It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CBS Atlanta - Chemtrail Pictures Come in By The Thousands!

page: 5
21
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Like I said, Aluminium borohydride (Al(BH4)3) is used as an additive to jet fuel in fuel de-icer. It is not used in large jets with heating systems, but can be used if those systems are inoperable.




posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


Not sure where you get that figure, but let's run with it anyway:

80,000,000,000 litres. At 2 milligram/litre = 160,000,000,000 milligrams.

1 mg = 0.001 gram. 160B milligrams = 160M grams.

1 gram = 0.001 kilogram. 160M gm = 160,000 kgs.

160,000 kgs per year, according to your original "80 billion litres" of jet fuel/year.

I my math correct, in the conversions??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pushing on....even 160,000 kgs/year is about 438 kgs per day. Spread out over "the U.S. alone". Assuming the "lower" 48 states, it is then average of just over 9 kgs per state. 9.1 kgs, actually....= 20 pounds.

So....even using that figure (and assuming that NONE is destroyed in the heat of combusiton) we have 438 kgs/964 lbs per day, over a country with total area of 3.1 million square miles/8.1 million square kms.

edit on 22 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Like I said, Aluminium borohydride (Al(BH4)3) is used as an additive to jet fuel in fuel de-icer. It is not used in large jets with heating systems, but can be used if those systems are inoperable.


how much is added?



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Commonly, a brand named product called "Prist". Abvout 10 to 15% by volume.

But, as smurfy noted, large modern jets (and many other, smaller jets) don't need such additives. The fuel is heated at points, near the engine, just as it is being routed to the Fuel Control Unit. How?, you may ask? Simple. A fuel-oil heat exchanger. Does two things. First, since oil needs to be constantly cooled, the fuel helps with that (additionally, ambient airfow will radiate excess heat as well). And in return, the fuel is heated....a win/win for simplicity in design. At that point, any ice that may have been present is melted to water, and separated downstream of the heat exchanger.

Airplanes are not dispatched if there is a fault in these systems....about the most common occurrence of failure is when cracks form, allowing leakage....the fuel there is at a higher pressure, so it enters the confined oil system loop....this is indicated first, to the crew, by the odd increase in oil quantity indications. Also, fuel and/or oil leaks overboard may occur too.....oil leak , obviously, by an alarming quantity decrease, along with low pressure warnings. Fuel leaks are less obvious, usually, and will be caught by the disagreement with fuel flows as measured, and resulting fuel quantity. Automatically monitored, nowadays...before that computerization, was done the old-fashioned way, with simple math at regularly scheduled checkpoints, usually about an hour or so apart. Also, by cross-checking against the flight plan estimated predictions, since that is included in the printouts.

Oil and fuel leaks are very, very rare in modern engines.....reliability standards have increased dramatically since the early 1960s....though the basic design principles of systems are the same. Better engineering tolerances.....



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Wow - 10-15% is quite a lot. We never used it here AFAIK - the climate is temeperate enough so that specialist de-icing was never required - external kit was available on the ramp, but had to be exercised every month in winter as the extreme conditions that would require it was only ever a theoretical possibility!

Remember that 777 that "glided" to a "landing" just short of Heathrow? the Fuel-Oil heat exchanger was found to be a bit susceptable to blockage from "soft ice".

I used to overhaul f-o exchangers for 737's, among other components, many...oh so many.... years ago!



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Check out my thread on what I witnessed after a heavy Chemtrail/Contrail day.

HAARP? Chemtrails?



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by IndieA
 


Please stop insulting the intelligence of other ATS members.

Your thread? You witnessed a hole punch cloud.

Google it.....oh, and the photo you posted in your OP? It looks very, very familiar to me....where have I possibly seen it before?? Oh, yes!! Because it looks so much like all the other very similar cases:

www.google.com...
edit on 4 March 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
I love how at the end of the video it states that a meteorologist doesn't believe that chemtrails are any different from normal contrails.

So what we have here are a bunch of conspiracy theorists with probably little to no education on the subject saying chemtrails are real. Then a meteorologist, someone who would actually be somewhat educated on what the effects of a jet exhaust would be on the weather and would more likely have a better idea then you or me if these "chemtrails" could actually just be normal contrails, stating they are all just contrails.

hmm..... Im not sure about you but logic tends to make me be leaning towards believing the meteorologist.

Anyway, just my opinion..



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Maximus187
 


I'm a newbie. Tough to hitch on where I might think is most appropriate, but apparently it's how the game is played. I read an article last Friday (www.ufodigest.com...). The writer's remark about an observable absence of contrails/chemtrails in her area sparked my curiosity. I made some mental notes and have been a little more deliberate with my own sky-watching for several days.

We live roughly 40 miles due north of Atlanta, and cross-hatched skies are pretty much the norm here. However, I have not seen a vapor trail for the fourth consecutive day amid fair weather. I don't want create a stir over something that may be business as usual, but has anyone else noticed trail-less skies recently? If so, does it signal anything we should be concerned about? Three jets I watched yesterday and today weren't leaving visible trails of any kind. This is not my area of expertise, so I don't know what atmospheric conditions favor or disfavor the appearance of trails. Any thoughts? Real ones. No flames, please.

I/O



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by InvertedOstrich
 


I agree with you. I haven't noticed them as much as I did last year. I've seen them just not as often. Maybe once a month instead of every other day.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join