[tasmodevil44]

azmanam:

when  you  refer  to  NYT, are  you  talking  about  the  New  York  Times, or  what?

      This  is  the  site  I  was  referring  to:

      http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/recycleco2.html

      Where  do  you  get  the  idea  that  this  American  Energy  Independence  site  came  from  the  New  York  Times? Or  is  this  deliberate  dishonest  falsification  on  your  part  to  discredit  where  I  got  it  from? Can  you  honestly  provide  me  with  some  more  info  that  this  is  originally  a  NYT  article? 

      Furthermore, you  are  making  the  same  error  of  flawed  logic  and  reasoning  that  most  arrogant  and  closed-minded  conservatives  make  these  days...the  assumption  that  a  lack  of  evidence  or  proof  constitutes  the  same  thing  as  proof ..when  that  is  not  necessarily  the  case. Rather, I  would  rather  take  a  neutral  position  of  "I  don't  know  for  sure" rather  than  already  condemn  and  dismiss  something  out  of  hand  already  just  because  I  am  having  the  same  hard  time  as  you  are  at  hunting  down  this  thing. But  just  because  I'm  having  a  hard  time  finding  such  claims  again  does  not  mean  they  never  existed, or that  I'm  making  it  up (regardless  of  whether  there  is  any  credible  substance  to  the  claims  or  not). Why  would  I  fabricate  the  fact  that  I  have  indeed  read  about  other  researchers  making  such  claims  in  the  past?

      As  for  myself, I  can't  really  see  how  diamagnetic  CO2  can  do  anything  unless  it  has  been  ionized. But  neutral  CO2  by  itself  without  either  ionization  or  magnetization  seems  incapable  of  anything. These  are  the  only  two  scientifically  known  methods  that  can  cause  any  mass  to  interact  with  a  magnetic  field  that  I  know  of. If  there's  any  other  means, I'd  like  to  know  about  it.

[azmanam]

when  you  refer  to  NYT, are  you  talking  about  the  New  York  Times, or  what?

      This  is  the  site  I  was  referring  to:

      http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/recycleco2.html

      Where  do  you  get  the  idea  that  this  American  Energy  Independence  site  came  from  the  New  York  Times? Or  is  this  deliberate  dishonest  falsification  on  your  part  to  discredit  where  I  got  it  from? Can  you  honestly  provide  me  with  some  more  info  that  this  is  originally  a  NYT  article?

This one's pretty easy, actually.  You first talk about it in reply #16 in this thread and link to that site.  I went to that site and found the section to which you are referring:

Scientists Would Turn Greenhouse Gas Into Gasoline(<--click on this link -ed.)—If two scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory are correct, people will still be driving gasoline-powered cars 50 years from now, churning out heat-trapping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere — and yet that carbon dioxide will not contribute to global warming. 
     The scientists, F. Jeffrey Martin and William L. Kubic Jr., are proposing a concept, which they have patriotically named Green Freedom™, for removing carbon dioxide from the air and turning it back into gasoline. 
     The idea is simple. Air would be blown over a liquid solution of potassium carbonate, which would absorb the carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide would then be extracted and subjected to chemical reactions that would turn it into fuel: methanol, gasoline or jet fuel. 
     This process could transform carbon dioxide from an unwanted, climate-changing pollutant into a vast resource for renewable fuels. The closed cycle — equal amounts of carbon dioxide emitted and removed — would mean that cars, trucks and airplanes using the synthetic fuels would no longer be contributing to global warming.  More...(<-- or this link -ed.)

Clicking on either of those links takes you to a NYT article from February 2008:

February 19, 2008
Scientists Would Turn Greenhouse Gas Into Gasoline
By KENNETH CHANG

If two scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory are correct, people will still be driving gasoline-powered cars 50 years from now, churning out heat-trapping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere — and yet that carbon dioxide will not contribute to global warming.

The scientists, F. Jeffrey Martin and William L. Kubic Jr., are proposing a concept, which they have patriotically named Green Freedom, for removing carbon dioxide from the air and turning it back into gasoline.

The idea is simple. Air would be blown over a liquid solution of potassium carbonate, which would absorb the carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide would then be extracted and subjected to chemical reactions that would turn it into fuel: methanol, gasoline or jet fuel.

This process could transform carbon dioxide from an unwanted, climate-changing pollutant into a vast resource for renewable fuels. The closed cycle — equal amounts of carbon dioxide emitted and removed — would mean that cars, trucks and airplanes using the synthetic fuels would no longer be contributing to global warming.

