Basic Experiment

[James.Lindgaard]

The attached diagram is a basic experiment.

If the cylinder expands while airflow into it is restricted, the level / amount of vacuum can increase.

Then as molecules move further apart causing the gases to cool (Joule-Thomson Effect), then it is possible

that CO2 could be attracted to positively charged water molecules, current passing through water in the second chamber.

The basic consideration is that as CO2 molecules cool because the density of background radiation decreases or is decreasing, it might be attracted to another source energy.

The oil in the lower part of the cylinder keeps the cylinder lubricated while creating a vacuum seal.

Edited September 7, 2015 by James.Lindgaard

[studiot]

Why are the water molecules positively charged or are you referring to what are commonly called the hydroxonium ions in the water?

[James.Lindgaard]

The water molecules would be positively charged. This might allow them to influence the field / environment in that chamber.

If so, then heavier molecules might be attracted towards the source of energy.

[studiot]

The water molecules would be positively charged. This might allow them to influence the field / environment in that chamber.

If so, then heavier molecules might be attracted towards the source of energy.

 

That did not answer my question.

 

How would the water molecules be positively charged and why would they remain so?

[James.Lindgaard]

A current would be grounded in the water. And then the water would have an Earth ground.

While water is an excellent conductor of electricity, it's effect on an environment exposed to it is unknown as far as I know.

[Fuzzwood]

Putting a current on water would either electrolyze the water or do nothing at all. No net charge will remain. Pure water does not conduct electricity.

[John Cuthber]

The water molecules would be positively charged.

No they would not.

 

Until you can sort that out, there's no point to any further discussion.

[James.Lindgaard]

@fuzzwood and John Cuthber,

Here is the answer to your concerns; http://humantouchofchemistry.com/does-distilled-water-conduct-electricity.htm

[studiot]

 

@fuzzwood and John Cuthber,

Here is the answer to your concerns; http://humantouchofc...electricity.htm

 

 

 

I'm just as concerned as the dynamic duo and can't see how this answers any concerns.

[Mordred]

Did you read carefully that link?

 

"distilled water is purified and does not contain any impurities, it is unable to conduct electricity. Water molecules on their own have no charge and as a result they cannot swap electrons. Without the swapping of electrons, electricity is unable to travel through distilled water."

Edited September 7, 2015 by Mordred

[Sensei]

Did you read carefully that link?

 

"distilled water is purified and does not contain any impurities, it is unable to conduct electricity. Water molecules on their own have no charge and as a result they cannot swap electrons. Without the swapping of electrons, electricity is unable to travel through distilled water."

 

One note. It's very simplified version. It's true for low voltages.

But when voltage is measured in kilo volts or mega volts, exceeding voltage breakdown, even good insulator will start conducting electricity.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Sensei

[John Cuthber]

OK, for a start, that web site and Fuzzwood's assertion are simply wrong.

Pure water does conduct electricity- very badly.

Most people have heard that "Pure water has a pH of 7" and that's pretty close to true (near room temperature anyway).

And that means that in each litre of water there is about 1E-7 moles of hydrogen ions, and an identical number of hydroxide ions.

Those ions can move under the influence of an electric field and, in doing so, they will carry a current.

So water conducts.

Near 20C the conductivity is about 18.4 E6 ohm cm.

Copper, for example, has a conductivity of about 2E-8 ohm cm so it is about a hundred million million time s more conductive.

So, Fullwood's statement is thus, pretty nearly correct, but not quite.

But it's not the point.

There's a world of difference between hydrogen ions having a positive charge- which they do, and water molecules having a positive charge- which they don't.

 

Water has an ionisation potential of about 12 volts, so, to get water vapour to lose an electron and become positively charged you need to add 12 electron volts to each molecule.

At room temperature molecules typically have an energy of about 0.025 eV

So, to get up to the sorts of energy where the water loses an electron and becomes positively charged you need to heat it up to the point where they typical energies are about 12/0.025 (that's about 500) times higher than room temperature.

That's somewhere like 140 thousand degrees C- that's a lot hotter than the surface of the sun. (and at that sort of temperature, the molecules fall apart anyway)

And, even then you don't have a positively charged water molecule you have the H2O⁺ ion

 

So, lets be absolutely clear about this.

The water molecules do not have a positive charge. they never did; they never will.

[James.Lindgaard]

Mordred,

I did. Salt water is considered a good conductor of electricity. Pure water is not because it can not swap electrons.

Myself, am concerned why if a soluble solution requires modification to effect an ambient field, it is a problem.

And this is mentioned in the same link. I do have to wonder why scientists need others to fail to demonstrate their intelligence.

Chernobyl and Japan come to mind. 2 failures that scientists failed to predict. Both resulted in meltdowns of nuclear reactors.

With Chernobyl, scientists failed to predict a meltdown if the rods were pulled out too quickly. With Japan, sensors gave false readings when super heated steam passed as cooling water. Am wondering how these 2 mistakes are acceptable. The funny part is, they are good excuses for being wrong.

[studiot]

 

that CO2 could be attracted to positively charged water molecules

 

While we are on the subject.

 

Molecules are electrically neutral, as are atoms.

 

So even if we could obtain some positively charged ions in the water, why would they attract the carbon dioxide molecules?

 

I did offer you the positive ion that exists even in water and was more completely described by John Cuthber, but you rejected it.

