Comments on: Green Carbon Dioxide Recycling Technology Emerging in British Columbia, a Feature of “Industry Today” on Industrialinfo.com

By: Sierra Rayne

Sierra Rayne — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 21:39:54 +0000

Viva’s ideas have been ‘run by’ a good number of people, including some very progressive researchers. Years later, and Viva still produces no data, no evidence, no nothing, just hot air. No one said “you need to generate more CO2 in order to split that which already exists”. Everyone who understands the laws of thermodynamics says that you need a lot of energy input to split CO2, in contrast to Viva’s claims (and what she received funding for), which is equivalent to a classic perpetual motion machine.

By your standards, every daydreaming quack who knows nothing about science and with no training whatsoever should get $100,000 of taxpayer money to play around in the 1-in-a-gazillion chance something useful may come of it. Sounds great, sign me up (except I actually am a scientist – so I may be pre-disqualified for actually having knowledge), I’ll take my free $100,000 for some crazy idea with no chance of success. Anyone else want free money for dumb ideas? Come to British Columbia, the Interior Science Innovation Council is giving it away and scientists and administrators at Thompson Rivers University will back you up.

By: Darren Lynch

Darren Lynch — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 18:05:50 +0000

Y’know, I’ve watched an enormous number of programmes put out by such reputable bodies as the UK’s Open University via the BBC, plus the BBC themselves about all kinds of scientific fields of study. One thing I’ve noticed over the years is that it’s ALWAYS the ones who are initially deemed to be radicals and dreamers who are eventually proved to be correct.

Perhaps if the established scientific community would pull it’s head out from between its 18th century knees and start opening up to new ideas, the state of this planet might actually improve.

You people need to stop and think. Who ever said that you need to generate more CO2 in order to split that which already exists? Hmmm? Who?

By: Sierra Rayne

Sierra Rayne — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 03:52:28 +0000

I suspect we are still all waiting for Ms. Cundliffe to reply to the valid scientific concerns raised above about her purported technology, particularly as her project received significant direct and indirect support from Bill McQuarrie (Executive Director) at the Interior Science Innovation Council, Dr. Tom Dickinson (Dean of Science) at Thompson Rivers University, Drs. Sharon Brewer and Bruno Cinel (Professors) in the Department of Chemistry at Thompson Rivers University, and the government of British Columbia. Perhaps one of these other individuals wishes to respond to the issues raised above by Don, Alex, and myself? With all the more promising work regarding carbon capture, storage, and conversion going on in real research labs by bona fide scientists (and in difficult economic times for granting agencies and industrial R&D support), it is troubling that these types of projects get attention and financial backing from a university and governmental/quasi-governmental agencies.

By: Sierra Rayne

Sierra Rayne — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:24:27 +0000

Alex is completely right on all fronts. Not only are there thermodynamic problems with the claims (i.e., it is energetically impossible to be anything other than a highly energy intensive process to split CO2), but there is no evidence in reliable research and development circles that such a process could be achieved. I would welcome seeing one reputable and well-established academic or industrial researcher provide a statement of support for the inventor’s purported claims. The inventor also apparently claims to be a “British Columbia-based environmental engineer”, yet there is no record of such an individual in the British Columbia Professional Engineer’s membership roster.

By: Viva

Viva — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:24:13 +0000

It’s quite genuine. There is the matter of electricity being inappropriately compared with fire in the context of CO2 reversal. Electricity is exponentially more powerful and faster than fire . It delivers joules at the speed of sound more efficiently than fire. If the system were disclosed to you fully you would see the numbers demonstrating this. The tempo of electricity and its efficiency combine with an ideal gas system which is protected from combustion continuously. A lot of people have neglected to keep the context of CO2 made from a mixed carbon fuel flame-dampened by Nitrogen combustion-separate from the context of pure CO2 with controlled conditions applied to it. You can obtain more answers after the technology is disclosed through the patent system. I apologize in advance for not replying to any further emails at this site. We, none of us believe in perpetual machines nor zero point or other such contraptions, for the record. Thank you

By: Alex

Alex — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:10:12 +0000

Has nobody (apart from Don) spotted the massive gaping hole in the thermodynamics of this system? If you want to split a molecule of CO2 into carbon and oxygen you need to supply energy equal to that which it released in the first place when the carbon was burned to create the CO2. This amount of energy cannot be altered by catalysts which only provide an alternative reacton path with a lower activation energy.

How does this system work without violating the laws of thermodynamics? This is especially pertinent as the claimed system uses electrical energy to operate which would therefore suffer from generation inefficiencies.

For example 1 mole of Carbon burned will release 393.5 Kj and produces 1 mole of CO2. Of this about 122kJ will be converted to electrical power in an average power plant . If this electrical power is used to split the CO2 molecules formed then it will allow one third of a mole of CO2 to be split and that is assuming that the bond splitting occurs with 100% efficiency with respect to energy supplied to the reaction system which is not even remotely likely.

Even if you do manage to circumvent the laws of thermodynamics how do you separate the atomised carbon from the oxygen before combustion reoccurs.

Can someone explain to me what I have missed that makes this system feasible? It just seems to be so full of holes that it can’t be genuine.

By: Don Pratt

Don Pratt — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:19:16 +0000

There is a fundimental law in physics. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Whilst this procedure may work, if the carbon produced contains more energy than the CO2 that went in one must ask where has that energy come from? Catalists apart where does the HEAT refered to come from and how much? The catalist may reduce the heat lost in the reaction but not all. As we in Yorkshire UK, say. You get nowt for nowt.