Chemical engineering.

[Brett Nortje]

This is a $#@!tail of carbon that, as I have advocated, is a building block of life and matter. I say this because nearly everything has some carbon in it, each molecule forming something bigger. If we were to observe that fullerenes are basically 'fancy' carbon allatropes - a new term I have learned! - then we could say that these special shaped carbon bonds are there doing something unusual to other atoms, of course.

So, what is the point of this entry? I want to make carbon allotrope smaller, of course, so we can deviate from the planned ones and create, for lack of a better example, plastics out of other atoms, yes?

If we were to observe that they will fall apart unless there is balance, let's look at the fullerene molecule - it is sixty carbon atoms together, yes? This means it is precisely a power of something smaller, the largest and most likely divisor of this would be [six], and that would make sense as it is about six to a 'smaller section' of it. This means, that, fullerenes are made of carbon, out of six [protons], and, twelve [mass]. this reeks of 60, 6, 12... [six]! The common number is six, of course...

So how come it takes ten for a perfect fullerene, why don't we work in multiples of six until we find the smallest building block of nanotechnology? This would stand to reason, that, sixty divided by twelve equals five, of course. This is half of the amount of sides to a fullerene, of course.

Now, five plus twelve should yield the smallest allotrope we can muster. this would be [c17] or so, of course. This would stand to reason that it would have an extra orbital, as it is uneven, and an extra unpaired proton, also leading to instability, as the orbital charts have shown - unpaired equals unstable. So, the strongest shape should be a [c6] for building materials, besides the graphite, of course.

[Brett Nortje]

With this latest idea of mine, [c6] is where the dimensions are like a dice, or, box. This box is [six] sided, and, has [eight] points, fits exactly [twelve] triangles of trigonometry into it, which has to do with stress thresholds, and [twelve] vectors. The key here is twelve vectors and triangles, making it, like a dice, equally supporting on each side, equally stress withstanding on each side or point, rather strong, or, the base of 'cubic building blocks.'

To make this [c12], reminds me of plastic explosives? This would be where the sides are made into a diamond shape, very strong indeed, and a divisor of sixty, exactly by [5]. Five has the 'strength' of a triangle on each side of it's five points, with the support of a square, for the 'unstressed parts.' This means the triangle is supported by a square.

[Brett Nortje]

This is where we build little things inside the body. Or outside the body, but they are usually used for the human body, or, electronics, of course. There might also be applications in petroleum engineering and fuels and stuff, but that is not as big a market at the moment as medical stuff, as the rewards are not as high, of course.

So, building little molecules, sounds like chemical engineering, yes? You would not be far off! This is where you build 'little living things,' I think, or at least 'highly reactive things,' of course. I remember once observing how they built a 'hammer' for use in the body, so whether it was living or not is beyond me.

If you were to observe that molecules are made of groups of atoms, and, machines like the hammer are also made of atoms, then the objective of nanotechnology is to build as small a 'tool' as possible. If it is not a tool, then it needs to be a small molecule that performs the objectives as needs to be done. This might be done due to acidity, for processing elements, or even magnetism with the hammer.

So, if we were to observe the whole point of this science is smaller is better, then we would have to understand that making things smaller by ratios would suffice. This would be where, like with my fullerenes entry, we would find that filtering the ratios down would lead to a smaller thing that works the same way, of course. This would be where we could take water, [H2O], and make it merely [3H6O] exactly for the same effect as a drop, yes? That would make sense, as the way things work they will filter out.

But, why are there thresholds and strengths of materials, this would be where there is a minimum cap for the amounts of elements doing the duty, yes? This would be where the minimums of amounts for the molecules would add up to enough to be recognized as similar in nature, but, would be as small in amounts as possible, of course. If we were to observe that triangles are the most base of all shapes, as they will make for a 'circle,' an 'object' where the molecule is held together by being bonded to a similar thing, then the triangle would need to be like a pyramid, yes? This would mean the smallest ratio we can work to is [four times] the basic elements needed for the molecule.

[Brett Nortje]

Cations and anions are made up of spare or reduced electrons. This means the crux of the atom is the proton, connected to the nucleus at the centre of the atom. This means mass comes from protons and then the more mass the proton has the heavier it is, gaining in density, as, the electrons bond tighter - like, you know, electron bonds?

I often think of the only bonds as electron bonds, as, 'they suck.' This is because electrons pull things towards them, like with a fire, the fire spread because the free electron is pulling all the mass towards it. Hydrogen bonds are made of electrons, so, they will also be electron bonds, in my opinion.

Then, the more electrons you add to the proton, the next protons worth of atomic matter it is! This would make sense if we were to observe that with a heavier proton, we get a heavier gas, liquid or metal. So...

