O2

[panopticon]

Posted by Earthlink (here)
ummm ... Pan, those liquification (sp?) numbers you are working with above are from people and processes that are making liquid oxygen, and, they are taking that oxygen FROM the sky.

That won't help us. We need it to be taken from the CO, CO2, NO, NO2, SO and SO2 and even the lesser amounts of HO and H2O2, all oxides, and all produced in ICE's, which will involve pressurization and liquification of all of those oxides, and then, we need to separate the O's from them all.

And, use electrolysis and water. Both should be started simultaneously, and run concurrently. We've got a hundred years of being slackers on this issue to catch up to.
...
However, I do know much about electricity, and can generate it in large quantities in 2 ways that do not involve burning more fuel to do so. One is to remake the common induction electric motor so that it is what it used to be, a dynamo, those things that have been powering lighthouses since the 1500's, and the other is simply that if you drill down anywhere, at around 7000 metres, the temperature of the ground is going to be above 300 degrees celsius, or, three times the boiling point of water. Remember, oil rigs can drill 35 km at a time, and, frequently do. They also angle drill, so, no they don't go 35 km straight down, they go down to the oil deposit and then go laterally into it.

And one other thing about dynamos, if you have 2 of them, they can ping pong between the two of them and generate almost a limitless flow of current.

No worries bloke.

Thanks for the heads up.

I've got quite a few questions for you that we're interested in here in the antipodes.

Before anything else.

What is the varying pressures to separate air into liquid O2, N2, CO2, NO2 & SO2 at room temperature (if you reckon cooling/heating of the air would be needed please include that data as well).

Would take me a while to look all that up and as you're the expert I reckon you'd know these off the top of your head. References would be nice though.

After that I've got all sorts of other questions about the procedure, system design, chemical processes etc you're using.

Thanks for your patience with me.

-- Pan

PS If you want just give the optimised figures for the above that your system operates at.

That way we have a starting point for further discussion on the processes used.

[panopticon]

While I wait for a response to my question I thought I'd mention a few CO2 air extraction technologies.

There is real hard evidence that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere.

I know that its taboo at Avalon to talk about anthropogenic climate change so I wont.

However, CO2 is linked to climate change by almost everyone and there are ways of removing CO2 from the air that are already known...

Look at Peter Eisenberger's Global Thermostat.

Interesting video here on it https://vimeo.com/106444450 (I can't seem to get the vimeo video to load in the forum software).

It looks like good tech that appears to be able to remove CO2 from air for later sequestration (or industrial use).

If there's a way to separate the carbon and oxygen that isn't too energy intensive then maybe he'd be interested.

Maybe Klaus Lackner (really interesting paper from 2009 here) or the guys & gals at Carbon Engineering might be interested in hearing about it to.

Actually Carbon Engineering is a Canadian engineering business working on the air capture of CO2, so maybe they'd be interested in hearing Earthlink's oxygen depletion hypothesis out:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=GkEAA7VnyhE

Anyway...

There are lots of people working on CO2 air extraction technology.

That's because it would be incredibly lucrative and supply a much needed resource (CO2) all while lowering CO2 in the atmosphere.

Looks win win to me.

-- Pan

[Earthlink]

Well, thanks for this Pan. Just remember a couple of things first, to help yourself stay grounded and on target. I didn't know that anthropogenic warming was taboo here, for starters, however I don't find it surprising. The closer one gets to the actual industry leaders or the shareholder groups who profit from them, the more the world looks like the Orwell one, where our primary base formula for everything is one that looks like 2+2=5.

I myself remain completely disheartened by these realities.

Anyway, existing near a base formula like that is heart wrenching, yet, one must continue, so, you adapt. You speak that language sometimes when you have to, but you never forget what is real either.

And existing like this has produced a sub class unto itself. The ones who use the base formula such as this, like to have people around them who speak the same way. I swear there have been seminars and events that I have been to where I walked away thinking I was just at a 2+2=5 T-shirt wearing conference, and the more each person revelled in the absolute truth to this falseness, the better they performed at the event.

So, every one of those CO2's in the literature you provided above, used to be an O2. O2's are the things I think we need more of. Did I say think?, No, I know we need more of them. And also, like I said a moment ago, over the last 20 or so years there have formed many break away groups in high places who all are T-shirt wearing apostles to a falsehood. This is why carbon sequestering and a spat of other, what I would call useless and diversionary, issues are now in our lexicon too. To begin with, on this carbon sequestering, there are 8 primary oxides made in an ICE, CO2 being just one of them, so, even if we address CO2 in the fullest, we will fail, because CO2 is just one gas out of 8, and where we think we make progress doing it that way will only end up leaving us 7 times further behind than we thought we were going to be!

