Heating/cooling and power tech thread thingy...

[NEOAethyr]

Ok here we post any sort of info on diff techs that could benifit each other sometime in the future.

So I'll start, I'de like to track down all the stuff I've seen so far but for now I'll start it off basic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh_-DUKQ4Uw
This uses a type of friction to heat water, I'm not sure if it's the smaller holes or the larger holes that create more heat then the other.
One would think the hotter the better but anyways this is just an alt method of water heating for the home or business.

This is my fav example of a vawt (verticle access wind turbine, doesn't need a tail...), this one is a prototype and made out of cardboard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOl7KZptCkY

An example of a solar dish array:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTQ4cFn5sXs

Some example of steam/sterling engines:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU6IstOVsew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll598PVTHAw

This one uses the sun to power it like it would as if it were a solar dish.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7YK3Gd0thg

Lol I just like the sound this steam engine has...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3E2tv8UgfU

There's more to post but I think this will do as a start.
Gasification and more sterling examples, etc etc.


Oh btw, you can burn salt water like fuel oil at 13.56mhz or 14mhz, not sure which yet or how many watts it takes before water is combustable.
I'm thinking of using it to power a scramjet or perhaps using hemp turned into wood pellets to gasifiy into wood gas for such a project.
That's a bit off topic though so I won't go into those details.

[desnudopenguino]

Erm... I find the first video a bit hard to believe... there is always, ALWAYS, a loss of energy. a 70% increase is coming from somewhere else in their system then, something they aren't telling you. The prototype in the 2nd video is interesting, but vertical wind turbines are, from what I heard from my profs, much less efficient than horizontal axis turbines, though that is a good start. Solar is cool but it is still one of the most inefficient energy resources we have (especially looking at the cost to make the panels and such) though they are getting much better than they were.

It's cool to see a fellow alternative energy guy. I have a friend here at school that is part of the team that holds the world record for the fastest wood burning auto. Do you have a project in mind, or just looking at what's out there?

[NEOAethyr]

I have a few projects in mind yes indeed.
I've been looking at several diff tech's to see if there's anything out there worth while.
Mainly to get my pc off the grid, or an phase unit off the grid, or a new type of cooling, etc etc.
I've also been studying rocketry and engines, for a side project.

The water heater thing, I'm not saying it's the best thing since taco's.
But if it can heat up water with just friction, it's interesting.
Might be louder then usual though, I don't know.

Gasification I have great interest in.
I theorize if a house had a good one, all they would need is a few full sized trees each year for electric.
You can't grow a full sized tree in a year, heck it takes half a lifetime...
But you can grow other things, waste products would work too.

Man I'de love to carry a pile of wood in the back of my car and just say screw it, I don't need no $4-6 a gal. gas .
That would rock, and if you made a good enough system for it it's supposedly much cleaner then gasoline (you could do the same for gas though, still...).


I would post more vid links but right now I'm so depressed.
1st my mom has a heart attack, then an uncle of mine has a fatal stroke.
To much lately...
I'll post some more vid's in the morning, I just don't feal like hunting some down right now.

[NEOAethyr]

I wanted to post this in the fukushima thread but I didn't want to get in trouble for going off topic.

I've been thinking about this few over a month now.

With ion thrusters...
Ion thrusters put out lots of ionic radiation, positive type.
In order to prevent corrosion and radiation issues, they equalize that out by putting out neg ions at the exhaust.

I was thinking, in theory, if you place a neg ion generator on site would it not help equalize out the positive type of ionic radiation?

One other theory I had.
Place a gen+filter system on site to force the ionic radiation in the air to hug the ground.
From there you shovel it up into containers and transport it off site to a decontamination plant of some sort (which they don't exist but it's the idea that counts).

The positive ionic radiation is only one of the types of hazards at that plant though.
There's beta and gamma rays too which I know nothing about yet.
And maybe x-rays and uv, maybe not so much uv now since the plant is no longer operational.

I was thinking, maybe it is possible to force the radiation to hug the ground where you could clean it up easier, and less worry about radiation spreading across the world and to animals of the region.

