Chemical Forums
General Forums => Generic Discussion => Topic started by: tasmodevil44 on June 13, 2008, 01:11:48 PM
-
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 :o ).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?
-
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.
-
How about a butterfly net with smaller holes?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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 ! ! ! ;)
-
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.
-
Offended? What a laugh of a riot this funny thing is! :D
-
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.
-
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 :o 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 :D 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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
** I said 'raise the pH of the immediate area'. Moron. Creating acid LOWERS the pH.
(smacks self on head)...
-
Like I stated before,CO2 capture directly from the air by some kind of magnetic attraction method would be no more ludicrous perpetual motion nonsense than any other method of CO2 capture...including natural photosynthesis itself.Why,of course there would be losses.What you call conservation of energy.Nothing is 100% efficient.But hydrocarbons represent more usable and commercially valuable energy form than mere electricity.
However,a different method of CO2 capture by chemical means being worked on at Los Alamos National Laboratory may be a better way than extraction by magnetic fields anyway.Two scientists,F.Jeffery Martin and William L. Kubic Jr.,are working on this concept.Dr.Klaus Lackner of Columbia University is also involved in developing the technology necessary to make it work.They have teamed-up to form a new company to further develop the capability:
The basic idea behind extraction by chemical means is really quite simple.It is all just basic chemistry.Air would be blown over a liquid solution of potassium carbonate,which would absorb the the carbon dioxide.The CO2 would then be extracted and subjected to chemical reactions that would turn it into fuel:methanol,gasoline or jet fuel.Plastics,rubber,fertilizers and numerous other chemicals could also be synthesized.And it could all be driven by solar,nuclear,geothermal,and etc.
To learn more about this method of extraction,go to this site:
http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/recycleco2.html
But I'm still intrigued by the idea of some form of electromagnetic extraction,myself.I can visualize in my mind CO2 molecules being sort of like tiny iron filings floating in the air.But instead of it being able to work over long range distances,such magnetic field attraction and separation from other gases like nitrogen and oxygen may only work at very short range.
-
But then again,even if it worked,there are all the unintended environmental consequences to take into account.Would electromagnetic radiation toast birds? Would strong magnetic fields disorientate them?(Birds do migrate by a compass in thier heads,you know).And if it did not work very well, you could just wind-up with a huge,oversized,expensive bug zapper.That's why I think that a magnetic separation process would probably only work over short range.Something like a vacuum that draws in a large amount of air and then processes the CO2 out from other gases within the contraption,gizmo,whatever you want to call it.Then air depleted of CO2 would be vented back out after it was removed.
-
I can visualize in my mind CO2 molecules being sort of like tiny iron filings floating in the air.
I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and entertain your ideas, but I'm going to have to cut this one off. Carbon dioxide is NOT magnetic. Not as a neutral molecule. In that regard, it is decidedly NOT like iron fillings in the air, and will not respond to a magnet similarly. (It's not even consensus that isolated iron atoms act as magnets. People tout magnet therapy claiming that magnets attract the iron in hemoglobin thus bringing nutrient rich blood to injured areas. There are a number of claims on both sides, and magnet therapy skeptics claim the magnets to nothing more than act as a heat sink - see here for overview: http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/attractive-health-measures-or-magnetic-manure.html. but I digress...) No variation of Googling carbon dioxide and magnetism leads to any hits.
Oxygen, however, is paramagnetic - at least in bulk. Did you watch the video I linked to?
You are either thinking of O2 or, perhaps, dicobalt metal complexes, which may very well be magnetic. They would have the formula Co2X, where Co is cobalt (lowercase o) and X is the various ligands on the dimetal complex.
The carbonate idea is intriguing, but nothing new. Lithium hydroxide is ubiquitous in carbon dioxide filters (think Apollo 13). CO2 + 2LiOH --> Li2CO3 + H2O. And I'm not sure the chemistry on the linked page you provide is sound. A solution of K2CO3 is already saturated in carbon dioxide (at least as far as the potassium is concerned). If you had said a pool of potassium hydroxide (KOH), then I'd agree, but not K2CO3.
Even assuming the KOH correction, the amount of KOH needed to 'sequester' the CO2 would be so large as to be impractical - economically and logistically. You'd need to circulate the KOH bath to keep the relative concentration of K2CO3 at the surface low (KOH baths are incredibly caustic, btw), which would require energy input. And what do you do with the K2CO3 solution once it is saturated? What do you do with the sequestered carbon?
