Yuri
1st February 2007 - 06:17 AM
QUOTE (Viva Cudnliffe+Apr 24 2006, 11:35 PM)
[QUOTE}This carbon is amorphous, and easy to burn[/QUOTE]
What is the point of burning the produced carbon AGAIN. Doesn't that generate an equivalent amount carbon dioxide all over again?
[QUOTE}This carbon is amorphous, and easy to burn[/QUOTE]
What is the point of burning the produced carbon AGAIN. Doesn't that generate an equivalent amount carbon dioxide all over again?
Lalbatros
3rd February 2007 - 08:50 AM
So Viva Cudnliffe,
You invented a process that could increase the efficiency of power generation above the maximum efficiency determined by the second principle of thermodynamics !
Nice try, but you won't get a cent from me.
Michel
AlphaNumeric
6th February 2007 - 11:21 AM
This is a pointless notion. You need to put in energy E to turn carbon dioxide into carbon and oxygen. Where'd you get this energy from?
Then, when you burn the carbon and oxygen again, you get energy E back! But that's assuming 100% efficency. More like 50% at best. Thus you end up with E/2.
So we're back where we started but with less energy to play with. Wow, that was pointless.
The atmosphere recycles carbon naturally. It can be used infinitely many times! The problem is, it's not recycling it at the speed we're making it. The solution isn't to use MORE energy to remove carbon, it's to use LESS energy, thus making LESS carbon dioxide.
Viva Cudnliffe, your idea is pointless and if you actually believe you're onto something you've really not been paying attention in science class!
KIDD
8th February 2007 - 06:59 PM
[FONT=Arial]Hello buddies.I am an eigth class student and didn't understand many things u were saying.But i want to find a way to break CO2 into c+02.Is there any other method to achieve this aim ?
N O M
8th February 2007 - 10:28 PM
I think that Viva Cudnliffe is just one more scammer out to trick some ignorant people out of their money.
AlphaNumeric is right. It would take more energy to reduce the CO2 than it would to burn it in the first place.
Even if this isn't a scam, it's pointless. There is already a process that recycles carbon, photosynthesis. This uses a completely free energy source, we know it works and no-one is going to charge you for the patent.
MDT
8th February 2007 - 11:37 PM
A much simpler approach is to scrub the CO2 with ocean water. The CO2 dissolves in water to form the low vapor pressure carbonic acid. The ocean water is basic, this converts the carbonic acid in carbonates and bicarbonates, which the sea critters use to make shells and coral.
Nature already does this. Rain is the best scrubber of CO2. The counter current flow toward the earth, is the basis of how CO2 scrubbers work in smoke stacks. The rain water flows into rivers and then into the ocean. The rain is cheap, renewable and keeps the air clean.
Andy Lee Robinson
19th February 2007 - 04:14 AM
QUOTE (MDT+Feb 8 2007, 11:37 PM)
A much simpler approach is to scrub the CO2 with ocean water. The CO2 dissolves in water to form the low vapor pressure carbonic acid. The ocean water is basic, this converts the carbonic acid in carbonates and bicarbonates, which the sea critters use to make shells and coral.
Nature already does this. Rain is the best scrubber of CO2. The counter current flow toward the earth, is the basis of how CO2 scrubbers work in smoke stacks. The rain water flows into rivers and then into the ocean. The rain is cheap, renewable and keeps the air clean.
There are problems with this... acidic rain dissolves carbonates in the rocks. Also oil also produces sulphur dioxide and makes the rain even more acidic, though moves are being taken to try to scrub the sulphur from emissions. (There is another problem with this too in that the sulphate particles reflect more radiation from the sun, so the global warming effect has been suppressed somewhat - once we take the sulphur away, then the real situation emerges.)
The ocean has been absorbing the excess CO2 that we've been pumping out over the last couple of hundred years and its capacity to absorb more is diminishing. It is a system that has been in equilibrium for millennia, but that equilibrium can shift and is vulnerable to positive feedback as temperature rises.
So, as less CO2 is being absorbed more accumulates in the atmosphere, as observed over the last few decades, and accelerating.
As the CO2 concentration increases then so does the average temperature of the Earth, including the oceans. As a result, water's ability to hold dissolved gases decreases, so it becomes less efficient as a sink. Therefore there is a danger that the oceans will not be able to absorb any more CO2. If temperatures rise even further, perhaps the oceans could even release the CO2 back to the atmosphere.
Also, this is bad news for the critters that fix the dissolved CO2 and make carbonates. As sea water becomes more acidic the reaction becomes more difficult. You all know what happens when you add tartaric acid to bicarbonate of soda... Carbonates do not like acidity.
Of course, the variations in pH are tiny, but significant to the creatures that depend on a stable environment. Temperatures are much more significant, however.
We can cope with 60 degree or more temperature differences by sweating, adjusting thickness of clothes, using air conditioning and burning fuel, but creatures in the ocean are extremely dependent on temperatures. Their enzymes, life and genetic processes are finely tuned to operate at certain temperatures, and this range is narrow. They have to live in the range of temperatures that they have evolved to cope with, or die, and this can affect the whole food chain with big implications for our food supply.
We may not think of a 1C or 4C increase in temperature as such a big deal, but if our body core temperature changes by a couple of degrees we don't feel well at all. A 4C rise is a medical emergency and 6C rise almost certainly fatal.
Thus it seems appropriate to think of our planet "having a temperature", but how do we cure it? It isn't as easy as taking an aspirin or a cold bath, but it will hurt more in the future if too little is done now.
Andy.
glenby
27th February 2007 - 11:22 PM
up to the initial posts - why not heat the CO2 in a normal power station.
that way you are generating normal electricity (in a polluting way) and
offsetting it with O2 creation - the heat from producing electricity could also
be used in water purification so a 3 way tie in would possibly work.
if you really think this idea would work - solar power for heat (not electricity)
and break the CO2 down this way - parabola's and mirrors can do more
than heat salt water and light cigarettes.
If the idea first posited is workable - submit it to virgin boss - richard branson.
they are offering million dollar prizes if it would work.
finally - trials have been done on sea water (using iron I think) where
they seed an area and have proven that the sea will absorb up to 10 times
more CO2 than normal
Guest_Mike
24th April 2007 - 01:56 AM
Temperatures rose first via increased solar activity. Our global heat sink the oceans rose in temp, then the oceans ability to retain dissolved co2 was diminished. look at the ice core records, the fact is, temps rise first, then co2 levels! I am afraid to say that the scientific community has been brain washed over the last few decades. in that "man" is evil and all we do is bad for the environment. hence it is always our fault. what ever happened to the scientific method? it seems to me that all of this is the political correct way to be, sad really.
Kev D
5th August 2007 - 08:45 AM
I have a solution for existing CO2 in the atmosphere. using an array of approx 10,000 hot air balloons you lift up 10,000 controlled Hydrogen Air Fuel Bombs Millitary Grade to the altitude and location where majority of the CO2 is gathering which if I am correct is over the Poles. each controlled air bomb has to be half a mile appart. creating a grid 50 miles by 50 miles or 2500 square miles. then when they reach there destination you detonate them. I think you would have to do this once every two weeks for about 20 Years to solve the problem of existing CO2 but we would also have to deal with problem of continual release of CO2 in energy production.
Joe Blow
8th June 2009 - 11:04 PM
What happened to this guy's website? I guess he gave up trying to raise (scam) people out of money? 175,000 is what he needed. Mortgage pay off perhaps? Create blue prints and a working prototype on your own, then people might invest you genius. Pie in the sky thinking.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.