ALICE in the sky with aluminum nanos

? what happens when we breathe nano aluminum particles for 30 years....or less. Me thinks it is not equatable to aluminum being in large particles in the soil, and other things. the nano size make me cringe. aerosoling this product cannot be good. There are already rumors of aluminum causing alzheimers.......wow. Is mankind stupid or what!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I can see splitting H20 via electical stimulation like you see on the Utube videos.....and creating H2 and O2 seperate that is burnable and clean and causes H20 to be reformed. This seems on the surface very bad. And we worry about C02 in the atmosphere......what about Al and contaminants.......wow.

reply to post by luxordelphi


Transparent aluminum? Sure, sounds like a great idea, to replace plexiglass or silica glass in certain window applications.

Fascinating stuff and potential of course, assuming it is possible to form it into actual sheets that remain transparent.

Not sure how it relates to the OP.


But this leaves me :

....if you don't like cake, you can have it powdered, atomized, gassed, flaked, granuled. Just remember to add water.

To what end? As a fuel? In......what, airliners? Water-burning engines? Dreams, perhaps. Petroleum-based fuels are still likely to be cheaper overall, and the technology doesn't have to be invented from scratch, tested, tested some more.....rigorously tested for years before ever, ever becoming approved for commercial aviation.

If it is even feasible to begin with, of course.

Also, in terms of *savings* to the airline industry.....water (pure form) is heavier than Jet-A1. about ~8.3 to ~8.5 pounds per gallon. Jet-A1 weighs average of ~6.6 to ~6.9 pounds per gallon (depending on ambient temperature.

Adding aluminum nanoparticles would increase the density of the mixture even more. Was there an assertion anywhere in those links that the specific energy produced by a water/nano-Al mix would amount to more per gallon than the equivalent in Jet-A1?

reply to post by Uncinus


OK.....just saw the pic on a smallish monitor.....hard to grab the details.

Originally posted by whatsinaname
reply to post by GringoViejo

 

don't get sarky, since im being actively hacked right now its not the time. if you want to argue semantics, soil is mostly iron alumina silicate. we're talking purposely putting alumunium nano particles in the sky.

No we are not, we are talking about burning aluminum nano particles. Which with form some kind of oxide of aluminum, which is just a major component of airborne dust. For example:

www.atsdr.cdc.gov...

In addition, atmospheric deposition is a source of aluminum input to surface water. The atmospheric loading of aluminum to Lake Michigan was estimated to be 5 million kg/year

Mother nature is dumping 5 million kg of aluminum into lake michigan per year.

That's about 830 million kg over the surface area of the US.

reply to post by Uncinus


Of course you believe that 5 million kg's are falling into the lake every year? Really? Want to do the math and tell me how many tons that is nationwide? , world wide? Year after year? With respect I have to say that you are simply a "Reader" You seem to believe whatever you are handed from the net and all of your proof is useless. You can prove nothing with it, it's doctored and has no validity, compared to direct observation.There seems to be an endless amount of Excuses on the net. But no real reasons for the need for them, other than telling a vast majority of the population that they suffer from mass delusions and mental retardation because they are seeing things they know are not right in the skies. Maybe we all need to take a science class? Maybe a chemistry class? Then Monsanto would make sense and a pig would look like a goat and a snake an elephant.I lived my life from the voice within and it has never been wrong. Practically every country has these retards that are either stupid or infirms mentally according to you and yours.While the best you and those like you can offer is a joke called facts from the net. The same net you deny when the information is presented by someone that disagrees with your folly. Lastly, you sure have great faith, I mean wild faith because you believe what you are told, rather than what you see. Or have you just never paid attention? Maybe you were busy ? Busy reading to disprove the eyes of thousands of people like you are now.?

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by Uncinus

 

Of course you believe that 5 million kg's are falling into the lake every year? Really? Want to do the math and tell me how many tons that is nationwide? , world wide? Year after year? With respect I have to say that you are simply a "Reader" You seem to believe whatever you are handed from the net and all of your proof is useless. You can prove nothing with it, it's doctored and has no validity, compared to direct observation.There seems to be an endless amount of Excuses on the net. But no real reasons for the need for them, other than telling a vast majority of the population that they suffer from mass delusions and mental retardation because they are seeing things they know are not right in the skies. Maybe we all need to take a science class? Maybe a chemistry class? Then Monsanto would make sense and a pig would look like a goat and a snake an elephant.I lived my life from the voice within and it has never been wrong. Practically every country has these retards that are either stupid or infirms mentally according to you and yours.While the best you and those like you can offer is a joke called facts from the net. The same net you deny when the information is presented by someone that disagrees with your folly. Lastly, you sure have great faith, I mean wild faith because you believe what you are told, rather than what you see. Or have you just never paid attention? Maybe you were busy ? Busy reading to disprove the eyes of thousands of people like you are now.?

I find the tone of this response ironic seeings you have cited exactly zero sources. Not all information comes from the internet, you know?

reply to post by CherubBaby


Well, you could actually verify all this from basic science if you don't trust the net. Set out a bowl of distilled water, and then see how much dust it collects over a month (you'll need to evaporate all the water)

You know that soil is 7% aluminum, and that airborne dust is just essentially dry soil, so you can work it out from there.

You'd probably need to take several samples in different locations to get an accurate result though.

You don't have to trust the net. You can do science.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

Transparent aluminum? Sure, sounds like a great idea, to replace plexiglass or silica glass in certain window applications.

Scotty gave "us" the formula in Star Trek IV Teh Voyage Home........they've just taken this long to figure out an "excuse" to make it seem like it was actually "discovered" so we dont' suspect alien contact and time travel....

reply to post by luxordelphi


And why wouldn't you want a more environmentaly friendly rocket fuel??

"It is considered a green propellant, producing essentially hydrogen gas and aluminum oxide," Pourpoint said. "In contrast, each space shuttle flight consumes about 773 tons of the oxidizer ammonium perchlorate in the solid booster rockets. About 230 tons of hydrochloric acid immediately appears in the exhaust from such flights."

-Astrobiology Magazine

We've established that aluminum nanos are going into the atmosphere by citing the test done with ALICE, the rocket fuel made of aluminum nanos and ice. We know from other documentation that micro sized aluminum particles were previously found inadequate and we must assume there was some testing to determine that. We've established that nanotechnology is a fast growing science and that funding and tax breaks for it have been made available in a variety of ways. We've established that a number of companies have created a huge variety of nanos out of different substances in many different forms and for varied uses.

...Just a note on 'cake' - the one poster is right as far as like an omelete. I've also heard it described as toothpaste...

The one item still not covered here is what's really wrong with nanos - just nanos in general, not even talking about aluminum nanos? Nano particles are a lot different from regular particles or even micro particles. Because their properties are so different from their regular, non-nano properties, their reactions and interactions are unknown and unpredictable.

copublications.greenfacts.org...

It is recognised that the release of nanoparticles may be associated with abnormal events such as an explosion, spillage or equipment malfunction, but these are not considered further in this Opinion since these were not included in the questions asked of SCENIHR.

Environmental impact, which includes us, is a big question mark because how can that even be tested without risk? How does one dispose of aluminum nanos? Where would escaping nanos go?

With respect of exposure there is evidence that nanoparticles may be able to penetrate cell membranes and thereby enter various cell types, whereas larger particles may be excluded.

If a nanoparticle can penetrate cell membranes, it may be assumed that nanoparticles have the potential to reach other organs in addition to those which are the portals of entry.

There is evidence that airborne nanoparticles, in contrast to larger particles, are able, via the nose, to pass along the olfactory nerve and enter the brain (Oberdörster G et al, 2004b).

Because so little is known about nano behavior and properties except that they can differ wildly from their normal (size-wise) counterparts, it is expected that there could also be some wild new effects when these come into contact with the environment including biological organisms (us.)

For example Keady and Halvorsen (2000) have shown that the airborne level of nanoparticles in offices correlates directly with complaints of sick building syndrome.

The imagination is the only limit to the potential harm that nanos gone wild might do. They don't belong in the atmosphere any more then aluminum does. Take another look at some of the 'used to be rare now becoming common' atmospheric effects that we love to talk about here on ATS.

...Also for A.G. (thankyou for contributing to my thread): green used to be for tree huggers and save the whales...now, just like so many other terms that have morphed into something designed to put us at ease, it includes nanos and GMO's.

Do you think that the hundred of tons of perchlorate & hydrochloric acid is "greener" than H2O and Al2O3 - both of which are naturally in the environment already??

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Do you think that the hundred of tons of perchlorate & hydrochloric acid is "greener" than H2O and Al2O3 - both of which are naturally in the environment already??

Aluminum nano, whatever it's made from - even made from aluminum oxide - is manufactured in the lab and has distinctly different properties than its' non-nano origin. The dangers of hydrochloric acid are known. They can be defended against. The dangers of nanos are not known.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Manufactured nanoparticles of aluminum oxide (nano-alumina) have been widely used in the environment; however, their potential toxicity provides a growing concern for human health.

Because of the diverse potential of nanoparticles, their occupational and public exposure will dramatically increase in the future. It is estimated that the production rates of engineered nanoparticles will increase to 58,000 metric tons per year by the year 2011 (Maynard 2007).

www.spacenews.com...

What is new here is “nano aluminum particles. That’s completely different from anything that has been done before,” he said.

And yet there are studies of "nanao Al2O3 that show no effect on micro-organisms at levels likely to be encountered in the environment.

Originally posted by luxordelphi

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Do you think that the hundred of tons of perchlorate & hydrochloric acid is "greener" than H2O and Al2O3 - both of which are naturally in the environment already??

