We are designing an element spliter to split CO and want to know if Petro is a posible product of this. We are a little confuesed because C-carbon O-oxegen has know Petro.
119655
Petroleum fuels are made of Hydrocarbons (molecules made up out of Hydrogen and Carbon).  When you combust/burn a Hydrocarbon in excess Oxygen you produce Carbon Dioxide and Water (incomplete combustion also produces Carbon Monoxide).\n\nTake gasoline for instance, mostly Octane (C8H18), the reaction shown below is the complete cobustion reaction which occurs,\n2 C8H18 + 25 O2 --> 16 CO2 + 18 H2O\nThe fuel is chemically changed into Carbon Dioxide (which is not considered a fuel) and Water.  If we assume complete combustion, there is no fuel left over.\n\nIf you were to split up the Carbon Dioxide (or in your case CO that is produced through incomplete combustion), you will obtain elemental Carbon and Oxygen gas.  Carbon could be considered a fuel since it could then undergo further combustion with Oxygen however, it is not a Hydrocarbon fuel since it has no Hydrogen (all the Hydrogen went into water).
384906
i got carbon and its pretty good dont have most wanted yet so i cant compare but carbons at least worth the money .
591057
I don't think a lot of people read this. It is interesting information. I had to take a tree hugger science last year and one of the things the professor admitted to is that another one of the destructive gases to the ozone that they beleive is causing the global warming is ethanol, and uria, which are both caused by natural body occurances, the ethonal comes from Pooh, while the uria comes from Urine. Not just human but animal as well. I personally don't know, but am refreshed to see another prospective on the whole thing. Now they can prove all of it, inclucding the CFC part Maybe we can all use Aqua Net again.
501156
It sounds extremely unlikely.  In fact, so unlikely that I would rate it as impossible.  The problem is that the first stage of the reaction would be the splitting of one of the C---H bonds in methane and you would need pretty brutal reaction conditions to achieve this, e.g. temperatures well in excess of 1000°C.  At these temperatures, hydrocarbons such as octane are unstable and simply would not form.  If there is any reaction at all, I would guess that, at fairly high temperatures you would get some acetylene, e.g. by passing a stream of methane over a bed of red-hot carbon :\nC(s)   +   CH4(g)   --->   2 C2H2(g)\n\nNote that the equation you wrote is balanced.  But just because you have a balanced equation, that doesn't mean the reaction is feasible.
125385
Nope, an element is a pure.  Coal is a a mixture, and although  carbon composes a high percentage, the carbon is not pure.  It is primarily present as a part of a carbon based compound.
493279
I think it's totally CYA wimpy.  You have passive voice (who is doing the considering?), it's not a fact -- it's only considered, and finally you use the wimp word "relatively."  \n\n"Mr. Bigshot from Outsiderland said in a Busyworld Magazine interview that the OPEC member country is relatively influential."  This covers your ass in a far more authoritative way.  \n\nAlso, "According to a March 2 Busyworld Magazine article, many countries outside of OPEC listen to OPEC Member Country's Name Here's opinions ."\n\nPin it on somebody, OK?  You use more words, but they are words that actually contain some information!\n(-: Good luck.
172331
No, (or more correctly, not significantly) since the carbon dioxide being produced from the combustion was carbon that was already on the surface of the planet in one form or another (most likely as carbon dioxide the plant converted to glucose via photosynthesis).
443160
Fischer projects are difficult to explain....but I'll give it a try.\n\nThe Fischer projection is that long line with OH's and H's hanging off of it, if I remember correctly.\n\nThe way you get the projection is if you bend the carbon backbone so that the backbone is coming out at you, kinda like forming a bridge. Once it is in this form whatever is on the left of the carbon is on the left in the Fischer projection and vise-versa.\n\nHope this helped!
424789
If you add DCl or DNO3 to D2O, you will get D3O+.\nD3O will not be stable and very hard to make.
72941
Hello, let me tell you something.\nI live in montevideo, am uruguayan and endorse the isntallation of the plants, in the first place, the quarrell is because of economics disguised as enviromentalism.\n\nThere can be three methods of disposal of the chemicals used for celulose production 1) Pure chloride, 2) a chloride green generation product 2) free of cholide.\n\nThe thing is, number one pollutes a lot, argentinians have been using it for generations in their own celulose plants, greenpeace is trying to get uruguay to use number 3, that pollutes just the same as number 2.\n\nNow, with the number 2 treatment, cellulose can be used to poduce any kind of paper later, whith number three only toilet paper and wrapping paper.\n\nArgentina should put her actions where her mouth is, when they have at least 3 operative chloride working plants tht have been contaminating us uruguayans for decades, and they are virutally imposing us an economic blockage (they have been blocking our international bridges for 2 months now) for plants that will almost not contaminate (the technology used in our plants is what it IS GOING TO BE USED in europe in 2007)\n\nWhy they protest so much about us and dont dismantle their own?\n\nAnd for the economic reasons, both Botnia and Ence (the two business consturcting the plants) first tryed to install at entre rios, argentina, but... Governor Busti of argentina asked them for too much money (there are also supositions of a bribe he asked for), so they denied argentina and decided to install in Uruguay.\n\nNow, how a state can be so hipocrite to first ask them to install in their territory and then, when they loose for their own fault, blockage the neighbor because they feel like an abandoned lover?
518395
Geeze, man, I don't think your hard drive is big enough to hold all of that information. Maybe try limiting your topic a little, such as "everything we know about a Carbon-Carbon single bond" which would likely fill several volumes in and of itself.
