Spontaneous Ignition in the Sky

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

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

I think we're getting ready to find out. Is this something that we really need to know?

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!!

I'm not really talking about the flammability of cotton dust and linseed oil. More on the lines of the accidental spontaneous ignitions that could result from the wholesale use of little understood, lab created, nano particles and nano materials. So...if you have been able to learn and understand the hazards of dust then it should not be such a stretch for you to learn about and understand the hazards of nano particles and materials.

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.

Really...really obtuse. Hopefully it's just an act.

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?

Smart clouds. Remote controlled clouds. Artificial clouds. Invisible (until they flame up) clouds. I wasn't thinking of tons (is that the same as tonnes?)...more like the right circumstance like in the lab thing where they discovered that a nano particle of the same substance as a micro particle behaves differently by spontaneously exploding.

How Humans Manipulate the Planet For the Sake of a Good Game

Qatari engineers recently announced a project to develop solar-powered artificial clouds to shade the 2022 World Cup from the country’s unforgiving summer sun. One remotely steerable cloud comes with a hefty price tag - $500,000 - just to cool the field by 10 degrees.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

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

I think we're getting ready to find out. Is this something that we really need to know?

Yes - it would be a good pointer to where and how such a programme might be accomplished.

And if it is some monstrous amount like million's of tons (say) then you can look for a much more obvious programme than if it is only a few tons.

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!!

I'm not really talking about the flammability of cotton dust and linseed oil. More on the lines of the accidental spontaneous ignitions that could result from the wholesale use of little understood, lab created, nano particles and nano materials. So...if you have been able to learn and understand the hazards of dust then it should not be such a stretch for you to learn about and understand the hazards of nano particles and materials.

all such hazards require a significant amount of the material concerned - too much and it isn't a hazard, too little and it isn't a hazard.

Hence all the more reason to establish how much might be required, and how such a system might work to turn the sky to "flame"

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.

Really...really obtuse. Hopefully it's just an act.

??? what do you mean - your posts point out that these bubbles only spontaneously combust if they are less than 150nm across - so to have the effect you claim might happen you have to fill the sky with these nano-bubbles, with hydrogen and oxygen mixed in them.

That is nothing more than joining your dots of the nature of the particles and het effect you claim they might have if released in sufficient quantity.

again we come back to how much would it take?

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?

Smart clouds. Remote controlled clouds. Artificial clouds. Invisible (until they flame up) clouds. I wasn't thinking of tons (is that the same as tonnes?)...more like the right circumstance like in the lab thing where they discovered that a nano particle of the same substance as a micro particle behaves differently by spontaneously exploding.

tons and tonnes are close enough to each other to be semantically equivalent IMO.

Remote controlled clouds?? What does that even mean??

Remember these bubbles SPONTANEOUSLY combust - you do not light them up - they do it all by themselves

How Humans Manipulate the Planet For the Sake of a Good Game

Qatari engineers recently announced a project to develop solar-powered artificial clouds to shade the 2022 World Cup from the country’s unforgiving summer sun. One remotely steerable cloud comes with a hefty price tag - $500,000 - just to cool the field by 10 degrees.

but those aren't actually clouds - but they are just airships - cloth envelopes full of lifting gas - that will be large and flat and deployed to create shade.

The clouds, which cost $500,000 each, are made of lightweight carbon and held aloft with helium. Solar-powered engines move them via remote control. According to developer Dr. Saud Ghani, head of the university's mechanical and industrial engineering department, a prototype cloud should be ready for testing by the end of the year.

- item 1 in the gallery of the proposals

If you filled them with these nano-bubbles the bubbles would still SPONTANEOUSLY combust - you would have a "Hindenburg" every time you tried to fill one - they would never get to fly!

reply to post by luxordelphi

How Humans Manipulate the Planet For the Sake of a Good Game

The head of the mechanical and industrial engineering department, Saud Abdul Ghani, told Gulf News that the clouds would be made from a lightweight carbon structure that surrounds an enclosed blimp-like vehicle filled with helium gas.

inhabitat.com...

That "cloud" is a blimp. A big parasol.

Originally posted by playernumber13
PICTURES.PICTURES.

Pictures are available in most of the links. They won't mean a lot without their attendant explanation, though. At this time it's not prudent for me to post pictures directly.

reply to post by luxordelphi


F&S

you can actually smell the desperation

from your source:

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.

That pollution is composed of parasites, toxic metals, nano-engineered particles and other toxins. Samples have yielded the presence of:

• Aluminum
• Barium
• Nickel
• Cadmium
• Mold spores
• Synthetic nano-fibers
• Bacillus blood spores
• Radioactive thorium

The Obama administration’s science advisor, John Holdren, has come out publicly to say that he believes that geoengineering will assist the planet is stabilizing its weather with regard to global warming. Holdren sees geo-engineering as a perfectly viable way to cool the planet’s temperature.

He fully supports the process of releasing particles of barium, magnesium, aluminum, nano-fibers, bacillus blood spores and other chemicals to reflect sunlight away from the Earth.

One point government officials fail to mention is that using weather modification is the cause of the changes we see in the planet’s natural bio-spherical patterns.

Chemtrails, and the toxins they release into the atmosphere, are having a direct effect on warming Earth’s temperatures.

now how did all that get up there?
let no ignorant fool claim auto-exhaust




Scientists Push for ‘Solar Geoengineering’ With Nano Particles to Whiten Our Skies?
more like "Sane" Scientists Push for ‘Solar Geoengineering’ With Nano Particles legalization of eco-crimes.

but pay me no mind, as I Am quite "Insane".

Originally posted by TheMagus
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

now how did all that get up there?
let no ignorant fool claim auto-exhaust

wind blown dust and dirt, nuclear tests, fires and tornadoes seem like perfectly normal methods for chemicals to move around the atmosphere.

reply to post by Phage

Huh. It seems that is talking about the storage of aluminum dust in humid environments. 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.

What do you mean storage and humid environments and heating to 100 degrees F? The tests were for safe handling and a mention of how humidity affects it and over the past month or so there have been very few places in this country that you'd have to heat in order to get to 100 degrees F. You'd actually have to cool things off quite a bit.

The tests conducted were on a specific size of nano only. The size was also within agglomerations which were sonically thinned. The tests were performed on specific amounts. There was no spontaneous ignition in one test because they decided to call the anomaly that occurred during that test a weather event although what kind of weather they were expecting in a barrel is a thought.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

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?

Yes...I can explain. The spontaneous combustion, ignition, explosion and implosion of the many and diverse lab created nano particles and nano materials (composites etc.) is coming. We don't know what size, shape, coating, combination...in tandem with various environmental conditions, including technologically induced conditions, will set them off.

The examples I gave were to give an idea of how vastly different the behaviors of these particles and materials can be from their original, at least micro-sized, sources. These are two scenarios using very very specific sizes. What about all the other sizes and fractions of sizes?

In geoengineering proposals, clouds that will cool, heat, change, avert disaster...made of nano...have to be kept from agglomeration (unless they are for rain or snow or other such) because otherwise they would fall out, rain out etc. and it's expensive and logistically nightmarish to be continually putting them into place. In nature, these particles do get together and fall. That's why global winters from massive volcanic activity don't last forever. The ash eventually clumps together and falls to earth. This is why it was necessary to create smart clouds. Clouds that know better.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

They are being released into the environment

They are?
Where and why?

They could be in your high-end running shoes, your underwear, your sunscreen, your sports equipment, your designer tie, your wool sweater. I'd need one of those meta-data-sticks to catalogue all the places they can be found.

Where and why: everywhere for profit.

What I think is something to consider is what's going to happen when an entire closet and wardrobe are filled with these materials which then go into the dryer. I'd like to know if there are any surprises in store there.

reply to post by luxordelphi

What do you mean storage and humid environments and heating to 100 degrees F?

I was describing the conditions of the test. The test apparatus was placed in an "oven" at 100º. Seems reasonable, warehouses (where things like this are stored so testing for safety under those conditions makes sense) can get pretty warm...and humid.

The tests conducted were on a specific size of nano only.

Yes.

The size was also within agglomerations which were sonically thinned.

What do you mean "the size was within agglomerations"?
Do you mean by "sonically thinned" that the 80 micron size was achieved by hitting clumps of particles with ultrasound? If so...yes.