 

So when you offer an explanation of your second failure of logic please do not be as rude as your post #13.

Edited September 7, 2015 by studiot

[Mordred]

Edit other replies, were no longer dealing with distilled water.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Mordred

[John Cuthber]

Mordred,

I did. Salt water is considered a good conductor of electricity. Pure water is not because it can not swap electrons.

Myself, am concerned why if a soluble solution requires modification to effect an ambient field, it is a problem.

And this is mentioned in the same link. I do have to wonder why scientists need others to fail to demonstrate their intelligence.

Chernobyl and Japan come to mind. 2 failures that scientists failed to predict. Both resulted in meltdowns of nuclear reactors.

With Chernobyl, scientists failed to predict a meltdown if the rods were pulled out too quickly. With Japan, sensors gave false readings when super heated steam passed as cooling water. Am wondering how these 2 mistakes are acceptable. The funny part is, they are good excuses for being wrong.

Stop talking nonsense. The problem at Chernobyl was a known problem- the reactor was unstable if run at low power.

In Japan an earthquake messed up essentially every system that was designed to stop the plant going into meltdown. They were human errors of judgement- the science was well enough understood that they could be avoided but people screwed up.

 

Also, you are arguing against yourself (well, as I said, people screw up).

Water conducts electricity- it does so even better if you let it dissolve CO2.

And once you have a conductor, any charge present tends to leak away.

So, if the water ever was charged. it wouldn't stay that way.

 

It's particularly daft of you to berate scientists without actually learning the basics of science (but, as I said, people screw up).

Edited September 7, 2015 by John Cuthber

[James.Lindgaard]

John,

The problem with Chernobyl is well known, the rods were pulled to quickly. As a result, the energy emitted fro it's pellets were turned inward.

This resulted in increased activity. This has changed the protocol to slow the removal of the rods. Very well known. With Japan, because "water" was still cooling the rods, no concern. It was later realized that when the cooling water was super heated that it mimicked water.

Something that today is at the fore front of nuclear energy.

In Japan, there were 2 nuclear power plants effected by the tsunami. Only one had false readings from it's cooling water around it's core.

And unfortunately, there is a reason why experiments are performed. I guess something might be learned from them. I just have to wonder why someone would have a problem with this.

[John Cuthber]

It seems you know as little about the two nuclear incidents as you do about basic physics.

As far as I can see, this thread is now dead. Perhaps one of the mods will close it.

[James.Lindgaard]

John,

The information I referenced is correct. If my source of information is wrong, then this is why forums have moderators.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Let's stay focused on the points raised in the OP and not get muddled up in misunderstandings of reactors

[James.Lindgaard]

@All,

With what I am considering, it would mimic the work accomplished by James Joule and William Thomson. The variation of their work would be attempting to manipulate the kinetic energy in a given Joule-Thomson field. Unfortunately, it might be that no follow up work was done to see if their effect allowed for this possibility.

Am not sure if anyone finds their work interesting. In 1852, chances are that mercury was used to determine the density of a gaseous field because of it's buoyancy when attached to a float. This is how temperature / background radiation was considered in the past. Today, it's kind of a meaningless concept.

 

edited to clarify. when floats are in water, the "temperature" of the water would be known. And with thermodynamics, heat would seek an equilibrium between water / a solution and gases. I guess it's one of those things that some people might think are pretty cool when they see one. I'd have to check to see who it was that invented such thermometers.

 

edited to add, might have been Galileo. There is to a "Galileo" thermometer. Who knows, Joule and Thomson might have used such a device in making their observations.

Edited September 8, 2015 by James.Lindgaard

[John Cuthber]

It won't mimic anything because it relies on "positively charged water" that doesn't exist.

[James.Lindgaard]

When salt is added to water, it becomes a good conductor of electricity. What is not known is if water vapor occurs, if any ions would be associated with it. Still, would co2 or similar gas being cooled by the Joule-Thomson Effect be attracted to ions in water whether or not those ions are the result of salts or other contaminant ?

[John Cuthber]

When salt is added to water, it becomes a good conductor of electricity. What is not known is if water vapor occurs, if any ions would be associated with it. Still, would co2 or similar gas being cooled by the Joule-Thomson Effect be attracted to ions in water whether or not those ions are the result of salts or other contaminant ?

" What is not known is if water vapor occurs, if any ions would be associated with it. "

Well, it's not known to you but it is known to anyone who thinks about it. They know that a lot of water evaporates from the oceans, but that rain water isn't salty. They may even have heard of distillation. Perhaps they read about it on a page cited in a thread somewhere near here. Maybe a page like this

http://humantouchofchemistry.com/does-distilled-water-conduct-electricity.htm

 

" Still, would co2 or similar gas being cooled by the Joule-Thomson Effect be attracted to ions in water "

Yes, it would be attracted- by gravity and also by the induced dipole effect.

But the extent of the attraction would be far too small to measure.

 

What are you trying to achieve here?

[James.Lindgaard]

John,

It would be to find out that as gases are drawn into the hydraulic cylinder if co2 would be attracted to an ionized solution. One of things that might be over looked is that if flue gases are cooled, then that water would radiate energy. As for gravity, water can flow upwards towards static electricity. And since that is well known, I wonder if CO2 might be able to be manipulated in a similar way.

And with this, if an ionized solution could mimic co2's absorption spectrum or something close to it, then...