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.

@DrP, I think it has to do with how many times it was posted that water can not conduct electricity. Since adding salt allows for water to conduct electricity ? If they had experience with such commercial applications, then they probably would have considered that co2 would be substituting for another molecule. @Klaynos, It would be the absence of background radiation. In a situation like this, heat would normally flow towards the cooler environment. with something like a modified CRT, the "heat" would be pursued. The same might be true with a water based solution. @swansont, So if the stuff in the water allows that "solution" to attract co2, that's a problem ?

Strange, I guess it could be that no one in here has any experience with the plating process. I would think that anyone familiar with it might be somewhat curious if it could be adapted for co2 extraction. I mean seriously, even if flue gases were directed through the solution. Then instead of an alloy or other material being attracted to a cathode, co2 could be. I think one thing that will always be true is that idea's need to be pursued in order to realize anything. But to make ignorant statements, then whether something can work or not would not become known because of an assumption. For all that matters, a CRT could be modified. And with CO2 being cooled because it's in a vacuum, then would the co2 follow electrons emitted by a CRT ? And with something like this, it might not be that difficult to mimic a gases absorption spectrum. And since a CRT uses vacuum, and in an odd coincidence, the Joule-Thomson Effect uses a vacuum as well. I think that would be something that wouldn't require to much to try. You know, cool flue gases with a chiller. Then further cool flue gases using the Joule-Thomson Effect while having a flow of electrons following a path perpendicular to the flue gases. Unfortunately, new ideas usually require trying them to have a better idea if they'll work or not. An answer that takes 60 seconds or less is usually not thought out but is merely a reaction and is not a response.

@studio, I am not discussing chemistry. If "inventing" a solution that CO2 or other gases are attracted to, it may be possible to have the CO2 and solution form a weak bond. And this would be based on a "solution" emitting energy (low level radiation/light) in a CO2 or other molecule's absorption spectrum. If so, then since solutions are "circulated", said "solution" could transport the CO2 or other gas into a different system for further processing. And this would suggest that the frequency of energy supplied to the "solution" would change. And with power plants, using a coral reef wouldn't work that well. Although that might be a thought. You know, find out if loading CO2 into areas where coral reef's have been damaged by pollution and illegal fishing techniques might help them to recover. @All, Since Mr. Cuthbertson uses terms like "rock" and "gravity", I will accept that as chemistry. With what I am suggesting, it would be a variation of the plating process. And will assume no one has much experience with such processes. With the plating process, what bonds to the cathode (part) is not random. If it were, you wouldn't have cars with babbitt bearings. You know, mass production would be something else entirely different. Of course, an antiquated idea would be to have a phosphor screen moving through a solution where it is near the surface. That would be if an actual cathode is needed. Then by changing the input, it could go from an attractive source to a repulsive force. And with gases cooled by the Joule-Thomson Effect, a temporary bond might be encouraged.

John, one thing I am mindful of with you is this quote from post #22, "it won't mimic anything because it relies on "positively charged water" which doesn't exist." Yet many plating solutions use water. You know, like platinum alumnide uses a solution that is added to water. Of course this is for repairing gas turbine engines. It's that as electrons move through the solution, they positively charge the platinum alumnide. And since the part made out of alloy is grounded and is minus electrons, the platinum alumnide is attracted to the part. With this specific process, nickel acts as a bonding agent between the part and the platinum alumnide, otherwise the platinum alumnide would not bond or adhere to the alloy used to make gas turbines. And if you were to look at a company like Boeing Airplane, they obtain many patents every year. And with what I am suggesting, if the current that is supplied to the solution can create an emission that CO2 would be attracted to. This means that a compound frequency is supplied to the solution. And then I guess you could say the solution would translate it. If you consider how magnetic fields can manipulate the potential of an electron so when it interacts with a phosphor molecule, the color of light emitted by the phosphor can change. Since a solution is not water in it's natural state, it is possible that it can be engineered. Of course, if something like this were realized, then if scientists say that CO2 emissions need to be reduced, an affordable solution might be possible.

John, It would be to find out that as gases are drawn into the hydraulic cylinder if co2 would be attracted to an ionized solution. One of things that might be over looked is that if flue gases are cooled, then that water would radiate energy. As for gravity, water can flow upwards towards static electricity. And since that is well known, I wonder if CO2 might be able to be manipulated in a similar way. And with this, if an ionized solution could mimic co2's absorption spectrum or something close to it, then...

When salt is added to water, it becomes a good conductor of electricity. What is not known is if water vapor occurs, if any ions would be associated with it. Still, would co2 or similar gas being cooled by the Joule-Thomson Effect be attracted to ions in water whether or not those ions are the result of salts or other contaminant ?

@All, With what I am considering, it would mimic the work accomplished by James Joule and William Thomson. The variation of their work would be attempting to manipulate the kinetic energy in a given Joule-Thomson field. Unfortunately, it might be that no follow up work was done to see if their effect allowed for this possibility. Am not sure if anyone finds their work interesting. In 1852, chances are that mercury was used to determine the density of a gaseous field because of it's buoyancy when attached to a float. This is how temperature / background radiation was considered in the past. Today, it's kind of a meaningless concept. edited to clarify. when floats are in water, the "temperature" of the water would be known. And with thermodynamics, heat would seek an equilibrium between water / a solution and gases. I guess it's one of those things that some people might think are pretty cool when they see one. I'd have to check to see who it was that invented such thermometers. edited to add, might have been Galileo. There is to a "Galileo" thermometer. Who knows, Joule and Thomson might have used such a device in making their observations.

John, The information I referenced is correct. If my source of information is wrong, then this is why forums have moderators.

John, The problem with Chernobyl is well known, the rods were pulled to quickly. As a result, the energy emitted fro it's pellets were turned inward. This resulted in increased activity. This has changed the protocol to slow the removal of the rods. Very well known. With Japan, because "water" was still cooling the rods, no concern. It was later realized that when the cooling water was super heated that it mimicked water. Something that today is at the fore front of nuclear energy. In Japan, there were 2 nuclear power plants effected by the tsunami. Only one had false readings from it's cooling water around it's core. And unfortunately, there is a reason why experiments are performed. I guess something might be learned from them. I just have to wonder why someone would have a problem with this.

Mordred, I did. Salt water is considered a good conductor of electricity. Pure water is not because it can not swap electrons. Myself, am concerned why if a soluble solution requires modification to effect an ambient field, it is a problem. And this is mentioned in the same link. I do have to wonder why scientists need others to fail to demonstrate their intelligence. Chernobyl and Japan come to mind. 2 failures that scientists failed to predict. Both resulted in meltdowns of nuclear reactors. With Chernobyl, scientists failed to predict a meltdown if the rods were pulled out too quickly. With Japan, sensors gave false readings when super heated steam passed as cooling water. Am wondering how these 2 mistakes are acceptable. The funny part is, they are good excuses for being wrong.