[tasmodevil44]

I know this sounds a little far-fetched or crazy,but I wonder if some type of magnetic force field or tractor-beam could draw carbon dioxide from air over considerable distances.The idea is highly theoretical.I don't know if anybody has ever tried to devise such technology before.

      A long time ago,when I was just 16 years old,I read a science book that said carbon dioxide molecules have magnetic properties and can be attracted by magnetic fields.A light bulb instantly flashed-on in my mind:can this be used to recycle atmospheric carbon back into synthetic hydrocarbons?

      Over the years,Iv'e continued to hear other reports about how carbon dioxide is affected by magnetic fields.It has also been known for some time now that certain frequencies of radio waves can move and accelerate these molecules.

      It is more practical and economic to extract carbon dioxide from the ocean because seawater has a much higher concentration than the air(about 60 times greater).But if some sort of force field or electromagnetic tractor beam could draw it from the air over considerable distances to a central collection point...it could be more greatly concentrated.This would make it more practical and economic to either sequester it underground by well injection or to make synthetic hydrocarbons with the aid of nuclear power.

      In fact,I once read about a plan to use radio waves operating in conjunction with the Earth's own magnetic field to accelerate carbon dioxide molecules up into space so fast until it exceeds escape velocity and never returns(sounds somewhat hair-brained,I know  ).I can't recall right off-hand what frequency the scientist said that accelerates the molecules.But why not reverse it...so that it shoots down to a nuclear-powered synthetic hydrocarbon factory on the ground?   

[enahs]

All these ideas are cool and all, there is only one problem.

Carbon Dioxide is the products of so many reactions because it is stable and fairly easy to produce. It also plays well physically with the atmosphere.

So pretty much any method you come up with, physical or chemical, to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere will require tremendous amounts of energy, as you are fighting the natural stable tendency.

If all your energy is produced by processes that create more CO2, based on just the basic laws on thermodynamics and entropy, it is pretty damn hard to remove more CO2 then you put into the system.

Genetically altered algae are promising ideas, as they get there energy from the sun. But for humans to build a device to do it will ultimately causes more pollution until we have a better infrastructure for power production.

[agrobert]

How about a butterfly net with smaller holes?

[tasmodevil44]

I don't completely agree with all the closed-minded pessimists out there.As for myself,I'm always very open-minded and an eternal optimist.You never solve problems by being a naysayer who always looks for reasons why things can't work...instead of being a problem-solver who looks for ways they can.

      First of all, I don't completely agree with enahs view of things.I know where he's coming from...an exaggeration of the interpretation of the limits of entropy.Theoretically,some type of electromagnetic carbon dioxide extractor and concentrator could potentially remove vast quantities from the atmosphere...while producing absolutely no new carbon dioxide during operation.Especially if the power to operate it came from some non-fossil fuel source such as solar or nuclear.

      Secondly,such an electromagnetic carbon dioxide extractor and concentrator could possibly work in conjunction with other things such as genetically modified algae,bacteria,and etc.If it could be extracted from the atmosphere by some sort of electromagnetic means and concentrated at much higher levels within the local vicinity of the organisms,it could potentially greatly enhance their growth rates,thus increase rate of biofuels production.

      Although I admit it's still just a basic concept and "vapor-ware"technology that that does not yet exist.

      However,the Japanese scientist (I can't recall his name or the radio frequency he said would be employed)claims that only one large nuclear reactor could supply enough power to shoot all of humanity's annual carbon dioxide release up into outer space ..never to return...holding carbon dioxide steady at current or even decreasing levels.No additional carbon dioxide would be produced in the process.The antenna array would be stationed close to the Arctic North Pole,so that the radio waves which accelerate carbon dioxide upward into space would work in conjunction with the Earth's own magnetic field.

      The modification of the Japanese scientist's idea...to instead keep it here on Earth...and electro-magnetically direct and concentrate it toward renewable fuel production instead...is my own idea.

