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.
Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus
What was the question?
Oh yes now I remember.
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
And would that be visible?
Yes darling. Due to the hygroscopic nature of sulfuric acid. It would attract the moisture in the air and form ice crystals just like your beloved contrails do.
Where are the tankers loading it onto he aircraft? Why aren't there lots of people standing around in hazmat suits??
To answer your second question you edited in. Other materials like salts also have the same hygroscopic quality. Private or military aircraft flown from private or military airfields would make it quite easy to conceal.
I'd say "half baked" was a fairly optimistic description - someone saw a word somewhere and decided to use it....but hasn't really put any thought into what it would actually require in real life.
Your ignorance never ceases to astound me.
Hygroscopic does not mean "makes water" - it means "absorbs water" - so there fore there is no water left in het environment to freeze to make contrails at all!!
Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Thorazine
Not open to logic and reason, are we? Got to stick with our psuedo-science at all costs, do we? You don't want someone to explain to you why a grid pattern in the sky is not possible without the addition of chemicals. Unless it's a thousand bombers in tight formation, there aren't enough hygroscopic particles to create anything but a fluke, here for a few minutes and then gone, contrail. Unless there's a front. And even with the thousand bombers, it usually took a front anyway.
This is the tragedy of man. We don't learn from history. And so any ignorant NSA pied piper can string us along. And so far, on this entertainment forum, I've never been wrong in my first assessment of intent and agenda.
So the wind is creating grid patterns. If you'll believe this, you'll believe anything and deserve to be decieved.
You clearly have no idea what happens when sulphuric acid encounters water - it does not simply make "sulpuric acid ice" in some fashion that will freeze looking exacly like water - it makes hydronium ions H3O+
Source
However, some thrust augmentation may be realizable by injecting the sulfuric acid downstream of the turbine, in a manner similar to a modern afterburner. By this approach, to achieve thrust increases the turbine exhaust gases must be hot enough to vaporize the sulfuric acid.
Hygroscopic does not mean "makes water" - it means "absorbs water" - so therefore there is no water (or at least less water) left in the environment to freeze to make contrails at all!!
Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
Hygroscopic does not mean "makes water" - it means "absorbs water" - so there fore there is no water left in het environment to freeze to make contrails at all!!
Well, here we are again where a word is being used without actually understanding what it means.
I didn't know you could create persistent contrails by absorbing the moisture from the air, well that sure makes it a whole new ballgame.
I guess trying to keep the belief of chemtrails up is taking a toll on actually finding evidence to support chemtrails if they are resorting to using such words as Hygroscopic without actually understanding what it means.
Too bad the Air Force did not actually say that. Here is the source the Chemtrail Conspiracy site is supposedly referencing. Please locate that statement, or admit that Writers In The Sky is simply lying
Fact: The National Airspace System of the United States is orientated in an east-west and north-south grid with aircraft flying at designated 2000 foot increments of elevation. Contrails formed by aircraft may appear to form a grid as the winds disperse the contrails.
Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
You clearly have no idea what happens when sulphuric acid encounters water - it does not simply make "sulpuric acid ice" in some fashion that will freeze looking exacly like water - it makes hydronium ions H3O+
What a waste of time it is discussing this with you.
In your rush to play psuedo scientist you forgot to factor in that the sulfuric acid is injected into the hot exhaust of the jet engine and is immediately vaporized.
How many times do I keep having to post the same quote?
Source
However, some thrust augmentation may be realizable by injecting the sulfuric acid downstream of the turbine, in a manner similar to a modern afterburner. By this approach, to achieve thrust increases the turbine exhaust gases must be hot enough to vaporize the sulfuric acid.
Due to the hygroscopic nature of sulfuric acid. It would attract the moisture in the air and form ice crystals just like your beloved contrails do.
Next time you go consult your chemistry teacher make sure you give them all the correct information and describe the actual scenario. You won't look as foolish then.
Hygroscopic does not mean "makes water" - it means "absorbs water" - so therefore there is no water (or at least less water) left in the environment to freeze to make contrails at all!!
Show me where I said it "makes water". I never said any such nonsense.
Look at the quote you posted. I said "attracts water".
Nice try try trying to twist my words.
The only person you fooled is Tsurfer he ate up your lies hook line and sinker.
I don't make stuff up.
Air traffic has decreased.
Originally posted by luxordelphi
Contrail Facts/Air Force 2005
Fact: The National Airspace System of the United States is orientated in an east-west and north-south grid with aircraft flying at designated 2000 foot increments of elevation. Contrails formed by aircraft may appear to form a grid as the winds disperse the contrails.
Source
Pure sulfuric acid is a colorless, odorless, oily liquid. It freezes at 10.5°C. It fumes when heated, because some of the H2SO4 decomposes to H2O and SO3. The H2O is retained in the liquid, while SO3 gas is released. Therefore, the concentration of H2SO4 decreases, reaching a concentration of 98.33%. This solution boils at 338°C and is the material sold as "concentrated sulfuric acid." Concentrated sulfuric acid, which is 18M, has a strong affinity for water and is sometimes used as a drying agent. It can be used to chemically remove water from many compounds.