Now, all that being said, I am not responding to your claims (elsewhere, if not here) of ionizing CO2 to give it a charge. I'm not convinced that would be any more magnetic than the neutral molecule, but if you can produce a paper, I'd be glad to give it a read. If you can also produce the source of the magnetic CO2 claim, I'd be interested in reading that, as well.
Otherwise, I think we need to put the magnetic CO2 to rest.
-
tasmodevil44
maybe you should read articles that are more promising
http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2008/07/22/powered-enzyme-reduces-carbon-dioxide
-
I still think that,theoretically at least,some method of magnetic extraction may still be possible.But instead,it is the actual practical implementation that makes it more challenging and problematic due to various other reasons.So therefore,for now at least,any such method still can't compete with chemical methods such as potassium carbonate and sodium hydroxide.
-
azmanam:
Here recently,researchers have found that carbon has joined the list of chemical elements that can be made strongly ferromagnetic,along with others such as iron and nickel.Sounds like pretty weird physics to me.I wonder if the magnetic property of CO2 itself can be changed from being weakly diamagnetic to strongly paramagnetic or even ferromagnetic.Perhaps this physical mechanism explains the strange phenomenon of CO2 attraction to magnetic fields reported numerous times by other researchers in the past.So therefore,I will not completely lay this to rest(like you insist I do) until I get to the so-called "bottom" of this strange phenomenon.
-
azmanam:
You claim that CO2 can't be ionized,or that it will not react to a magnetic field when such ionization takes place.This is pure bunk.Just ask Alfred Y.Wong at UCLA.He has proposed this method for ejecting CO2 into space by using the Earth's magnetic field.Why don't you read his scientific literature?This ionization can be accomplished with powerful lasers or microwaves.However,this method has drawbacks for other reasons,such as possible unintended environmental consequences.
However,the possibility that the magnetic property of CO2 can be changed by other means.. instead of ionization.. to make it more strongly interact with magnetic fields still can't be completely ruled out.I've read about this strange phenomonon several times over the years:about CO2 being drawn toward a magnet.I stumbled upon it accidentally several times in the past while not even looking for it.Just because the scientific literature on the subject is scarce and hard to find anywhere on the internet is no reason to abandon the search.If I read such claims before in the past,then it stands to reason that it can be found again if you search long and hard enough.
-
Furthermore,the modification of the magnetic property of CO2 so that it will be more interactive with magnetic fields does NOT necessarily violate any laws of physics or conservation of energy the way borek and enahs falsely claim.They may be correct that it may never be workable,but their argument is based upon all the wrong reasons.Instead,it will probably be difficult to implement due to other reasons.While not as impossible as some skeptics claim,it will be no easy cake,either.
If a transition in the magnetic properties of CO2 itself is indeed the physical mechanism behind CO2 attraction to magnetic fields reported by others over the years...then a good starting point would be to try and learn more about the mechanism behind the phenomenon,so that it can be more consistently replicated on a regular basis.Like I say,literature on the subject on the internet seems to be scarce,but that does not mean it's not out there.If I read it before(more than once)over the years,then with patience and persistence it should be found again.
-
azmanam:
You also state that you are not sure the chemistry on the link I provided is sound.You should read all of it in it's entirety before making assumptions based strictly upon statements about potassium carbonate.Making assumptions is doing bad science...never make them.All these scientists on this website link are very famous,credible scientists with big reputations within the scientific community:such as Klaus Lackner and Dr.Olahs at very prestigious universities and labs like Los Alamos and Columbia University...or at the Loker Hydrocarbon institute,where carbon nanotubes have been used as catalysts for converting carbon dioxide into hydrocarbon chains up to 6-8 carbon atoms long...even at room temperature.They report that this process is already 2-3 times more efficient than most industrial processes already in existence.Don't argue with me about the chemistry or how sound it is...argue with them...and they will laugh at you.These highly respected scientists have far greater credentials than you or I or just about anybody else on this website.Their ideas about chemical methods of CO2 atmospheric extraction stand much better chance of working than any of my own ideas about magnetic extraction at this time(which I've already stated before).Once again,this interesting link about synthesizing renewable hydrocarbons is at:
http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/recycleco2.html
So much for the closed-minded arrogance of making assumptions.Read ALL of it first,then decide afterward.