Obviously Tepco is a company that does nuke power, and that's probably the only thing they do.
So any sort of "options" are gonna come from people that only have experience with one thing, nuke power, and nothing else.
And I believe that might prevent them from thinking about alternatives that are different from the norm.

Do you guys think that this might work somehow?, I didn't mention a method or design or anything like that, just theory.

Another thing that can move pos ions is magnets.
Of a certain polarity.
I was thinking coulomb force and lorentz force could help direct the radiation into filters.
Even though the plant is putting off tons of radiation, maybe in theory it's possible to negate this and make it safe within 10mils of the plant semi permanently...

It's a shot in the dark though so that's why I'm asking what you guys think.

Pos charge a bunch of water and use it as fuel for space sats and probes, etc...
Or use the stuff in a big superconducting ring...
Granted you can supposedly cause a sub atomic explosion when you have enough pos and neg ions interact but that's kinda rare.

[Cooper]

I think you need to get back to school and stop posting nonsense in huge amounts.

[Serra]

I'm with Cooper on this.

We need to find a way to enforce a sobriety test here at XS. Something like a java applet that you must complete before you can log in which requires one to move a mouse through a maze in a short period of time without touching the edges.

[NEOAethyr]

It's not non-science dudes...
Just because I didn't build something that proves a theory doesn't mean we can't discuss it for the heck of it.

Uranium puts off positive ions.
Which attract to neg ion's.
If you setup a mesh array that were charge negatively, the effect should "pull" in any positively charged particles in the area.
Or at least equalize them out so they are less dangerous.

My theory is that this could increase cleanup productivity up to 200%.
The idea is that you don't bother messing with the already present neg ion charged particles, you only need to cleanup the pos charged ones.

While I know this is offtopic, I figured I'de put the idea out there for the heck of it to discuss.


Examples could include:

Mesh filters that collect particles in the air, by either pulling in the bad ones or the bad ones getting stuck to it by forcing them in in another way, like a simple fan.

Metal rods in the ground that attract or keep the bad particles close to them, preventing them from reaching ground water levels.

A suit that repels the bad particles by putting out a pos charge, dangerous sure, but it's just an idea.

Anyways instead of just saying of so full of it, why not say why?
It's not like this hasn't been thought up before...
So why not use it for such disasters like this?

In simple terms:
Think of it as a magnet, pulling in all the bad stuff to it where it can be collected from and stored away safely, instead of just letting it float and fly across the world.

I may not have my details correct but it was just a theory...

[Cooper]

You mixing ionization with radiation and valence which just shows you not really well informed in basic chemistry and physics.
The concept you offer is well knows for years but not implemented in PC cooling due to the costs and complexity.

[NEOAethyr]

Yeah I knows .
I figured that if you could make it easier to sort through the dirt/air and pick out the uranium and platinum it's self, you'd get rid of the other types of radiation along with it when you goto clean it up.


....
As for pc stuff and other things lol.
Are you talking about using ion wind generation for cooling cooper ???
Yeah that would not be a good idea for pc cooling.
Static charges, molecular breakdown, etc.
Ozone...
Most examples are all pos charged, even the engines that nippon, nasa and russland have produced are pos charged, with an extra neg output nozzle on the outtake for negating some of the issues associated with a pos ion.

I've been doing research on it once in a great while.
About plasma and etc.
They use all sorts of methods to charge the plasma but all of these methods equ's to the same thing.
What I have found though is that dc is the brute force method, while there's diff types of ac wavelengths that work just as well at lower voltages.

I haven't found any examples at all of a neg charged ion output except for this japanese product thing that plugs into your usb port to clean the air around your pc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JXSAOu20GI

Alot of these air pruifiers are just gimmicks apparently, I mean, most put off pos ion's and ozone .

Anyways the whole idea with that stuff is, air filtering of course...
Motherboard cooling.
And little flying saucer remote control things lol.
All this stuff needs to put off a neg charge not a pos one though, and it can't cause uv with a corona, visable or not.
Otherwise it's useless except for gen'ing nitrogen from oxygen or for space sat's.