The tests were performed on specific amounts.

Yes. Two tests each with a different weight in the pile of particles.

There was no spontaneous ignition in one test because they decided to call the anomaly that occurred during that test a weather event although what kind of weather they were expecting in a barrel is a thought.

There was no ignition in either test. If you look at the temperature trace the "anomaly" you are talking about was a slight transient change in the temperature which occurred at 24 hours. Do you think an increase of less than 1º after the temperature had dropped several degrees indicates ignition? Do you have a different definition of ignition than most people? To me it means something starts to burn, not that its temperature rises a bit.

reply to post by TheMagus


Thankyou for your timely, astute support. Happy trails, lxd.

Originally posted by luxordelphi

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?

I am glad that we can agree that all this is just a proposed idea and you must have just been a bit confused when you wrote that the effects have already been noticed by some. Since they would have to have been in full swing with these operations in order to produce the effect you describe.

I remember doing an experiment in Jr. High with a very fine powder blowing it into a flame and seeing it ignite. It doesn't matter what the powder is made of, just that it's very fine particles and very concentrated. Note that last part..... Very concentrated. I just wonder how much a cloud might weigh if it's filled with highly concentrated powder? What type of delivery method might be needed to get that much tonnage airborne?

I am concerned about the environment too. I wish for alternative fuels to reduce or eliminate pollution by vehicles. But I get concerned when people pull out the torches and pitchforks, looking for a lynching way before any evidence finds it's way into the discussion. Like this topic. It's all being proposed and the risks are largely unknown.

I see a made for cable movie in the offing.
They use weaker science than this to make these movies.
I recall one Australian movie where a solar eclipse caused a flash freeze because the solar radiation was blocked for a short period over an ozone hole.

reply to post by TheMagus

you can actually smell the desperation

And what desperation would that be?

reply to post by luxordelphi

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

And from that source they have this to say...

The Obama administration’s science advisor, John Holdren, has come out publicly to say that he believes that geoengineering will assist the planet is stabilizing its weather with regard to global warming. Holdren sees geo-engineering as a perfectly viable way to cool the planet’s temperature.

He fully supports the process of releasing particles of barium, magnesium, aluminum, nano-fibers, bacillus blood spores and other chemicals to reflect sunlight away from the Earth.

truththeory.com...

How about we see what he really believes shall we...



Great source....

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Yes - it would be a good pointer to where and how such a programme might be accomplished. And if it is some monstrous amount like million's of tons (say) then you can look for a much more obvious programme than if it is only a few tons.

These are fair statements. IMO, there is no program to flame up the sky. A sky, in flames, would result by accident; by a lack of knowledge about nano particles and materials and their reactions within the environment. I have tried to show some of these black holes in this thread.

As far as geoengineering proposals go - you've read them and so have I. Some of them talk about tons but these talk about tons in the stratosphere. Geoengineering proposals don't get into great detail on 'smart' particles. They basically stress the problems of maintaining a sun shield of some kind and a big part of the problem is agglomeration. Separate studies exist, with no overt connection to geoengineering, in which researchers are obviously tackling this problem. To pull those together in this thread and to say, "look at this sentence in this one and at that sentence in this other one and extrapolate" is tedious and boring. It's better, I think, to point out the monstrous lack of knowledge and the explosion of nanotech and to try to keep in mind that most applications are first fine-tuned for military uses.

We heard, recently, in this forum, a phone conversation with an atmospheric scientist from, I believe, NASA. He used the word chemtrail quite freely. He stated that a chemical release is a chemtrail. And he talked about a high altitude rocket launched release of lithium. I'm talking about a release of nano particles and materials into the environment that is so vast and invasive that very little has been left untouched by this technology.

Here is a fairly recent story, from this month, which describes the continued efforts to create a particle with more and more outrageous surface area which, to me, speaks to the sunblock that geoengineering proposals have been talking about since the beginning of this madness:

'Impossible' material with world record breaking surface area made by researchers

A novel material with world record breaking surface area and water adsorption abilities has been synthesized by researchers.

