Is CO2 + H2O > CH2O, O2 Possible?

[Jimmini]

The reason I am asking this question is because photosynthesis allows for it. http://tonga.usp.edu/jsnow/chem343/chapter18.pdf

Is it possible that in the tropopause that the Joule-Thomson throttling process allows for CO2 and H2O to collide or have another interaction that allows for the carbon molecule to move from CO2 to H2O allowing for CH2O and O2 to occur ? All 4 molecules are found in the tropopause.
What I am wondering about is if CO2 expands, if H2O might be attracted to a CO2 molecules because a CO2 molecule retains it's heat better than other molecules in a Joule-Thomson Field.

 

[mfb]

Did you check the energy balance?
Did you check how many intermediate steps photosynthesis does?

It is not impossible, but the rate is completely negligible.

 

[Charles Link]

The enthalpy of combustion of a carbohydrate is given in a google of it as 4.20 kCal/gram. With M.W. of $C H_2 O$ unit equal to 30 (grams/mole), that makes for 126 kCal/mole for the combustion process. The process of the synthesis of carbohydrate from $CO_2$ and $H_2 O$ (which is the reverse process of combustion) as @mfb mentions in post #2 is extremely unfavorable from an energy standpoint.

 

[Jimmini]

mfb and Charles,
As demonstrated by Joule and Thomson, when work is performed to expand a field, that field cools.

> Did you check the energy balance? <
Conservation of Momentum suggests that the energy balance would remain the same. This is because the atomic
mass would remain the same. It would just be a different expression.

With what I am wondering is if in the lower tropopause/upper troposphere if a CO2 and an H2O molecule were to collide, would a water molecule have sufficient energy to break the double covalent bond that a carbon element has with the 2 oxygen
molecules.
edited because sentence was fragmented

edited to add; the following link https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncw/f/felixj2008-1.pdf shows on page 33 where
Methanol and Formaldehyde %DOC,
Methanol and formaldehyde in the rain events accounted for 1.46% and 2.08% of the dissolved organic carbon (DOC), respectively.
This is because more DOC is seen in storms originated over land.

 

[Charles Link]

mfb and Charles,
As demonstrated by Joule and Thomson, when work is performed to expand a field, that field cools.

> Did you check the energy balance? <
Conservation of Momentum suggests that the energy balance would remain the same. This is because the atomic
mass would remain the same. It would just be a different expression.

With what I am wondering is if in the lower tropopause/upper troposphere if a CO2 and an H2O molecule were to collide, would a water molecule have sufficient energy to break the double covalent bond that a carbon element has with the 2 oxygen
molecules.
edited because sentence was fragmented

edited to add; the following link https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncw/f/felixj2008-1.pdf shows on page 33 where
Methanol and Formaldehyde %DOC,
Methanol and formaldehyde in the rain events accounted for 1.46% and 2.08% of the dissolved organic carbon (DOC), respectively.
This is because more DOC is seen in storms originated over land.

If my calculations are correct, the 124 kcal/mole is approximately 4 eV per single $CO_2$ molecule. Computing $k_B T=E$ where $k_B$ is Boltzmann's constant says it would require temperatures near T=40,000 degrees Kelvin to get appreciable numbers of molecules with sufficient kinetic energy to separate the $CO_2$. The alternative is that UV photons (energy is in the E=4 eV range) from the sun could separate the $CO_2$. It's certainly possible. Assuming you did generate some $CH_2 O$ molecules, one question would be, would the $CH_2 O$ spontaneously interact with any $O_2$ that was present? The answer appears to be not necessarily=e.g. you don't get spontaneous combustion with sugar cubes=the reaction with $O_2$ requires an appreciable activation energy. With a considerable amount of UV from the sun in the upper atmosphere, the formation of $CH_2 O$ molecules in the upper atmosphere would seem to be a possibility. Further study would be in order to see if it actually takes place in any significant amounts, e.g. spectroscopic analysis of air and/or water samples, etc.

 

[mfb]

Conservation of Momentum suggests that the energy balance would remain the same. This is because the atomic
mass would remain the same.

The molecule masses do not, but relativistic mass-energy equivalence doesn't help here.

With what I am wondering is if in the lower tropopause/upper troposphere if a CO2 and an H2O molecule were to collide, would a water molecule have sufficient energy to break the double covalent bond that a carbon element has with the 2 oxygen
molecules.

No.

 

[Jimmini]

Charles,
Thank you very much. For me, I tend to think of Cold Fusion. Basically, the rearrangement of molecules to seek an equilibrium with their environment. With van der Waals forces, stored energy can be released when there is a collision. And it would be this energy release that could increase the kinetic energy of an h2o molecule. And it would be the 2nd collision that could allow for change.
What might be a simple way to test such a hypothesis is to expand atmospheric gases in a cylinder until the temperature lowers to that of the upper troposphere or the tropopause. Then when the cylinder is returned to it's original position, then sampling can be done. Then if it shows that there is a decrease in certain molecules and an increase in others, then further study could be pursued.

edited to change content

 

[mfb]

There is no energy released in the reaction. You have to add (a lot of) energy to make that reaction happen, and apart from help of UV radiation and similar outer sources, the reaction simply cannot happen.
This has nothing to do with nuclear fusion.

 

[Charles Link]

There is no energy released in the reaction. You have to add (a lot of) energy to make that reaction happen, and apart from help of UV radiation and similar outer sources, the reaction simply cannot happen.
This has nothing to do with nuclear fusion.

I agree with @mfb here. And to basically reiterate what mfb is saying, there is no need to confuse or mix very simple physics that can and often does occur with items such as cold fusion that hold no scientific merit.