I'de really like to fly around a remote control ufo lol and freak people out that would be funny...
The other reason is the mobo cooling with no noise.


There's other tech's to talk about of course that's just one thing lol.

[Serra]

Okay, because you're apparently serious, let's go through it. You asked for this.

It's not non-science dudes...

Do you mean "nonsense" (as Cooper suggested) or "non-science"? My goal in this post is to actually prove both, but we'll get to that.

As a side note - if you want to discuss "scientific" ideas regularly I would say that you will do yourself a big favor by giving your statements a spelling and grammar check prior to hitting the "submit" button. You tend to be taken more seriously that way, especially when English is in fact your first language. I'm not going to go through your post being a grammar nazi because I know that I am not perfect (I often revise posts because I tend to type in the same way that I think too), but it is something of an issue with you... especially when you start mixing up words like plATINum and plUTONIum (yes, you do that below).

Just because I didn't build something that proves a theory doesn't mean we can't discuss it for the heck of it.

Granted. However, there is a limit. Your "theory" as presented is like suggesting that we use ice cream to power a submarine... and asking why it wouldn't work. And asking for "discussion".

Uranium puts off positive ions.
Which attract to neg ion's.
If you setup a mesh array that were charge negatively, the effect should "pull" in any positively charged particles in the area.
Or at least equalize them out so they are less dangerous.

My theory is that this could increase cleanup productivity up to 200%.
The idea is that you don't bother messing with the already present neg ion charged particles, you only need to cleanup the pos charged ones.

I'll get to your "theory" a bit more in depth when responding to your previous post, but right here I want to ask how you qualify statements like the bolded one above. I understand hyperbole, but this highlights exactly what is wrong with nearly every idea you have put forward in any discussion on alternative energy - a lack of thinking the problem through from start to finish.

Personally I don't think your "ideas" would save any time. I think everything you suggested would create significantly more work, get in the way of other more important initiatives, cost thousands of times more while consuming more resources, take thousands of man hours away from important initiatives, and still have worse end results.

I've been thinking about this few over a month now.

With ion thrusters...
Ion thrusters put out lots of ionic radiation, positive type.
In order to prevent corrosion and radiation issues, they equalize that out by putting out neg ions at the exhaust.

I was thinking, in theory, if you place a neg ion generator on site would it not help equalize out the positive type of ionic radiation?

Okay, where to start?

0. Where do you mean by "on site"? Knowing that would help me take this apart a bit better. I'm going to assume we're talking about being in some kind of room with the radioactive material for the sake of the following points.

1. As a "bigger picture" issue, you do realize that your idea to solve the problem stemming from having too much energy in a small place is to put significantly more energy into that same place, right? Because fundamentally that is what you're planning. For the sake of the following points we'll assume it's a non-issue (though in reality it probably isn't).

2. When you consider that a high-end home "negative ion generator" is not even quite up to the task of handling a small room with ambient particles you quickly realize how large of a deployment this would need to be. We're talking about a giant system of meshes, all running with at LEAST 100,000 volts or (most likely) more. Do you start to see large practical issues with this? I mean, the equipment would be ungodly large (considering how getting things to the radioactive areas isn't easy), expensive, VERY fragile, etc. For the sake of the following points we'll assume it's a non-issue (though in reality it isn't).

2a. Accounting for wire transmission losses, conversion losses, and the like, the power draw for this thing would be ridiculous. I'm not going to try to come up with numbers, but it could well be worse than powering a small city. And this is in an area where power is spotty at best still.

3. Radiation would effect the entire contraption that generates negative ions. And we're talking about more than just hitting it with positive ions, we're talking about radiation from a number of different wavelengths. We could try to shield everything though... adding notably to the time to deployment, cost, and effectiveness of the entire contraption (every mm of shielding dramatically reduces effectiveness). For the sake of the following points we'll assume it's a non-issue (though in reality it isn't).

