Well, I emailed CERN

[thethinkertank]

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. 

Edited June 18, 2019 by thethinkertank

[Ghideon]

18 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

After all, I am nobody.

With your current way of approaching science I think you are running the risk of making that permanent.

[thethinkertank]

Just now, Ghideon said:

With your current way of approaching science I think you are running the risk of making that permanent.

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.

 

[DrP]

The first 16 seconds of that 32 second video is a blank screen with background music. You could have just written the sentence that the video gives in the last 16 seconds. It would have been clearer and easier to read the sentence written in plain text rather than having to watch a video with music irrelevant to the topic of the sentence you are trying to get across.

23 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

The solution pertains to a heavily researched version of my CO2 salt theory.

Researched by who? Do you have a link to the research?

How is the CO2 going to get into the sea from the air?

Just now, thethinkertank said:

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.)

Yea - but isn't that just like claiming you are inventing teleportation by stating you get into one box and step out of the other? How does it work? - You step in one box and get out of the other! We'll leave the internal workings of the device to the tech guys - that's the easy bit eh?  

 

[thethinkertank]

Just now, DrP said:

The first 16 seconds of that 32 second video is a blank screen with background music. You could have just written the sentence that the video gives in the last 16 seconds. It would have been clearer and easier to read the sentence written in plain text rather than having to watch a video with music irrelevant to the topic of the sentence you are trying to get across.

Researched by who? Do you have a link to the research?

How is the CO2 going to get into the sea from the air?

Yea - but isn't that just like claiming you are inventing teleportation by stating you get into one box and step out of the other? How does it work? - You step in one box and get out of the other! We'll leave the internal workings of the device to the tech guys - that's the easy bit eh?  

 

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. 

Edited June 18, 2019 by thethinkertank

[Eise]

8 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

Look, I'm hardly a scientist.

Exactly.

9 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

But I can think out of the box.

You don't even know the box. 

6 minutes ago, DrP said:

The first 16 seconds of that 32 second video is a blank screen with background music. You could have just written the sentence that the video gives in the last 16 seconds. It would have been clearer and easier to read the sentence written in plain text rather than having to watch a video with music irrelevant to the topic of the sentence you are trying to get across.

Or just write it in the email to CERN. BTW, what has CERN to do with global warming? (Well they use much energy, so CERN is greatly contributing to global warming (relatively)).

[DrP]

43 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

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. 

No it didn't. How is the CO2, from all of the worlds different CO2 generation methods, collected and pumped through the sea water? 

43 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

No it is very different from asserting teleportation is possible, which in pure statemnt form leaves no clue of how to go about it. 

You have given no information about how this CO2 is supposed to be collected from the atmosphere and pumped through the sea. How is that supposed to work? What percentage gets converted and how much returns to the atmosphere?

 

 

I've invented a new machine that cures death. You put the dead body in a box and spray it with chemicals that reverse the death. I won't patent it as it is a cool thing for everyone to use - free for everyone - no more death. Why don't people start using my box that removes death? The exact mechanism can be worked out by the experts, but the idea is mine and I'll probably get a Nobel prize for it eventually or made into a saint by the church. What do you think of it?

 

 

[swansont]

53 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

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.)

The problem here is that you aren’t doing the hard part, even if you think you are.

In fact, you are creating extra work, because people have to explain to you why your ideas aren’t possible. 

“Thinking outside the box” is often touted as a virtue, especially by your ilk, but when you have no clue what the box is and why it’s there, it isn’t. It’s an excuse not to put the effort in to learn science 

[Endy0816]

CERN does nuclear research.

Everyone in the world has random ideas. They're not worth squat by themselves. Whoever puts in the hard work gets the credit.

 

Note:

Plagiarism would be to steal your words. Copyright, which you probably meant, does not apply to ideas however.

[thethinkertank]

Just now, swansont said:

The problem here is that you aren’t doing the hard part, even if you think you are.

In fact, you are creating extra work, because people have to explain to you why your ideas aren’t possible. 

“Thinking outside the box” is often touted as a virtue, especially by your ilk, but when you have no clue what the box is and why it’s there, it isn’t. It’s an excuse not to put the effort in to learn science 

Tell me then what part of utilizing undersea CO2 waste disposal isn't possible. Be specific as to your question. I wikll answer you. 

Just now, DrP said:

No it didn't. How is the CO2, from all of the worlds different CO2 generation methods, collected and pumped through the sea water? 

You have given no information about how this CO2 is supposed to be collected from the atmosphere and pumped through the sea. How is that supposed to work? What percentage gets converted and how much returns to the atmosphere?

 

 

I've invented a new machine that cures death. You put the dead body in a box and spray it with chemicals that reverse the death. I won't patent it as it is a cool thing for everyone to use - free for everyone - no more death. Why don't people start using my box that removes death? The exact mechanism can be worked out by the experts, but the idea is mine and I'll probably get a Nobel prize for it eventually or made into a saint by the church. What do you think of it?

 

 

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. 

Edited June 18, 2019 by thethinkertank

[DrP]

2 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

Tell me then what part of utilizing undersea CO2 waste disposal isn't possible. Be specific as to your question. I wikll answer you. 

How do you get the CO2 from the atmosphere and pumped under the sea?

What is the conversion rate? How much gets back to the air?

3 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

There's a million ways possible, from installing factories near seabeds, to installing them underwater via oil rigs.

Describe a single one. How do we get the CO2 from the atmosphere around the world into a factory by the sea where we can pump it down into the sea? It is all very well just saying that you have a factory to do it... but what exactly is this factory doing? How did the factory get all that CO2 from the atmosphere to be able to pump it into the sea?

 

[Eise]

1 hour ago, thethinkertank said:

The second point: Researched by Google is the answer. 

That is not 'research'. Mostly googling is picking the ideas you like, whatever the source, true or not, etc. Otherwise it is called 'reading', or if you really discuss the scientific articles, it might be called studying'. It is only research if you make your own observations or experiments, that are at least interesting for the present frontiers of science. But if you do not even know where the frontiers of science are, or worse, do not even know the facts and theories of established science (e.g. anti-matter), you just saying something, with no scientific value whatsoever.

Why don't you learn some science? Buy an introductory book of the subject that interests you most, to begin with. But take care with popularisations. Some topics (e.g. quantum physics or general relativity) are so technical, that popularisations often use metaphors to give the reader at least a hint what is going on. Taking these metaphors as scientific truths will let you run astray again.

[Ghideon]

2 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

Tell me then what part of utilizing undersea CO2 waste disposal isn't possible. Be specific as to your question. I wikll answer you. 

That's what I mean. Why do you think anyone at CERN or other would like to spend time and effort investigating each random idea from scratch? What makes your idea work is something you should try to answer. If I use google and type in salt underwater co2 storage global warming I get many results with much more details that you posted here or emailed to CERN. Why would they not consider your video a random mashup of already available concepts? 

1 hour ago, thethinkertank said:

But I can think out of the box

Then try to think about the individual that gets the email. If the mail manages to pass the spam filter and they watch the video. What could possibly trigger their interest enough to drop current assignments, arrange meetings to change priorities and policies and then ask for the funding required to work on this idea? 

 

[thethinkertank]

Just now, Ghideon said:

That's what I mean. Why do you think anyone at CERN or other would like to spend time and effort investigating each random idea from scratch? What makes your idea work is something you should try to answer. If I use google and type in salt underwater co2 storage global warming I get many results with much more details that you posted here or emailed to CERN. Why would they not consider your video a random mashup of already available concepts? 

Then try to think about the individual that gets the email. If the mail manages to pass the spam filter and they watch the video. What could possibly trigger their interest enough to drop current assignments, arrange meetings to change priorities and policies and then ask for the funding required to work on this idea? 

 

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. 

[Ghideon]

2 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

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.

So what is your solution then? Why is your result an improvement over for instance this result:

Quote

‘Silver bullet’ to suck CO2 from air and halt climate change ruled out. Scientists say climate targets cannot be met using the technologies, which either risk huge damage to the environment or are very costly*

 

 

5 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

And if the guy who reads my email doesnt ask for funding, then he has no right to be in CERN at all. 

 

Regarding thinking outside the box: I prefer to focus less on the box, and focus much more on the thinking.  

 

 

*)  https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/01/silver-bullet-to-suck-co2-from-air-and-halt-climate-change-ruled-out (note: This is the lounge; I'll not check my sources as rigorously as )

[thethinkertank]

Just now, Ghideon said:

So what is your solution then? Why is your result an improvement over for instance this result:

 

 

 

Regarding thinking outside the box: I prefer to focus less on the box, and focus much more on the thinking.  

 

 

*)  https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/01/silver-bullet-to-suck-co2-from-air-and-halt-climate-change-ruled-out (note: This is the lounge; I'll not check my sources as rigorously as )

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. 

[DrP]

20 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

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.

...and why do you think this doesn't happen already?

55 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

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

You mean power stations then? What percentage of the problem would this solve? Surely a better way of producing the energy in the first place would be to use cleaner sources (which we are doing... slowly).

As others have already pointed out - you are showing how little you understand or know about the problem. What do you do for a living?

 

 

 

[thethinkertank]

Just now, DrP said:

...and why do you think this doesn't happen already?

You mean power stations then? What percentage of the problem would this solve? Surely a better way of producing the energy in the first place would be to use cleaner sources (which we are doing... slowly).

As others have already pointed out - you are showing how little you understand or know about the problem. What do you do for a living?