 

[Jimmini]

I will need to disagree. This is primarily because van der Waal stated that energy is stored under such conditions. It is also noted that in a Joule-Thomson effect that the temperature lowers because there are fewer collisions. This does suggest that collisions between gases allow for both pressure and heat. As such, it is possible to test such a hypothesis. If atmospheric gases were expanded using positive displacement only (the expansion of a cylinder or the movement in one direction of a piston), with a force of 1.031 kg/cm^2, there would still be pressure. This is because collisions would still be occurring.
And if further expansion were allowed for, then at a force of 2.062 kg/cm^2, there would still be pressure. And why would such a basic observation be missed ? The simple answer is because it is possible that no one has bothered to expand gases by using a negative load. Instead, it might always be a venturi effect which is being measured. And those are 2 different things.

 

[mfb]

I will need to disagree.

If you feel the need to be wrong: fine.

Look up the binding energies of the molecules. CO2 and H2O are tightly bound molecules, breaking them up needs much more energy than forming CH2O or O2 releases. Van-der-waals forces are negligible compared to those energies.

It is also noted that in a Joule-Thomson effect that the temperature lowers because there are fewer collisions.

Correlation does not imply causation.

This does suggest that collisions between gases allow for both pressure and heat.

What does "allow for both pressure and heat" mean?

If atmospheric gases were expanded using positive displacement only (the expansion of a cylinder or the movement in one direction of a piston), with a force of 1.031 kg/cm^2, there would still be pressure. This is because collisions would still be occurring.

Gas always has a pressure, how is this related to the topic?

And why would such a basic observation be missed ?

Which observation? That gas always has a pressure?

The simple answer is because it is possible that no one has bothered to expand gases by using a negative load. Instead, it might always be a venturi effect which is being measured.

That statement doesn't make sense at all.

 

[Jimmini]

@Staff,
This is an experiment that I have considered trying. I have not found where anything like it has been tried. As for what a negative load is. If force reduces the pressure that atmospheric gases exert, it can be considered as a negative potential while a force that increases pressure can be considered as a positive load.

 

[rootone]

Yes photosynthesis does achieve this, but it is a long set of reactions involving steps using complex molecules as catalysts and energy carriers.
IIRC there are two steps during which photons are absorbed by chlorophyll or other pigments.
The net reaction thus is necessarily requiring input of energy to drive it.

 

[Jimmini]

rootone,
You might have just hit the nail on the head with the hammer.
> The net reaction thus is necessarily requiring input of energy to drive it. <

With the following chart, it shows vacuum in relation to altitude. And this is based on 1.031 kg/cm^2
as a base pressure. It would need to be shown be shown that under controlled circumstances that
when atmospheric gases are expanded, that more than 1.031 kg/cm^2 of force is needed.
Then the potential energy stored might be greater than previously considered..
If so, then when a collision does occur, then it might be possible that a sufficient discharge of energy
has occurred.http://www.orbitec.com/documents/Orbitec_Vacuum_Reference.pdf

 

[mfb]

It would need to be shown be shown that under controlled circumstances that
when atmospheric gases are expanded, that more than 1.031 kg/cm^2 of force is needed.

You don't "need" this force, the gas provides it. And you certainly don't need more.

Note that your units are a mass density, not a force or pressure.

If so, then when a collision does occur, then it might be possible that a sufficient discharge of energy
has occurred.

That statement doesn't make sense.

 

[Jimmini]

mfb,
It is possible that the Van Allen Radiation Belt expands our atmosphere. If so, then this means that our atmosphere between the Arctic and Antarctic Circles is influenced by this opposing force. By expanding gases in a cylinder, then if the force kg/cm^2 is greater than 1.031 kg/cm^2, it might be considered that the Van Allen Radiation Belt similarly exerts force on our atmosphere. And if you're wondering, because more molecules of atmospheric gases are between those 2 circles, then because gases have attractive forces, there are more collisions which allow for a warmer atmosphere. And in the Arctic and in Antarctica, because there are fewer gas molecules m^3, there are fewer collisions and this is why the Arctic and Antarctic are much cooler.
What needs to be remembered is that gravity would be an opposing force where the Van Allen radiation Belt is concerned.
Molecules store energy, right ? Then when 2 collide, the resulting collision could release stored energy. This in turn would lower the kinetic energy that those molecules had.
Still, if it can be shown that by expanding atmospheric gases using more than 1.031 kg/cm^2 of force to achieve both a drop in temperature and vacuum that is the same as our upper atmosphere, it would suggest that external forces do affect our atmosphere.

 

[mfb]

Sorry, but like this the thread is going nowhere. You keep adding random unconnected things and make up statements and questions that just don't make sense.

I suggest that you start with learning the basics first.

 

[Jimmini]

Staff,
And yet why CH2O is found in elevated levels in rain water over urban areas is not known.

 

[Jimmini]

p.s., with the experiment that I referred to, if it generates ch2o and o2, I would say that when a CO2 molecule is sufficiently expanded, that it tries to absorb an h2o molecule.
Both thermodynamics and conservation of momentum allow for this.

 

[mfb]

And yet why CH2O is found in elevated levels in rain water over urban areas is not known.

If in doubt, some organism is producing it. Producing via UV radiation has also been mentioned.

p.s., with the experiment that I referred to, if it generates ch2o and o2, I would say that when a CO2 molecule is sufficiently expanded, that it tries to absorb an h2o molecule.
Both thermodynamics and conservation of momentum allow for this.

No they do not. What you are suggesting is the equivalent of "my car often ends up on the roof of a house if my dog bumps into it". No it does not.

 

[russ_watters]

Jimmini, whether you realize it or not, you are talking gibberish here and you aren't listening to the good advice/direction you are being given. This thread is going nowhere and is locked.