-
agrobert:
You claim that I should read articles that are more promising,such as the link about the powered enzyme that reduces carbon dioxide.However,if the enormous hurdles could be overcome in creating such a CO2 magnet,the potential payoff could be enormous.For example,it could potentially make any such CO2 reduction catalyst more efficient and greatly enhance it's reaction rate by working in conjunction with it.Instead of a catalyst having to wait passively for the occasional CO2 molecule to come along in an atmosphere that is predominately nitrogen and oxygen,the CO2 magnet could bring the carbon dioxide to it.
-
There is still yet another way to make a practical and economic method of atmospheric CO2 extraction and separation from other gases by employing a magnetic field.And that is to make the magnetic separation work in a sort of reverse order.In other words, the stronger magnetic properties of oxygen and nitrogen can be exploited to remove the N2 and O2 so that the magnetically weaker and less interactive CO2 is all that's left.In fact,somebody already has a patent on this method.But I can no longer find where I read about it.This invention employs a combination of both a magnetic field and thin porous diffusion membranes with zillions of tiny microscopic holes.The magnetic field pulls the oxygen and nitrogen through the porous membrane,leaving the CO2 behind.These are one-way pores and such that the N2 and O2 remain on one side,while CO2 accumulates in greater concentration on the other side.Instead of only one device,it probably requires many such units joined together into a cascade,with the CO2 becoming more concentrated with every step along the cascade.
After extraction from the atmosphere,the separated more concentrated CO2 could be pumped into an algae pond,or sent into some sort of catalytic reactor for synthesizing hydrocarbons,or sequestration by injection into the ground.
However,I'm still intrigued by the prospect that CO2 itself may be able to undergo a transition from weakly diamagnetic to paramagnetic or even somewhat ferromagnetic-like properties.This phenomenon of CO2 being drawn toward a magnet has been reported numerous times over the years.Therefore,it is still not a "closed-case"of which azmanam suggests should be put to rest.But instead,it warrants further investigation to get to the root cause of such a strange phenomenon.
This closed-minded arrogance which says it is impossible is sort of like the stubborn denial of cold fusion.Although cold fusion has already been performed literally thousands of times in hundreds of laboratories all over the world since it's first discovery in 1989.When closed-minded arrogance slanders others as not being credible,it often has a tendency to backfire against such hypocrites and render closed-minded arrogance itself not credible.That statement by Charles Louis d' Secondat about medoicrity stubbornly clinging to a handrail is quite true indeed.
-
You claim that CO2 can't be ionized,or that it will not react to a magnetic field when such ionization takes place.This is pure bunk.
My response to that would be (emphasis added):
Carbon dioxide is NOT magnetic. Not as a neutral molecule. ... Now, all that being said, I am not responding to your claims (elsewhere, if not here) of ionizing CO2 to give it a charge.
And from a different thread (http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=27599):
It's the part about responding to electromagnetic fields (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism) that changes the discussion on this topic. While it is very true that neutral carbon dioxide is not magnetic (I used dry ice in my experiment today. The reaction mixture was agitated with a magnetic stirrer, and the dry ice didn't respond - even in bulk), I cannot make a judgment about carbon dioxide in the plasma state (which is perhaps the logical conclusion of these discussions and professor Wong's literature history?). Perhaps some kind of CO2 plasma (if that's even the right terminology) could be made to respond to a magnetic field in the manner you describe. I doubt it, but I don't know anything about plasmas.
My same questions persists: how do you selectively target CO2, etc. But I will refrain from a summary dismissal of the topic until more peer-reviewed literature is presented. Tasmodevil: do you have any? I can't find any.
I remain highly highly skeptical, but am prepared to examine the literature and learn more.
---
researchers have found that carbon has joined the list of chemical elements that can be made strongly ferromagnetic
That's fantastic. Elemental carbon (graphite, diamond) has dramatically different properties than carbon dioxide, such that they cannot be directly compared.
---
You also state that you are not sure the chemistry on the link I provided is sound.You should read all of it in it's entirety before making assumptions based strictly upon statements about potassium carbonate.Making assumptions is doing bad science...never make them.
