thethinkertank

OK, so it wasnt NaCl, that was a mistake. It is however sea water. Yikes, messed up there. I am aware of the acidification but I think we as humans ought to go ahead with the idea and implement it anyway, it is a question of weighing pros and cons as every idea is bound to have, and the balance sheet shows the idea deserves a chance.

Thanks for the links and the advice. Most useful.

The attachment contains a print screen from google when queried the following statement "What happens when you pass CO2 into seawater" I hope you are satisfied

It does make sense, and I am baffled that nobody gets it. It's as simple as a science lab experiment. Emitting factory CO2 waste into the sea causes the toxic CO2 to turn into carbonated compounds upon reacting with salt water. Which means less CO2 resulting into the atmosphere. On the other points, I suppose I chose CERN because it's as good a place to start as anywhere. They can take it from there, if they like. And they far more suited to carrying out the implementation or pushing on the idea to relevant parties if they think it worthwhile.

Maybe some but not the one about undersea emissions. OK. I will stop posting unresearched ideas and incline my attention further, towards discussions on existing ideas. That should help.

because i spent weeks researching that very question. Nothing showed up. And if you can do better go ahead. You'll be the first to actually refute that theory

I did take that seriously, the asking questions bit. yes there are areas I dont get without researching, and Im willing to do this. However I stand with my ideas as verifiable means to innovating ground breaking theories or innovations. For example despite the banter, nobody has yet come up with any way to refute my idea on Undersea emissions. Wheras I have shown many times how why and where it could be implemented. Point is, you're right I need to research. But the theories that first founded the research are in most cases valid and worth the research.

It does not happen already, show me a example of where that system is used. I bet you a dollar to a dime you wont find even one instance of it in existence as of now. So unless you first quote an example of above, with links included, dont tell me I dont understand he problem.

Oh, ok I see what you meant now. Now, I never said anything about the need to dive. A typical factory situation would prevail. There would be no divers nothing. Only thing underwater would be factory chimneys redesigned to emit CO2 into the sea. I hope Im clear on this. Nevertheless, you did incidentally spark off a new idea about utilizing a system powered by underwater currents to, force CO2 into the water out of chimneys.

I normally don't visit other threads, but maybe I will. Its unlikely that I will start getting aggressive due to many negative points because there is nothing to be gained out of it, and it contributes nothing to my ideas to get aggressive. I am only concerned about the possibility that many negatives automatically qualify one to banhood.

Let me quote my favourite part of that again, with many thanks attached. " So instead of going: Hey x is a great idea, figure it out! Go: Hey x is a great idea, now obviously y z and q are reasons why x doesn't work but we can use u and o method to make y and z go away, and while I am not 100% sure if I am interpreting this correctly but I think using method v would allow us to use x without q being a problem. Then there are of course some other things to look out for such as i and n but I think that this isn't a fundamental problem and maybe you see a way around these potential problems " Thats straight out of the manual for scientific question making. Thanks again. Finally I have somebody who incidentally co authored a part to the solution. Congratulations. I think you are quite correct about underwater currents and nuclear reactors as a means of solving the pressure issue. However that pressure is possibly worth investing in even otherwise. Underwater volcanoes not being a common phenomenon wouldnt work on a large scale. And I think your suggestion that accidents could happen and that's a reason to decry the idea, is silly too, accidents can happen anywhere regardless of location.

I hope there are no lasting ill effects to be gleaned from excessive minus points? Such as being muted or banned for instance? I hope this is not the case for if it is so, I shall immediately cut down on my creative output and confine myself to a propounding on existing ideas alone. Right now I'm balancing a 3 dimensional tightrope of creativity, learning and discussion. However if my tenure on site is at stake I shall proceed to leap off said tightrope like a leapin lizard, cut down on creativity and learning and merely focus on discussion.

My solution, as stated many times, is to start building factories near the ocean, where they can be fitted with underwater CO2 emission technology right into the sea! There is next to NO technology involved in this technique and therefore perfectly cost affordable. However the link you stated above incorporates a process that is heavily reliant on technology.

It's a perennial brain teaser one that science has failed to answer yet. Its a question of wether energy was ever created at all, but that would go against the precept that nothing can create energy. However if energy was then existent forever, it's future is also infinite which means change within its confines would be impossible for change is finite and the finite cannot merge with the infinite nor cause it to change.

I will endeavour to research more thoroughly my 'fantasies' before propounding them here from now on. That was an important point you made there and helped me move a step further in the quest for greatness as a future nobel prize winner.

I am stressing upon the process of problem solving scientifically, to be precise. And surely I'm not wrong in claiming there's always a idea, preceding the rules and formulae. Im providing the idea. ('doing science' is a vague term sir.)

