we break carbon dioxide down using electrical heat, we obtain carbon as a recyclable fuel, and oxygen to oxidize the atmosphere. Carbon can be engineered to be a recyclable green fuel. I have designed a highly efficient furnace design that would cost less than 1/10th of our power, to effectively double energy availability immediately. I am an inventor, and I have researched this approach. I think the only responsible and permanent approach to stopping CO2 overloading is to break it down with a highly efficient technology, and remove the leaking of this hidden carbon fuel from our industrial effluent practices. In short, if we actually confronted this problem head on, we would experience great abundance and security. I invite you to my site at www.vivacundliffe.org, which is both technical and commercial and I have written papers which completely agree with the NOVA production, and most scientists about Climate Change. I have designed a technology solution and am seeking seed funding right now. If you can network with me to achieve a prototype demonstration, you would be helping this problem immensely. I work alone and the work to inform everyone is a full time job for three people. People and government, business, and industry needs to know that if we confront CO2 using technology now available, we will master this domain entirely and permanently, and save our planetary environment. It is financially rewarding to use this technology. I will be writing more papers in this field, but I find that it is not Academia that has difficulty with cleaning up and conserving fuel, it is government and industry. Feel free to pass my link along and comments you want to make will be replied to.
I don't generally like to talk down progressive thinking however having perused your site I can find no details of electrical dissociation of CO2, its energy requirements or apparatus. I found one line amusing:
Is this in relation to the virtually endless reusability offered by the cycle of volcanism and photosynthesis that has existed on this planet for billions of years?
This seems to be another 'throw energy at the problem' solution of rising CO2 levels which we all know would be much less relevant if we stopped burning fossil fuels and generated more power through less polluting methods.
Why not apply your brain power to a wave power device? Every 500MW or so you can make it produce means we close one coal-fired plant - and never get the CO2 emissions in the first place.
QUOTE
Truth: Carbon is a recyclable fuel. With recycling it can last five to ten times as long
Is this in relation to the virtually endless reusability offered by the cycle of volcanism and photosynthesis that has existed on this planet for billions of years?
This seems to be another 'throw energy at the problem' solution of rising CO2 levels which we all know would be much less relevant if we stopped burning fossil fuels and generated more power through less polluting methods.
Why not apply your brain power to a wave power device? Every 500MW or so you can make it produce means we close one coal-fired plant - and never get the CO2 emissions in the first place.
QUOTE (Moseley+Apr 22 2006, 02:45 PM)
I don't generally like to talk down progressive thinking however having perused your site I can find no details of electrical dissociation of CO2, its energy requirements or apparatus. I found one line amusing:
Is this in relation to the virtually endless reusability offered by the cycle of volcanism and photosynthesis that has existed on this planet for billions of years?
This seems to be another 'throw energy at the problem' solution of rising CO2 levels which we all know would be much less relevant if we stopped burning fossil fuels and generated more power through less polluting methods.
Why not apply your brain power to a wave power device? Every 500MW or so you can make it produce means we close one coal-fired plant - and never get the CO2 emissions in the first place.
Hello, the thermal dissociation of carbon dioxide details are available to industry representatives and I will just clarify that there is a thriving furnace industry which has truned their leading edge equipment, particularly very efficient industrial elements, that can break the double bonds so rapidly, that the amount of electricity applied is very affordable. Inside the furnace is a controlled environment where the monatomic oxygen is removed by diffusion, and the carbon is collected in a proporietarily designed trapping system. This carbon is amorphous, and easy to burn, because it is a very fine particulate. I hope that increases your understanding. The oxygen co-product from burning carbon would be vital in remedying the oxidizers missing from the atmosphere, thus I a proposing a win win win technology development, which is rare. The other option of burying CO2 has many ethical and moral problems, which is why I am pursuing the approach of confronting CO2 for its advantages, and it has turned out to be easy to project quite an economic benefit in doing so. Regards,
QUOTE
Truth: Carbon is a recyclable fuel. With recycling it can last five to ten times as long
Is this in relation to the virtually endless reusability offered by the cycle of volcanism and photosynthesis that has existed on this planet for billions of years?
This seems to be another 'throw energy at the problem' solution of rising CO2 levels which we all know would be much less relevant if we stopped burning fossil fuels and generated more power through less polluting methods.
