Spontaneous Ignition in the Sky

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   
A geoengineering proposal, allegedly still on the table, would loft nano aluminum or barium or strontium or other substance (sulphur, salt water) into the atmosphere to alleviate global warming/ global cooling/ global change/ global disaster et.al.

A side effect of this activity is said to be white-out of the sky and more beautiful sunsets. The sky would be a paler blue and more reflective. Some have already noticed this effect.

Scientists Push for 'Solar Geoengineering'...with Nano Particles to Whiten Our Skies


While scientists are finding new ways to justify using chemtrails in our skies, a recent study shows that pollution trapped in thunderclouds is making climate change worse.


...and the same story edited differently:

Scientists Push For 'Solar Geoengineering' With Nano Particles To Whiten Our Skies


Kravtiz and Calderia, working with Douglas MacMartin from the California Institute of Technology, studied sky color ad brightness by utilizing a sulfate-based aerosols. They surmised that using these chemicals in the atmosphere would cause the daytime skies to be whiter and the sunsets to glow brighter.



Computer models showed that although the sky would remain blue, it would be a much lighter shade; especially over areas that experience more geoengineeing than others.


Nano particles are so tiny that they straddle two worlds: ours and the quantum. In many ways the nano no longer really resembles the original substance. It exhibits completely different behaviors. Most of these new behaviors are unknown because lab generated nano is still a new science (1990's.)

What's So Special about the Nanoscale?


Scale at which Quantum Effects Dominate Properties of Materials



When particle sizes of solid matter in the visible scale are compared to what can be seen in a regular optical microscope, there is little difference in the properties of the particles. But when particles are created with dimensions of about 1–100 nanometers (where the particles can be “seen” only with powerful specialized microscopes), the materials’ properties change significantly from those at larger scales. This is the size scale where so-called quantum effects rule the behavior and properties of particles. Properties of materials are size-dependent in this scale range. Thus, when particle size is made to be nanoscale, properties such as melting point, fluorescence, electrical conductivity, magnetic permeability, and chemical reactivity change as a function of the size of the particle.



Nanoscale materials have far larger surface areas than similar masses of larger-scale materials. As surface area per mass of a material increases, a greater amount of the material can come into contact with surrounding materials, thus affecting reactivity.



In other words, a single cubic centimeter of cubic nanoparticles has a total surface area one-third larger than a football field!


There are created particles with one, two and all three dimensions on the nano scale. (See page 4 next link.) There are nano materials with no dimensions in the nano scale. (Pages 5 through 8 in the next link describe these. Page 24 illustrates the differences in gold at various nano scales.)

Applied Nanochemistry

The way that all of these various types and shapes and sizes of particles react within our environment is known only to a very seriously limited extent. They are observed, reacting, and the results are documented. Infinite circumstances, such as exist in our environment, are not studied. Only finite, specific traits are looked for. These studies generally enhance the profitability of the nano field for corporate and military and retail interests. Some few studies are conducted on the safety of these materials and these studies, overall, prompt safety regulations after the fact. Again, seriously after the fact because the materials are already in the environment.

Spontaneous ignition is something that, in each circumstance, at one time, seemed miraculous, but, in many cases came to be scientifically explainable and understandable. These stories would be some that we have heard about in shows like unexplained mysteries etc.

Following here (nearing the end of my thread) are the conclusions reached by some testing done with nano aluminum, looking at spontaneous combustion and ignition of this substance.

Safety and Handling of Nano-aluminum


• Nano-aluminum poses hazards not found with micron-sized aluminum powders


• Nano-aluminum is very sensitive to electrostatic discharge


• Dust clouds of nano-aluminum in air present an explosion hazard at even small concentrations of aluminum and small amounts of ignition energy


One of the reasons given for this combustibility is the lack of a large enough internal area to absorb and thus dissipate heat. This is somewhat described in this article wherein size matters:

Spontaneous combustion in nanobubbles


(Nanowerk News) Nanometre-sized bubbles containing the gases hydrogen and oxygen can apparently combust spontaneously, although nothing happens in larger bubbles.



Combustion only takes place in bubbles that are smaller than 150 nanometres; nothing happens in larger bubbles. Early experiments in microreactors also showed that nothing happened in larger bubbles; the heat can dissipate to the larger internal surface.


This, as an accidental discovery, in a lab, is relatively benign. This sort of discovery, in the sky, after critical mass or whatever has been reached, could be much more complicated. Smart Clouds would have to be renamed after they start to flame up because they just wouldn't be all that smart anymore.

Atmospheric Geoengineering: Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails


Owning the Weather in 2025 provides a specific timeline for the use of EnMod technologies in cooperation with the Weather Modification Association (WMA), a business-government group promoting the beneficial uses of environmental modification [20]:


2000 Introduce ionic mirrors, with a sharp increase from 2008;


2000-2025 Use chemicals for atmospheric seeding by civilian (as well as military) aviation;


2004 Create smart clouds thru nanotechnology, with exponential increase after 2010;


2005 Introduce ‘carbon black dust’.




posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
A geoengineering proposal, allegedly still on the table, would loft nano aluminum or barium or strontium or other substance (sulphur, salt water) into the atmosphere to alleviate global warming/ global cooling/ global change/ global disaster et.al.

A side effect of this activity is said to be white-out of the sky and more beautiful sunsets. The sky would be a paler blue and more reflective. Some have already noticed this effect.


Are you saying that even though all the articles point to this being a "proposed idea" , that it's already happened?



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude

Originally posted by luxordelphi
A geoengineering proposal, allegedly still on the table, would loft nano aluminum or barium or strontium or other substance (sulphur, salt water) into the atmosphere to alleviate global warming/ global cooling/ global change/ global disaster et.al.

A side effect of this activity is said to be white-out of the sky and more beautiful sunsets. The sky would be a paler blue and more reflective. Some have already noticed this effect.


Are you saying that even though all the articles point to this being a "proposed idea" , that it's already happened?






I'm saying that smart clouds that flame up in the sky aren't really very smart. Are they?



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   
I would think that the "Scientists" are strictly using a theory of what "Should" happen and "Don't" know what Side Effects this could have on the planet be they good or bad.

I don't feel comfortable with this.... What goes up must come down right??? Lighter blue sky.... Less climate change.... There playing "gods" game for lack of better words.... NO BUENO!~



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   
LD wrote:


Atmospheric Geoengineering: Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails

Owning the Weather in 2025 provides a specific timeline for the use of EnMod technologies in cooperation with the Weather Modification Association (WMA), a business-government group promoting the beneficial uses of environmental modification [20]:

2000 Introduce ionic mirrors, with a sharp increase from 2008;


Doesn't seem to be happening......HAARP has shut down!!


2000-2025 Use chemicals for atmospheric seeding by civilian (as well as military) aviation;


Still some time to run, but no verifiable evidence of it even starting yet


2004 Create smart clouds thru nanotechnology, with exponential increase after 2010;


Haven't seen any verifiable evidence that this has started either, let alone be "exponentially" increasing


2005 Introduce ‘carbon black dust’.


Seems strange that this is proposed to be introduced by 2005 since it's been going on since fire was invented - can you expand on what this actually means?



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


While I do appreciate your participation in my thread, I must refer you back to the title (indicative of the substance in this case), which is: 'Spontaneous Ignition in the Sky.'

To further explain the substance: nano particles, whether already lofted or still in the wings, can have startling behaviors while interacting, at large, within our environment.

I am proposing that a flaming sky could result.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   
While scientists are off playing God Almighty to figure ways of terraforming our OWN planet, I had a suggestion.

Prior to anything being attempted from their brainstorms....We make a new law. The first GLOBAL law on the books, as it were.

Any attempt at global manipulation of any system or natural process which produces a dangerous or destructive result by failure? .....brings capital punishment upon those who planned executed it. ONLY global attempts now.

It sounds fair to me. If they do these things and the geniuses are WRONG? They'll have killed us ALL or, at BEST, changed the global ecosystem in a way no man should even attempt. The LEAST they should pay with is their own lives.

Or, they could just not play God and accept the fact not EVERYTHING we can see is among what we can control or manipulate. Oh...but some would be crushed to accept such a truth, even if it kills every last one of us.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Yet another reason why aerosol SRM is probably not a good option.
Any idea what concentration of aluminum particles is required to trigger self ignition?



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Sorry...the link didn't work very well when I went back to it so I'll just give you the url:

www.dtic.mil...

and the rest of the conclusions:


• Nano-aluminum stored in a humid environment can experience an exothermic reactions
• Samples of less than 210g nano-aluminum did not build up enough heat to selfignite, even in a hot, humid environment
>300g quantities have demonstrated extreme exotherms



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


I read that Air Force proposal a few years back. Ahhh, the memories of ATS discussions about it. In 1997 the Air Force release of Owning The Weather by 2025 coincided with Edward Tellers research paper on the viability and delivery of such technology, all in the name of staving off global warming of course.

Seems kind of a contradictory thing to spend billions of tax payer dollars to fill the atmosphere with protective metal salts, and then throw Carbon Black dust into the experiment.

S&F. We need more intellectual debate about the plans that the military complex has or is putting into place in order to protect the human race from the evils the universe has in store for us.

The right nano cloud, a charge, should be interesting.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


While I do appreciate your participation in my thread, I must refer you back to the title (indicative of the substance in this case), which is: 'Spontaneous Ignition in the Sky.'


Are you saying that section I quoted is not actually relevant to the subject??



To further explain the substance: nano particles, whether already lofted or still in the wings, can have startling behaviors while interacting, at large, within our environment.

I am proposing that a flaming sky could result.


how much nano-material would it take to make the sky "flame"?

plus of course all dust is always a explosion hazard - as a mechanic I was taught this about metal filings from lathes and filing, grain elevator explosions are a well known hazard, as is flour dust!!

so according to your source the sky would "flame" if it was full of "bubbles" of oxygen and hydrogen (mixed together) that were less than 150nm in diameter.

How do you think that would be dispersed across the sky? How many tonnes are you thinking it would take to achieve whatever effect you envisage?

edit on 1-8-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   
PICTURES.PICTURES.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 

Huh.
It seems that is talking about the storage of aluminum dust in humid enviroments. Seems that can be dangerous but not because it ignites. They put a pile of aluminum dust (100% concentration?) in a test container and heated it to 100ºF. That's not exactly like dispersing it in the air.

With 210 grams it heated up a bit on it's own. With 300 grams it heated up a lot. But in neither case was there ignition.

Test was repeated with >300 sample and > 50°C exotherm was recorded

No self-ignition

So an even larger pile might produce more heat and maybe set something nearby on fire I guess.
edit on 8/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   
LD wrote:


This, as an accidental discovery, in a lab, is relatively benign. This sort of discovery, in the sky, after critical mass or whatever has been reached, could be much more complicated. Smart Clouds would have to be renamed after they start to flame up because they just wouldn't be all that smart anymore.


But critical mass is not required according to your statement - each small bubble will spontaneously combust regardless of what is around it.

Can you explain how these clouds would form in the fist place, since they would apparently be exploding right off the get-go?



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


Thankyou for your interesting post, part of which I will try to respond to.




Seems kind of a contradictory thing to spend billions of tax payer dollars to fill the atmosphere with protective metal salts, and then throw Carbon Black dust into the experiment.


The carbon black dust, back when that proposal was made, had two qualities of interest. It had an outrageous surface area and was conductive. I think that, like strontium, it was also basically free. Strontium was stockpiled and sitting uselessly. Carbon black is a bi-product of many of our technologies. Carbon nanotubes were a big hit for awhile until their particle shape and reaction similarities to asbestos were found.

Beyond that I'd be just speculating because the nanotech field advances at almost the speed of light and many times defies explanation and understanding.

Electrical conductivity of compacts of graphene, multi-wall carbon nanotubes, carbon black, and graphite powder

So, yes, I agree with you - it seems contradictory unless one considers that there was in these times an attempt to create an antenna that would be long enough for certain military applications and could remain in the sky away from environmentalists upset about forests being levelled.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


is this one of those 'theory' things?

scientists love theory...it's like religion.



ha.


Post edit - i f'd u.
edit on 1-8-2013 by playernumber13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by sulaw
 




I would think that the "Scientists" are strictly using a theory of what "Should" happen and "Don't" know what Side Effects this could have on the planet be they good or bad.


This is really the crux of the matter. That and the fact that these particles are being created in a fast and furious manner for use in almost every aspect of our lives. They are being released into the environment without anything but the most minimal knowledge of what can happen.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


They are being released into the environment

They are?
Where and why?



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 




Any attempt at global manipulation of any system or natural process which produces a dangerous or destructive result by failure? .....brings capital punishment upon those who planned executed it. ONLY global attempts now.


I also feel very strongly about the environment and we may already be seeing weather wars and, in those, from a global citizen standpoint, who is the enemy(?). Education and testing need to come first. But the nanotech industry is a runaway train and the incredible proposals using this technology all seem to be underlined with some sort of devil-may-care urgency while the very real and terrible dangers of these materials are ignored.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by sulaw
 

That and the fact that these particles are being created in a fast and furious manner for use in almost every aspect of our lives.


they are?

Where and why?

The articles you linked to implied that very few of these particles are being made, and that only by accident recently.


They are being released into the environment without anything but the most minimal knowledge of what can happen.


there was no mention of them being released to the environment at all.
edit on 1-8-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



top topics
 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join