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.

 

Sunlight May Turn Jet Exhaust Into Toxic Particles

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Sunlight May Turn Jet Exhaust Into Toxic Particles


www.wired.com

The researchers piped the engine’s exhaust into a 7-cubic-meter covered Teflon bag. When the bag was full the researchers uncovered it, allowing sunlight to fire up chemical reactions that would normally occur in the open air.

Within minutes solid particles were generated by interactions between the oily microdroplets and gases. “Driving this chemistry,” Robinson notes, “was hydroxyl radical,” or OH — the oxidant that’s most effective at catalyzing the breakdown of oily hydrocarbons. “To create this hydroxyl radical, you need sunlight,” he explains.
(visit the link for the full news article)


edit on 11-5-2011 by Vaykun because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 11 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Well I stumbled across this article and thought I would share it with you.

I am struck with two things after reading this.

1. It seems fascinating just how little we seem to be aware of the sun affecting our lives. It's there, it gives us light, but we seem so oblivious to it.

2. Could this be a set up for eventual explaining of the toxic nature of the chem trail debate?

Of course, this could also be debunking of chem trails in general. As in a 'It's not intentional, but it is harmful' sort of way.


www.wired.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 11-5-2011 by Vaykun because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
cemtrails anyone???

maybe



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 

Yup, those ground level "chemtrails" are nasty alright. That's what the article is talking about.

Though jet engines operating at full power produce mostly solid particles, at low engine loads — such as when a plane idles at the gate or on the runway — emissions are predominantly in the form of microscopic droplets.

www.wired.com...

If you call pollution "chemtrails" you're going to have to start to include buses and trucks (ships too I guess) as "chemtrailers"



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   
I've never really 'believed' the hype about the chemtrails but this has sort of altered my view... Maybe this is their subtle way of admitting they are real but they're trying to deflect from the truth?



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Sounds like maybe they don't know what chemtrails may or may not (depending if the whole idea is even close to valid) be doing to our air.

Interesting.....Thanks for the share OP



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


i miss read the OP, thank you for the correction



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by camaro68ss
 

Yup, those ground level "chemtrails" are nasty alright. That's what the article is talking about.

Though jet engines operating at full power produce mostly solid particles, at low engine loads — such as when a plane idles at the gate or on the runway — emissions are predominantly in the form of microscopic droplets.

www.wired.com...

If you call pollution "chemtrails" you're going to have to start to include buses and trucks (ships too I guess) as "chemtrailers"


They're capturing the microscopic particles in a bag, and letting them experience sunlight, which turns them into the solid particles they'd be in the air - confirming the pollution of the "chemtrail". So in essence, it seems chemtrails are indeed real, whether or not they're on purpose (additives in jet fuel, etc) is another question.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by camaro68ss
 

Yup, those ground level "chemtrails" are nasty alright. That's what the article is talking about.

Though jet engines operating at full power produce mostly solid particles, at low engine loads — such as when a plane idles at the gate or on the runway — emissions are predominantly in the form of microscopic droplets.

www.wired.com...

If you call pollution "chemtrails" you're going to have to start to include buses and trucks (ships too I guess) as "chemtrailers"


what are the specific additives in aircraft fuel that are not in cars and busses?
is there compounds added to fuel in planes that is not used in busses cars and the such?

i wounder if the size of the particulate when higher up would be smaller but still carry out the same reation to sun light?

xploder



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
The article is not referencing "chemtrails" as they are popularly believed.

It is referencing normal jet engine exhaust that is produced under normal idling* conditions.



*Edit
edit on 11-5-2011 by drwizardphd because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by againuntodust

They're capturing the microscopic particles in a bag, and letting them experience sunlight, which turns them into the solid particles they'd be in the air - confirming the pollution of the "chemtrail". So in essence, it seems chemtrails are indeed real, whether or not they're on purpose (additives in jet fuel, etc) is another question.


Not exactly. The article is talking about the microscopic oil drops produced by idling jet engines.