Why not apply your brain power to a wave power device? Every 500MW or so you can make it produce means we close one coal-fired plant - and never get the CO2 emissions in the first place.
Hello, the thermal dissociation of carbon dioxide details are available to industry representatives and I will just clarify that there is a thriving furnace industry which has truned their leading edge equipment, particularly very efficient industrial elements, that can break the double bonds so rapidly, that the amount of electricity applied is very affordable. Inside the furnace is a controlled environment where the monatomic oxygen is removed by diffusion, and the carbon is collected in a proporietarily designed trapping system. This carbon is amorphous, and easy to burn, because it is a very fine particulate. I hope that increases your understanding. The oxygen co-product from burning carbon would be vital in remedying the oxidizers missing from the atmosphere, thus I a proposing a win win win technology development, which is rare. The other option of burying CO2 has many ethical and moral problems, which is why I am pursuing the approach of confronting CO2 for its advantages, and it has turned out to be easy to project quite an economic benefit in doing so. Regards,
Just one question, where do you leave the waste heat from the breakdown process? Our planet can only disipate a limited amount of heat radiation into space, the rest of the heat will be absorbed by the enviroment. I doubt that heating up the planet more will solve global warming without a major enviromental change.
Why not reclaim the waste heat? Use it to heat water and/or create steam? If not that then when we develop space elevators we may be able to conduct heat and radiate it into space that way.
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?
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?
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
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
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!
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!
[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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
Ther are a few guys in the colorado desert who have invented a solar oven which can be used to heat air to over 3000 deg celsius. Among other things they plan to use it to break down CO2 releasing just oxygen and separating the carbon. I have seen the Oven in action on TV and they demonstarted by using the sun to burn a hole into a 4 Inch Plate.So it sounds as if this has already been done.
So many scientist were mocked by their idea but they never stopped until they got it and today everybody is using it. I really don't know how you would separate the elements in CO2 like the process of photosynthesis.. or etc. But I do know that it's possible. Just make sure you will not add up to the problems of global warning. It's like curing the bone cancer but killing the other organs, so that's useless. I mean, solving the global warming and recycling the CO2 into a reusable oxygen again and at the same time the process of recycling the CO2 can be also be used to produce energy. You know what I mean, hitting 3 birds with one throw of rock.
So basically you want to convert CO2 into fuel synthetically using heat energy? Where do you want to get the heat, geothermal? You want to build CO2 separation plants on top of the worlds' volcanoes? Then ship the extracted carbon fuel in oil-tanker ships?
co2 can be absorb in sea water and power can be generated on the bank of sea by using wind energy
sea water can be used as medium to absorb co2 and by products sod carbonate and hcl can be produced.
this process cam minimize our mining of calcium and coal.and save electricity and oil too
and reduce emission by the industries making sod carbonate and hydrochloric acid
harsh abrol
00919815747403
i have several idea but i like to have my identity not money is my preference.
sea water can be used as medium to absorb co2 and by products sod carbonate and hcl can be produced.
this process cam minimize our mining of calcium and coal.and save electricity and oil too
and reduce emission by the industries making sod carbonate and hydrochloric acid
harsh abrol
00919815747403
i have several idea but i like to have my identity not money is my preference.
Why not pump the carbon from a hot air balloon into volcano lava and filter it like a catalytic converter ?
QUOTE
co2 can be absorb in sea water
The absorbing of CO2 into the oceans is becoming a growing concern. It produces carbonic acid which is damaging to the oceanic ecosystems.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| co2 can be absorb in sea water |
The absorbing of CO2 into the oceans is becoming a growing concern. It produces carbonic acid which is damaging to the oceanic ecosystems.
Why not pump the carbon from a hot air balloon into volcano lava and filter it like a catalytic converter ?
By carbon I assume you mean carbon dioxide.
Well, because.....
QUOTE
Inside a catalytic converter, a catalyst stimulates a chemical reaction in which noxious byproducts of combustion carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons, and oxides of nitrogen are converted to less-toxic or inert substances such as carbon dioxide, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen.[1]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_converter
I'm doubtful that a volcano could act as a converter, co2 is a product of a converter, and volcanoes are known to spew out noxious substances.
Pulling fuels out of your A....
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/...10505162938.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/...10505162938.htm
Edit.
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.