If the proton is tighter boned, it will just get heavier! The be all and end of all molecular engineering, and, change of materials.

Getting the electrons to stay in the proton will be hard though, as, the electron will leave to join with a free proton as soon as possible. This means that we need to make the proton bigger and heavier. It is therefore easy to make something jump to the next element with some manipulation through shocking it until all of the materials are 'burned.' This would be like treating it, but, the excess electrons will leave soon, unless boiling point is reached.

So, we need to 'cause an anion' and boil the materials to get to he next atomic element!

[Brett Nortje]

This is where the atom has a charge of some sort, where they all are charged, potentially, but, they start to give off a charge of some sort. Basically, the charge will be down to how much electrons the atom has, regarding the charge being how much it sucks, and, the protons being how much it pushes. If you were to observe the metals, they would be harder to penetrate than gases because they have more protons, giving them more push, but, they would have many more electrons, meaning they suck together more. This would show that the material is 'stronger,' 'denser' or just plain 'heavier.'

So, what gives a material charge? This would be down to the charge itself being made out of differences in the air, where the atom will just collect more energy and then form a material instead of a gas or liquid. If it comes to a liquid, then the liquid forms because there is more activity there than the gas, of course. This activity comes from friction, where the friction leads to heat, the heat leads to bonds, and the bonds lead to matter, of course. Friction anywhere will result in the area becoming more excited and leading to matter building up and then being released into the area.

Now, charge is the result of the excess friction of the material, where the electrons, that pull, will be left to pull randomly at things. This is like acidity, where the acidity is a result of the ability of the materials to bond, that they seek to bond, so have less charge - the less charge something has, the more it wants to bond to become stronger. This is why gold will not seek to bond, will stay intact, while iron will rust, seeking bonds more, and lithium will just fizzle around, seeking bonds the most - less protons to hold the electrons.

[Brett Nortje]

With gases, liquids and metals, it is crucial to find the melting point to mix them. If you were to want to mix chlorine with water, like in the a pool, you would merely need to throw the chlorine into the pool as it's acidity will result in the chlorine being absorbed by the water, yes? This would result in them mixing, and, then becoming, for lack of a better term, 'a mixture.'

But, isn't there a pattern to this boiling points - isn't there a guide to finding the boiling point by atomic number? We found, previously, that there is a formula for finding the mass of each atom and element based on the atomic number being doubled for a fairly accurate mass, then for metals adding orbital numbers to that starting from the first one, due to 'hyper electron activity,' and 'toughness' for the new added mass additives or additions, yes? Let's see what we can do here?

Basically, so far, we can assume that all gases have a stable condition as their boiling point is always active in our world - it would need to get unreasonably cold for them to become true gases. They are always 'bouncing around' and going upwards and stuff, affected by the wind and temperature, because they are gases that are boiling all the time.

I reckon, seeing as how it is nearly impossible to make a pattern out of this as it stands, that it is down to mass plus protons for the summed up amount of the boiling point - that it is down to the mass being divided by the electron amount, or, is it multiplied by the electron amount in metals for the boiling point, of course.

[Brett Nortje]

The point of this branch of chemical engineering is to separate the types of gas and fuels of the natural gas. These include other natural gases to produce 'clean oil,' sort of like vegetable oil, okay? If this was a car we were working with, it would be a case of natural fuels coming to a mixture where the actual vegetable oil would be collected for the cars to boil the engine, in a combustion engine, as, if we remember correctly, it is powered by steam rising and pushing the gears of the engine, not just some 'far out idea' of heat being 'magically turned into motion.'

So, if we want to separate the fuels, we need to, observing boiling points, boil the fuels and collect the boiled things at various points. This will be cheap buy might take a while, but it will still be cheap and capable of massive amounts of processing, of course.

If we were to boil the mixture of unrefined gas at various points, we could simply separate the different parts of the mixture by having the water boil away first, then the [co2], and so forth, by raising the temperature every time. This would result in steam of that type being produced and being collected elsewhere in a container and then sealed.

[Brett Nortje]

This is a new field of study that should be rather interesting to gloss over, yes? If we were to observe that the fields of engineering and medicine can come together, it is actually more of an i.t. thing, as, this uses electronics and electrical engineering rather than classical engineering - this is not about stresses and acceleration, this is about getting stuff to function, of course.

So, if we were to observe that nanotechnology would be very expensive for a few more years at least, rapid advances in this are sought. What I want to focus on is regenerative tissue growth, as, I believe that regrowing the tissue, including bones, of someone that is maimed due to a car crash as a most common issue, or, even a person that has been shot, their lives could be saved or they would have their lives back quickly if they were helped quickly.