It dehydrates sucrose (table sugar), C12H22O11, leaving a spongy black mass of carbon and diluted sulfuric acid. Concentrated sulfuric acid reacts similarly with skin, paper, and other animal and plant matter. When it is mixed with water, a highly exothermic reaction occurs, and the energy released can be enough to heat the mixture to boiling. Therefore, concentrated sulfuric acid must be diluted by adding the acid slowly to cold water while the mixture is stirred to dissipate the heat.
Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
Like I said before you keep ignoring and leaving out the important factors that make your argument invalid.
The heat from the exhaust incinerates and vaporizes the material.
Source
Pure sulfuric acid is a colorless, odorless, oily liquid. It freezes at 10.5°C. It fumes when heated, because some of the H2SO4 decomposes to H2O and SO3. The H2O is retained in the liquid, while SO3 gas is released. Therefore, the concentration of H2SO4 decreases, reaching a concentration of 98.33%. This solution boils at 338°C and is the material sold as "concentrated sulfuric acid." Concentrated sulfuric acid, which is 18M, has a strong affinity for water and is sometimes used as a drying agent. It can be used to chemically remove water from many compounds.
It dehydrates sucrose (table sugar), C12H22O11, leaving a spongy black mass of carbon and diluted sulfuric acid. Concentrated sulfuric acid reacts similarly with skin, paper, and other animal and plant matter. When it is mixed with water, a highly exothermic reaction occurs, and the energy released can be enough to heat the mixture to boiling. Therefore, concentrated sulfuric acid must be diluted by adding the acid slowly to cold water while the mixture is stirred to dissipate the heat.
I also stated that there are many other types of chemical other than sulfuric acid that have been proposed.
I used Sulfuric acid because it was the one suggested in the Aurora report.
I think they have tried out numerous chemicals and materials in their tests.
That's one of the reasons the Geoengineering scientists have switched from suggesting sulfur to alumina.
Using alumina may have less harmful effects on the environment than sulfur would.
OK...one more time...where in there is there anything about it freezing in a like manner to "ordinary" (not attributed to you) water vapour?
But regardless - there is still no actual evidence of it happening, and if sulphur was to be used it seems far more likely that it would be done by increasing the amount of sulphur in jet fuel within the current limit of 3000ppm - that would not require any special equipment at all!!
the obvious problems with using sulphur are easy to see - you may be too yuong to remember the acid rain scares of the 1980's - but I do, and hte problems are well enough known to be part of the wiki article on Sulphuric SRM
Studies of various materials that could possibly be used for SRM have also been done over eth eyars.
This is obviously news to you - but it isn't actually news to anyone in the geo-engineering field at all.
Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus
The more hygroscopic the CCN is the larger the ice particles will be and longer they will last.
Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
OK...one more time...where in there is there anything about it freezing in a like manner to "ordinary" (not attributed to you) water vapour?
Yes, one more time. Once vaporized it becomes tiny particles that become CCN ( cloud condensation nuclei ). These tiny particles attract and absorb the water from the exhaust and the atmosphere just like normal contrails form.
Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
But regardless - there is still no actual evidence of it happening, and if sulphur was to be used it seems far more likely that it would be done by increasing the amount of sulphur in jet fuel within the current limit of 3000ppm - that would not require any special equipment at all!!
Except this would negatively effect engine lifespans.
I already supplied papers that discuss this technique when I posted the other report. Now you're just parroting what I said earlier.
the obvious problems with using sulphur are easy to see - you may be too yuong to remember the acid rain scares of the 1980's - but I do, and hte problems are well enough known to be part of the wiki article on Sulphuric SRM
Studies of various materials that could possibly be used for SRM have also been done over eth eyars.
This is obviously news to you - but it isn't actually news to anyone in the geo-engineering field at all.
I'm in my 40's now so I remember it just fine.
Nothing you have posted is news to me.
How you come to that conclusion is just another display of your ignorance.
I supported my argument with facts
and you have decided to move on to ad hominems and changing the subject.
They do not abosorb water - they provide a "spot" in the atmosphere for water to condense around.
They cause water to coalesce - which is completely differnt to absorbing it.
Sorry - but again you have been betrayed by your lack of actual knowledge.
Yes you posted papers - which I already mentioned had been seen on here long ago.
You should read them and understand what is actually in them befoer you think they support your case.
Clearly the amount of sulphur allowed in jet fuel is news to you, and how condensation nuclei work to coalesce water rathe than absorb it is news to you.
Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
They cause water to coalesce - which is completely differnt to absorbing it.
Sorry - but again you have been betrayed by your lack of actual knowledge.
Are you saying it can't do both at the same time?
Because just because they absorb water doesn't mean they can't coalesce also.
In fact it's guaranteed that they do both.
You're trying to cause confusion based on semantics which are false.
Yes you posted papers - which I already mentioned had been seen on here long ago.
You should read them and understand what is actually in them befoer you think they support your case.
You should read them. Because you keep saying there is no evidence.
Clearly the amount of sulphur allowed in jet fuel is news to you, and how condensation nuclei work to coalesce water rathe than absorb it is news to you.
There are 2 completely different mechanisms at work. One is absorbtion of water - the other is coalescing.
Really? And what is your evidence for that? I thought you said it was "guaranteed that they will do both" (attributed to you) - not that they will only "almost always do both" - which is it?