503512
The CO2 simply displaces another gaseous product.  CO2 is used because of its low cost, high expansivity, and fairly low reactivity.  Some of it is returned to surface with the gas.  In fact there are wells in Utah that produce 60 % and higher CO2 with the gas.  These haven't been developed due to the expense of separating the two.\n\nOther means of "production enhancement" (what we call it), is water injection to displace gas, hydraulic fracturing to increase the overall reservoir tapped by a single well, chemical treatments to increase permeability of the formation rock, and formation mapping.  With modern computing power and technology, it is possible to drill the hole to the ideal location to tap the best part of the formation.  It is even possible to reenter a hole with a drill, and directional drill to a new formation.\n\nThe idea of oil being derived from geological sources is not new, and actually has some followers (even among those that should know better if its baloney).  What gets me is that it is can't be shown definitively either way.  \n\nIt could also be from sources we haven't really thought of, such as subterranean bacteria.  We only recently have been discovering that bacteria can live in really hostile places, and they do occur in oil and gas wells.  They live in the water on the oil-water interface, and can produce paraffins and sulfides from the nutrients they get in the hydrocarbons.  They are typically thought of as being introduced into the well with the water.
163337
To Prove to the Right People that My Compact, Safe, Low Pressure Unit can Turn Regular Pump Gasoline into Propane. I've already Accomplished it. The Problem is the Fact that all Vehicles from 1996 to the Present are Required by the Stringent EPA  OBD II Law to Run at 14.7 Parts of Air to 1 Part of Fuel, or the vehicle will Fail Inspection . Even if Fuel Economy is Markedly Improved, and Emissions Lowered, the Vehicle will fail Inspection because by Law, there is a maximum, and a Minimum Limit. Deviate from Either Parameter and the Vehicle will Fail Inspection. This is Insane! I've been to the US Patent Office and Looked at the Patents for Other Similar Units that have been kept off the Market.The Pogue Carburetor, which is Patented, is Documented to Provide 100 + MPG with a Flat-Head Ford V-8 Engine, that's usually 15 MPG, or Less! We have got to Reduce Dependence on Petroleum Worldwide, Vehicle Emissions, and Global Warming. That's the Dream , and the "Why". So, How am I Doing? 14.7 to 1 is the Law. I've Managed to prove 100 to 1 is Possible, but it's a Losing Proposition at this Point. For even More,http://energy21.freeservers.com/bookrep.html Hybird Vehicles aren't the Answer.At Highway Speed, the Gas Engine takes Over, plus the Heavy Batteries have to be Hauled.Cheap, Safe Hydrogen is the Answer, but as long as there is a High level of Profit in Petroleum, nothing will Change, including the insane EPA OBD II Law.So, I'm not doing very well at this Point. Maybe with the Power of the Internet that will Change.
616155
OK ...\n\nAssuming we are talking about "standard" petroleum oils rather than synthetic basestocks :\n\nPetroleum products basically sit on a continuum: \n\nFlammable\nmethane, ethane, propane, butane (all gases)   Flash Points -50C\npetrol (basically C5 - C10) with aromaics and olefins Flash Point   -30C\nstodard solvent (low aromatics)  Flash Point   35C\nmineral turpentine (high aromatics) Flash Point 35C\nkerosine / jetfuel A1  Flash Point 45C\nlamp oil (low aromatics)  Flash Point 52C\nlight heating oil   Flash Point 58C\n\nCombustible\ndiesel  Flash Point 62C min\nfuel oil Flash Point 80C\nlight oil (100SUS) Flash Point 190C\nmid visc oil (500SUS) Flash Point 220C\nhigh visc oil (Brightstock) Flash Point 260C\nWaxes Flash Point > 260C\nBitumen / Tar  Flash Point > 300C\n\nIn terms of "how are they different", there are a number of ways:\n\nMoving from Flammable to Combustible, flammable products contain small, light molecules (C1 - C15) of low viscosity and low density while combustible molecules are larger (C16 - C40). This makes them both heavier (higher density) and thicker (higher viscosity).\n\nTo get a clean burning lamp oil, you also need to remove the aromatic and olefinic components (read benzene rings and double bonds) as these tend to cause smoke. It should have few other components, so that it will burn clean and leave no residue.\n\nFor an engine oil, you also remove some of the benzene rings and double bonds, because they make the oil unstable and prone to oxidation and sludging (not good if you want to keep your engine clean). Engine oils also contain additives to remove the acids which form during fuel combustion, antioxidants, detergent/dispersants to hold up soot, antiwear agents, metal deactivators and viscosity index improvers.\n\nSo molecular size, paraffinic vs olefinic vs aromatic content, viscosity, additive packages all play a part.
384060
Its Petri.  Look on the sit below for the info you want
519375
a compound contaning carbon
469702
Liquid carbon dioxide mixes quite well with oil, but at normal pressures, the CO2 boils out of solution. This sort of process can only be performed under pressure, where CO2 can exist as a liquid. You inject liquid CO2, it "washes" out oil that would not otherwise be extractable, and goes away when it gets to the surface. That "going away" part is the bad part, though. Unless it's a closed system, CO2 escapes to the atmosphere. CO2 is a major greenhouse gas.\n\nI know of a process for cleaning used oil bottles where the plastic bottle is shredded and washed in liquid CO2 in a pressure vessel. When the pressure is reduced, you are left with clean recyclable plastic, CO2 gas that can be pumped back down to a liquid and recycled for the next batch, and all of that sneaky, brand new oil that wanted to stick with the plastic and go to the landfill. Pretty slick, eh?