[azmanam]

** I said 'raise the pH of the immediate area'. Moron.  Creating acid LOWERS the pH.

(smacks self on head)...

[tasmodevil44]

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.





       

[tasmodevil44]

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.

[azmanam]

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.

[agrobert]

tasmodevil44

maybe you should read articles that are more promising

http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2008/07/22/powered-enzyme-reduces-carbon-dioxide

[tasmodevil44]

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.

[tasmodevil44]

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. 

[tasmodevil44]

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.   

[tasmodevil44]

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.

[tasmodevil44]

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.

[tasmodevil44]

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.

[tasmodevil44]

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. 

[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.

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:

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 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.

[azmanam]

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:

Code: [Select]

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-&, .

[tasmodevil44]

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?