In the first on-tarmac measurements of their kind, researchers have shown that oil droplets spewed by idling jet engines can turn into particles tiny enough to readily penetrate the lungs and brain.


It's talking about partially burned fuel. Jet engines at operating levels produce pollution, but of a different sort...soot. Larger solid particles. But that shouldn't be a surprise nor is it a new discovery (or a secret). Any device which operates by burning hydrocarbons produces soot and pollution of other forms.

The article has nothing to do with "chemtrails" but people will point to it as some sort of "proof".


edit on 5/11/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Looks it is more applicable to the unburned hydrocarbon pollution generated at ground level - the test was done with jet engine exhaust, but if Hydroxyls interact with hydrocarbons then there's a lot more of those from cars, trucks, ships and electrical plants than from jets.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER

Originally posted by Phage
If you call pollution "chemtrails" you're going to have to start to include buses and trucks (ships too I guess) as "chemtrailers"


what are the specific additives in aircraft fuel that are not in cars and busses?


there are some - look up Jet A1 7 JP-8 on wiki - but mostly jet fuel is additive-less compared with petrol - IIRC JP8 has 4 or 5 additives.

Petrol additives are here - en.wikipedia.org...

But the article isn't about teh additives - it is about hydrocarbons in the exhaust - unburned fuel & oil leakage, and cars, trucks, ships & electrical generation produces a lot more of thsoe then aircraft.

Hence if this is a problem the main concern is going to be at ground level.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


thanks for the info

funny that as these particles turn solid they would fall and then become a ground problem
xploder



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Well Phage, I, as always, do appreciate the input that you always bring to bear. It's relevant and on topic, however, in this case I must make a counter point.

The article does talk about at ground level yes. That is because this is where the experinment is capable of being carried out. Imagine trying to put a bag over a engine while it flys through the atmosphere.

With that in mind, (and make no assumption about my stance on Chem trails, I'm just putting this here for those who are having the debate) consider this documented effect but now in the upper atmosphere. To say that it's not relevant is like saying that we should only consider babies in a study of human life cycles.

Obviously my ignorance in the chem trail debate has come back to bite me with point number 2. My main intrest was in point number 1 though. hence why it was point number 1. So I will apologize for that. It was short sighted of me.
edit on 11-5-2011 by Vaykun because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
This is not anything new though, its basically what "smog" is, which is to some degree just a photochemical reaction with ground level pollution (cars, power plants, industrial pollution, etc).



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Karma is a MF, the people who are loading these chemicals into the jets so they can be sprayed on us are exposed to it themselves probably in higher concentrations.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by BanMePlz
Karma is a MF, the people who are loading these chemicals into the jets so they can be sprayed on us are exposed to it themselves probably in higher concentrations.


Let us know when you get some evidence of who is loading, how they are loading, what they are loading, and where they are loading.

Bet you wont find any, the chemmies have been claiming for 13 years now, and so far have not found anything. Just a bunch of contradicting allegations, and outlandish ideas.

Maybe some of you should try getting jobs at airports.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by BanMePlz
 


Who is loading it? What are the chemicals? How are they being transported? Where are they being made? How are they stored and transported? Who designed the modifications to the jets to let this stuff work?

all these are perfectly reasonable questions that would constitute actual proof of something happening.

"Karma is a MF" is not proof of anything!



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 05:22 AM
link   
Smog is old news...

A lot of stuff in typical everyday cars produces nasty carcinogens and other toxic stuff in the exhaust... Fuel additives that work for reducing deposits and doing corrosion control aren't really environmentally friendly. Nor is the stuff naturally found in petroleum itself. But then we figured out a way to deal with them in order to nullify or greatly reduce their effect. Essentially they're re-burned in a catalytic process using a device installed on the exhaust.

The problem is, by the nature of how they work - you can't simply put a catalytic converter on a jet engine. It would interfere with the flow that produces thrust. The unburned stuff goes straight out the back.







 
7

log in

join