Anyway, I turned 50 last november. I just don't go along with the stupid any more, not even just to be polite. I just laugh at them now. It's so easy to do, without them even knowing. The reason they are in the stupid group is because they didn't have a good base knowledge of any of the sciences to begin with, so, I find it too easy to use science to have them make themselves look really really dumb. And that is their game, not mine. They revel in laughing at what they call "libtards" and "environmental whacko's" and all that, to elevate themselves, however they are propping themselves up on false knowledge, which has been supplied to them from a third party.

Yes, there is money in dry ice and CO2 and it can be used in certain manufacturing, the thing is, how much money will any one make when the tax base are ALL dead?

Sometimes I think that is the goal. All dead. Everything and everyone dies, so that whoever is in charge can claim victory.

Anyway, if you really are trying, I thank you.

[Earthlink]

Here's another good example of what's going on and how and why things would even get this far into oblivion: in all of the countries in the english speaking world now, look at all the members of government. what was their profession? lawyer, lawyer, lawyer, businessman, lawyer lawyer lawyer. where are the scientists? where are the engineers? at least 20 years of legislature being passed by people who have no clue as to what they are doing. I told a member of parliament from canada one time that we looked really closely at the sky, and do you know when you look at individual molecules, and how the world of small things doesn't look like the world out here? well, it is an interesting world down there in 'smallville' and as it turns out, half of what is in the sky, when magnified, looks like little pink elephants, and the other half of what is in the sky looks like little blue unicorns.

he had no choice but to say "ok", because he does not know better, and as far as I know, he believes to this day that that's what the molecules in the sky look like magnified.

[Earthlink]

This is thinking from the youth today:

"We need a holo-deck. You know, the holographic deck from Star Trek The Next Generation? Yeah, one of those, and then we need to fool the warmongers in this world into going in there, where they can live out the rest of their lives believing that nothing has changed and bombs and carnage continue under their direction for the rest of their life, while the rest of us can then get on with the immense work of cleaning up this massive mess that has been made here over the last at least 100 years ..."

[panopticon]

Posted by Earthlink (here)
8 primary oxides made in an ICE

Seems you missed my question above.

So, once again.

What are the varying pressures you use in your machine at the moment to separate collected air into liquid CO2, CO, N2O, N2O4, NO, NO2, SO2, SO3, HO, H2O2 (when using cooling/heating of the collected air please include that data as well).

Could you also provide what you view as the optimum pressure/temperature combination needed for oxygen and nitrogen to be turned to a liquid (just as a reference).

That seems like a good starting point for further discussion on the processes you use.

-- Pan

[Earthlink]

Fie, this goes here:

[Earthlink]

So glad for the people I know, and yeah, it is true that animals do not live well or very long in captivity when compared to their natural life. Going into DUMBS or underground cities isn't going to pan out for any involved.

It's a f@cking stupid idea.

So many f@cking stupid ideas.

Someone said the other day that we lost the separation between two distinct groups, and that one of the two ixnayed the other. The group who print money, and/or coin coins, is one group, and deciding what to do with the money, is another group, and the two should not be the same.

In any event, just go outside. Please. Anywhere, and behold the realities of OPINION.

[Nick Matkin]

So... how has your project to increase the oxygen level of earth's atmosphere been progressing over the past few months?

Have you run the details of your proposals past any fire-fighters? What did they have to say about the effects of increased oxygen in the atmosphere and its effects on combustion?

Nick

[Carmody]

Posted by panopticon (here)

Posted by Earthlink (here)
8 primary oxides made in an ICE

Seems you missed my question above.

So, once again.

What are the varying pressures you use in your machine at the moment to separate collected air into liquid CO2, CO, N2O, N2O4, NO, NO2, SO2, SO3, HO, H2O2 (when using cooling/heating of the collected air please include that data as well).

Could you also provide what you view as the optimum pressure/temperature combination needed for oxygen and nitrogen to be turned to a liquid (just as a reference).

That seems like a good starting point for further discussion on the processes you use.

-- Pan

Secondary function, is an enabler. a grease for the desired function, if you will.

This would be the use of resonance in the given pressure chamber, if one is going to try and use a pressurized vessel.

'Open the gate wide', would be the analogy.

[Earthlink]

I was in the volunteer fire department where I lived when I was younger, Nick. Also, considering that there already exists things like oxygen therapy, you know, increased amounts of oxygen either to individuals or areas, I do believe that most firefighters and/or anyone else familiar with this element would laugh at what you just said.

Pan, we already bottle both oxygen and nitrogen. Not rocket science there buddy.

Carmody: I truly have no idea what you just said.

[Redstar Kachina]

..........

[Nick Matkin]

Posted by Earthlink (here)
I was in the volunteer fire department where I lived when I was younger, Nick. Also, considering that there already exists things like oxygen therapy, you know, increased amounts of oxygen either to individuals or areas, I do believe that most firefighters and/or anyone else familiar with this element would laugh at what you just said.

In that case could you ask one? My uncle was a fireman and he told me that oxygen-enriched atmospheres have at least three dangerous qualities when it come to fire:

1) Many materials that would not normally burn will do.