4. Even if you could make such a large contraption, how the devil would you install it? It's going to be more than large enough to make a simple robot infeasible, doubly so when you consider how quickly the radiation would destroy a robot (if not block your ability to control it all together). For the sake of the following points we'll assume it's a non-issue (though in reality it isn't).

5. I'm not saying that the ion machine would have to use copper, but I'm going to use it as an example for this point. In Fukushima the radioactive material is splitting hydrogen and oxygen. Even in the presence of a catalyst the material I have seen suggest the temperatures to do so would have to be in the area of 2000 degrees C. Copper melts at less than 1100C. I bring this up to emphasize that there are fundamental materials problems with your suggestion. For the sake of the following points we'll assume it's a non-issue (though in reality it isn't).

6. How would you service the contraption if/when parts of it start to break? You must agree that it undoubtedly would at some point. Personally, I would suggest that point would be early on due to to the combined facts that it is basically a system of small wires with large voltages running through them in a very hot, generally radioactive area.

7. Are positive ions even the main issue? Are they even issue #2? Honestly, I'm not sure they are. But I'm guessing that since we can shield people from positive ions by using walls/suits it's more the general radiation given off by the uranium/plutonium that we're worried about. And the fact is that to get to the point where we could even worry about that we would have to solve the general radiation problem, which is 95% of the entire issue.


So no, your idea is nonsense. From every angle I see, despite having spent "months" thinking it through you have entirely missed every "bigger picture" obstacle by focusing on the idea that "negatively charged things attract positively charged things".

One other theory I had.
Place a gen+filter system on site to force the ionic radiation in the air to hug the ground.
From there you shovel it up into containers and transport it off site to a decontamination plant of some sort (which they don't exist but it's the idea that counts).

Force ions to hug the ground? Wow. Just no. Positive ions will already seek the ground or any path thereto (eg. walls, ceilings, etc), you don't need to "force it" there. In addition, once you have forced a positively charged particle to a grounded surface (like the ground), it becomes neutrally charged. There's not necessarily anything to "shovel up" into containers, as "ions" can just be charged air, bits of charged concrete... not necessarily radioactive stuff. And once you have neutralized the charge you no longer have the ability to direct the particles using electrostatic/magnetic fields anyway, so if it's a 'free particle' there's no "keeping it".

Plus you have all the issues outlined above, again.

The positive ionic radiation is only one of the types of hazards at that plant though.
There's beta and gamma rays too which I know nothing about yet.
And maybe x-rays and uv, maybe not so much uv now since the plant is no longer operational.

I was thinking, maybe it is possible to force the radiation to hug the ground where you could clean it up easier, and less worry about radiation spreading across the world and to animals of the region.

I don't even understand this. Radiation... like the gamma rays you suggested earlier? Visible light is the same thing as gamma radiation really, just at a different frequency/wave length. Otherwise the overall velocity and properties are pretty much the same. Your suggestion is like saying "why don't we just make a machine that sucks in light and sticks it to the ground, where you can clean it up".

I guess with enough black holes or large enough black holes it could be done, but that obviously brings up other issues.

Obviously Tepco is a company that does nuke power, and that's probably the only thing they do.
So any sort of "options" are gonna come from people that only have experience with one thing, nuke power, and nothing else.
And I believe that might prevent them from thinking about alternatives that are different from the norm.

Do you guys think that this might work somehow?, I didn't mention a method or design or anything like that, just theory.

I don't know that your rambling even constituted a theory. All you did is say "negative ions attract positive ions... can we put in negative ions to the radioactive area and make it better?". That's not a theory.

Another thing that can move pos ions is magnets.
Of a certain polarity.
I was thinking coulomb force and lorentz force could help direct the radiation into filters.
Even though the plant is putting off tons of radiation, maybe in theory it's possible to negate this and make it safe within 10mils of the plant semi permanently...

It's a shot in the dark though so that's why I'm asking what you guys think.

