John Cuthber Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 "It would be to find out that as gases are drawn into the hydraulic cylinder if co2 would be attracted to an ionized solution." They would be attracted to a rock. Very slightly, by gravity. The effect would be too small to measure. " And with this, if an ionized solution could mimic co2's absorption spectrum or something close to it, then" No, condenses phase spectra are always different from gas phase ones.. Not that it would make any difference anyway.
James.Lindgaard Posted September 9, 2015 Author Posted September 9, 2015 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. -1
studiot Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 If John Cuthber didn't have high blood pressure before reading this nonsense, he will after. So save his BP and please go and learn some basic physical chemistry. Electrons are negatively charged so do not make anything positive. Since you objective seems to be scrubbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere ( a laudable aim) , why go to all this complicated trouble? Carbon dioxide dissolves readily enough in water and can be easily removed by precipitation as calcium carbonate. Very small marine creatures do this on a grand scale all the time, that is how chalk and limestone is formed. 1
James.Lindgaard Posted September 9, 2015 Author Posted September 9, 2015 @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.
Strange Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 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. That would almost certainly be a bad assumption. The rest of what you write is either incomprehensible or wrong.
James.Lindgaard Posted September 9, 2015 Author Posted September 9, 2015 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.
DrP Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 This is a science site... Why would you assume that a bunch of chemists and physicists have no experience of electroplating!? I would assume the exact opposite. lol.
Klaynos Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 Why do you think cold ensembles would be influenced by an electric field?
swansont Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 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. That doesn't address the claim that the water is charged, this just shows that the solution (the stuff in the water) is ionic. How about either addressing the objection, or admitting that your claim is wrong? As for gravity, water can flow upwards towards static electricity. Water is a polar molecule.
James.Lindgaard Posted September 9, 2015 Author Posted September 9, 2015 @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 Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 Strange, I guess it could be that no one in here has any experience with the plating process. It could be. But it is very unlikely (and based on previous threads plus my own experience, almost certainly wrong). I would think that anyone familiar with it might be somewhat curious if it could be adapted for co2 extraction. Or maybe they know you are talking nonsense. I mean seriously, even if flue gases were directed through the solution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_scrubber Then instead of an alloy or other material being attracted to a cathode, co2 could be. Do you have any reason to think this is possible? What would happen to the CO2 at the cathode (if it were possible)? For all that matters, a CRT could be modified. How, exactly would you modify a CRT for this purpose? And with CO2 being cooled because it's in a vacuum How is it a vacuum if there is CO2 there? Unfortunately, new ideas usually require trying them to have a better idea if they'll work or not. Good new ideas usually need to be based on some level of understanding, not wild guesses.
James.Lindgaard Posted September 9, 2015 Author Posted September 9, 2015 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.
Fuzzwood Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) strange, if a cathode could attract co2 It cannot as CO2 is a neutral molecule which does not have a dipole moment. 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. Since when is an ammonia solution organic? Bubbling CO2 through a concentrated ammonia solution yields urea which is a solid 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.I sincerely hope that you realize that a vacuum means an absence of ALL gases. Introducing CO2 in a vacuum chamber means that the vacuum is LOST, since the chamber DOES contain a gas now. 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. Ever opened a coke bottle? Dissolved CO2 right there, stored in water as carbonic acid. Edited September 9, 2015 by Fuzzwood
Klaynos Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 Heat is an energy transfer. You have not answered the question. Please try again. I'm likely to follow up with asking for a mathematical derivation so we can have at least an order of magnitude as to the size if the effect.
Strange Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 strange, if a cathode could attract co2 What makes you think it would? and with the diagram I showed, it is a basic experiment. if it doesn't work, not much is lost. You seem to think that science is done as a process of trial and error: think up a random experiment and see what happens. It isn't. For all that matters, a CRT could be modified. How, exactly would you modify a CRT for this purpose?
James.Lindgaard Posted September 9, 2015 Author Posted September 9, 2015 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
Fuzzwood Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 You misunderstand my statements: 1) CO2 can react indeed with organic materials, which has nothing to do with your experiment. Don't draw red herrings in. 2) You stated that currently scrubbers use organic material. I showed you an example of a scrubber system where that clearly is not the case.
James.Lindgaard Posted September 9, 2015 Author Posted September 9, 2015 @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.
Fuzzwood Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 What's stopping you from trying it and see if there are noticable difference in CO2 uptake whether or not electricity is applied?
James.Lindgaard Posted September 9, 2015 Author Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) @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. Edited September 9, 2015 by James.Lindgaard
Strange Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 The experiment I posted is not random. It doesn't seem to be based on any rational thought process. Or if it is, you haven't explained it. since co2 can bond with organic material, it can't be attracted to something else ? There is a big difference between binding and attraction. For what reason do you claim that CO2 would be attracted to salt water (or whatever it is now)? For all that matters, a CRT could be modified. How, exactly would you modify a CRT for this purpose? Why do you refuse to answer? I think one thing all of you guys have missed is if co2 is attracted to a solution Why would it be attracted? CO2 doesn't absorb electrons but it does background radiation What "background radiation" does CO2 absorb? and if a solution has a spectral emission that co2 would be attracted to Why would the solution have a "spectral emission"? (What is a "spectral emission"?) Why would that cause CO2 to be attracted? Please provide details of the physics and/or chemistry involved.
James.Lindgaard Posted September 9, 2015 Author Posted September 9, 2015 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.
Strange Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 strange, like I let Fuzzwood know, when I am able, I'll try the experiment myself. Why do you refuse to answer any questions? 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. Nobody disagreed with that. People were asking you why you thought he water would be positively charged. You just introduced red-herrings such as salt and electroplating - presumably because you couldn't answer the question. Your random statements and refusal to answer any questions make it clear that you don't know what you are talking about.
James.Lindgaard Posted September 10, 2015 Author Posted September 10, 2015 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.
Klaynos Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 There is rarely any point in trying completely unfounded experiments. To do them well takes time, energy and money. You'd need at least a back of the envelope calculation showing how big the effect you're going to see is. Science isn't just a random process. It is the mathematical modeling of the universe and the testing of those models (numerically). You've still not answered my question. (Autocorrect fixed)
Recommended Posts