[JLindgaard (OP)]

 What you would need to consider is this would be her field of expertise. Why she has a PhD.
I can point a flaw out to you in failed logic. And this has to do with global warming. Does UV
radiation heat water? It doesn't. Does UV radiation have energy? It does. Does the ocean absorb
UV radiation. It does.
 How can something absorb energy and not have its kinetic changed as a result? But that is accepted
science. With the information that I've given Dr. Rebecca Harbison, I show a similar thought given
accepted science and what is observed.
 With global warming, over 90% of the extra heat in global warming is in the ocean. For the atmosphere
to heat the ocean wouldn't it need a greater increase in heat to heat the ocean? If the ocean is warming
faster than the atmosphere then wouldn't that be the source of heat?
 So as you can see, disagreeing with accepted science when other accepted science disagrees with it allows
for a confusing situation. And with Dr. Rebecca Harbison I did explain to her where such a disagreement
might exist in astronomy/astrophysics. Her education will allow her to consider this and as I mentioned, it does
involve https://earthsky.org/human-world/may-29-1919-solar-eclipse-einstein-relativity/
 Why I'd like to give her and her colleagues time to consider the conflict (in my opinion) I made her aware of.
Who knows, maybe 2022 might become like 1919 for astronomers when it involves the same work?
 
 And as bored chemist said, we have nothing to do. And an experiment that I am pursuing is in chemistry.  Atmospheric chemistry is often pursued by scientists with a degree in organic chemistry.
This could explain why scientists haven't been able to consider my experiment. It's that it's a different type of chemistry. What I want to show is that CO2 + H2O > CH2O + O2.
 It is serious work and I have invested a lot of time in it. That is my primary focus. And if I am right then my experiment would show that CO2 directly supports recovery of the ozone layer. And then the process I've hypothesized might be taught in schools. I do explain my hypothesis on my website. This is because I can quote and link to scientific research. And people can form their own opinions about it.
 That is what I did with my "free" time. I didn't ask for someone to give me an answer when I knew I would disagree with them. And with CO2 and H2O, they are not considered as NMVOCs. My experiment would change that. I do cite research that mentions that there are NMVOCs  outside what is known by today's understanding of atmospheric chemistry.
 And with the experiment that I am pursuing, if my Bessler build works then some of the scientists that I cited might want to work with me because it'd further their own research. I like the thought of that, working with other people.

[Origin]

What I want to show is that CO2 + H2O > CH2O + O2.

I am afraid that reaction is about as likely as your perpetual motion machine working.

[Bored chemist]

Why she has a PhD.

Do you think PhDs are rare around here?

Your perpetual motion machine can not possibly work.

What I want to show is that CO2 + H2O > CH2O + O2.

That reaction goes the other way. Formaldehyde is combustible.

[Bored chemist]

if my Bessler build works

Which part of "it will not work" are you failing to understand?

[Deecart]

That reaction goes the other way. Formaldehyde is combustible.

If you know that someone has not much knowledge of chemistry, why do you say such thing ?
Why do you do this?

(At least i now know why you have writen so much messages...)

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 @All, I guess time will tell if I am right or not. As far as both Bessler's Wheel and my experiment goes, I'm guaranteed to fail if I don't try.

[Deecart]

I found some similar wheel on internet, if this can help you :

[Origin]

If you know that someone has not much knowledge of chemistry, why do you say such thing ?

My guess is he said it to help the guy understand.

[Origin]

@All, I guess time will tell if I am right or not. As far as both Bessler's Wheel and my experiment goes, I'm guaranteed to fail if I don't try.

Just to let you know; it is also guaranteed to fail even if you do try.

[Deecart]

My guess is he said it to help the guy understand.

So why do he not give directly the full explanation instead of these mysterious sentences ?

[Origin]

So why do he not give directly the full explanation instead of these mysterious sentences ?

I don't know.  Maybe he is trying to get JLindgaard to get a little initiative and at at least google the reaction?

[Kryptid]

@All, I guess time will tell if I am right or not. As far as both Bessler's Wheel and my experiment goes, I'm guaranteed to fail if I don't try.

By all means, do the experiment if you can. It's a learning experience if nothing else.