 

 

 

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. 

[DrP]

Just now, thethinkertank said:

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. 

exactly - and why do you think that is?

[thethinkertank]

Just now, DrP said:

exactly - and why do you think that is?

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

[Strange]

3 hours ago, thethinkertank said:

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.

1. More than half of your  "short and to the point" video is taken up with music and blank screen. The rest consists of 9 words with no meaningful content.

2. Why would a particle accelerator laboratory be interested in ocean waste disposal (even if you had a sensible idea)?

3. No one is going to plagiarise the idea because it makes no sense.

 

2 hours ago, thethinkertank said:

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.)

Thinking "out of the box" requires having an in-depth knowledge of the subject. I have seen no evidence that you have any knowledge of any subject whatsoever.

Making up random nonsense is not the same as coming up with solutions (novel or otherwise). No expert is going to have any interest in this drivel.

[thethinkertank]

Just now, Strange said:

1. More than half of your  "short and to the point" video is taken up with music and blank screen. The rest consists of 9 words with no meaningful content.

2. Why would a particle accelerator laboratory be interested in ocean waste disposal (even if you had a sensible idea)?

3. No one is going to plagiarise the idea because it makes no sense.

 

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. 

Edited June 18, 2019 by thethinkertank

[DrP]

Just now, thethinkertank said:

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

OK  -  You are talking power stations yes?  Then: 1 -What percentage of the CO2 problem is caused by powerstations? 2 - what percentage of CO2 are you expecting to scrub from the exhaust of the powerstation by pumping it though the sea? 3 - what about all of the rest of the CO2 that doesn't come from power stations?  4 - how does this effect the local marine wildlife?

I think you will find that your 'solution' probably doesn't amount to much more than a short term reduction. Surely it would be better to research energy sources that do not emit green house gasses during the production of power?  (you are welcome to do the maths to prove me wrong... or rather - yourself right)

 

3 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

It does make sense, and I am baffled that nobody gets it. It's as simple as a science lab experiment.

Although powerstations might be the highest contributor to the problem (WIKI says electricity generation is highest contributor) - what about all the other contributors? You can't build every factory in the world on the coast. Even if you could - not all of the CO2 pumped into the sea would be reacted/dissolved.  Also - what about other greenhouse gasses? Not all of the problem CO2 is directly pumped from factories - some is produced from farming. How are going to get all this CO2 to the coast to be pumped into the sea? (and if you could - what percentage would you need for it to be viable?).

 

Basically, when I am asking you why you think they do not do it already, I am asking you to think about it.  If it were viable then I would think they might have done it already no?.

 

 

 

 

 

[Strange]

2 hours ago, thethinkertank said:

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.

Nope. After a few seconds most people are going to switch off. If they do watch to the end, they will just be annoyed they have wasted 32 seconds read the meaningless sentence: "Bye global warming undersea CO2 waste combines with salt forming harmless compounds".

The fact that the sentence could have been read in under a second adds to the annoyance. And the fact it is meaningless just adds insult to injury.

2 hours ago, thethinkertank said:

real equation incorporated is Nacl+CO2

Do you have any evidence that sodium chloride reacts with CO2, because I am pretty sure it doesn't.

2 hours ago, thethinkertank said:

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. 

No it doesn't. It makes a completely meaningless statement that is not supported by any evidence or theory.

1 hour ago, thethinkertank said:

Tell me then what part of utilizing undersea CO2 waste disposal isn't possible.

It is up to you as the inventor of this amazing idea to explain how salt combines with CO2, what this produces and how that solves global warming.

1 hour ago, thethinkertank said:

The mechanism. Combine the two and you get a non toxic carbonate that in fact contributes to the wellbeing of undersea life forms. 

Please provide a reference that these can be combined to produce a carbonate.

Even if they could be forced to react somehow, the reaction would release large quantities of chlorine, which is an extremely toxic gas. Killing all the undersea life in the vicinity.

 

 

11 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

It does make sense, and I am baffled that nobody gets it.

It only makes sense to you because you are totally ignorant.

12 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

Emitting factory CO2 waste into the sea causes the toxic CO2 to turn into carbonated compounds upon reacting with salt water.

Does it? Really? What evidence do you have for that? (Outside your fertile imagination)

13 minutes ago, thethinkertank said:

And they far more suited to carrying out the implementation or pushing on the idea to relevant parties if they think it worthwhile. 

You obviously have zero idea what CERN does, then.

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, thethinkertank said:

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. 

Releasing CO2 into the sea is probably the worst thing you could do with it, CO2 levels are on the rise in the oceans already, the sea naturally removes CO2 from the air, and acidification is a problem already. At some point the pH will fall below 7 and the sea will suddenly become a huge source of CO2, that really needs to be avoided at all costs. 

( I can't believe I allowed myself to dragged into this idiocy)