James.Lindgaard

strange, I kind of hate thinking that the members of this forum do not understand how background radiation applies to heat and how background radiation applies to a Joule-Thomson Effect. This could be why the questions being asked really don't have anything to do with the experiment in the original post. I kind of hate stating the obvious but locations that have 700 watts of heat/solar radiation m^2 are "warmer" than places that receive only 400 watts of solar radiation m^2. And if it's been missed by everybody that when a volume of 1L^3 is increased to 1.25L^3 and no molecules or any "heat" are allowed into that field, then the watts per L^3 decreases by 20%. And for why cooling happens in a Joule-Thomson field because gaseous molecules are moving slower, it could be said this is because molecules in that field have less background radiation to absorb. None of the questions have been about this relationship for one simple reason, because I am wrong and am willing to admit it. And I do have other things I can do.

@strange and Klaynos, I've already have asked Swansont to delete my account. I do not accept that neither of you understand what background radiation has to do with heat. Myself, I think your getting even with me for the last time I posted in this forum. @Mordred, when salt dissolves in water, it actually forms Na(H2O)4 and Cl(H2O)4, right ? then I guess the question would be can nitrogen transfer energy from such a molecule to a field composed of gases ? But I do think it is a bad idea for me to post in here.

strange, I have. At the same time, I am expected to say that I am wrong. I find it difficult to be interested in an experiment where I am expected to say it is a bad idea. I mean, it is a basic experiment. Can water effect a J-T field ? How could water effect the behavior of a gaseous molecule ? Even if water can, the reason for it might be debated. The possibilities are non-local behavior, differences in background radiation, and who knows what else. With water, if it is excited do to a current passing through it, then this might effect it's gravitational field which heavy gaseous molecules might react to. Non-local behavior has been observed many times. it's one of those things that scientists have found interesting. You know, light bending around a barrier when there is no reason for it to bend because there is no force acting on it. Of course, with background radiation, if someone considered the difference between the increased kinetic potential of a water molecule and the gases that move within that filed, energy could be transferred via 1st Law of Thermodynamics. And since heavier gases can rob energy from smaller gaseous molecules, it might follow the increased potential of gases that passed within the field of the excited water that has an electrical current passing through it. So am not sure what people would say because scientists would probably find it interesting that 2 conjoined J-T fields could have independent behavior. It might be something they haven't seen before so it would be presumptuous of me to say what would be thought of it if it were successful.

John and strange, I will accept that I am wrong because the Joule-Thomson Effect has nothing to do with gases being cooled such as will happen in my experiment. And that because of this, it is not possible to manipulate one of the fields to attract heavier gaseous molecules. I accept that I have been wrong from my first post.

John, Klaynos missed his own mistake. I take it no one is familiar with the Joule-Thomson Effect. That does seem to be the case. And I guess this is why no one understands why I will be doing this experiment when I am able. The only suggestion I could make is for someone to become familiar with the work that my experiment is based on. And while some would say reading up on it is enough, that's only if you want to pass a test using cliff notes. To understand something does take time.

@Klaynos, I did answer your question. @Mordred, with the basic experiment, if it can separate some gases according to molar mass, then other people better qualified than myself might take an interest in it.

Mordred, As I told strange, there is a reason why I am pursuing the experiment. It has nothing to do with chemical reactions. Wait a minute, it does, After all, salt will allow for a current to pass through water. The experiment is not about understanding why salt ionizes water. It's about something else. I have been trying to say that anyone focusing on that is missing the basis of the experiment. For it's simplicity, I like it. After all, what did scientists have to work with back then. I'll try to clue you in and maybe strange will get one as well. When a current is passed through water, it might increase the amount of electro-magnetic energy associated with a water molecule. If so, one observation that I hope to make is that the field above the water, you know, in the same chamber becomes more excited which will as a result attract heavier molecules. Why I would consider this is because the next field which would be a Joule-Thomson Effect would have less excitation and as a result would not be attractive to heavier molecules. You know, matter's level of excitement/kinetic potential affecting it's environment. I'm just not sure how the 2 of you missed that. But that is why I am , kind of tired of repeating myself, pursuing this experiment. with the Joule-Thomson Effect, it is possible that as gaseous molecules increase the distance between them that the amount of electro-magnetic energy that they have decreases. Because of this, the space between molecules will retain some electro-magnetic energy. Hence the reason for cooling/lower level of excitement in gaseous molecules. Sorry, but I'm just not seeing any chemistry here.

