Free energy machine solves global warming!

[Cecil]

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/SC0401/S00065.htm

The technological breakthrough which the world scientific and health communities have been desperately seeking to solve the problem of green house gases and global warming was unveiled today by Robert R. Holcomb, M.D., Ph.D., an assistant professor at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, before an audience of New Zealand government, business and environmental leaders. Note especially this gem: The Black & Veatch report, also released today, found "the demonstrations observed provided convincing data that indicated carbon dioxide generated during the combustion of the coal was converted back into carbon and oxygen by the CO2 Converter. This was clearly indicated by calibrated, reliable gas analysis equipment." Just brilliant! :rolleyes:

[Zep]

At least it's not woo-woo!

And not so long ago some other New Zealanders said, "Let's make a blockbuster movie trilogy here in New Zealand about mythical hairy midgets from a story by an English professor. We'll make a fortune and get lots of Oscars!" (Actually, it's hard to pronounce it exactly as they would have - something like, "Lut's muk a bluckbester mewvie...").

So who knows if they are onto something big there too!

[Cecil]

Unless I'm mistaken, carbon dioxide is formed when carbon and oxygen are combusted and release energy. They're proposing to split the resultant carbon dioxide back into its constituents, and somehow generating an excess of energy in the process.

[Beleth]

The whole site's nothing but press releases. It's not real news. Click on any other article down the right-hand side of the page linked to, and you'll see what I mean.

[Goshawk]

FWIW, here's how he says it works. Me, I have no idea. Any chemists care to check in?

http://www.holcombscientific.co.nz/electron.htm
Q. What is Electron Stream Carbon Dioxide Reduction?

A. Electron Stream Carbon Dioxide Reduction is a technology that separates Carbon Dioxide (CO2) into its base elements of carbon and oxygen. We like to call it a carbon dioxide converter technology.

Q. How is Carbon Dioxide separated?

A Carbon dioxide is separated by breaking the molecular bonds of carbon dioxide.

Q. How does the process of the Electron Stream Carbon Dioxide Reduction work?

A. The process takes place over several phases. In the first phase, combustion of any fossil fuel begins in the furnace where heat or thermal energy is generated and then converted to usable power.

In the next phase, the gaseous emissions of combustion are directed into a sequestration chamber where gaseous byproducts of combustion are partially removed along with toxic substances such as mercury, which is completely removed from the gas stream.

In the final phase, the remaining scrubbed gases are then compressed and injected through the plasma arc where the oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur bonds are broken. Breaking the bonds in these dangerous gases releases oxygen and the base elements of the gases in an ionized form. The electron accelerator stabilizes the ionized gases by bombarding them with an excess number of electrons, which takes place in a magnetic chamber.

After the conversion is complete, the base elements are separated in the element trap. Carbon is removed in particle form as carbon black. Oxygen is redirected back to the combustion chamber where it is reused to combust additional fossil fuel.
And note this, from the bottom:Q. Will Electron Stream Carbon Dioxide Reduction undergo peer review?
A. Holcomb Scientific is so confident of its results and validity, it is proceeding with the announcement of the innovation before additional tests are completed. Holcomb Scientific is forming a scientific peer review panel to continue to review and study this technological breakthrough.So, it hasn't been peer-reviewed at all, and they're publishing their "results" just on their own say-so.

Uh-huh. :rolleyes:

Holcomb's professional qualifications to have invented something like this are apparently that he's an "inventor". He's a doctor, an M.D., not a physicist or a chemist.

Plus he's invented a number of other things, including a magnetic water treatment system (!)

http://www.holcombscientific.co.nz/biofour.htm

[Zep]

I think I'm going to have to retract a bit! I was under the impression that this little gizmo was not woo-woo, in that it actually did something vaguely plausible. Seems I was wrong. Oh well! :wink:

[Vitnir]

The big question seems to be what happens to the molecules when it enters the plasma arc. The resulting atoms should lack important valence electrons and be radicals? The atomic radical of oxygen isn't so harmless so it better react with something before it comes into contact with humans I think. It should be possible for two radical oxygen atoms to collide and form an oxygen molecule but it's pretty unlikely, more likely it collides with the molecules in air, nitrogen and oxygen forming other nasty compounds like ozone.

I'm not up to date on plasma chemistry but if radicals are formed the machine releases more toxic gases (ozone) than it is fed with (carbon dioxide).

[Oleron]

Even if it were possible to reduce the chemically VERY stable carbon dioxide into carbon and oxygen (which I doubt is possible by blasting it with plasma, at least not reliably), the reaction would require the input of energy to break the 2 doubly covalent bonds to the oxygen. OK so energy would be released when the oxygen and carbon reformed but overall energy would be a net input.

OK so energy is needed to drive this supposed reaction. Where does the energy come from - the plasma. How do we generate the plasma - electricity. How do we generate electricity - by burning fossil fuels. Back to the drawing board.

[Oleron]

I've just been having a think about the science behind this claim.

If I understand Holcomb correctly he says he has a method for conversion of CO2 (sorry I can't be bothered subscripting) to C and O2. He, I think, intends to power this reaction using the heat from the furnace (ie. burning fossil fuel).
This means:

(1) C2H4 + 2O2 = 2CO2 + 2H2O

ie. fossil fuel (in this case ethene, but could be any) is burnt (oxidised) in oxygen with the corresponding output of energy. Small net output of energy.

