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.

@swansont, It is true the government has not been locking my threads. I just find it odd that CH2, CH2O, H2O and CO2 are both found in photosynthesis and in the upper troposphere and yet no one can demonstrate how a plant converts water and carbon dioxide into formaldehyde and oxygen. I find it difficult to accept a theory that has yet to be demonstrated by main stream science such as photons of light does this. If that is all it takes, then why are atmospheric scientists concerned about CO2 emissions for ? Am not sure why it is pseudo science to say that expanding a CO2 molecule causes it to become excited and allows it to absorb more energy, After all, if C6H12O6 did not absorb energy, it could not have the necessary potential to maintain it's bonds and yet have "extra" energy when a glucose molecule is broken down by a biological process in our bodies. Of course, if something like a CO2 molecule gains mass, then since it is matter, it also has gravity and this increases it's effect in the space that it occupies. This would be an opposing force to the vacuum which is trying to expand it. I think any more, not my concern really. And I know I am wrong for saying that if the carbon molecule in CO2 moves to an H2O molecule, then the plant has O2 and CH2O which it does. And 6CH2O is glucose. Maybe one day someone will explain why an H2O molecule needs to be taken apart in the first step of photosynthesis ?

iNow, I was not aware that this was a privately owned site. If I knew that, I would have stayed away. That does explain the titles moderators have. I did abide by the rules. It is merely a claim by members of this forum that I did not. After all, they would not receive credit if I am right. This would be a sufficient reason for me to be discredited. Of course as I have mentioned, Phi was interested in discussing it but since it is a new idea to your members, it was rejected. Have you ever read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged ? It's possible she was referring to institutions such as your forum. @pavel, Immigrants learning science in the U.S. is a mixed bag. Americans do not like immigrants on the one hand and on the other, why aren't more Americans willing to learn the STEM subjects that help America ? With this forum, conformity seems to be more important than science. Kind of why I won't get along well here. Myself, speak English as a 2nd language and have parents from 2 different continents. I have problems only considering one perspective. Trying something new to me is not attacking those who helped to make science what it is today but do believe I am building on their work.

p.s., One of my favorite aspects of living in the United States is that 2 out of 3 people enrolled in undergraduate degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematical programs are immigrants.

@All, I will be banned from this forum and that is okay. It is funny though. To live in America and to have served honorably in the U.S. military but not to have the right to my opinion or free speech. I find it interesting that saying that fluctuating a vacuum is not explaining how an experiment can be performed. It is an attribute that does need to be met. This kind of leaves me wondering how America is leading the world. Then again, I wonder why the moderators of this forum have imperialistic titles attached to themselves. In role playing games, that is not unusual. But in a scientific forum, it is rather odd that titles are used that are not associated with science but instead with caste systems that are known for depriving people of their rights. As I have let one moderator know, I have made provisions for pursuing my goals on my own. :-D

I can only think that what I am working on is beyond the moderators of this forum to understand. My threads being locked by moderators such as yourself with no explanation does discourage innovation and invention. Am I to blame if a scientist does not understand that an increase in angular momentum also allows for an increase in the excitement of that body ? Very well accepted. It was a Russian who proved this in the 1950's. He used a body in space and a craft losing it's momentum. Proven to be true. If a satellite is slowing, a near pass to a celestial body will allow it to increases it's velocity which also increases it's kinetic potential. This is because the celestial body will slow relative to a transfer of energy via the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Of course, moderators do have absolute power and authority. :-D @All, I do owe the moderators of this forum an apology. I should ask them if they approve of what I am thinking or have spent my time pursuing. It's not like we live in China or Russia. After all, those 2 countries would have allowed me to have had a family for being patriotic and a Veteran. But this is America and reducing CO2 emissions is not possible. As for having a family, it's like thinking CO2 emissions can be reduced, won't happen.

I did say fluctuating vacuum allows for matter to increase it's mass. As a side effect, it's gravitational effect on it's environment increases. This would be the difference between CH2O occurring in the upper troposphere and a plant releasing CH2O into our atmosphere or converting it into glucose. @moderator, I do have a project that I am working on as I have mentioned. If successful, then a scientist who is concerned with reducing CO2 emissions will hopefully agree to work with me. The basic test is quite simple but from what I have seen in forums, a demonstration will be laughed at. After all, I am only one person, what would keep me from falsifying results to support my position ? And with me, I think this is why I find it important that other people understand the premise behind any experiment.

