CO and CO2, heavier or lighter than air? Focusing

[the middle]

Hello,
I wonder...
We are still talking about reducing CO2 emissions ...
But the co2, it is this smoke used in the dancing, the bier, to make the bubulles.
In short, the co2 goes to the ground, and not in the atmosphere seems to me ..
The co, he goes up, he is lighter ...
Odd, I do not understand this story.
Pcq is the co2 that is accused of being guilty of the greenhouse effect.
I am wrong?

[Christophe]

a) Oh no! The CO2 is not dancing smoke, otherwise the dancers would all be dead! The lethal dose is to 5% volumic I think (to be verified) ...

The dancing smoke ... it's the smoke ... got I think with a kind of oil more or less synthetic and that is heated / misted ...

Smoke = particles suspended in the air.

CO2 and CO are all 2 odorless and invisible to the human eye (but a thermal camera sees CO2 very well)

b) Yes CO2 is heavier than air (I am in contact with someone who has defended this idea with (too much) force for years, I will try to find some mails) and so it would tend, despite the convection and winds that mix all, to remain more concentrated in the lower layers of the atmosphere ...

But does not change anything if? What matters is the temperature of the surface and low layers of the atmosphere. Is a small greenhouse (sowing) less hot than a large one? It does not seem like...

c) Subsidiary question: the one who finds the composition of the atmosphere (volume and mass) according to the altitude will have all my gratitude! I searched several times in vain ...

[the middle]

taratata, dancing smoke = co2
http://www.harmony-sono.com/location-ma ... on-co2.php

[Gaston]

The dancing smoke ... it's the smoke ... got I think with a kind of oil more or less synthetic and that is heated / misted ...

There are two categories of "fumes" for spectacle.

The so-called "normal" smoke which is produced by heating a liquid (based on glycol or glycerin)

The so-called "heavy" smoke (which remains on the ground) is a real fog (water particles suspended in the air) and is produced by projecting very hot water on blocks of dry ice (hence the use of CO2).
In this case, the CO2 is only used for its cooling function and is not actually visible in the smoke.

Various demonstrations of dry ice use

[the middle]

And the co2 fire extinguisher? they extinguish the fire and kill the firemen?
there, it's pure, pure co2

[dedeleco]

read:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puits_de_carbone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empiric ... effect.htm

Given the enormous turbulence, the atmosphere is homogeneous with small variations depending on the regions on earth, but little with the altitude, anyway very unstable, from one place to another over a forest or a desert or a forest fire, etc. and so a measure without interest, because variable from one hour to another like clouds and humidity.

Have you calculated how many candles or wood, you have to burn in a room 12m2 to suffocate with the CO2 !!!!

CO is much more effective with death for much less!
.
Finally the water vapor is much more effective greenhouse effect as we see clear nights colder than not clear!

Otherwise it is fun to study the reactions of everyone to this post, very different and revealing!

[the middle]

So, according to you, DD, the answer would be that:

Given the enormous turbulence, the atmosphere is homogeneous with small variations depending on the regions on earth, but little with the altitude, anyway very unstable, from one place to another over a forest or a desert or a forest fire, etc. and so a measure without interest, because variable from one hour to another like clouds and humidity.

Brewing the air ...
Why not.

[Christophe]

And the co2 fire extinguisher? they extinguish the fire and kill the firemen?

a) Just the hardest of times you want to be absolutely right ... You're told that if the nightclub smoke was pure CO2, it would be deadly if not dangerous. Point bar ...

I did not say he could not have some (explanation of Gaston, I did not know the 2ieme method) ...

Anyway it's not the debate ... if?

Is nightclub smoke more important than warming?

b) For the firefighters it remains limited and diluted quantities: see pressure and volume of extinguishers ... and volume of the room where it is used!

And I do not know if you noticed but often they have gas masks in closed circuit.

In all cases the CO2 of the fire is in much larger quantity.

There are firefighters who die every year because of toxic gases (including CO2 or CO) fires ... (the CO2 flames not fire extinguishers ...)

[Christophe]

Brewing the air ...
Why not.

That's what I said in my 1ere answer here: https://www.econologie.com/forums/post216827.html#216827

In addition to the fact that, mixed or not, it is the T ° of the surface and low layers that counts ...

I keep my c) (dedeleco if you have an idea?)

[Remundo]

You have to look for the molar masses of CO, CO2 and that of air ... which form an ideal mixture of perfect gases with an excellent approximation.

For air, with 20% O2 and 80% N2, we get around 29 g / mol

For CO2, it is 44 g / mol, it has a tendency to descend in an inert atmosphere (well known in poorly ventilated caves, the ground air is deadly, the air above is breathable).

For CO, it is 30g / mol, it mixes very well with the air.

The chemical composition of the air with the altitude is very variable according to the geographical place, the meteorology, the proximity of sources or wells of this or that molecule ...

But basically it is 20% of O2, 80% of N2, the rest being of the pouillème.

The pressure varies as follows: P = P0 exp (-Mgz / R / T) assuming an isothermal atmosphere

where
P0 = 1 Bar = 100 000 Pa
M = 0.029 kg / mol,
R = 8,314 J / K / mol,
T temperature in Kelvin;
g = 9.81 m / s²
z altitude in meters.

In order of magnitude, going up from 8000 m divides the pressure by 3