LOL, I just googled that phrase and it appears to me *smug smile* that google research fails to come up with that in terms of a SOLUTION. Yes there are many articles on CO2 underwater, how the ocean absorbs CO2, but show me one place somebody said, CO2 emission underwater results in carbonated compounds WHICH IN TURN REDUCE THE CO2 VOLUME (which incidentally solves global warming) About the individual at CERN, all I can say is, if he doesnt watch my video, I'm emailing the wrong organization, which should be poen eyes and ears to pioneer advances through every channel, including word of mouth. And if the guy who reads my email doesnt ask for funding, then he has no right to be in CERN at all.

The approach to scientific problem solving is rather like building a house. You need a plan, an architect to draft out that plan, and then the masons that actually put that plan into bricks and mortar homes so to speak. Does an architect need to have masonry know how to design a plan? None but the very basics. I am the architect. You the scientists are the masons. I consider it sufficient if I detail as minutely as necessary, the layout of an idea. It is up to people with knowledge in science to use that layout to build lasting scientific solutions. Here's another example. I create the foundation, out of sticks. You layer that foundation with the bits and peices of formulae etc. I dont know the formulae which is why I apply to you as a scientist to do so. In the end we are both contributing to the betterment of the planet via science. Heres a third example. I approach Einstein and tell him the speed of light is impossible to catch up with. He understands me in terms of math and logical forumlae. He comes up with the theory of relativity as a result. Yet both he and I are perfectly correct and arrive at the same conclusion via pictures and scientific formula respectively.

Tell me then what part of utilizing undersea CO2 waste disposal isn't possible. Be specific as to your question. I wikll answer you. You appear to have imagined I'm talking about redirecting ATMOSPHERIC CO2 into the seabed. I am not. I am talking about a new design for factory waste disposal that emmits CO2 directly from factory fumes into the seabed. My patent (the one to be plaigarised by CERN) is as simple as ABC. The chemicals? NaCl found in seawater and CO2 (found in greenhouse gas emissions.) The mechanism. Combine the two and you get a non toxic carbonate that in fact contributes to the wellbeing of undersea life forms. How? There's a million ways possible, from installing factories near seabeds, to installing them underwater via oil rigs. Now go develop my idea for Earth's sake. I can't make the above any simpler.

The first point is a phsychological secret of subliminal marketing. It is designed to grab the attention of the watcher and instill and hold onto his interest. Then like springing a suprise jack in the box, one shoots out at him the words, very eye catchy words, Bye Global Warming. Leave the rest to the subconciuos mind who's insatiable curiosty impells the observer to watch and indeed, increase mental digestion, by at least 10% of what it would be in the absence of a prior psychological stimulus as stated above. Now it is vitally important that CERN does watch that video to the end. Ironically, they are 20% likelier to watch it if they are fed a prior subliminal stimulus than if the wording came out at them right off the bat as you suggest. The second point: Researched by Google is the answer. There is very little research to do for this issues solution lies mainly in the creative thought process than in actual scientific implementation, the only real equation incorporated is Nacl+CO2 -non greenhouse gas compounds. No it is very different from asserting teleportation is possible, which in pure statemnt form leaves no clue of how to go about it. This video sketched out exactly what is needed and how, to use undersea emissions of CO2 to counter global warming and precisely why it works. P.S If anybody here is interested or thinks that global warming solution is worthwhile you may plaigarise that work and develop it, all in the cause of a greener planet.

Look, I'm hardly a scientist. But I can think out of the box. I contrive to come up with novel solutions to existing problems, explain them to the experts and then leave them to do the technical work (designing apparatus, forumlating equations and so on.) My part is merely to be a good human being with the interests of a greener planet in mind. I therefore make a free gift of my idea on global warming to science, via CERN. The fact that whoever sees my email first is likely to emerge in the nobel prize winners list sooner or later, is no issue to me at all.

The video in the attachment is the one I sent CERN. (Untitled.mp4) Short, brusque, to the point. Just like www.scienceforums.net thought me to do it. I know they will plaigarise my idea. I have no desire to hold on to a globally changing Idea. After all, I am nobody. I am also making a magazine. It's called Global Warming. The solution pertains to a heavily researched version of my CO2 salt theory. (Cover page below, designed via photoshop, incorporating stock footage and my own face-person on bottom right is yours truly. Untitled.mp4

Oh is that so, I didnt know that. (Not a biologist) Nevertheless, if that's what helped stone age man to survive then thats a defnition of intelligence, which at the basic level is the ability of the human being to further his survival and evolution.

I dont require third party encouragement to devise life changing patents

WIll do thanks.