Granted that you said this is a shot in the dark... but seriously, no. Just no. I can't even begin to imagine the kind of magnetic forces that would be required to blanket an entire nuclear reactor... intuitively I understand they are far beyond our capability to produce and are probably beyond any theory we even have. If we're just looking at a small pool and just worried about positive ions (not RADIATION), sure, I guess. But that's confusing ions with radiation, which is very dangerous. And yet you question whether the nuclear engineers have thought things through...

Pos charge a bunch of water and use it as fuel for space sats and probes, etc...
Or use the stuff in a big superconducting ring...

If we're just talking about positive charge - not contamination with radioactive items - the water itself is pretty much harmless, you could safely dump it in the ocean. The ocean is a large grounding force and could trivially handle the charge input.

If we're talking about using it for something different because it's contaminated with radioactive particles, then your scenarios still don't make sense because I'm guessing no-one wants to risk the life of their satellites over using unnecessarily contaminated water, and no-one would want to use it anywhere else for the same reason (eg. if the container bursts somewhere or leaks, is it a major health issue?).

Granted you can supposedly cause a sub atomic explosion when you have enough pos and neg ions interact but that's kinda rare.

"kinda rare". Seriously? And you don't think putting those together in what is potentially the largest volumes ever produced, in an intensely hot and radioactive place, could be one of those "kinda rare" instances?

[NEOAethyr]

Non-science is a joke that means nonsense .
I suppose you've never watched the movie Land of the Lost?, that's where I got that from lol.

Some of my typos stem from my keyboard having a bad cable and a bunch of junk stuck under most it's keys, it's very hard to press the shift key.
I just got a new table thingy for my stuff, pc, etc, and did some cleaning of my room.
I'll clean my keyboard out soon, I'm pretty sick of the probs with it myself.
I got a built in spell checker in opera, I just assume it's correct most of the time.

Lol, I didn't know I put in platinum..., I don't know off hand how to spell plutonium correctly and I assumed wrong with the spell check word match list (apparently it's a U and not an A...lol).

What, you can't power submarines with ice cream ???
Heh just messing .


Thanks for the reply though .
Goes something like:
Alpha = ???
Beta = ???
Gamma = light wave lengths in nm's
Thanks for that info, I'm learning, I didn't take physics or chemistry in school...

Anyways the 200%, I should of said something diff..
The idea was, half the stuff will be neg charged, the other half will be pos charged, you only need to do half the work and therefor 200% increase in productivity, that's when I meant.
Maybe I should of said 50% instead.

:\, I had found a page the last time I was posting but I didn't post the link.
I wish I did now.
It was a physics paper about sticking rods in the ground that were neg charged to prevent u235 and other things related to it from reaching ground water.
I tried for the last 15 mins to find that...

Anyways you may be right about it not being practicable.

Edit:

He found that uranium radiation could be refracted and polarized.

http://web.ihep.su/dbserv/compas/src...ford99/eng.pdf

Pub. in 1898...
Not exactly what I was looking for though.
I'll keep trying for a little bit to find that paper that I was talking about, I just assumed people would know what I was talking about when I posted about this stuff.

[Serra]

Goes something like:
Alpha = ???
Beta = ???
Gamma = light wave lengths in nm's

Alpha:
Alpha particles are basically like supercharged helium atoms given off when material goes through alpha decay. The key here is that they are just atoms that are flying around. Interestingly alpha particles themselves aren't really that dangerous... they can be blocked with a kleenex. Not that you would want to ingest a material that was going through Alpha Decay however, that would be another story. In quantity they can give you burns if you're using your skin to block them, and you wouldn't want to be burned from the inside out.

On the scale of nuclear issues, this is about a 0.1 / 10. If you can avoid eating, inhaling, or handling material going through alpha decay with exposed skin you'll be fine.


Beta:
Kind of similar to "Alpha" above. Kind of not. Rather than a full atom, "beta" radiation is one of two particle sets:
1. A positron + electron + anti-neutrino
2. A neutron + positron (anti-electron) + neutrino
Another key difference between alpha/beta radiation is that beta radiation has more penetrating power. It can be harmful to a body, but can also be stopped pretty easily with any kind of metal shielding.

Gamma:
This is actual eletromagnetic radiation. Like light. Just with a very high frequency. This stuff will mess you up.