If we were to observe that tissue is grown by cell division, we need to either put in place already grown tissue, or, grow it from the body. Seeing as how it would take a long time to grow it from the body, we could observe that we could 'take' tissue from various parts of the body and put it into a 'lattice' of the exposed areas with a lot of gentle care to regrow parts of it.

This process could be helped by observing that the tissue could grow faster by using hormones that have no restrictions - they will be growth hormones that are not held back with growth, removed later, grown artificially in a lab, or so altered from the body by growing growth hormones from the tissue, which, use zygotes from the mother, or, a similar, nearly identical in genes, with another woman that is currently not pregnant.

[Brett Nortje]

This is where enzymes - proteins that are actual fuel cells - get to respond and react to each other type of cell in the body or living tissue. Naturally, the best way to react is to be acidic, or, to react to things that are acidic, so, the protein is obviously not acidic, as, then it would be the 'ignition.' Enzymes are the fuel, so will be broken down instead of breaking down.

The main goal in this field today is to find ways to make them break down faster; could this be because of new 'acids?' Maybe we should be looking for the ultimate 'break and paste' solution instead of fuels? Fuels come in defined forms, of course, and have been studied so far to a great degree with medicine at least, as, fuels will be the things that kill cells, like, antibiotics, for example.

So, how do we 'cut and paste?' This would be easiest done with something potent, but, that would harm living tissue. The other obvious route now is to find something gentle, like, apple juice? Like sodium in soda? These things must help digestion and reparation of cells, as, they will perform the cut, slowly, but only paste later on, coming to a point where they actually do smoulder things together, unlike other 'acids.'

For rapid response, use lots of diet soda! This will quickly cut through the fuels and ten paste them again, the more you drink. The other alternative is to breathe in sodium, this will help with healing the body too.

[Brett Nortje]

This is where we try to mix chemicals on a small scale, and, keep them separate yet mixed, so to speak. This would mean we try to get a marble inside a mud pie, and keep it so that the other marbles can hit the submerged marble yet the mud will still do it's job.

So far as I know, this field has been up since the eighties, and, will continue to progress, especially with this post! This field is about chemistry, so, if you want to study chemistry in college, something I guarantee you you will find interesting if you were to like to paint or build technical blocks, as they are very similar, then this might be for you, okay?

If we were to observe that mixtures will separate due to density, we could also observe that oxygen could travel through lot of water if it were inside a balloon - the problem being that building the balloon would cost a lot of money, especially on such a small molecular scale. Unless. Unless we made it appear or manifest totally naturally, yes?

So, chemists out there, what would you think would be a good polarised formula for this 'balloon?' Well, if it were up to the objective of getting some fluorine through a lot of oil - say you wanted to, practically, clean the oil of biomass waste? - then we could maybe observe that the oil is itself biomass waste, and that would mean that it would dissolve the oil, yes? This would take a heck of a long time though, but, let's take that out of the problem?

If we were to observe that oil could have some skeletal remains in it, or, it could be close to a mine where - I got it! Let's say that they are trying to clean the oil of faeces or something? That would suffice as a good example, yes?

Then, we would need to take the fluorine and - please bear with me, I am trying to teach you resourcefulness, okay? To work with such abstract examples is good for your ability to learn how to work with easier ones, too! - try to compact it, that would work... so what? What is compacted poison to biomass? Then again, the examples of chlorine will burn out completely in the oil, as, they self annihilate and the acidic chlorine will basically be eaten by the oil, not the other way around, as, it is the chlorine that is reacting, okay?

If we were to take the fluorine and put our balloon around it, and have it only react with 'biomass,' then we need to mix it; mix it with something to make it subtle towards oil and 'lethal' to faeces, yes? Actually, a homing missile of flourine onto the biomass would be even better, let's upgrade this to that?

So, if we were to mix fluorine with - after observing the masses of the two, faeces and oil, which is heavier? Why, oil is heavier! This does not sit well with me, as, we could have added helium and be done with it! That would be because the helium is a reactive gas that would hone in on the poop and then dissolve away and then the little capsules of fluorine would clean the clocks of the poop, but remain all the same - helium, we would have something that would be attracted to the heavier substance, oil. This means we need a heavy element to be attracted to the poop, or...

We could charge the capsule with the protons, cations they will become, and then let them loose. This will be attracted to the acidic elements of the poop, as, i suspect it's toxicity is linked to a anion formula almost.

Now, the solution to clearing poop from oil in a vat, say during a flood or something, where the reserve is flooded with poop, would be to take fluorine and charge it with a bonus proton, creating a fluorine cation. You could say that charging and so forth could be considered in chemistry, so, many things can, evidently, be learned by studying other fields.