You're right, I did make an assumption. I assumed the NYT article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/science/19carb.html) from which that passage was lifted was promoting good science. And it almost was. Almost. Passing CO2 over a solution of potassium carbonate will not do anything. As I (correctly) said, the solution is already saturated in carbon dioxide as far as potassium is concerned. But what the NYT, your website, and your previous posts neglected to mention was that these are solution of alkylamines in aqueous potassium carbonate. It is the alkyl amines that trap the CO2, NOT the potassium carbonate (example - http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/factsheets/project/Proj280.pdf). A little Googling uncovered that mystery fairly quickly - something I should have done myself, you're right. But, more importantly, something YOU should have done yourself. I was skeptical without doing background research, you were too ready to believe without doing background research. How many chemistry classes have you taken? Having read that the amines are the scavengers, not K2CO3, I remembered that this is the same process that removes impurities from natural gas. A little more Googling turned up its wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amine_gas_treating). Again, it's a little unprofessional to have your critics do your background checks for you. It's a lot unprofessional for the NYT to leave out this absolutely critical detail.
Furthermore, the scientists you mention are not commenting on the potassium carbonate system. Rather the page to which you link is a collection of CO2 recycling short stories. Dr. Lackner talks about removing CO2 by calcium hydroxide (not calcium carbonate) or potassium hydroxide (http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/01/carbon_seq/7b1.pdf, scroll down to the results section) and Olahs discusses turning sequestered CO2 into methanol, not the actual sequestration of carbon dioxide. The scientists to which you meant to refer are Drs. F. Jeffrey Martin and William L. Kubic Jr.
---
the stronger magnetic properties of oxygen and nitrogen can be exploited to remove the N2 and O2 so that the magnetically weaker and less interactive CO2 is all that's left.
Couple of things here. Nitrogen is not magnetic. Did you watch the video I posted? And I'm glad to see you are entertaining the idea that neutral carbon dioxide is not magnetic.
---
Therefore,it is still not a "closed-case"of which azmanam suggests should be put to rest
I did a 'find' within this webpage. The only person who has used the word 'closed' in ANY context has been you. I would appreciate restraint in your misquotations. If you are going to quote me, do so accurately and respond to my claims as quoted. For reference, here is what I actually said regarding putting this matter to rest:
Now, all that being said, I am not responding to your claims (elsewhere, if not here) of ionizing CO2 to give it a charge. I'm not convinced that would be any more magnetic than the neutral molecule, but if you can produce a paper, I'd be glad to give it a read. If you can also produce the source of the magnetic CO2 claim, I'd be interested in reading that, as well.
Otherwise, I think we need to put the magnetic CO2 to rest.
As yet, you have provided no scientific literature to suggest any of your claims are valid. Please do so.
---
That statement by Charles Louis d' Secondat about medoicrity stubbornly clinging to a handrail is quite true indeed.
I'm glad you noticed it. It's probably my favorite quote and single greatest motivator. But do not make the mistake of conflating mediocrity and naïvité. Your grasp on the concepts behind the phenomenon you are proposing is naïve at best. Please do more of your own background work in the future and provide links to backup your claims.
---
Perhaps this physical mechanism explains the strange phenomenon of CO2 attraction to magnetic fields reported numerous times by other researchers in the past.
I've read about this strange phenomonon several times over the years:about CO2 being drawn toward a magnet.I stumbled upon it accidentally several times in the past while not even looking for it.
is indeed the physical mechanism behind CO2 attraction to magnetic fields reported by others over the years
If I read it before(more than once)over the years,
This phenomenon of CO2 being drawn toward a magnet has been reported numerous times over the years.
You keep saying that. Please give us more information about that reference so we can look it up for you or provide it yourself.
-
Just ask Alfred Y.Wong at UCLA.He has proposed this method for ejecting CO2 into space by using the Earth's magnetic field.Why don't you read his scientific literature?
I'd love to. But a) I don't have time, and b) that's your job as advocate of this technology. I'll do part of the work, though. I searched through ISIWeb to find his articles that look like they might have something to do with this. There are almost 70. I'll reprint the bibliographic details here:
2007. Symmetric neutralized... JOURNAL OF FUSION ENERGY 26 (1-2):61-65 DOI: 10.1007/s10894-006-9039-0
2007. Intense local plasma ... LASER AND PARTICLE BEAMS 25 631-638, DOI: 10.1017/S026303460700074
2005. Direct acceleration of ... Physical Review E (Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics) vol.72, no.4 46401-1-6,
2004. Carbon accounting... U S Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station General Technical Report PNW-GTR 614 (April):61-78.
