jlindgaard Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 Swansont, I am currently working on one project which if successful would allow me to have mainstream scientists involved in my experiment. I am well aware of what is required for a proper demonstration. One of the requirements is that the materials used need to be able to with stand -50° C., maybe a little more or a little less. This is to replicate the upper troposphere. Also, the vacuum in the upper troposphere is above 29 hg's. Currently, all or most vacuum generators rely on wind speed or the venture effect and have not demonstrated creating a vacuum in excess of 29 hg's with a single motion expanding the volume of the cylinder. If you consider the area around the tropopause, space is expanded. This means that gases are expanded simply because they need to fill more space and not just spin faster which a reciprocating type vacuum pump or a rotating vane pump does. The temperature in the Arctic Circle can drop 30° because of wind speed alone. For what I am claiming, this false reading would not allow for a successful demonstration. Kind of why my current project is important. As far as I know, only NASA has done any research with water in a low pressure system with extremely low temperatures as well. They wanted to consider the evaporation rate of water on Mars for some reason. I guess if it had water on it's surface in the past. But I don't jump from subject to subject. What I base my opinion is not one thing but is based on many different observations. p.s., I have mentioned that photosynthesis does not require the extreme cold or vacuum. That doesn't matter. If you watch the 3 part series How to Grow a Planet, the very first step in photosynthesis is separating the hydrogen elements from the oxygen molecule in water. Yet if I were to demonstrate that I can use a mechanical system to convert water and CO2 into CH2O and O2, would it matter ? I doubt it would. And as someone mentioned, I have to be a Global Warming skeptic to be pursuing a way to reduce CO2 emissions. I think that speaks volumes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 So what was the question or proposition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 Yet if I were to demonstrate that I can use a mechanical system to convert water and CO2 into CH2O and O2, would it matter ? Yes. It would matter because it would be very interesting chemistry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 ! Moderator Note I'm not going to allow a thread titled with another member's name. It makes it look like we're discussing Dr Swanson. I'd retitle it, but as studiot mentions, there is no question or proposition to help me out. So I'm closing it. jlindgaard, if you figure out a way to propose your idea with an opening post designed to initiate a discussion, please do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts