posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 07:57 PM
Originally posted by MagicWand67
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
Because the most common sulphur compound proposed for this is sulphur dioxide - a colourless gasses.
That's false, it's not the most common proposed compound. Many different chemicals/substances have been proposed. Using various techniques.
This list does not included the newer methods of Aluminum and barium.
Option 1: Increasing Sulfur Content of Jet Fuel in Commercial Fleet
Except that i have mentioned this a couple of times in the past myself...
Option 2: Direct Injection of Sulfur Dioxide Gas Using Dedicated Fleet of Jet Aircraft
Option 3: Direct Injection of Sulfur Dioxide Gas Using High Altitude Jet Aircraft
Oh - look...sulphur dioxide - where did I see that mentioned recently??
Option 4: Direct Injection of Ammonium Sulfate Aerosol Using Dedicated Fleet of Jet Aircraft
Option 5: Running Commercial Jet Engines with Richer Fuel to Air Ratio
Option 6: Running Dedicated Fleet of Jet Engines with Richer Fuel to Air Ratio
Option 7: Running High Altitude Aircraft Jet Engines with Richer Fuel to Air Ratio
Prioritization of Sulfur/Soot Release Strategies
there is no such thing as a "richer fuel to air ratio" for jet engines - anyone suggesting that has a deep, deed misunderstanding (ie is ignorant!) of
jet engines - if you put more fuel into them they just run faster.
How convenient of you to constantly forget, even though I have posted this link in numerous threads, that one of the proposed method for
dispersal of the material is to inject it into the hot exhaust gases.
In the case of the present system, a significant quantity of sulfuric acid will be stored on the aircraft and ejected into the atmosphere during
flight. This liquid could be injected into the engine to provide additional thrust at high altitudes to combat thrust lapse. As discussed in the
previous section elevated sulfur content is detrimental to engine component life, and consequently traditional liquid injection techniques (compressor
inlet injection) would not be appropriate for this system. 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
While the sulfuric acid injection technique described above does provide some extended altitude capability, it does not appear to provide a
substantial enough benefit to warrant its implementation in a turbofan engine for that purpose. However, injection of the sulfuric acid into the
exhaust in this way may represent an efficient method by which to disperse it into the atmosphere. This analysis suggests that even at the maximum
sulfuric acid release rate under consideration (24.9 kg/s) the thrust level produced by the engine is not adversely affected (1.05 thrust ratio).
Why would anyone bother with that at all??
Who in their right mind wants to fly around with sulphuric acid on board - and all the consequent
problems of storage, pumping and leaks??
I don't "conventiently forget it" - it is a stupid idea not worth discussing!
A much easier system is simply to run jet fuel with more sulphur in it than at present (as suggested by #1 in your list above) - jet fuel is allowed
3000ppm sulphur, but commonly it only has about 500-1000 ppm. By running Jet A1 at
3000ppm instead of 500-1000
it usually is now I reckon you could add 1
million tonnes of SO2 to the atmosphere without much bother.
And of course what is the main way sulphur is produced in Jet Exhaust?? As sulphur dioxide....
so - your objection to me saying that SO2 is the most commonly discussed actual option has - several cases of SO2 being discussed (as the most common
material in the list presented!), some utterly ignorant comments about "running jet engines on a rich mixture", and a stupid idea for carrying
sulphuric acid on board aircraft that is completely needless.
edit on 16-12-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)