2001. Spatial, spectral, and ... PHYSICS OF PLASMAS 8 (1):110-121, .
2001. Beam scattering ... PHYSICS OF PLASMAS 8 (1):122-131, .
2001. Dynasonde observations ... JOURNAL OF ATMOSPHERIC AND SOLAR-TERRESTRIAL PHYSICS 63 (2-3):107-116, .
2000. First laboratory observation ... PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 84 (4):666-669, .
2000. From basic to applied plasma science. VACUUM 59 (1):5-13, Sp. Iss. SI, .
1999. Ionospheric stimulation ... ACTIVE EXPERIMENTS IN SPACE PLASMAS 24 (8):997-1001, .
1998. Controlled ionospheric ... PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 80 (22):4891-4894, .
1997. Stimulated radiation from ... PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 79 (7):1273-1276, .
1997. Spectral content ... PHYSICS OF PLASMAS 4 (4):945-955, .
1996. Observations and simulations ... JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SPACE PHYSICS 101 (A12):27027-27033, .
1996. Remediation of ozone ... PHYSICS LETTERS A 217 (4-5):294-299, .
1995. EXPERIMENTAL-STUDY OF ... RADIO SCIENCE 30 (6):1875-1883, .
1994. STUDY OF ION ... JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS 75 (10):4906-4909, Part 1, .
1994. OBSERVATION OF SMALL ... JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS 75 (11):7237-7239, .
1994. BALANCE OF ANGULAR-MOMENTUM ... PHYSICS OF PLASMAS 1 (10):3246-3249, .
1994. FULL-WAVE CALCULATION ... ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATIONS IN JAPAN PART I-COMMUNICATIONS 77 (11):59-71, .
1994. OBSERVATION OF CHARGE-INDUCED ... PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 72 (19):3124-3127, .
1993. Full wave calculation ... Transactions of the Institute of Electronics, Information and Communication Engineers B-II vol.J76B-II, no.7 615-24.
1992. EXPERIMENTAL-OBSERVATION OF ... PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 68 (25):3706-3709, .
1992. INVESTIGATION OF STRONG ... JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SPACE PHYSICS 97 (A7):10575-10600, .
1992. LOCALIZED DENSITY CLUMPS ... PHYSICS LETTERS A 170 (6):443-447, .
1992. CATALYTIC DESTRUCTION OF ... PHYSICS LETTERS A 168 (5-6):423-428, .
1990. CONTINUOUS MEASUREMENT OF ... RADIO SCIENCE 25 (6):1283-1289, .
1990. EFFICIENCY OF CAVITON ... PHYSICS OF FLUIDS B-PLASMA PHYSICS 2 (8):1941-1943, .
1990. COMPUTER-SIMULATION OF ... RADIO SCIENCE 25 (6):1341-1349, .
1990. IONOSPHERIC RF LIDAR. RADIO SCIENCE 25 (6):1299-1309, .
1990. CHANNEL PROBE OBSERVATIONS ... RADIO SCIENCE 25 (6):1407-1422, .
1990. IONOSPHERIC MODIFICATION ... RADIO SCIENCE 25 (6):1251-1267, .
1990. HIGH-POWER RADIATING ... RADIO SCIENCE 25 (6):1269-1282, .
1989. Conservation of ozone ... Comments on Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion vol.12, no.5 223-34, .
1989. LARGE-SCALE RESONANT ... PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 63 (3):271-274, .
1988. OBSERVATIONS OF INTERMITTENT ... PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 61 (12):1360-1363, .
1988. OBSERVATION OF RADIO-FREQUENCY ... PHYSICS OF FLUIDS 31 (6):1787-1789, .
1987. CHAOTIC BEHAVIOR AND ... PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 59 (5):551-554, .
1987. OBSERVATION OF IONOSPHERIC CAVITONS. PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 58 (13):1375-1378, .
1985. NONLINEAR EVOLUTION OF ... PHYSICS OF FLUIDS 28 (5):1538-1548, .
1984. TRAPPING OF PLASMA-... PHYSICS OF FLUIDS 27 (6):1416-1426, .
1982. SIMULTANEOUS OBSERVATION OF ... PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 48 (19):1348-1351, .
1982. DEPENDENCE OF PLASMA ... RADIO SCIENCE 17 (5):1313-1320, .
1982. NON-LINEAR PHENOMENA ... PHYSICA SCRIPTA T2 262-270, Sp. Iss. SI, .
1981. RAPID CONVERSION OF ... PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 47 (18):1340-1343, .
1981. ACTIVE STIMULATION OF ... JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SPACE PHYSICS 86 (NA9):7718-7732, .