Aluminum nano, whatever it's made from - even made from aluminum oxide - is manufactured in the lab and has distinctly different properties than its' non-nano origin. The dangers of hydrochloric acid are known. They can be defended against. The dangers of nanos are not known.

But what's being released into the air is not engineered nano aluminum (70 nm, in the fuel). It's aluminum oxide smoke. It's no different from regular atmospheric dust (which ranges in size from 1 to 30,000 nm).

All combustion produces vast amounts of particulates. Most of which are way more toxic than those produced here. Some of which are smaller.

www.engineeringtoolbox.com...

(Note for the linked table. 1 micron = 1000 nanometers. 0.1 -> 100, 0.01->10, 0.001->1)

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
And yet there are studies of "nanao Al2O3 that show no effect on micro-organisms at levels likely to be encountered in the environment.

How can you state this?!! Even if we were earthworms with earthworm brains which we're not...from your link:

No mortality occurred in subchronic exposures, although reproduction decreased at >or=3,000 mg/kg nano-sized Al2O3 treatments, with higher aluminum body burdens observed at 100 and 300 mg/kg; no reproductive effects were observed in the micron-sized Al2O3 treatments.

In the soil avoidance bioassays, E. fetida exhibited avoidance behavior toward the highest concentrations of micron- and nano-sized Al2O3 (>5,000 mg/kg) relative to control soils.

The earthworms weren't breathing it, they were just digging in it and even so, when given a choice, they opted for the soil without nanos and even for the soil without micros. There is nothing for us to learn here? Even a tiny worm knows it ain't right.

reply to post by Uncinus

But what's being released into the air is not engineered nano aluminum (70 nm, in the fuel). It's aluminum oxide smoke. It's no different from regular atmospheric dust (which ranges in size from 1 to 30,000 nm).

All combustion produces vast amounts of particulates. Most of which are way more toxic than those produced here. Some of which are smaller.

There is no way to tell what is being released or how or when or why because the properties of orchestrated nanos are not known. Their reaction within the environment is not known. What they will adhere to or not is not known.

www.ehs.psu.edu...

Particles in the nanometer size range do occur in nature and as a result of existing industrial processes. Nanosized particles are part of the range of atmospheric particles generated by natural events such as volcanic eruptions and forest fires. They also form part of the fumes generated during welding, metal smelting, automobile exhaust, and other industrial processes.

The current nanotechnology revolution differs from past industrial processes because nanomaterials are being engineered and fabricated, rather than occurring as a byproduct of other activities. The nanomaterials being engineered have different properties compared to those of the parent compounds. Since their properties are different when they are small, it is expected that they will have different effects on the body and will need to be evaluated separately from the parent compounds for toxicity.

reply to post by luxordelphi



I state it because it is what hte article states - as you yourself noted

sheesh

And the wormies avoided high concentrations pf 5% aluminium - at that concentration it's just about mineable!!!!

10 tons of dirt usually yeilds about 1 ton of Bauxite, and 4-5 tons of bauxite generates about 1 ton of aluminium.

If you are afraid of 5% aluminium in soil then you probably need to emigrate off the earth!!

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

I state it because it is what hte article states - as you yourself noted

sheesh

And the wormies avoided high concentrations pf 5% aluminium - at that concentration it's just about mineable!!!!

10 tons of dirt usually yeilds about 1 ton of Bauxite, and 4-5 tons of bauxite generates about 1 ton of aluminium.

If you are afraid of 5% aluminium in soil then you probably need to emigrate off the earth!!

This is the test that you put forth in your link. It said that the reproduction of worms was affected by aluminum nanos and that when given a choice they preferred soil without aluminum nanos and without aluminum micros. The test said they didn't die. I'm sure time would have taken care of even that or at least the death of the worm species if they couldn't reproduce anymore.

Here's some information on what nanos can do:

www.fasebj.org...

The manufactured nanoparticles (MNPs) of aluminum oxide have been widely used in many fields. Evidence indicates that MNPs can enter the brain and induce neurotoxic effects.

and definitions and explanations of neurotoxicity:

www.answers.com...

Originally posted by luxordelphi
There is no way to tell what is being released or how or when or why because the properties of orchestrated nanos are not known. Their reaction within the environment is not known. What they will adhere to or not is not known.

Once again. It's being burnt. Once it's burnt, then it's no different from anything else that's burnt. "Nano" at that point is irrelevant.

Originally posted by luxordelphi


This is the test that you put forth in your link. It said that the reproduction of worms was affected by aluminum nanos

reproduction decreased at >or=3,000 mg/kg nano-sized Al2O3 treatments,

So when their bodies were >=3% aluminium - I'm a fairly big guy - about 100kg - I would have to have 3kg of aluminium in me to get to that level.

I don't think that is going to happen from a few hundred kilos of rocket fuel being burned in hte atmosphere over and above all the nano-sized particles that are there already!!