October 18, 20169 yr Just bumped into a very recent article disclosing a new method to turn carbon dioxide "pollution" into valuable ethanol (ethyl alcohol). http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/a23417/convert-co2-into-ethanol/ It looks like a wonderful process for pollution control. SLAG.
October 18, 20169 yr Great, a whole generation of Coleridge degenerate will be going for chemistry majors.... move over meth cooks, a knew moonshiner has come to town!
October 18, 20169 yr Well remember Thomas de Quincey's quote about drinking....(not the one about the teapot though)
October 18, 20169 yr And here is the link to the Oak Ridge release, in which is a link to the specific paper on this process. Appears to have some bonus material beyond the scope of the PM article. I hope I get time to read this soon.... https://www.ornl.gov/news/nano-spike-catalysts-convert-carbon-dioxide-directly-ethanol Robert Taylor Edited October 18, 20169 yr by Anachronist58 grammar
October 18, 20169 yr I skimmed it (not being a chemist or a nano film engineer) and sent it along to a chemist grind of mine as "chemist porn" waiting to see his response.
October 18, 20169 yr Author Senor Stevens, & Herr T. P Sugar fermentation with brewers yeast is a much cheaper, simpler, and faster way to produce ethanol. (I. e. drinking alcohol) Messing with nanotechnology is complicated and over my head. No. WAY over my head. The reported process, & catalyst has the potential to use massive amounts of waste carbon dioxide, an air pollutant and agent of global warming. Ethanol can be used as a fuel (which could produce more CO2), but it is an important feedstock for all manner of more complicated organic chemicals. Fear not, Senor Stevens, kids start chemistry by fiddling with substances. Gunpowder manufacturing started me in at 6 years old. They dabble with it, starting quite young T. P. would you please quote the 2 Dequincy aphorisms you allude to. Thank you. Cheers, SLAG.
October 18, 20169 yr If I must; Drinking is in the middle: “If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination. Once begun upon this downward path, you never know where you are to stop. Many a man has dated his ruin from some murder or other that perhaps he thought little of at the time.” ― Thomas de Quincey Perhaps after procrastination one could add "posting on the internet" And very much reminiscent of my college years: "Paint me an eternal teapot, for usually I drink tea from 8 o'clock at night to 4 o'clock in the morning" ― Thomas de Quincey
October 18, 20169 yr Author T. P. Ah yes, "the parade of horribles". The "slippery slope" argument for the simple minded. Yes indeed, smoking cannabis inexorably leads to opiate addiction. (heroin even!) By that line of reasoning most of such addicts started out life as imbibers of breast milk (or formula). BAN IT!!! and save humanity forthwith! Now permit me to dismount from my high horse & rejoin humanity. Regards to all. SLAG. Could it be that posting on the internet could be a form of procrastination? Could it, I wonder.
October 18, 20169 yr Actually the slippery slope goes the other way: starting off with little flaws and working to large ones; perhaps this is the slippery ski slope? Starting off with major items and leading to minor ones...
October 18, 20169 yr A curious fellow, this de Quincy. Hydrocarbon combustion will be the engine of Human Endeavor for quite some time to come. The key for weathering the future changes will be in the development of closed-system oxidation/sequestration of carbon. Adiabatic efficiency (some law of Thermodynamics) only exists in models - The question for which we await an answer is, will this this technology be scalable to produce a net reduction in CO2 emissions. Since I am neither a mathematician, nor an earth scientist, I have no position concerning "climate change". Additionally, I have put myself out on a limb. Feel free to test your saws. Robert
October 19, 20169 yr Dan, you suggest fermentation as a more efficient method of producing ethanol, you do know CO2 is a byproduct yes? sounds like a win win to me. Frosty The Lucky.
October 19, 20169 yr Here's one for you. What's the most common Answer in Quantum Physics? Frosty The Lucky.
October 19, 20169 yr Author Frosty I believe it is "Why is there air?" and the profound answer is "because". SLAG.
October 19, 20169 yr I remember a classic question from a chemistry final: The sky is blue, use this to prove avogadro's number (deals with molar refractivity; though one answer was "the sky is blue which reminds me of the cover of my copy of the CRC and on page.....") Luckily it was not my final; just one my Sister was grading...
October 23, 20169 yr On 10/19/2016 at 11:05 AM, Frosty said: Not even close guys. Frosty The Lucky. I going to say, "I don't know", is the most common answer. "Richard Feynman once said, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."[67] According to Steven Weinberg, "There is now in my opinion no entirely satisfactory interpretation of quantum mechanics."[68]" (from Wikipedia, "Quantum Mechanics".) Robert Taylor
October 23, 20169 yr 6 hours ago, Anachronist58 said: I going to say, "I don't know", is the most common answer. "Richard Feynman once said, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."[67] According to Steven Weinberg, "There is now in my opinion no entirely satisfactory interpretation of quantum mechanics."[68]" (from Wikipedia, "Quantum Mechanics".) Robert Taylor "I don't know," is RIGHT! Robert wins! I can picture Feynman rolling his eyes when he said that, the very insane nature of Quantum "theory" was right up his ally. I think a lot less of Weinberg, he's smart but he seems to have to impress people with how smart he is. Seriously there is nothing entirely satisfactory about any interpretation of quantum anything. It is at best a LITTLE better description of what little we can see of the sub atomic universes than those preceding it. I don't think it should be called a theory even it's more a good, maybe better hypotheses. However mathematical proofs are starting to look likely soon. Frosty The Lucky.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.