[Bored chemist]

If you know that someone has not much knowledge of chemistry, why do you say such thing ?
Why do you do this?

So that they get a bit more knowledge of chemistry.

these mysterious sentences ?

Not everyone thinks chemistry is a mystery.

[Deecart]

It is useless (scientificaly speaking, socialy speaking it can help to form a clan of course) to say something that only the one who already know understand.

[Deecart]

Not everyone thinks chemistry is a mystery.

You dont understand me well.
It is not chemistry that is mysterious, it is your sentences talking about chemistry.

[Kryptid]

It is useless (scientificaly speaking, socialy speaking it can help to form a clan of course) to say something that only the one who already know understand.

When Bored Chemist said that formaldehyde is combustible, he means that formaldehyde reacts with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide and water. That is the exact opposite of the supplied equation (which he also already said).

[Deecart]

When Bored Chemist said that formaldehyde is combustible, he means that formaldehyde reacts with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide and water. That is the exact opposite of the supplied equation (which he also already said).

So it was mysterious for you too.
Because if you think this you missed the point of naming some reactant as some "combustible".
Altought the reaction can occur in the opposite direction during photosynthesis, it can definitivly not spontaneously within some volume, even if you change the pressure, temperature or molarity parameters.

Some chemical reactions can occur in only one direction.

These reactions are called irreversible reactions. The reactants can change to the products, but the products cannot change back to the reactants. These reactions are like making a cake. The ingredients of a cake—such as eggs and flour—are the reactants. They are mixed together and baked to form the cake, which is the product (see Figure below). The cake can’t be “unbaked” and “unmixed” to change it back to the raw eggs, flour, and other ingredients. So making a cake is irreversible.

Baking a cake is an irreversible reaction

Combustion reactions are generaly irreversible.

https://flexbooks.ck12.org/cbook/ck-12-middle-school-physical-science-flexbook-2.0/section/5.14/primary/lesson/reversible-reactions-ms-ps/


 

[Kryptid]

So it was mysterious for you too.

No, I understood it perfectly well.

Combustion reactions are generaly irreversible.

He never said otherwise.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 I have trouble accessing my website but this is 1 quote is use;
Since none of the above possibilities seems to explain the model-measurement discrepancy, it appears that the model’s CH2O production rate is too small. Uncertainties in parameters controlling the known source channels do not appear large enough to explain more than a 25% discrepancy in [CH2O]. We therefore postulate that at least one source of CH2O is missing from the standard model. The median missing CH2O source is about 0.4 ppbv d/span>1and is relatively constant with altitude between 0 and 8 km in the NARE 97 domain.[37]</p>

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2001JD000896">https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2001JD000896

 What I am aware of is that things might work a little differently when both atmospheric pressure and temperature drop.
This then might get into J-T coefficients which have little meaning at room temperature and pressure. There are other considerations as well which I haven't mentioned. And if anyone has considered that in a cold, low pressure environment that CO2 becomes a source of heat/energy. Also the emission and absorption spectrums of CO2 and H2O
basically allow for something like Coulomb's law. This is where the emission spectrum of CO2 would be a positive charge while the absorption spectrum of H2O would be a negative charge.
 For the purpose of the experiment that I am pursuing, I am hypothesizing that due to a lack of background radiation
that CO2 and H2O can be attracted to each other. And while CO2 has a double covalent bond, a water molecule has sufficient kinetic energy to break both bonds. Basically there is nothing that prevents an H2O molecule from replacing the O2 molecule in a CO2 molecule.
 And with CH2O, it has a similar relationship with its own emission and absorption spectrums while it's emission spectrum is stronger between 400 - 450.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Typical-emission-spectrum-from-formaldehyde_fig2_258376834
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Formaldehyde-absorption-spectrum-in-the-UV-range-re-plotted-from-the-data-of-Meller-et_fig5_287158085

 And as I mentioned, I believe that as temperatures drop and background radiation decreases then emission and absorption spectrums can be comparable to opposing charges such as a polar molecules have. In the upper troposphere temperatures can drop to -40º C. or F. The tropopause is colder.

[Deecart]

No, I understood it perfectly well.

So why dident you say it clearly ?

He never said otherwise.

He even never said anything.