      However,there could be detrimental environmental side-effects.Would birds be toasted by radio extraction beams?Would powerful magnets disorientate migratiory birds and cause them to get lost?These are questions that still must be ironed-out and eventually answered.

[Borek]

I don't completely agree with all the closed-minded pessimists out there.

There is a difference between being close-minded and being realistic. Physics laws are just what they are - laws. When someone claims he just broke one, experience and knowledge tells me to run away from the crackpot. So far I have seen zillions of things made by applying these laws - be it my mobile, my car, my LCD screen, my water heater, my mechanic clock and so on - but I have yet live to see one that will be made by breaking these laws.

It is like in math. We know that "is greater then" relation is transitive. So, if a > b and b > c then a > c. Now someone tells you he just found such a numbers, that a > b and b > c, but a < c. Would you believe him, or would you call medical assistance?

[enahs]

don't completely agree with enahs view of things.

.

Especially if the power to operate it came from some non-fossil fuel source such as solar or nuclear.

Gee, thanks for agreeing with me while saying you disagree, as I said that last part.

Secondly,such an electromagnetic carbon dioxide extractor and concentrator could possibly work in conjunction with other things....

I never once mentioned the possibility of the theoretical idea working or not. I instated reality. We are currently making most energy from fossil fuels and thus putting CO2 into the atmosphere.

However,the Japanese scientist (I can't recall his name or the radio frequency he said would be employed)claims that only one large nuclear reactor could supply enough power to shoot all of humanity's annual carbon dioxide release up into outer space

And, so what if it is? Just because a large nuclear reactor could supply enough power to do that, does not mean it could do it. CO2 is produced everywhere around the world. You are either going to have to transport the CO2 or the electricity; both of which cost a lot of energy.



You might not realize it, but you are essentially trying invent a perpetual motion machine. You want to get more energy out of what you put into it. Is not going to happen.

If you want to do this stuff, fine, do it. But start using a power source that does not produce CO2 is the only way to reduce the amount of CO2. But then, if everybody switches to those power sources; there is no need for a device to remove the CO2 if one so desires, the earth is more then capable of handling it.

[tasmodevil44]

borek,I perfectly understand what you are talking about as far as natural laws and limitations of mathmatics.However,I must also point out the need to be open-minded rather than too arrogant,because if you study the history of physics,there have been major revolutions as new discoveries and capabilities came into being that no one previously considered possible.There are times in the past when so-called crackpots had the boldness and nerve to think outside the box and put orthodox science to shame.In fact,science and physics itself has occasionally proven it's ownself to be a fairytale born of arrogance when it gets to be too stale and dogmatic.That's why it doesn't hurt a  bit to occasionally ask heretical questions about long established dogmas with an open-mind.Nor does it necessarily make a person a cracpot to ask them(You might have to eat crow for foolhardy arrogance later on!).I can provide endless examples of this type of revolution.In fact,it's the only way most of the real progress in science and invention has ever been made.

      For example,consider the revolution that Albert Einstein started.It completely overturned a lot of old established thinking about Newtonian physics and how physicists viewed things up until that time.

      Another example is the young man who revolutionized thinking about the particle/wave duality of the nature of light(can't remember his name right now).Up until that time,light was thought of as particles.But he claimed that light consisted of waves instead.London's prestigious Royal Academy of Sciences of the day dismissed out of hand his paper,claiming that it showed no sign of any knowlege or learning by this ignorant crackpot whatsoever.

      Talk about arrogance!This discovery we now know today as having totally revolutionized our thinking about electromagnetic waves,quantum mechanics and many other things.

      And past trends are not necessarily infinite into the future,either.This assumption is the arrogant assumption of what has been always will be.Do you have any idea how many crackpot inventors unsucessfully attempted to build an airplane before the Wright Brothers and failed?Even the airplane was an impractical crackpot idea prior to the internal combustion engine.But when all they had to work with was steam engines or even muscle-powered fight,who could have imagined beforehand how drastically the internal combustion engine could radically alter the concept of flight?