1979. Experimental observations of ... Comments on Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion vol.5, no.3 79-94, .
1979. DOUBLE-RESONANCE EXCITATION ... PHYSICS LETTERS A 75 (1-2):144-148, .
1978. CHARACTERIZATION OF A LASER-... JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS 49 (6):3049-3058, .
1978. STABILIZATION OF TOROIDAL ... PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 41 (1):29-33, .
1977. SELF-GENERATED MAGNETIC-... PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 38 (10):541-544, .
1976. ISOTOPE SEPARATION IN ... PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 37 (23):1547-1550, .
1976. FORMATION OF POTENTIAL ... PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 37 (21):1393-1396, .
1975. ION CONFINEMENT BY ... PHYSICS LETTERS A A 53 (1):85-86, .
1975. PARAMETRIC-INSTABILITY OF ... RADIO SCIENCE 10 (4):485-488, .
1975. ION-ACCELERATION IN ... PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 34 (12):727-730, .
1975. SURFACE MAGNETIC CONFINEMENT. PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 35 (17):1156-1160, .
1975. NEGATIVE-ION PLASMAS. PHYSICS OF FLUIDS 18 (11):1489-1493, .
1975. SPATIAL COLLAPSE OF ... PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 34 (24):1499-1502, .
1974. CONVERSION OF ELECTROMAGNETIC... PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 32 (12):654-657, .
1974. PRODUCTION OF NEGATIVE-... APPLIED PHYSICS LETTERS 25 (10):579-580, .
1973. EVOLUTION OF BERNSTEIN-... PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 30 (26):1299-1302, .
1971. ELECTRON PLASMA WAVES ... PHYSICS OF FLUIDS 14 (9):1997-&, .
1971. PARAMETRIC EXCITATION IN IONOSPHERE. PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 27 (10):644-&, .
1970. PARAMETRIC MODE-MODE ... PHYSICS OF FLUIDS 13 (3):672-&, .
1969. MEASUREMENTS OF DIFFUSION ... PHYSICAL REVIEW 188 (1):326-&, .
1969. ELECTROMAGNETIC ECHOES IN COLLISIONLESS PLASMAS. PHYSICS OF FLUIDS 12 (4):866-&, .
1968. ION-WAVE ECHOES. PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 20 (7):318-&, .
-
azmanam: you are correct in that ionization is not the same thing as magnetization. However, both methods can potentially make matter more interactive with magnetic fields. I have been trying to attack the theoretical problem of CO2 from both angles.
As for the ionization method (somewhat similar to Alfred Wong concept for venting CO2 into space with aid of Earth's own magnetic field), it is theoretically possible at least, in that it it does not violate any major laws like conservation of energy. The fact that electrically charged matter is interactive with magnetic fields is just common knowledge garden variety physics. Like I stated before, borek and enahs may be right that you can't get it to work, but their argument is based upon all the wrong reasons. But instead, it will be hard to implement due to other practical (impractical?) reasons. It will probably be impractical due to the size of the powerful laser or microwave transmitter required to ionize a substantial quantity of CO2 to make it interactive with a magnetic field. Secondly, you would probably need one hell of a hellacious superconducting magnet to draw it toward it (with all the unintended environmental consequences!)
The only other alternative method would be to somehow alter the magnetic rather than electric ionization properties of the gas. I don't see how this is possible. However, over the years I have read about more than one report about CO2 drawn toward a magnetic field. Once again, I myself don't know how this could be, since CO2 is very weakly diamagnetic instead of paramagnetic. If there is some sort of abnormal phenomena surrounding this that makes abnormal CO2 behave differently, I want to find-out more about it.
But I am encountering the same problem you are in trying to find this. It's like Murphy's Law working overtime. I have occasionally stumbled upon reported claims of this phenomena on more than one occasion when not particularly looking for it. But when you conduct a deliberate search for the odd and strange phenomena, where does the stubborn, elusive thing go ? Like you, I have tried every word combination I can think of, and not coming up with any hits anywhere on the internet:
Such as: ..magnetic carbon dioxide..
paramagnetic carbon dioxide..
carbon dioxide magnetic field..
CO2 drawn to field..