While ordered forms of magnesium carbonate, both with and without water in the structure, are abundant in nature, water-free disordered forms have been proven extremely difficult to make. In 1908, German researchers claimed that the material could indeed not be made in the same way as other disordered carbonates, by bubbling CO2 through an alcoholic suspension. Subsequent studies in 1926 and 1961 came to the same conclusion.

“A Thursday afternoon in 2011, we slightly changed the synthesis parameters of the earlier employed unsuccessful attempts, and by mistake left the material in the reaction chamber over the weekend. Back at work on Monday morning we discovered that a rigid gel had formed and after drying this gel we started to get excited”, says Johan Goméz de la Torre.

So another accident leads to this novelty.

The most striking discovery was, however, not that they had produced a new material but it was instead the striking properties they found that this novel material possessed. It turned out that Upsalite had the highest surface area measured for an alkali earth metal carbonate; 800 square meters per gram.

“This places the new material in the exclusive class of porous, high surface area materials including mesoporous silica, zeolites, metal organic frameworks, and carbon nanotubes”, says Strømme.

Remote controlled clouds?? What does that even mean??

What it means to me is, for instance, a cloud made up of charged particles which can have a charge introduced that will nudge it or move it or cause it to behave in one way or another.

Here is a story about smart particles that, at the time, would save the ozone layer. Please note again that the property that would do that was discovered by accident in an accidental reaction. This was back in 2003 and specifically called for stratospheric injections.

Nanotechnology could save the ozone layer

Whilst experimenting with nanospheres and perfluorodecalin, a liquid used in the production of synthetic blood, researchers at Germany's University of Ulm have stumbled across a phenomenon that could ultimately help remove ozone-harming chemicals from the atmosphere.

(cont. next post...)

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


(cont. from previous)

The scientists believe that this occurred because nanoscopic perfluorodecalin droplets became encapsulated by self-assembled polystyrene nanospheres.

I am concerned, as you should be, that more accidental discoveries await us but not in the lab - these accidents will happen in the environment as we use our planet for a global test ground.

Remember these bubbles SPONTANEOUSLY combust - you do not light them up - they do it all by themselves

Yes...they do it all by themselves. So, say that there is a substance which at 10 nm is wonderful for atmospheric sun screen but, unknown to us, at 9 nm self-ignites and explodes and that we, accidentally, in testing some new sonic weapon, create that situation. There is no cybernetic simulation that can encompass the quantum and the atmosphere because there are too many unknowns. Here's the headline: 'Man creates marvelous new material to save the planet and injects it into the stratosphere where it explodes into flame destroying earth.' R.I.P.

but those aren't actually clouds - but they are just airships - cloth envelopes full of lifting gas - that will be large and flat and deployed to create shade.

They are not just airships. They are made of carbon composites. Nano. (...wonder if they have lithium ion batteries??...)

reply to post by luxordelphi

Here is a story about smart particles that, at the time, would save the ozone layer.

Please define "smart particles" and how that term applies to the article you linked.

at 9 nm self-ignites and explodes and that we,

If they are in a high enough concentration and if they are bubbles containing hydrogen and oxygen. Please show us where it is proposed that bubbles containing hydrogen and oxygen would be useful for SRM and would be applied at such concentrations.

They are not just airships. They are made of carbon composites. Nano

A carbon fiber composite structural framework, like bicycle frames. There is nothing that says or implies the use of nano sized particles.

The head of the mechanical and industrial engineering department, Saud Abdul Ghani, told Gulf News that the clouds would be made from a lightweight carbon structure that surrounds an enclosed blimp-like vehicle filled with helium gas.

inhabitat.com...

reply to post by Phage


I'm liking this thread, just a fly on the wall in this one. This stuff is still over my head, hopefully not for long.

One of the better conversations on this subject that I have run into. kudos to you and luxordelphi.

No one will ever convince me that our skies are not being plowed with reflective material, I have eyes and enough knowledge from the reams of patents, proposals, experiments and opinions of scientists to back up what my eyes are seeing. The information that I am unsure of, is the many programs, whether it be geo-engineering, HAARP, or the many proposed military exploits.

Good stuff here.

reply to post by Witness2008

This stuff is still over my head, hopefully not for long.

It's not really that complex if you take a bit of time to look at it.

No one will ever convince me that our skies are not being plowed with reflective material,

Then I guess there would be no room for discussion.