Although they have not yet built a synthetic fuel factory, or even a small prototype, the scientists say it is all based on existing technology.

...

[tasmodevil44]

azmanam:

I  conducted  a  background  search  of  the  NYT  website  and  it  is  indeed  an  exact  copycat  of  parts  of  the  AEI  website. I  was  surprised  when  you  first  mentioned  this, because  at  first  I  could  not  find  a  reference  to  the  NYT  anywhere. The  AEI  is  compilation  of  general  discussions  of  work  on  CO2  capture  in  general  by  various  researchers  all  over  the  world. Parts  of  the  AEI  site  are  copied  word  for  word. Did  NYT  copycat directly  from  AEI  or  visa  versa (AEI  copied  from  NYT)?

      The  potassium  carbonate  chemical  method  of  CO2  capture  they  describe  is  a  very  old  one. I  don't  see  how  it  could  be  very  practical  because  of  the  enormous  scale  involved. Even  with  another  active  chemical  in  aqueous  solution  like  you  described, it  seems  like  it  would  be  an  incredibly  huge  undertaking  to  capture  enough  CO2  to  supply  even  a  tiny  fraction  of  overall  transportation  sector  needs.

      In  another  part  of  the  same  AEI  site, they  talk  about  the  creation  of  a  new  company  called  Global  Research  Technologies. They  have  invented  an  artificial  tree  called  an ACCESS  unit, which  they  continue  to  refine  and  develop. I  wonder  what  kind  of  chemical  process  it  might  use?

[tasmodevil44]

azmanam:

Also, when  I  was  describing  a  patented  invention  that  works  in  a  sort  of  "reverse  order" for  separation  of  atmospheric  CO2  with  a combination  of  a  magnetic  field  and  porous  membranes, I  did  indeed  accidentally  misquote  nitrogen  as  being  paramagntic  like  oxygen, when  in  fact  nitrogen  is  diamagnetic  and  repelled  away  from  a  magnetic  field. The  oxygen  is  attracted  one  way  through  a  porous  membrane, while  the  diamagnetic  nitrogen  is  repelled  the  opposite  way  through  another  membrane, leaving  a  higher  concentration  of  less  magnetically  interactive  CO2  between  the  two  membranes.

      Like  I  already  stated  on  a  previous  post, air  has  to  flow  through  the  device  itself, and  is  not  capable  of  externally  drawing  CO2  from  the  air  even  over  a  short  distance. This  method  of  magnetic  extraction  that  works  in  a  sort  of  "reversed  order" by  removing  everything  else  but  the  CO2  is  probably  the  only  practical  way  to  do  it.

      All  other  methods  to  make  CO2  itself  more  interactive  with  a  magnetic  field  seems  to  be  a  longshot. It's  very  unlikely  the  magnetic  property  of  CO2  itself  can  be  changed (although  I've  read  such  claims  in  the  past, and  now  have  a    hard  time  finding  any  more...altough  lack  of  proof  does  not  mean  the  claims  were  never  made, but  the claims  themselves  may  be  suspect).

      Which  leaves  us  with  the  option  of  ionization  instead  of  magnetization, which  still  seems  impractical  at  this  point  unless  some  sort  of  a  major  breakthrough  or  discovery  can  be  made. There  could  be  all  kinds  of  unintended  consequences.Not  just  birds, but  what  if  an  airplane  flew  into  a  powerful  microwave  or  laser? And  the  construction  of  a superconducting  magnet  capable  of  extracting  significant  quantities  of  CO2  would  be  prohibitively  expensive. So  that  unless  some  major  discovery  or  breakthrough  occurs, it  still  can't  compete  with  chemical  means  of  CO2  capture. ( build  a  super  CO2  ionization  laser  the  size  of  the  State  of  Texas...oops...just  shot-down  NASA's  shuttle ! ! ! LOL ! ! !     )     

 

[tasmodevil44]

This  may  forever  remain  just  an  academic  matter  of  general  discussion. But  I  still  don't  consider  it  absolutely  SF  type  of  TOTALLY  impossible...just  ALMOST  impossible. Unexpected  and  unforseen  advances  have  a  way  of  finding  a  way  when  there  is  none. You  can't  always  accurately  predict  the  future, and  it  would  be  arrogant  to  even  try. But  with  current  knowledge  and  technology, it's  definitely  a  longshot  that  probably  won't  happen  very  soon.   

[billnotgatez]

It is grating when I here the word arrogant in debating.

and it would be arrogant to even try