Carbon Monoxide Question

Sure.

What gas did you have in mind?

I've discovered a way to convert lead into gold, so gasses won't be too difficult.

Very cool. Could it be possible to convert carbon monoxide to an asphyxiant oxidizing gas?

Do your thinking somewhere else.

You sound dangerous.

Thanks guy

I'm not a chemical engineer by any means. I only have an idea that I'm trying to turn into a reality and a business, however, I can't find anything on my topic. Maybe because its not possible, or maybe it hasn't been done before.

I am just trying to learn and figure it out myself before I waste money.

Maybe you should Google "asphyxiant oxidizing gas"

It kills people.

He doesn't want to poison them. As I understand it Carbon monoxide as a poison is a pretty peaceful way to go. He wants them to suffer so an asphyxiant.

blue death?

Basic Chemistry says just burn it and use the heat to raise steam for a power plant or produce a chemical intermediate. Put it through the Fischer-Tropsh reaction to make gasoline or synthetic oils, etc...

This is a quite simple task for the right person with the right skills and knowledge. Alchemists are known for realigning the properties of gasses since the early days of chemistry. It is advantageous to know the processes used and their symbols. The following are a few steps of the alchemist's processes:

and the elements involved:

Their consulting fees vary depending upon the type of change and reactions involved.

Good Luck, Old Salt

Examples of asphyxiant gases are nitrogen, argon, helium, butane and propane. Along with trace gases such as carbon dioxide and ozone, these compose 79% of Earth's atmosphere. The atmosphere is mostly harmless because the remaining 21% is O₂. The catalytic converter on your car converts carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons into carbon dioxide and water...

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cctc.201000378/abstract

Yeah! nothing quite like that cheap and abundant Platinum stuff to use as a catalyst.

CO is already an asphyxiant gas (it doesn't support respiration) Another advantage, if you want to kill somebody, is that it's highly toxic.

If you said what oxidizing gas you have in mind you might answer your own question. CO is a reducing gas, used as such in eg metal extraction and to produce hydrogen from steam in the Bosch process.

WHY???

What are you trying to do?????

Well you think you're so smart!!!!!

I've discovered a way to convert GOLD into LEAD!

Ha take that!

What, no link to one of the many online minerals trading websites (oooh, the secrets out).

No.

It isn't real lead anyway. it's pencil lead!

Alchemy... Who knew?

That's easy. You can turn one pound of gold into 22,500# of lead without any magic at all. Minus broker's fees.

"I've discovered a way to convert GOLD into LEAD!"

You mean 'Junk Bonds'? Those are pretty good at turning investors gold into lead, or other, smellier, undesired substances.

Your comment "Is it possible to pass carbon monoxide through a synthetic compound/or newly created gas/liquid catalyst that in turn creates a brand new gas" tells me that you have very limited knowledge of chemistry.

Theoretically, it's possible to do a lot of things. Are you looking for a way to "neutralize" CO from a safety/life-saving viewpoint? You've given some of your thoughts, but not your motivation. It is more difficult to focus problem solving techniques when we don't know what you're driving at.

Don't justthink, bring some focus and direction to bear. :-)

There are some very interesting uses for carbon monoxide, it can be converted to fuel via Fisher-Tropsch process for one...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process

Classical Orsat apparatuses use a reagent that absorbs (or adsorbs) CO. Maybe that could lead to some idea.

That's a very interesting idea, I will definitely look more into it.

Yes, just add O2.

Add Oxygen and burn it. Produces CO².

Why? What are you trying to accomplish exactly?

To better clarify, I AM NOT TRYING TO KILL OR HARM ANYONE haha.

And to expand further on my questions, what I would really like to do is have the CO pass through a small chamber filled with what ever substance/compound there is, so once the CO passes through that chamber it will come out in a totally different non-toxic and non-flammable gas product.

in chamber out

CO -> CO + x (unknown) = non-toxic gas

(CO will be constantly moving through the chamber)

Consider what I'm trying to make a very small version of a catalytic converter thats used in cars, but without out the metal casing a large bulky equipment and direct influx of the other gas used to convert - I'm trying to figure it out so the reactor gas/liquid is already in the catalyst. I also read somewhere that there are synthetic compounds in the form of liquids that increase CO, so shouldn't it be possible to do the exact opposite and lower CO?

As others have said

CO -> CO + 0₂ = Carbon Dioxide.

About as simple and safe as you can get unless you also want to cool and compress the gas into a solid for safer disposal. I cannot think of a simple and safer compound than this.

What quantities of gas are we talking here?

Can you please explain the science behind compressing the o2 into a solid, that could be what I am looking for. As for quantaties of gas, the CO could range from 5.9 to 17.4 mg - not sure if thats the measurement you are looking for.

Also does it have to be an exact gas measurement for the reactor to work?

Not sure I only know that it can and is being done.

Try an internet search of "compressing carbon dioxide into a liquid" and "dry ice" (the solid form of carbon dioxide).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_ice

The quantities of CO are rather meaningless without knowing the flow rate of the rest of the gas stream over a period of time.

What exactly is the application and where is the CO coming from? Is this from exhaust gas from an internal combustion engine?

No, its not the exhaust gas from an internal combustion engine. Think of the exhaust coming from lets say burning leaves or fire wood.

Btw I appreciate the quick replies, very helpful.

Wood smoke is an asphyxiant!

• Oxidation catalysts: Palladium (Pd) and platinum (Pt) metals in very small amounts (to keep the catalytic converter price down) convert the hydrocarbons of unburned gasoline and carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide and water.

How small can you go with this process?

Can the hydrocarbons of unburned gasoline be compressed to a solid that can be held in a chamber then released upon command, or even react once the CO comes into contact with the solid?