Mordred, I have studied what I am doing. That's kind of why in my opinion, most questions had nothing to do with this experiment and it has nothing to do with chemistry. Separating molecules by molecular mass is not chemistry. Of course, you'll probably say the water based solution. That's what the focus has been on while this experiment is to demonstrate something else. I have said that it involves Joule's and Thomson's work yet nobody has mentioned them except for me. And with this experiment, if it is successful, will give a deeper explanation of the "why the Joule-Thomson Effect is right". I guess it would suck if someone found value in such old work, right ?

strange, You are afraid I know something, aren't you ? The questions being asked miss the "why". Such as, why salt allows for ionization in water doesn't matter. And about all of the questions you ask have nothing to do with why I am pursuing this experiment. And as I mentioned, if it works which is simply to collect the heavier gases in a specific environment, then the "why" will become interesting. I guess it's not something that's been demonstrated about the work Joule and Thomson were involved in. And to think, they did their thing 163 years ago. I will give you a hint though, people might think non-local behavior. But until I can show something, it really doesn't matter.

I guess that's why I'll be doing the experiment and not you. I don't really have anything to say until I can try it because of one simple reason. If it works, then I can say there is more electromagnetic energy per cm^3 in the field of water/solution than there is in the Joule-Thomson field. Until then, it doesn't matter what I think.

strange, like I let Fuzzwood know, when I am able, I'll try the experiment myself. After all, if I used sensors that had an error of up to 30% , that would be a joke. as for the experiment I posted, if you don't get it, not sure why that should be my problem. With some of the conditions associated with this experiment, how can I put this delicately ? when everyone knows that a water based solution can have an electrical current pass through it, that was ignored and the focus instead was placed on water that would not allow for an electrical current to pass through it. and with the Joule-Thomson Effect, if electro-magnetic radiation is not between the molecules, then what is ? after all, then you'd be suggesting empty space. I don't believe in empty space myself. I could be wrong but I don't think that's ever been demonstrated.

@Fuzzwood, had cancer 6 years ago, surgeon made a minor mistake, it had serious consequences. In a sense, it has put my life on hold. close to being back to where I can have a life. Still, with posting in here, if it does work, then at least I'll know better how to phrase everything or what the concerns are about such an experiment.

@strange, I think one thing all of you guys have missed is if co2 is attracted to a solution, then the solution could act as a conveyor in a literal sense. after all, co2 does bond with certain compounds. with a water based solution, the number of molecules that could be attracted would allow for a more efficient system. What you guys have been making known to me is why it hasn't been tried. And in time, it is something I will probably try myself. And if it does work, then there is youtube. And for anyone wondering, for co2 to be attracted to a water based solution can be for a reason as simple as what I said. CO2 doesn't absorb electrons but it does background radiation and if a solution has a spectral emission that co2 would be attracted to, not sure why that would be a problem.

strange, The experiment I posted is not random. fuzzwood, since co2 can bond with organic material, it can't be attracted to something else ? and I never said a solution of ammonia, yet I am wrong because you did. LOL :-D

strange, if a cathode could attract co2, chances are the amount that would adhere to it would be limited. This would allow co2 gases to escape the solution. When a solution slows, it can also outgas. and with a cathode being a barrier to flow, it might allow for both requirements to be met. with current scrubbers, they are using organic material that co2 bonds with. this requires both cooling and heating. with what I am suggesting, it would be to see if co2 gas itself could be attracted to a solution. and since vacuum is the absence of pressure, typically anything less than about 1.031 kgf/cm^2 is considered as such. and with the diagram I showed, it is a basic experiment. if it doesn't work, not much is lost. if however co2 does collect in the chamber with the solution, then it's something to consider. And since it is a basic set up, it would be easy to modify it to see if passing co2 through the solution has much of an effect on co2 extraction. this would probably require a different exhaust. and for this experiment, if the co2 exhausted through another chamber and then to the atmosphere, that'd be okay. after all, it's a basic experiment where the volume of gases would be minimal.