0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The electrical conductivity of ice is not great, but the main issue is one of the actual calculation of how much energy would be needed to electrolyse significant H2 and O2. It would probably cost a huge amount of carbon to produce the electricity. In any case, how would the release of these gases ensure that the ice caps would not melt. It is not the CO2 just local to the poles that is the problem and, if the idea is to liberate more of these gases, it would be better to trap the H2 and use it as fuel. Planting trees is an easier way to get O2 and traps Carbon at the same time.
Perhaps you could point to a website with some figures to back up the conjecture and to explain what you mean by "displace the CO2" in detail. It does not seem practical to me.
It has been proved that bumble bees cannot fly by mathematicians.
Quote from: NobodySavedMe on 28/05/2008 12:54:40It has been proved that bumble bees cannot fly by mathematicians.No it hasn't. In 1934, one mathematician suggested that haphazard flapping of a bee's wings would not enable aerodynamic flight. Since then, scientists have observed bee wings and flight muscles more throroughly and determined that they use very similar strategies to other flying insects, apparently a combination of short, choppy wing strokes, a rapid rotation of the wing as it flops over and reverses direction, and a very fast wing-beat frequency. Not the most efficient of strategies in the insect kingdom, but it works.
Firstly I do not see why you believe that releasing small quantities of hydrogen and oxygen into the polar atmosphere will displace carbon dioxide rather than just add a bit of hydrogen and oxygen to the gases already there.Secondly even if you could remove the carbon dioxide from the polar atmosphere I do not believe that it would have any significant efect on global warming as most heat comes into the atmosphere in the tropical belts. please explain your idea in more detail if you want anyone to take you seriously
You are, in fact, saying that you would be increasing the atmospheric pressure by introducing extra gases into the atmosphere. 1. Just how much effect do you think you could have with the amount of energy available?2. Have you considered the consequences to the biomass of such an action? Anything which would increase absorption of CO2 by the sea would also affect - our lungs - the leaves of plants. Think!I realise you want to think outside the box and all that but just being outside the box doesn't necessarily produce the right answer.
So how much increase in pressure will you need in order to increase the rate of CO2 absorption?I have a feeling that Henry's law should apply so, to double the rate of absorption, you would need to DOUBLE atmospheric pressure! OK you may not need to double it but just how much would you need to make a significant difference?How can you predict the mass effect (on every living thing) of this increase in pressure, of O2 as well? The photosynthesis rate of all plants could be affected and the metabolism of everything would be affected. How can you assert that this is irrelevant without some knowledge? Your idea is based on a very subtle effect involving the change of concentration of one gas so how can you dismiss the idea of an equally subtle effect due to a change in pressure (and you still haven't said how much) of the other constituents of air?When you say "displacement", what exactly do you mean? The gases will all mix by diffusion. There will be a pressure gradient from sea level upwards and the relative proportions of the gases will vary all the way up. Yes, the concentration of CO2 in a still atmosphere is at its highest at the bottom, because of the relative densities . (See the above post for some more detail of practicalities) What, in your system, will 'displace' what and in what direction? Try to use established terms in the conventional way so that I can understand you with my knowledge of conventional Science. Instead of being upset by the objections being raised, try to consider that your proposal may, in fact, not be viable.
Which particular curve is bell shaped in this context?Was the container closed? 'Cos the atmosphere ain't.
Did you look at the link I provided? It showed that CO2 concentration did NOT vary much with altitude. Like you say, the atmosphere is not in a "tea cup" but IS stirred quite a bit. Why you then go on to suggest someone does an experiment with ice "in a container" as an illustration is therefore baffling.
Quote from: graham.d on 03/06/2008 11:25:00Did you look at the link I provided? It showed that CO2 concentration did NOT vary much with altitude. Like you say, the atmosphere is not in a "tea cup" but IS stirred quite a bit. Why you then go on to suggest someone does an experiment with ice "in a container" as an illustration is therefore baffling. You are wrong we are talking about dynamic processes whereas you refer to static values.If your graphs have any truth then no co2 would be absorbed by the ocean. as it is too high.I mean when you breath out why does the co2 rise?Because it is warm.if it is cold it goes down.