2) The heat in such a fire is greater.

3) They are much harder to put out with water.

Was he wrong and if so why?

Nick

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by Buddha's Palm (here)
There are ships in the sky that are cloaked that generate oxygen, which has bought us as much time as it has, but starting in September, the Great Transition begins in earnest, resulting in a significant drop in population over the next five years.

What...? How...? When - exactly (or even approximately!)

[Earthlink]

Really?

All the people on Earth right now experiencing dizzyness, vertigo and other pre-cursors to Hypoxia would wonder where your uncle even got those ridiculous ideas from.

Our O2 level was, the first time we checked it, roughy right on a quarter of the non-water portion of our atmosphere, and that would be, as a percentage, right around 25%. The only reason people who work in any of the applied sciences today say oxygen enrichment is now required, is that the prolific burning of fossil fuels has lowered it from that starting point, to the dangerously low point today which is, depending on elevation, lower than 20% everywhere now, and, things are dying from this, have died from this, and continue to die from this. Many high elevation places on Earth today have already been rendered off limits to our species, because of this.

Our atmosphere bears the legal definition now as being uninhabitable, which became a reality in the very early 2000's, perhaps even the first week of the year 2000.

Is that not low enough for you buddy?

I don't know what you're advocating, and nor do I care.

It's not your stage, and, the decision to fade out fossil fuel burning has already been made. Not soon enough IMHO, but at least I'm still upright and breathing, for now.

Tell me, which species here do you suppose you are helping with these type of banal questions?

Also, I just came to this conclusion: I'm not even going to discuss this with you ever again until you do some due diligence, and get a newspaper with todays date, or later, and with that in your hand and in the foreground, get me a picture of a Grasshopper, a Deer Fly, a Horse Fly or a Barn Swallow.

May even accept a current picture of a Pigeon, though those are kept as livestock by some, and are not completely gone yet.

[Nick Matkin]

Posted by Earthlink (here)
All the people on Earth right now experiencing dizzyness, vertigo and other pre-cursors to Hypoxia would wonder where your uncle even got those ridiculous ideas from.

You don't say? Any source for that? I know no one who is suffering from hypoxia - although on the sun thread there are a few who attribute those sorts of symptoms to solar flares...

Industrial facilities that have increased oxygen for industrial processes in specific zones is where he got that idea from.

Posted by Earthlink (here)
Our O2 level was, the first time we checked it, roughy right on a quarter of the non-water portion of our atmosphere, and that would be, as a percentage, right around 25%. The only reason people who work in any of the applied sciences today say oxygen enrichment is now required, is that the prolific burning of fossil fuels has lowered it from that starting point, to the dangerously low point today which is, depending on elevation, lower than 20% everywhere now, and, things are dying from this, have died from this, and continue to die from this. Many high elevation places on Earth today have already been rendered off limits to our species, because of this.

Again, where is the source for this?

Elevation has nothing to do with oxygen percentage of the atmosphere - we've established that earlier in the thread. It's the density of the atmosphere that makes breathing difficult at altitude.

Posted by Earthlink (here)
Is that not low enough for you buddy?

I don't know what you're advocating, and nor do I care.

It's not your stage, and, the decision to fade out fossil fuel burning has already been made. Not soon enough IMHO, but at least I'm still upright and breathing, for now.

Tell me, which species here do you suppose you are helping with these type of banal questions?

Anyway, back to my original question from #149; how much extra oxygen have you generated by now?

To make any measurable difference you'll need to add millions if not billions of tons of oxygen into the atmosphere. Where are you going to get that much raw material? Presumably water, but what are you going to do with all the released hydrogen? You could sell it as a fuel, er... but then it would recombine with oxygen and you're back to square one!

Maybe you have another method, but in any case where does all the energy come from to make all this oxygen?

[Earthlink]

BIG F@CKING COMPRESSORS, and, LOTS OF THEM.

I'm sorry, but the stark reality of your question begged me for a stark answer. And at the same time, I've no doubts of the capabilities of my species. None.

We have to take complete control of all the gasses in our sky today, as, yesterday we apparently assumed that the future we (us) would do so.

And, if you truly wonder where energy comes from ... at this late date (it comes from wherever we decide to take it from) (on any given day, subject to change) then you'll be forfeiting one of our truly remarkable achievements, and that is to come to understand how elements and compounds combine, detach, and/or recombine, repeatedly through eons of time, which we have come to observe and understand. (energy bonds)

Our understandings collected are actually the reason we say things like "Given enough time, a Hydrogen atom begins to wonder who it is, and where it is going."

And that is that we collectively have amassed great understanding: more daily.

[Nick Matkin]

What a pity Earthlink's account has been deactivated. I really want to know by how much the Earth's atmospheric oxygen percentage has increased through his efforts. I expect the effects of his endeavours are being picked up by labs all over the world by now...