[NEOAethyr]

I think you were right about "valence".
It's a term I never heard of until I did some research on neg ion generation and relation to ozone and oxygen.

For some reason I thought it split oxygen into nitrogen.
Supposedly there is a way of getting nitrogen from oxygen, and it might even be a by product of corona's coming into contact with oxygen.

I do know that it makes ozone, O3 (it might just be the uv gen'ed by the corona that causes the ozone I think).
O3 is O2 + O1.
It's created with a supply of O2.
I assume it splits some O2 into O1, and binds some O2 + the resulting O1 into O3, and the rest of what's left of the other half from splitting O2 into O1 would be nitrogen.
I don't really know yet, but I'm learning slowly.

I'm trying to learn it so I can figure out if there's a method of making neg ion's without making ozone by accident.
That way I can experiment with ion thruster tech, one of those experiments would be for a bladeless fan for cooling.

From what I can tell though, neg ion's are gen'ed from a neg voltage.
That info isn't good enough though, a neg voltage can still be a positive in relation to whatever earth ground is set to.

And what I don't understand is if neg voltages are supposedly safer, radiation wise (emi, rfi, etc etc), then why isn't it put to use more often :\.
Ohwell lol.
I mean, why don't we have 60a -12v rails on our psu's when it's supposedly a tiny bit safer then the + type, you can still die from getting electrocuted sure, but the noise that comes from it is less dangerous...
Then again if it kills bacteria, maybe neg ion's are no safer then pos ones in some cases(and again maybe that's the uv/ozone doing that).

What I have found out is that supposedly neg ions attract to pos ones.
And make each particle heavier somehow, perhaps these particles temporarily become another type.
Like O2 and O3 for example.
They gain mass and therefor sink to the ground.
Like those example of air purifiers showing smoke ionized and sinking to the bottom of the bottle type of thing.
Or maybe it's the charge of the ground, or floor, ie dust sticking to the walls and so on with a ion air purifier, not just the floor.

I have the impression that if you take a neg ion and have a pos ion attract to it, you would have a - and + type of particle.
For example, a neg ion generator filter system.
The filter gets covered by a layer of pos charged dust.
This shouldn't prevent another layer forming on top of that.
The 1st layer acts like a battery for example, + and -, and the next layer acts like a 2nd battery in series, the + is attracted to the 1st layer's - and so on.
Probably not the best example, I'm only trying to explain what I think I've learned about it.


I was under the impression that pos ion would cause decay from what the info was saying on the wiki pages for ion thrusters.
That was one of the reasons for proposing this theory, to get rid of such things around an area of a nuke plant for ex.
And that anything related to the fuel used at those plants would be pos charged, therefor able to attract to something that was neg charged.
Able to pull it into a filter system or keep it in place to prevent such things from hitting the ground water or reaching to far at sea.

It's like saying gold will attract to a magnet when in fact it repels against it.
In theory it sounds great, stick a magnet in a river and collect lots of gold.
But in real life, it doesn't work that way.

So I'm not really sure, but that's why I brought it up.

As you can see I've got lots to learn.
When I feal like it I'll start posting reg stuff in this thread again lol, like gasification vid's for wood and etc, to get it back on topic.

[Serra]

For some reason I thought it split oxygen into nitrogen.
Supposedly there is a way of getting nitrogen from oxygen, and it might even be a by product of corona's coming into contact with oxygen.

I do know that it makes ozone, O3 (it might just be the uv gen'ed by the corona that causes the ozone I think).
O3 is O2 + O1.
It's created with a supply of O2.
I assume it splits some O2 into O1, and binds some O2 + the resulting O1 into O3, and the rest of what's left of the other half from splitting O2 into O1 would be nitrogen.
I don't really know yet, but I'm learning slowly.

You can't get nitrogen from oxygen. That's like deriving gold from mercury. On a very small scale I suppose we could probably do it by removing a proton and neutron from an oxygen atom, but it's not something you can really set up to do en mass. This is basically the fission process.