CO2 attraction to magnetic..
unusual CO2 magnetic phenomena...and so on.
If it's out there somewhere (which it should be I would think if I'd stumbled upon such claims before), then it's definitely a needle in a haystack.
If I personally find these claims to be bogus, then I myself will lay these claims to rest.
If any method of abnormal CO2 magnetic interaction does not pan out or the claims are simply bogus, then there's still the alternative ionization possibility. Although like I said before, finding a way of practical implementation for the ionic method will be a challenge.
But unlike skeptical naysayers who consider it to be ABSOLUTELY impossible...I still consider it to be ALMOST impossible...admittedly, a long shot. This concept is still a work in progress.
But a radical unforseen discovery or breakthrough can always drastically change things. Time and again, this has occured in the history of advance, where a combination of new dicoveries, physics and human ingenuity always finds a way where there seemed like none could ever happen.
And then there's the third option: the device that works in a sort of reverse order...removal of all other more magnetically interactive gases so that CO2 is all that's left.
As an interesting side note to this discussion, there is also a magnetic device that separates oxygen from the air. Considering the strong paramagnetic qualities of oxygen, I'm pretty sure this magnetic device works.
But if the problem of CO2 magnetic extraction can be solved (as near impossible a challenge as this longshot may be),the huge dividend would most certainly be well worth it...whether it be ionization or some other way to get CO2 more "activated" for atmospheric extraction.
I have also been doing some other interesting study of the magnetic property of CO2. While oxygen is paramagnetic, when combining with a carbon atom the two oxygen atoms become very weakly diamagnetic. But the carbon atom in the CO2 molecule remains paramagnetic. But for some reason, the two weakly diamagnetic oxygen atoms cancel out or overrule the paramagnetism of the carbon atom. If there was some way to get the dormant sleeping magnetism of the carbon atom to wake-up, then you might be able to get the entire CO2 molecule to go magnetic...just like the strange claim I read about once. But the big trick question still remains...if there's indeed some truth to it, then how does it do it?
-
azmanam:
when you refer to NYT, are you talking about the New York Times, or what?
This is the site I was referring to:
http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/recycleco2.html
Where do you get the idea that this American Energy Independence site came from the New York Times? Or is this deliberate dishonest falsification on your part to discredit where I got it from? Can you honestly provide me with some more info that this is originally a NYT article?
Furthermore, you are making the same error of flawed logic and reasoning that most arrogant and closed-minded conservatives make these days...the assumption that a lack of evidence or proof constitutes the same thing as proof ..when that is not necessarily the case. Rather, I would rather take a neutral position of "I don't know for sure" rather than already condemn and dismiss something out of hand already just because I am having the same hard time as you are at hunting down this thing. But just because I'm having a hard time finding such claims again does not mean they never existed, or that I'm making it up (regardless of whether there is any credible substance to the claims or not). Why would I fabricate the fact that I have indeed read about other researchers making such claims in the past?
As for myself, I can't really see how diamagnetic CO2 can do anything unless it has been ionized. But neutral CO2 by itself without either ionization or magnetization seems incapable of anything. These are the only two scientifically known methods that can cause any mass to interact with a magnetic field that I know of. If there's any other means, I'd like to know about it.
-
when you refer to NYT, are you talking about the New York Times, or what?
This is the site I was referring to:
http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/recycleco2.html
Where do you get the idea that this American Energy Independence site came from the New York Times? Or is this deliberate dishonest falsification on your part to discredit where I got it from? Can you honestly provide me with some more info that this is originally a NYT article?
This one's pretty easy, actually. You first talk about it in reply #16 in this thread and link to that site. I went to that site and found the section to which you are referring:
Scientists Would Turn Greenhouse Gas Into Gasoline (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/science/19carb.html)(<--click on this link -ed.)—If two scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory are correct, people will still be driving gasoline-powered cars 50 years from now, churning out heat-trapping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere — and yet that carbon dioxide will not contribute to global warming.
The scientists, F. Jeffrey Martin and William L. Kubic Jr., are proposing a concept, which they have patriotically named Green Freedom™, for removing carbon dioxide from the air and turning it back into gasoline.
The idea is simple. Air would be blown over a liquid solution of potassium carbonate, which would absorb the carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide would then be extracted and subjected to chemical reactions that would turn it into fuel: methanol, gasoline or jet fuel.