He will take the CO2 and perform this reaction:

(2) 2CO2 + Electrons = 2C + 2O2

ie. Reduction of Carbon dioxide into carbon and oxygen, corresponding large input of energy needed. Large net input of energy.

Lets put some rough figures on the energy:

Let's assume (1) produces 1 unit of energy of which (I'll be generous) around 30% is harnessed.

Let's assume (2) requires 1 unit of energy (in actual fact it will require much more than this) and for every unit input, 30% is wasted and not used for reaction.

So:

Output from oxidisation = 0.3 units
Input to reduction = 1.3 units

Net energy is 1 unit input.

Have I missed something?

Even if both reactions performed at 100% efficiency we would still need a net input because reaction (2) simply needs more energy than reaction (1) produces.

[MRC_Hans]

Exactly! I won't even bother to look into the particular technology they propose, but theoretically, the idea is completely feasible. Not only that, it has been used by divers and u-boats. And the net energy flow is negative, period.

It is just another version of having an electric motor drive a generator, which powers the motor :rolleyes:.

Unless they have found a way round the laws of thermodynamics :rolleyes: :rolleyes:.

Hans

[Quasi]

Even if it were to work, the cost of just the scrubbers alone is enormous. Its just not practical, as "we do not know what all of the causes of GW are or how much humanity is contributing to it." This is not a troll, just my opinion. Spending billions on this technology would be much better spent elsewhere.

[Vitnir]

U-boats yes obviously, didn't think of that. U-boats from Sweden are all diesel but when you have a nuclear reactor I imagine you have more energy you can use. How is CO2 converted in those systems? I guessing that plasma isn't the answer.

[Oleron]

Originally posted by Vitnir
U-boats yes obviously, didn't think of that. U-boats from Sweden are all diesel but when you have a nuclear reactor I imagine you have more energy you can use. How is CO2 converted in those systems? I guessing that plasma isn't the answer.

I understood that CO2 is not reduced to oxygen onboard submarines (I might be wrong).
I always thought that oxygen was produced by electrolysis of water, CO2 was removed by soda-lime scrubbers and all other poisonous gases removed by burners. I know some submarines use oxygen cannisters instead containing either compressed oxygen or material that gives off oxygen when heated.

[Vitnir]

I guess simple scrubbers is a more obvious solution. Interesting problem since space flight is also dependent on fresh air during long periods in closed compartments. Link (http://science.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=question83.htm&url=http://www.naval-technology.com/contractors/hvac/dornier/index.html)

[MRC_Hans]

Early scuba divers used a chemical that could reduce CO2 and regenerate oxygen. There were two competing systems for early scuba diving, the chemical system used by somebody named Hans Hass (iirr), and the pressure-bottle system used by Jaques Custeau. The latter won out in the end. The regeneration system was also used in some U boats, at least for emergency purposes. One of the problems with the regeneration system is that the "filter" gets cold, because the reduction uses energy.

Hans

[Agammamon]

We must make a law against perpetual motion machines! Don't these people realize the environmental impact free energy. No one will need to conserve anymore and free energy machines will proliferate. Each one of those machines and the loads they are hooked up to genereate heat. They could make global warming due to trapped heat look like a warm summer's day.

[Oleron]

Quite right.
I stand corrected.

[Vitnir]

Actually, from looking at Hans Hass - websites it seems that he used a rebreather. A device that filters out carbondioxide by reaction to sodium hydroxide and supplies pure oxygen from a small tank. I have seen such devices in Bond movies and Star Wars episode 1 but haven't given it much thought. They are supposed to be used in submarines as rescue gear. I can suppose the device gets cold but it doesn't convert CO2 into oxygen. Link (http://travel.howstuffworks.com/question632.htm) to rebreathers.

[MRC_Hans]

OK, that might be. Its a long time since I read about it.

Hans

[Vitnir]

By looking up NASA's homepage I came across a system used on the ISS to convert CO2 into water Link (http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/teacher/course/h2o_gen.html)

And also an experimental system to decompose CO2 into oxygen by electrolysis. The webpage is down but the cache is on http://66.102.11.104/search?q=cache:DYkRhuVBCikJ:technology.ksc.nasa.go v/WWWaccess/techreports/2002report/600%2520Fluid%2520Systems/609.html+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[Vitnir]

From NASA's webpage above you can read about the Bosch reaction
The Bosch reaction produces only water and elemental carbon, allowing all of the hydrogen consumed to be recovered by electrolysis. This makes closure of the oxygen - carbon dioxide - water - oxygen loop possible.

Conversion of CO2 by adding hydrogen into water and solid carbon, sounds almost like the free energy machine above. Downside is that the catalyst must be heated to 650 Celcius to work at all and then its only 10% effective.

[AlienX]

This is totally rediculous, where is the "free" energy in this system?

You oxidise the Carbon and free energy in the form of heat and light. You then take the CO2 and using large amounts of power atomise the molecules in a plasma (note that just doing this results in only a %age of the molecules being atomised.
So then the atoms once atomised will absorb energy from the plasm to strip away the "outer" most electron(s) (yet more pointless energy usage). You then generate electrons and bombard the atoms which once again takes energy.

Where the hell is the free energy coming from - if you could break the CO2 bond with Zero energy then i would sit up - but this is taking more energy to do than you release in the burning of the fuel in the first place. Especially with all the energy wasted via the maintaining of the plasma.

AX