Do you ever run? If you run you displace air.
Quote from: NobodySavedMe on 04/06/2008 22:14:19Quote from: graham.d on 03/06/2008 11:25:00Did you look at the link I provided? It showed that CO2 concentration did NOT vary much with altitude. Like you say, the atmosphere is not in a "tea cup" but IS stirred quite a bit. Why you then go on to suggest someone does an experiment with ice "in a container" as an illustration is therefore baffling. You are wrong we are talking about dynamic processes whereas you refer to static values.If your graphs have any truth then no co2 would be absorbed by the ocean. as it is too high.I mean when you breath out why does the co2 rise?Because it is warm.if it is cold it goes down.The graphs show a fairly even concentration of CO2 with altitude in conflict with your previous assertions. The graphs are of CO2 concentration in the real world and are based on a large number of measurements. This does not preclude absorption of CO2 by the oceans as there is significant concentration of CO2 at the surface. It does preclude your idea that because CO2 is heavier it will result in higher concentrations at ground level. This is simply not the case in the real world.
So then the measurements we have of co2 concentration vs. altitude are wrong then NobodySavedMe? They must be because it doesn't line up with your senseless theory? Just to clarifly, are you trying to say that most of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere sits neatly near ground level?
Yes - it doesn't really matter about the distribution.BUT, you still haven't explained, in readily understandable terms, how you intend to increase the pressure of CO2 where it is in contact with the sea.WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY DISPLACEMENT? You have not answered that question yet and that's why I am shouting. If you cannot explain that, your idea has no meaning. If you think I am ignorant, then explain in very simple terms so that even an idiot can understand what you mean. Some actual figures for the quantities involved might help, too.
But I already have explained it.Yet you persist in your argumentative and vexatious manner.
NSM,to displace something means, as you pointed out, to move it elsewhere.Where do you propose to move the CO2 to? The earth's gravity makes "elsewhere" a dfiicult concept. (incidentally this isn't true of the hydrogen you plan to produce- it's to do with boltzmann distributions and escape velocities)If it's still part of the atmosphere it will still generate a greenhouse effect.If you hope that it will dissolve in the oceans then you don't understand the chemistry.In order to increase the amount of CO2 dissolved in the water you don't have to increase the overall pressure. You need to increase the partial pressure of CO2 and your proposal doesn't do that.Adding a diluent gas like H2 or O2 would reduce the amount of CO2 dissolved in the ocean. Since there's nowhere else for it to go, it would end up in the air. That makes the greenhouse effect even worse.That's before we work out how much electrical power it would take to prduce any significant quantity of H2 or O2 - and from that work out how much fuel we would need to burn and thus see how much more CO2 it would put into the air.Then there's the other qusetion. Why in the name of anyone would you try to run a current through ice. It's a dreadful conductor so you would need to use much more electicity than if you used water.Basically the idea is dumb to start with and it gets worse the more you think about it.
After two pages of posts and discussion you still haven't described what your propoasl actually involves. You refuse to say what your 'shorthand' terms mean. How much of your own personal money would you invest in such a scanty case? Forgive me for my total disbelief; you have no idea what is involved.btw,Power stations do not 'dump' their energy at night. They can vary their output by adjusting the fuel input.
Dynamo turning will turn easier if energy is drawn from it.If no energy is drawn it will turn harder.At night the dynamo must turn even if little or less energy is drawn.The excess energy is wasted.
"Dynamo turning will turn easier if energy is drawn from it.If no energy is drawn it will turn harder"Wrong way round."AS ICE IS ELECTROLYSED THE EXCESS O2 AND H2 will cause co2 in the air above the water to be absorbed. "Worng way round again. displacing CO2 from the area above the water will let more CO2 come out of solution.It also remains the case that ice is a damned poor conductr so passinfg a current through it is difficult. Water's easier.
no.gravity holds the atmosphere down.did you not know that?the co2 was absorbed as a colored dye sprayed into the air above water showed as pressure increased it got absorbed by the water surface.