I am looking into making hydrocarbons with items that I have available. I don't know the effort, or the energy required. I just started thinking about this not too long ago.
I do know that hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon are very readily available on this earth. Why not convert H2O and CO2 into CH4(methane) + O2 + O2, or CH4O(methanol) + O3? Or ethanol?
Club soda...
in a different form, would kill you, or at least make you go blind if it was broken down into methanol.The presence of a catalyst and some heat might recombine these molecules too, time will tell.
Here is a clip that talks about something similar:
Conversion of CO2 to CO and Hydrocarbons by Plasma Reaction
J. Electrochem. Soc., Volume 148, Issue 5, pp. D55-D59 (May 2001)
Z. Yoshida, H. Yosue, and G. Nogami
Department of Electrical Engineering, Kyusyu Institute of Technology, Kitakyushu 804-8550, Japan
(Revised December 20, 2000 )
Electrochemical and chemical reactions of CO2 with H2 in a gas phase were studied in an attempt to synthesize hydrocarbons by plasma reactions. When plasma was fired in a CO2 gas alone, the only product detected was CO, showing that the chemical decomposition of CO2 is dominant in the plasma phase. When H2 was guided into the reaction chamber, hydrocarbons such as methane (CH4), ethylene (C2H4), and ethane (C2H6) could be produced. Hydrocarbon formation was found to be more effective on the Cu electrode than on the Fe electrode, implying that an electrode material and then the electrode reactions can also affect the plasma reaction taking place among highly excited species. Hydrocarbons were effectively formed when the flow rate of H2 to CO2 exceeded three, in accordance with the expected chemical formulas of hydrocarbon formation. ©2001 The Electrochemical Society. All rights reserved.
Maybe some nickel and some heat?
This will be fun to research.Statistics: Posted by waterbard — Sun Aug 06, 2006 5:25 pm
]]>
That's very interesting what you said. Are you suggesting that
an underwater plasma can sequester CO2 by making
hydrocarbons? That would be a very valuable process. So far
the govt. only knows how to get rid of CO2 by pumping it into
the ground.
Statistics: Posted by thrival — Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:28 pm
]]>
]]>
Joe said on his tapes/txt files posted on a joe cell (yahoo) group
that a govt. agent brought him quad distilled water which he added
to a cell and it charged right up to stage 3, like instantly.
There's a mythos that has grown up around the Joe Cell that so
satisfies some as to stop further investigation. Just because distilled
water is dead a'la Shauberger doesn't make it "wrong." What I'd like
to do is draw a few concepts together, for those who "have ears to
hear."
1. Orgone or "life energy" is actually simple static electricity, or when
pulsed, radiant energy, that passes through everything, because
everything demonstrates some property of being a capacitor,
either a conductor or a dielectric. My point is these different names
are but one energy, possibly only different in frequency.
2. Mineralized water with charge carriers will obviously collect static
in a Schauburger device. It has collected "life energy" static, it's
in there, now your device produces cold electricity, levitates,
whatever. great.
3. A Joe Cell with mineralized water froths, bubbles, makes
hydrogen. But eventually that stuff precipitates out, the water
becomes neutral, and lo-&-behold we've reached stage 3>
which is where we want our Joe Cell to be. The cell no longer
conducts significant amperage, in fact exhibiting the properties
of the "dead" quad distilled water Joe claimed works so well.
And WHY does it work? Because it's DIELECTRIC, holds a charge
a long time, but that doesn't negate the fact that charge leaks
up the tubes to the cover, over the AL connecting tube, to the
block. Also notice that the rate of water flow in a cooling system
is comparable to a Schauburger device. Eventually the block
water becomes charged, precipitates out the gunk, behaves like
the good dielectric that demineralized water is, and holds the
block charge a good long time/indefinitely, and now we've reached
stage 4.
The more I studied it the move obvious the above appeared to me.
So much can be gleaned from basic principles and just LOOKING
at something for a long, long time. Now some will resist the simple
explanation, prefering to mysticize it, but not me. Of course it's
possible to replicate a working Joe Cell without fully comprehending
WHY it works (or doesn't.)
Yes I believe eco made h2 and now he's the cat's pajamas in his own
mind. Others quipped my interests in OU might be "just for fun" to
which I say, yes, ...or scientific curiosity; is that SO wrong? Apparently
the social indoctrination runs pretty deep. Thou shalt NOT grasp nor
understand, but thou SHALT keep thy nose to the grindstone, looking
neither right no left, amen.
Statistics: Posted by thrival — Sat Aug 05, 2006 1:02 pm
]]>
]]>
Remember, the best revenge is success.
It's really good he is so truthful, but his pessimism is nothing compared to some of the other people out there. Actually, I think he has some ligitimate accomplishments of his own, but he hasn't found a functional way yet to lick his wounds, so he snips at others.
Bill
Statistics: Posted by mrgalleria — Sun Jul 16, 2006 6:32 am
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
I made Joe cell. For my understanding is one cell elecrolyser,I dont see any difference.All your works about everything in this forum is theoretical work.Probably,your Joe cell is on the papers.I run IC engine with hydrogen,So, when you run IC engine wirh Joe cell we can talk.
Statistics: Posted by eco — Mon Jul 03, 2006 11:05 am
]]>
bend ????? I took a while to come to grips with Alex's version and
his seems to make some sense, but this williams one doesnt gel
with me. What do you think.?
Statistics: Posted by glenn_aircooled — Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:17 am
]]>
]]>
]]>