Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
You think: Aha! We go: ha, ha.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                         

Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register. Please log in or create an account.

Diamond CO2 Press

 An integrated CO2-to-Diamonds press/filter/catalyst/device
  (+1, -6)(+1, -6)
(+1, -6) 		  [vote for,
against]

I propose that fuelled cars should have a Carbon in CO2 to diamond material press/filter/????/device, so that the CO2 input could be converted to pure Carbon as in Diamonds, and pure O2, benefitting plants, trees, and humans.
—sirau, Sep 29 2007

Diamonds from CO2 https://www.llnl.gov/str/Yoo.html
[mylodon, Jun 08 2008]

More Diamonds from CO2 http://www.newscien...greenhouse-gas.html
[mylodon, Jun 08 2008]

[link]






       It would be tough on people who own diamond mines.
—bungston, Sep 29 2007
   

       How does it work? Wishful thinking?
—ldischler, Sep 29 2007
   

       Or pure carbon as in graphite might be a little easier. Or just some lampblack? (also primary industry for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, second only to potassium.) And don't plants, trees use CO2?
—the dog's breakfast, Sep 29 2007
   

       You used a carbon-based fuel to power your car. The carbon is oxidized into CO2, yielding energy. In order to split the CO2 back into carbon and oxygen, you must put the exact same amount of energy back. No energy is left over for running your car. You are stranded, and searching for even more energy to run your carbon-to-diamonds operation.   

       Pure O2 is of no benefit to plants and trees. They would get along just fine - be happier, in fact - with little or no oxygen present.
—lurch, Sep 29 2007
   

       Now [lurch], eliminating oxygen would leave a nasty hole in the periodic table.
—bungston, Sep 29 2007
   

       Oooooops - yeah. *Free* oxygen, I should have said. Bound oxygen they would need.   

       [bungston], tell me - the periodic table sounds so final. Have we no tables based on other puctuations?
—lurch, Sep 29 2007
   

       //They would get along just fine - be happier, in fact - with little or no oxygen present.//   

       They would indeed get along just fine, except they'd all die. Plants respire continuously; they just happen to produce a net excess of oxygen through photosynthesis in certain tissues at certain times.
—MaxwellBuchanan, Sep 29 2007
   

       Thank you, [Max]. One of those things I always thought I knew. When forced to look squarely at the problem, I quickly realized I was completely wrong. A seed cannot perform photosynthesis; it must oxidize sugars and starches for energy. Obvious, right? OK, now I gotta go take inventory of what other things that I "know" that may have been based on this spurious factoid.   

       As to the idea: maybe I should just say 'less', not 'none'.
—lurch, Sep 29 2007
   

       [lurch], you are pulling my leg, I hope.
—normzone, Sep 29 2007
   

       //Have we no tables based on other puctuations?//   

       HA! None that I can find after a quick google search.   

       Oh, and what [frank] said
—bleh, Sep 29 2007
   
      
[annotate]
   


 

back: main index
business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle