Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

A case for chemtrails?

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by apex
 




As to the "Aluminium Demisting Agent", I wonder if you read that patent either. It tells you what it is for (reducing the chance of explosions in the event of a crash), and the weight involved, being 0.1 - 1.0% of the fuel it is in. Considering this is a very small fraction of the fuel mass, I can't see how that would cause it to persist. For a Boeing 777 - 300, this works out as 1.4 metric tons as a high end estimate, to be spread over 6,000 miles. I can't see how that can possibly create the trails you describe.



Where do you come up with the ridiculous figures you posted?

6000 miles?


The United States in 3000 miles from coast to coast. No one has ever claimed to see a chemtrail that big.

The studies for geoengineering and the governance issues keep any SRM tests well within a States own borders.
edit on 1-4-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: add quote




posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


YOUR problem is, as I have seen (and many others, as well).....YOU will read ANYTHING that tends to 'agree' with your pre-conceived belief ('bias') and then IGNORE the truth about it, in favor of the slant....WHEN that 'slant' is a "bias confirming" viewpoint.

Case in point.....the post this is "replying" to. You found a "barium dispersal device" patent on 'freepatenstonline', a website. BUT....did you bother to further research that SAME patent number, to find out its history?? NO???

Here:

U.S. PATENT NUMBER 3751913, from 1973!!!

1973!!

TRY, try, try to learn, please. Ignorance is on display.......


edit on 1 April 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

www.freepatentsonline.com...


Thus, it is readily apparent that the present invention provides an inherently more efficient process of producing barium clouds wherein the degree of ionization in the released plasma is much greater. The selectively opening and closing of valves 21 and 23 gives the possibility of a payload with multiple releases permitted due to the start and stop capabilities of the liquid system. Also, the liquid system of the present invention gives the possibility of controlling rates so that a trail-type release can be obtained as well as a point-source type. In addition, the liquid system of the present invention effects the formation of barium atoms and ions at the time of combustion and expansion at high temperatures and results in little opportunity for the barium to condense during release.

There are obviously many variations and modifications to the present invention that will be readily apparent to those skilled in the art without departing from the spirit or scope of the disclosure or from the scope of the claims.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


What the heck are you talking about? It seems clear to me that it's your ignorance on display.




Originally posted by weedwhacker
It proposes a "plan" to include aluminum in Jet Fuel! Cannot occur. This has been covered at great length, in other ATS threads already.


Do you still stand by the statement that aluminum in jet fuel can not occur ?



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Chadwickus has posted that aluminum and metals, and organics have been found

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Not really surprising tho - since there's "aluminium and metals" in aircraft and aircraft engines.....

In what way doe this show that there's a programme to deliberately add more in order to effect [pick a chemtrail objective of your choice]?

There's all sorts of nasty chemicals in NORMAL jet exhaust - sulphates, nitrous oxides, metals, organics....because that's what is in engines and engine systems and fuel and fuel systems.

I certainly wouldn't want to breathe it - but that's "just" pollution.

Apparently chemtrails are more than "just" pollution??

Matty AFAIK no-one has ever said you can't add some form of aluminium-containing substances to fuel, but IIRC the last time you posited something like that it was aluminium coated polymers - and you were quite rightly whacked as an idiot for saying so.'

If there is something that has been chemically engineered to be a fuel additive, and it is actually being used, then I expect the effects of it on various fuel components have been assessed & found that it doesn't cause undue wear or other problems.

So - you have the patent - we all know you are a wonderful patent-finder, even when you haven't got a clue what they really mean.

The next, and obvious question is - Is it actually being used?? (I assume you have an answer with references, because the question is SOOOOOOO obvious.....)



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Anybody care to back answer the question regarding aluminum in jet fuel being possible or not?

Does anyone agree with weedwhackers post where he states that it is impossible?

Does anyone agree with his analogy by comparing a car engine to a jet engine?



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Anybody care to back answer the question regarding aluminum in jet fuel being possible or not?

Does anyone agree with weedwhackers post where he states that it is impossible?

Does anyone agree with his analogy by comparing a car engine to a jet engine?


I agree with his post to the extent that he was talking about dumping a handful of aluminium into a fuel tank.

I think he got a little carried away when he said "or whatever".....but given he frustration of dealing with your constant lies I concede that he's only human and he wouldn't exclude the possibility of putting "something" into fuel hat contained aluminium if he wasn't angry at having to teach an idiot basic facts..

And dumping a sugar into a jet fuel tank will almost certainly screw up the jet engine just as badly as it would a car engine (given sufficient amounts), and also that the water vapour generated by an internal combustion engine is generated in exactly the same manner as that generated by a turbine engine.

Both engines are, still, carrying out the same process on hydrocarbon fuels - albeit piston engines do the 4 stages (induction, compression, combustion & exhaust) intermittently in 1 place (the cylinder), and turbines do all 4 stages continuously in different places (the inlet, the compressor, the combustion chamber and the turbine & exhaust).



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


STILL.....the process is much the same (IF the mechanical results vary.....):


....albeit piston engines do the 4 stages (induction, compression, combustion & exhaust) intermittently in 1 place (the cylinder), and turbines do all 4 stages continuously in different places (the inlet, the compressor, the combustion chamber and the turbine & exhaust).


SUCK.

SQUEEZE.

BURN.

BLOW.

Itis the same, broken down. Into basics.....

ANY FOREIGN MATERIAL in that delicate balance, that process?? WILL mess it up.......

edit on 1 April 2011 by weedwhacker because: computerkeyboardisn'tmine........



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
[

SUCK.

SQUEEZE.

BURN.

BLOW.


lol - I'd forgotten that description!



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Why is it that all you aviation experts seem to either with hold the truth or are actually totally clueless and basing your opinions on old and out dated knowledge.

You make false statements regarding aluminum in jet fuel stating that "it is IMPOSSIBLE" and "it can not occur"

Then when you are proven wrong you back pedal and completely change your statements to suite your position.

Why not just tell the truth in the first place or admit you just don't know?

If you want to pretend to be the end all authority on these issues then at least get your facts straight.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   
The AirForce has published studies from 2009 about putting Aluminum nano particles into Jet fuel.

www.airmanonline.af.mil...


The research team recently produced aluminum nano-particles in the laboratory to test the material's ability to boost the energy content of aircraft fuel. Because the surface area of the aluminum dominates on the nano scale, the material is very reactive to air and water. The particles theoretically would boost the energy density of JP-8 jet fuel by 10 percent and increase its stability at higher temperatures.


If this were "impossible" and "can not occur", why have they been working on trying to do it?

edit on 1-4-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: edit text



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Take a look at this guys.

www.nano.gov...

Reactive metal nanoparticles less than 100 nanometers in diameter were developed in this work as fuel additives. The metal nanoparticles react with dissolved oxygen to remove it from the fuel. The small size ensures that the particles can be suspended easily for compatibility with fuel system pumps and filters, and the very high surface area of the nanoparticles enhances chemical reactivity


Why aren't you guys the ones sharing this kind of information with us aviation rookies, since you are all such experts and so knowledgeable about aviation fuels and jet engines?

EDIT:
Templated Synthesis of Aluminum Nanoparticles - A New Route to Stable Energetic Materials
www.dtic.mil...
edit on 1-4-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: add link



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Because it has nothing to do with chemtrails.

what is it you think that chemtrails are now?

What did I misquote?



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Because it was not what you were talking about, and not what you lambast Weed for "changing his story" about.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


It has everything to do with chemtrails. It shows new technology altering the jet fuel with aluminum.

It also shows that you have either been lying or don't have a clue what you're talking about.
edit on 1-4-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: edit



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Yes it is what I was talking about.. How would you know what I was talking about?

You can't even read my posts correctly, now you're claiming to be able to read my mind.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


It has everything to do with chemtrails. It shows new technology altering the jet fuel with aluminum.


And what has that got to do with chemtrails?

Is it altered in order to poison us? Is it altered in order to amplify HAARP?

How come this altered fuel doesn't show up as chemtrails all the time? Why only at 30,000+ feet, and only some of the time then?

Shouldn't you be concerned about it also being burned at takeoff - when vast amounts of it flow through the engines at maximum thrust as a/c after a/c uses the same runways? Surely you'd be able to get a sample of that since it must be heavily concentrated around those airports??



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   
I realize that Chemtrails are a heated topic as of late, but just a reminder to please keep it civil.
Discuss the topic, not each other.

Play the ball not the other players

Thank you.



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



And what has that got to do with chemtrails?

Is it altered in order to poison us? Is it altered in order to amplify HAARP?

How come this altered fuel doesn't show up as chemtrails all the time? Why only at 30,000+ feet, and only some of the time then?

Shouldn't you be concerned about it also being burned at takeoff - when vast amounts of it flow through the engines at maximum thrust as a/c after a/c uses the same runways? Surely you'd be able to get a sample of that since it must be heavily concentrated around those airports??


1 ) new kinds of additives for jet fuel have been an ongoing theory behind chemtrals

2 ) I don't know what the effects are on humans, it says in the study it's there to make extra hydrogen that will be used as fuel. I think any kind fuel exhaust is not very good for us, but this kind of exhaust might increase the amount of persistent contrails.

I don't know enough of the actual science behind HAARP to answer that question.

3 ) It says in the study that this fuel is mostly intended for use in fuel cells as an auxiliary power source.

4 ) It is being designed for special military aircraft at high altitudes. It's probably not in commercial use.



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


The military would not use a fuel that leaves excessive contrails as it would give away the position of their aircraft making them easy to spot and target from the ground. They supposedly have a chemical that they can add to suppress contrail formation.






top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join