TA, I applaud your nerdiness!
I cannot say it's a bad idea, all ideas are good because thinking and intelligence are good things. But, I don't believe it to be a good method of producing co2. Here are my thoughts;
I would have to say that such a system has inherent flaws that would make it inefficient and possibly more expensive than a yeast type co2 generator or other common methods.
inherent flaws...
1.) The law of conservation of enegry applied to this idea implies that due to energy lost as heat during the exothermic reaction, the resulting effects suffer therefore. Meaning that there cannot be a favorable fuel to co2 yield due to the high energy nature of the reaction itself.
2.)Other than fuel, most exothermic reactions require an oxidizer. In most cases, this is usually the oxygen found in air as in candles, potassium nitrate (kno3) like in model rockets etc, Iron OXIDE like in thermite, etc, etc. So this means that it would have to either have a complex mechanizm by which air is introduced (like a car), be an open system (like a candle), or use an oxidizing additive (like a bullet).
a> air intake--> venturi style like a jet engine, or piped in like an oxy-acetaline torch would be difficult to build, especially to the precision necessary to make up for the ineffeciency.
b>an open system would make it impossible to capture co2 even remotely efficiently, and even if you did, it would have to then be stored and compressed or pumped to achieve pressure to diffuse it into tank water.
c> Chemically achieved oxidation is dangerous as a potential explosion that would involve chaotic results like fire, damage to home, damage to tank, injury, or even human death in the event of system failure.
3.) the very fact that extra energy would be required to cool the unit to reduce fire or overheating tank water supports the notion of severe system inefficiency and instability. Not only is the necessity to cool the unit a possible extra electrical system (fan) which would drive up operating costs, It adds another single point of failure. The most desirable system does not have multiple single points of failure. And again risk of fire or fish death or human injury should this sub-system fail.
4.) Another sub-system or maintenance routine would be required to remove other nondesired byproducts, as I've not heard of any exothermic reactions that produce only heat and co2. This would involve shutting down the unit for manual maintenance (for cleaning off oxidation on components or carbon build ups as well as other by-product), which means that you'd definitely want a co2 storage chamber to prevent intermittant flow rates that cause co2 and ph fluctuations.
5.) As mentioned, I haven't even heard of a combustion that produces solely or mainly co2. As mentioned also, combustion uses oxygen and would likely break down most co2 present, using the o2 during oxidation, and thereby depositing the carbon on the inner combustion chamber. Carbon in this form is not a viable carbon source for plants and would not have any usefullness toward desired goal.
NOW, there are easy, cheap, effective, and controllable ways to produce or generate co2 in the home.
1, break down and buy a pressurized system. or use paintball stuff to build one.
2, build a yeast/bottle system
3, use fizzing tablets ( there are commercially ones that work like alka seltzer.)
4, baking soda + vinegar or other weak acid
both 3 and 4 use a simple acid + base chemical reaction using baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) and something like citric acid (vitamin c, lemon juice) or vinegar. Alka Seltzers contain Aspirin (acetacylic acid) and citric acid and sodium bicarbonate. The active ingredients are water soluble and begin to react once they get wet. Pop-rocks also release co2, but this is because of a patented process which is difficult to reproduce.
"hot sugar mixture is allowed to mix with carbon dioxide gas at about 600 pounds per square inch (psi). The carbon dioxide gas forms tiny, 600-psi bubbles in the candy. Once it cools, you release the pressure and the candy shatters, but the pieces still contain the high-pressure bubbles "
I can't think of any more co2 sources at the moment, I'm sleepy.lol.
ty
almost forgot to add that YES the combustion of fossil fuels forms a lot of co2, but obviously it would be like car exhaust. Bad things to have in the house or the tank water.