The reverse is similar. Technically possible, but really just in lab scale so far.

And keep in mind that lab processes use elements that are "friendly" to the processes... creating fusion with hydrogen atoms is a very different story than creating fusion with oxygen atoms, for example.

I'm trying to learn it so I can figure out if there's a method of making neg ion's without making ozone by accident.
That way I can experiment with ion thruster tech, one of those experiments would be for a bladeless fan for cooling.

The only way I can suggest would be to use an environment without oxygen in it. In creating ions you are giving the gasses you want to use additional charge... so they're going to find something to stick to. In the case of oxygen, sometimes it's an extra oxygen atom. No matter what you use this will happen.

From what I can tell though, neg ion's are gen'ed from a neg voltage.
That info isn't good enough though, a neg voltage can still be a positive in relation to whatever earth ground is set to.

And what I don't understand is if neg voltages are supposedly safer, radiation wise (emi, rfi, etc etc), then why isn't it put to use more often :\.
Ohwell lol.
I mean, why don't we have 60a -12v rails on our psu's when it's supposedly a tiny bit safer then the + type, you can still die from getting electrocuted sure, but the noise that comes from it is less dangerous...
Then again if it kills bacteria, maybe neg ion's are no safer then pos ones in some cases(and again maybe that's the uv/ozone doing that).

There isn't actually such a thing as positive and negative electricity. Electricity always flows in one direction, from "negative" to "positive" (the terms are so broken...).

Electricity always has a source and return path, hence the "+12v" and "-12v" that you see. It's not using two different types of electricity.

Negatively charged ions are just particles with an extra electron(s). Positively charged ions are just particles that require an extra electron(s).

What I have found out is that supposedly neg ions attract to pos ones.
And make each particle heavier somehow, perhaps these particles temporarily become another type.
Like O2 and O3 for example.
They gain mass and therefor sink to the ground.
Like those example of air purifiers showing smoke ionized and sinking to the bottom of the bottle type of thing.
Or maybe it's the charge of the ground, or floor, ie dust sticking to the walls and so on with a ion air purifier, not just the floor.

It would be more the latter. When we're talking about the scales used by ions gravity doesn't have much of an effect compared to other forces. In fact, gravity is about the weakest force that we're aware of.

...not quite enough time in the day to really respond to everything else. I will say though that before you start watching videos about explosive gasses and wanting to play with them, you should really make sure that you do actually understand the chemistry of what's involved. Just as a general safety measure.

[tdunks]

Serra why are you still even refuting his claims? Half of them dont even make logical sense.

[Cooper]

I do know that it makes ozone, O3 (it might just be the uv gen'ed by the corona that causes the ozone I think).
O3 is O2 + O1.

it's actually lightning which makes ozone.

[NEOAethyr]

it's actually lightning which makes ozone.

Lol, you laugh at me thinking that I don't know anything.
UV-C creates ozone.
UV-C hits the earth's atmosphere from the sun and creates our ozone layer.
You can create it yourself with bad reptile lights, one that will make you sick because they slipped through unregulated.
Or with an ozone generator, which is most of the time is just a uv-c light in a box with a fan.

Corona's are essentially lightning, and those tend to create ozone as well.
I'm not sure if it's the uv they create, which they do create, or if it's the ion's that doit though.
Corona's are created with high voltage, I think voltage might mean velocity, not sure, supposedly V and Freq go hand in hand, A is the amount of energy supposedly.

I woke this morning thinking of ionizing nitrogen instead of oxygen though for some reason.
Supposedly it's less efficient but perhaps it might not create ozone not sure.
What I've read is that it still does create ozone when you ionize nitrogen in an env where there's oxygen.
That might mean it's all just UV-C that's creating the ozone though anyways I don't know.

I have read it's simple though to ionize nitrogen instead of oxygen by just reversing polarity.
Of the thin wire and foil as an example.

Pos wire and Neg foil ionizes oxygen.
Neg wire and pos foil ionize nitrogen instead.
Or so I've read anyways.
I would have to would have to double and triple check for alt src's for this info though.