      To be sure,there are plenty of hair-brained ideas that simply don't "pan-out".I'm perfectly aware of this.But how can any real progress at anything be able to occur or anyone really know for sure if they don't keep an optimistic attitude and keep trying?Or at least attempt to think outside the box and ask questions of religious scientific blasphemy?     

[enahs]

You can preach that all you want. Ideas, good and bad are a dime a dozen. Until you put forth some effort and come up with something that defies those conventions, your idea of "because it still could be possible" is pointless. Nobody said do not try. But to just say "do this" with no real scientific backing behind it, why would you not expect the reasons this "obvious and good idea" has not been done?

Sure, it is conceivable anything is possible. It is possible I am Antonio Banderas. But saying something is possible for no other reason then we lack knowledge of everything accomplishes absolutely nothing.

[tasmodevil44]

Man...talk about arrogance!I'm perfectly aware of the laws of physics and mathematics.Nobody has to preach about it.Although I found the idea of electromagnetic manipulation of carbon dioxide a bit "far-out" and wacky myself when I first read about this other guy's idea for carbon removal from the atmosphere.Although his knowlege of how carbon dioxide reacts to electromagnetic waves seemed to be in perfect accordance with what is known about it.No violation of laws here. 

      However,my own variation of the theme...to extract and concentrate it in someway similar for renewable hydrocarbon production...was mere "food-for-Thought".I'll be the first to admit that all the specifics are not worked-out and that this vague idea is still in the "vapor-ware"stage,because no actual technological hardware as yet exists.

      But same thing as perpetual motion? What the heck does perpetual motion necessarily have to do with it?

      I find their reaction to be rather funny and amusing to say the very least...anytime that anyone is bold and audacious to think outside the box and ask heretical questions(which I will be the first to admit may or may not always be feasible or realistic)..when the established scientific dogma gets all "worked-up" into a rather entertaining shark feeding frenzy of derogatory name-calling.But it does't bother me the least.Like the old saying goes:"Be like a duck...and just let the water roll-off your back." Isn't this mad scientist stuff fun?

      "Run for the hills...the naysayers of established scientific dogma are coming...to brow-beat and thrash all open-minded optimists over the head with derogatory words like crackpot,lunatic,and anti-scientific heresy!" ..LOL ! ! !

[enahs]

But same thing as perpetual motion? What the heck does perpetual motion necessarily have to do with it?

Perpetual motion = get more energy out of the entire system then put in.

That is what you said you want to do. You want to put a little energy into modifying CO2, and the product will give you more energy out then you put in.


You keep harping on this same "ohh my god people automatically fight against anything that is not established science" and this "nobody wants to think outside the box", which is just B.S. I have said many times, try and do it. But you are the one saying something is possible, and so it is your burden to prove it. Just because we do not have infinite knowledge is not proof that it is possible.

You are getting personally offended for no reason.
You then say, to paraphrase "I am just tossing out ideas". Yet, we just toss out our reactions and they are somehow wrong and evil? You can not have it both ways.

Again, by all means, do it and prove it. Please. I would love for it to work.

[tasmodevil44]

Offended? What a laugh of a riot this funny thing is!

[billnotgatez]

The point is that carbon dioxide is a final product from burning hydrocarbons and getting energy plus carbon dioxide as well as other stuff. Therefor it takes the same amount of energy if not more to return it to carbon or carbohydrates. Plant life does this using solar energy.

What energy source would you use to accomplish the same result?
Sequestering carbon dioxide seems self-defeating in the long run.

[tasmodevil44]

Yes billnotgatez,it would take an input of some source of external energy from solar or nuclear or whatever else to power such a hypothetical electromagnetic means of extraction of CO2 from the air.