Studiot, Fluctuating vacuum. 2 words. Why do I like this idea ? If 2 opposing cylinder open and close, they require less energy to generate vacuum. With vacuum, I do believe that the carbon element can be moved from the CO2 molecule. As to what works financially and environmentally, that would remain to be seen. Can't prove something like this until the basic principle is given a chance to be demonstrated. And since I am not a physicist living in Washington D.C. like Sen. Mitch McConnell from my state of Kentucky who opposes and regulation of CO2 emissions, I am a problem child. By the way, I live in Kentucky. Sen. McConnell does not like me. Could be something about being responsible and a good citizen. And with vacuum, it does require one movement which creates expansion. It might be possible that such a reciprocating action causes molecules to become denser using less energy. And as I mentioned, and I do like this part, Sen. McConnell is against any means which could reduce CO2 emissions and does not support any research which could lead to it. I think that is my position but as one moderator let me know, he has warned me against promoting any idea which might lead to a way to reduce CO2 emissions. Considering that he lives in Washington D.C. , I do have to wonder about loyalties. @All, Research and development takes time. With me, I am a mechanical engineer and have been working towards a system that can reduce CO2 emissions from power plants. This is not a need of the coal or natural gas plant operators. America needs energy at any expense. If you doubt this, turn off your I Pads and computers for a day or 2. Still, do like Einstein and Planck. They did revolutionize physics. After all, without Planck's Constant, Einstein's work would not have happened. And with CO2 emissions. am I blowing hot air ? I'm not. When research is ridiculed in such a fashion or becomes undesirable because it is not what main stream science allows for, that is when we will have problems. I think we have problems. After all, google has been cited quite often. This tells me that time has not been spent considering something or someone having spent time studying. It is almost funny in that sense, America's intelligence today is the result of a google search. Am glad to know that. @Phi, I do think gravity has more to do with CO2 than valence electrons. Want another way to consider this ? Find out why your skin wrinkles in the bathtub if you soak too long. It's an odd way of thinking about things but there is a reason why your skin wrinkles.

swnason, Why you bother me is that Phi is also a moderator and did seem interested in why I disagree with mainstream thought on atmospheric and organic chemistry when it comes to CO2. All you have done is throw your weight around as moderator for what reason I don't know. And I did say how my speculation could be tested, fluctuating vacuum. That does meet rule number 1 of the requirements of the rules of testing that this forum puts forth. With me, the testing doesn't matter if the principle behind it isn't understood. And since you are a physicist, are you familiar with Einstein's or Planck's work ? I have a video demonstrating the black body radiation that Planck wanted to see. He did his experiment wrong. He did come up with his constant as a result. Doesn't matter though, it seems history has been rewritten.

Not sure if this is known but CO2 in levels up to 330 ppm allow for an Ice Age every 40,000 years. Below 300 ppm, once every 100,000 years. What is not known is how much a planet warms before an Ice Age starts. edited to add; Claude Lorius used ice core samples going back 400,000 years when he became concerned about CO2 levels in the 1960's. I am pursuing a project which if successful, I may have the opportunity to have tests done that will either support what I believe or will show that I am wrong. @swansont, I did mention in my thread CO2 that it may be possible for fluctuating vacuum to allow CO2 to be converted. Can you show me the forum rule that states that proof has to be offered before a hypothesis is posted ? I doubt you can. Have to wonder why you discourage pursuing a possible solution to rising CO2 levels. I know, you're a moderator. LMAO !

Swansont, I am currently working on one project which if successful would allow me to have mainstream scientists involved in my experiment. I am well aware of what is required for a proper demonstration. One of the requirements is that the materials used need to be able to with stand -50° C., maybe a little more or a little less. This is to replicate the upper troposphere. Also, the vacuum in the upper troposphere is above 29 hg's. Currently, all or most vacuum generators rely on wind speed or the venture effect and have not demonstrated creating a vacuum in excess of 29 hg's with a single motion expanding the volume of the cylinder. If you consider the area around the tropopause, space is expanded. This means that gases are expanded simply because they need to fill more space and not just spin faster which a reciprocating type vacuum pump or a rotating vane pump does. The temperature in the Arctic Circle can drop 30° because of wind speed alone. For what I am claiming, this false reading would not allow for a successful demonstration. Kind of why my current project is important. As far as I know, only NASA has done any research with water in a low pressure system with extremely low temperatures as well. They wanted to consider the evaporation rate of water on Mars for some reason. I guess if it had water on it's surface in the past. But I don't jump from subject to subject. What I base my opinion is not one thing but is based on many different observations. p.s., I have mentioned that photosynthesis does not require the extreme cold or vacuum. That doesn't matter. If you watch the 3 part series How to Grow a Planet, the very first step in photosynthesis is separating the hydrogen elements from the oxygen molecule in water. Yet if I were to demonstrate that I can use a mechanical system to convert water and CO2 into CH2O and O2, would it matter ? I doubt it would. And as someone mentioned, I have to be a Global Warming skeptic to be pursuing a way to reduce CO2 emissions. I think that speaks volumes.