Not easily as there are numerous by products from an internal combustion engine exhaust (that's what we are talking about there isn't it?).

You could perhaps pass the exhaust gas through a water filter in line with the exhaust pipe to absorb the pollutants but you won't easily be able to separate and extract them back out of the water, and I am not sure the engine would work with the back pressure created.

Why do you want to do this anyway?

What specific gasses are you dealing with and which ones are you interested in if not just CO?

What's the gas source (is it an atmosphere-feed internal combustion engine or something else)?

It's actually not an engine that I'm working on, more of a device that is atmosphere fed. And the only gas I need to focus on worrying about is CO.

The oxidation catalyst seems to be what I'm looking for, however, scaling to the size I need and working within the constraints of the materials for my products converter seems to be the real challenge

If it were easy, it would already have been done.

Interesting.

Why do you think there is a market for removing CO from the atmosphere? CO2, well yes, but CO?

Not necessarily removing CO from the atmosphere directly, but removing it from a product that produces it. If I can figure it out and actually carry out my idea I truly believe it will make a MASSIVE difference in the world.

Even though the replies I'm getting are just scratching the surface of what I'm trying to do, it's progress. However, I just wanted to poke the minds of people that are talented in this area before I commit to hiring someone and moving further.

If you feel like you want to help and be a part of something that could be revolutionary or if you are just curious to see what this is all about, please email me at: ***

Thanks everyone, I appreciate all the replies.

CR4 ADMIN - email address removed From the CR4 Rules: Do not post phone numbers or email addresses. The CR4 Admin will delete all phone numbers and email addresses posted in threads or comments. You can share this information via the CR4 internal messaging system.

Email addresses will be deleted by admin as they are spam magnets. CR4 however has a private messaging facility that can be used for this purpose.

Sorry about that, didn't know.

Anyone that is interested, shoot me a private message for more details. Thanks.

I have long since retired but my work was with compressed air breathing purifiers for respiratory protection.

Traditional method to remove CO was (and as far as I know) still is to use a catalyst. We are talking of low but lethal levels of CO in the atmosphere or generated by hot compressors that have to be removed continuously down to 5ppm in Europebut probably 10ppm elsewhere in the World.

Whether 10ppm or 5ppm, you have the same problems. Whilst it is easy to remover CO (it is oxidised to CO2), the catalyst is ruined by water vapour which is always present in % levels.

You must thoroughly dry the air first to sub-zero pressure dewpoints, and remove the oil and other likely foreseeable toxic contaminants as well - down to the levels required by the appropriate standard. EN12021 is the most recent publication for Europe. Keep an eye open for ISO16975 pt1 for the rest of the World - due late 2015 or early2016.

That's where the fun starts.

If you are looking at a product for this sort of application go and Google 'breathing air' and 'respiratory protection' and 'carbon monoxide removal' (in any or all combinations) and you will get millions of hits. The market is well developed.

Happy reading.

How about CO + Cl2 --> COCl2 This is phosgene; everyone's favorite WWI poison gas.

Carbon monoxide is due to inefficient burning of fuel and only way you can reduce is to have efficient burning system so that level of CO is minimized.

That is helpful, and often best, but it isn't the only way. Please read prior posts.

If you mean 'burning' (as an oxidation process) then yes, (except burning is not the only way - there are other chemical reactions as well - but perhaps with undesirable side effects).

The use of a catalyst enables 'burning' to take place efficiently at room temperatures. Albeit a high concentration of CO will cause the catalyst to heat up a lot - as witnessed by miners using self-rescue breathers.....

-----------

But why Off-Topic I wonder ??

Interesting discussion in some parts.

If your combustion process is making CO, then there is some level of inefficiency and you maybe should be adding more air (O2) to achieve complete combustion.

There have been some experiments that injected CO and other Hydrocarbons into solar heated (Focussed arrays) to create synthetic fuel gasses. CSIRO Australia has recently reported "success" results in this process.

I've seen the experimental array and it's not what would be called "portable"!

Yes, your CO does represent some potential energy source from the incomplete combustion. Converting that to a safe, readily used fuel is not so easy on small scale.

Is there a way to 'burn CO to 'complete' the transformation to CO2?

I'm asking mainly because of the warnings I saw on a set of plans for a 'carbon negative gassifier stove⁽¹⁾':

"Warning this device produces and consumes carbon monoxide, do not use indoors, in tents, cars..." (You know the rest, same warnings they give about charcoal grills)

Notes:

1. This stove⁽²⁾ places the fuel into an enclosed area, with a fire lit above the fuel to prime it. The fuel is headed in what becomes an oxygen-starved area, and so it does not burn, but instead releases its VOC's as a smoky gas, while the main body of the fuel 'bakes' into charcoal⁽³⁾. Air is headed as it's drawn up through an outer chamber so that it mixes with the VOCs above the fuel and maintains the fire. In action, you see the fuel with a haze of smoke above it, the smoke apearantly contained by a ring of fire jets emerging from the top of the air intake chamber.
2. Camp stove, really, about the size of a pint paint can.
3. Which is why it calls 'carbon negative,' what is left of the fuel is almost pure 'natural' charcoal, and if you bury that in the ground, or otherwise prevent it from being burned, you have 'sequestered' that carbon⁽⁴⁾.
4. For the ammount of carbon you can sequester per use, just a handful of charcoal, it's more of a 'feel good' act, or a 'teaching example' of how carbon sequesteration works, than it is an actual way to fight Global Warming.
   

Sugar solution and live east react to give CO2 and CO gas, this what I read in making mosquito trap..

Are you still alive?

Just askin....

Let's hope so.

Otherwise the earth will perish.

Yes, I'm, out of your mind, still in site…