atmosphere. The unique aspect of it is that if water molecules becoming positively charged is what initiates our atmospheric processes, then under controlled conditions, we can control the ppm of H2O and also control the amount of heat type energy (current) it is exposed to as well as what vacuum allows for what rate of occurrence of gases in our atmosphere. And since I live in Kentucky as Dr. Nee does, I am hopeful that he will find that understanding the specific mechanics of how our atmosphere works is something that can benefit the state that we live in. edited to add: the seals for the rod would need to be a nonconductive/non metallic material. Otherwise the seals would allow for a circuit/current to flow through them and then this could not work. The seals for the rod is to keep hydraulic fluid which creates the seal with the piston and lubricates the wall of the cylinder from leaking. The interesting aspect of this is that mainstream science has yet to show how solar radiation breaks down molecules or how new molecules are formed once this happens. Of course, if I am right, there is a reason there is something called a Nobel Prize. It acknowledges people who have contributed to something.

@Swansont, Why I labeled this thread Will Be Banned is because I have been told that I will be banned if I say that the carbon element in CO2 separates from the diatomic O2 molecule and forms CH2O when it bonds with a water molecule. And that this is the result of a fluctuating vacuum. Of course, this is something that CAN NOT be tested. Why it is in violation of this forums rules. Swansont, there is one minor detail. When I say a fluctuating vacuum, I do not mean increasing then decreasing the quantity of molecules in a given space but increasing and decreasing the space a set number of molecules occupy. Something about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (transferring angular momentum without a heat type transfer) and pursing an equilibrium. Of course, molecules can absorb heat type energy from the container being used for such an experiment. Would be like molecules absorbing energy from chlorophyll.

fuzzwood, so much of what you said is wrong. Kind of why it's a waste of my time posting in here.