This process could transform carbon dioxide from an unwanted, climate-changing pollutant into a vast resource for renewable fuels. The closed cycle — equal amounts of carbon dioxide emitted and removed — would mean that cars, trucks and airplanes using the synthetic fuels would no longer be contributing to global warming. More... (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/science/19carb.html)(<-- or this link -ed.)
Clicking on either of those links takes you to a NYT article from February 2008:
February 19, 2008
Scientists Would Turn Greenhouse Gas Into Gasoline
By KENNETH CHANG
If two scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory are correct, people will still be driving gasoline-powered cars 50 years from now, churning out heat-trapping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere — and yet that carbon dioxide will not contribute to global warming.
The scientists, F. Jeffrey Martin and William L. Kubic Jr., are proposing a concept, which they have patriotically named Green Freedom, for removing carbon dioxide from the air and turning it back into gasoline.
The idea is simple. Air would be blown over a liquid solution of potassium carbonate, which would absorb the carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide would then be extracted and subjected to chemical reactions that would turn it into fuel: methanol, gasoline or jet fuel.
This process could transform carbon dioxide from an unwanted, climate-changing pollutant into a vast resource for renewable fuels. The closed cycle — equal amounts of carbon dioxide emitted and removed — would mean that cars, trucks and airplanes using the synthetic fuels would no longer be contributing to global warming.
Although they have not yet built a synthetic fuel factory, or even a small prototype, the scientists say it is all based on existing technology.
...
-
azmanam:
I conducted a background search of the NYT website and it is indeed an exact copycat of parts of the AEI website. I was surprised when you first mentioned this, because at first I could not find a reference to the NYT anywhere. The AEI is compilation of general discussions of work on CO2 capture in general by various researchers all over the world. Parts of the AEI site are copied word for word. Did NYT copycat directly from AEI or visa versa (AEI copied from NYT)?
The potassium carbonate chemical method of CO2 capture they describe is a very old one. I don't see how it could be very practical because of the enormous scale involved. Even with another active chemical in aqueous solution like you described, it seems like it would be an incredibly huge undertaking to capture enough CO2 to supply even a tiny fraction of overall transportation sector needs.
In another part of the same AEI site, they talk about the creation of a new company called Global Research Technologies. They have invented an artificial tree called an ACCESS unit, which they continue to refine and develop. I wonder what kind of chemical process it might use?
-
azmanam:
Also, when I was describing a patented invention that works in a sort of "reverse order" for separation of atmospheric CO2 with a combination of a magnetic field and porous membranes, I did indeed accidentally misquote nitrogen as being paramagntic like oxygen, when in fact nitrogen is diamagnetic and repelled away from a magnetic field. The oxygen is attracted one way through a porous membrane, while the diamagnetic nitrogen is repelled the opposite way through another membrane, leaving a higher concentration of less magnetically interactive CO2 between the two membranes.
Like I already stated on a previous post, air has to flow through the device itself, and is not capable of externally drawing CO2 from the air even over a short distance. This method of magnetic extraction that works in a sort of "reversed order" by removing everything else but the CO2 is probably the only practical way to do it.
All other methods to make CO2 itself more interactive with a magnetic field seems to be a longshot. It's very unlikely the magnetic property of CO2 itself can be changed (although I've read such claims in the past, and now have a hard time finding any more...altough lack of proof does not mean the claims were never made, but the claims themselves may be suspect).
Which leaves us with the option of ionization instead of magnetization, which still seems impractical at this point unless some sort of a major breakthrough or discovery can be made. There could be all kinds of unintended consequences.Not just birds, but what if an airplane flew into a powerful microwave or laser? And the construction of a superconducting magnet capable of extracting significant quantities of CO2 would be prohibitively expensive. So that unless some major discovery or breakthrough occurs, it still can't compete with chemical means of CO2 capture. ( build a super CO2 ionization laser the size of the State of Texas...oops...just shot-down NASA's shuttle ! ! ! LOL ! ! ! :D )
-
This may forever remain just an academic matter of general discussion. But I still don't consider it absolutely SF type of TOTALLY impossible...just ALMOST impossible. Unexpected and unforseen advances have a way of finding a way when there is none. You can't always accurately predict the future, and it would be arrogant to even try. But with current knowledge and technology, it's definitely a longshot that probably won't happen very soon.
-
It is grating when I here the word arrogant in debating.
and it would be arrogant to even try