      Years ago,when I was 16 years old,I read some science book on how CO2 has magnetic properties and is attracted to the magnetic field of a magnet.Over the years,I have read about similar things in scientific reports and publications.And then only here recently,I learned about Alfred Y.Wong at the University of Los Angeles,Ca.(UCLA).He has a scheme to exploit a combination of electromagnetic waves and the Earth's own magnetic field to accelerate CO2 molecules up into outer space,permanently removing CO2 from the planet(like I stated before,sounds crazy but is based upon sound facts and principles of physics...just don't tell your next door neighbor...they might want to commit you to an insane assylum  heh,heh.lot of laughs).

      But anyway,when I learned about Professor Wong's scheme,it once again revived my interest in an old idea I have had for many years:can you somehow electromagnetically extract,concentrate and separate CO2 from other atmospheric gases like nitrogen and oxygen? By taking advantage of it's unique magnetic properties somehow?

      Once almost pure CO2 has been extracted,concentrated and separated from other atmospheric gases by some sort of electromagnetic method,what do you do with it next?You could choose a number of options.You could sequester it by pumping it below ground.Or you could pump it into an algae pond to enhance the growth rate of the algae.Still yet another possibility could be some type of artificial chemosynthesis similar to photosynthesis that is powered by solar,nuclear,geothermal,etc.Many people are already working on this already.Only their atmospheric chemical extraction methods are different and does not entail the still highly theoretical magnetic means of extraction which I have proposed.. and still in it's infancy as far as working out details.

      Of course,everything has a law of dimminishing returns.If the magnetically extracted CO2 was then used to synthesize hydrocarbons,they would contain less energy than what went into it.(Duh...no kidding.)It has nothing to do with perpetual motion anymore than any other method. However,even with losses,the resulting hydrocarbons would have more commercial value,because they represent high energy density in a chemical form that is more easily transportable.And human civilization will always have a need for hydrocarbons.It can't survive on nothing but electric power alone.

      enahs,don't make a liar and an ass of yourself by placing words into my mouth that I never said.Getting more energy out than put into it ..is what you said that I said that I wanted to do.Some people need to learn how to read other people's posts instead of making assumptions.

      To me,as far as I'm concerned, the real issue here is not whether such a questionable (I must admit) method of atmospheric extraction by magnetic means can work or not...but instead real the issue here is the blinkered mindset of intellectual blindness and arrogance which surrounds it.This is the same blinkered mindset which dismisses out of hand the fact of microwave chemistry,although there is lots of people out there already working in this particular field of chemistry(like I already stated before in the ethanol to butanol topic that billnotgatez started).And if I'm getting offended,why should I get offended by something that is essentially not my problem?

      Instead of people not wanting to think outside the box being just so much B.S.,I think I have done proven it quite well about some of the people I have encountered in these forums. 

[azmanam]

Are you sure you're remembering CO2 as being magnetic?  I think you might be thinking of O2, which is paramagnetic.  (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Isd9IEnR4bw)  Thus, even if CO2 were magnetic (or made magnetic by ionization), I think you might have a problem of separation by magnetism.

You might be better off separating by boiling point (CO2: -78oC, O2: -182oC, N2: -195oC)

I've also thought about underground sequestering (or deep ocean sequestering, which you didn't mention in your post). CO2 reacts with water to form carbonic acid.  I'd be afraid that creating an artificially high concentration of CO2 might artificially raise the pH of the immediate area.  That might have negative consequences. 

[enahs]

By the time you have made enough nuclear and solar power generators to do produce all this energy, would it not just be easier to use that energy to power the world and stop burning fossil fuels?

The earth in its past has had much MUCH larger concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere then now, and has plenty of mechanisms to deal with it. So why not just stop producing excess CO2 and let the earth take care of its self? And for the sake of this argument, I am ignoring the fact that the fossil records actually show that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases ~400 years after there is a temperature increase; and not that an increase of CO2 causes an increase of temperature. But that is just solid science, why would Al Gore put that in his movie?