Spontaneous Ignition in the Sky

reply to post by Witness2008


A KC-135R (over 400 in service), which is the one used now, burns about 1600 gallons an hour (although the military uses pounds per hour, so 10,921 pounds an hour [JP-8 is 6.7 lbs/gal]).

The KC-10 (all 59 of them) burns roughly 2600 gallons, or 17,755 lbs an hour. There are only 59 KC-10s in service, and not all 59 are available on any given day. Some are down for phase inspections (unit level inspections) some are in the depot (total overhaul, including new skin), some are down for maintenance work.

reply to post by luxordelphi

Under Obama, Holdren adds, PCAST has shifted priorities to give particular attention to climate change. In 2008, the President renamed the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP)—which under President Bush had focused primarily on research aimed at testing what he saw as theories of global warming—calling it the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), and turned it into a comprehensive national research program charged with assessing, predicting and responding to climate change. “He really likes working with scientists,” says Holdren of President Obama, “And he understands why science is important for the national agenda.”

And this would be why...

As evidence of Obama’s achievements since entering the White House in March 2009, Holdren cites the resurrection of several international task forces aimed at addressing climate change, including a key partnership between the U.S. and some of the world’s other top polluters, such as China and India.

blogs.scientificamerican.com...

Pollution...Imagine that...

reply to post by luxordelphi

and he still doesn't make any sense:

Interrupted by audience members complaining about the President’s cuts to funding for space exploration, Holdren replied that the NASA of the previous administration was badly managed and poorly funded

Not if you don't leave this out...

“The NASA we inherited was hopelessly behind schedule,” he said. He also added that Obama has taken steps to re-balance the administration’s space policy, including preserving $1 billion in funds (just a 0.8 percent cut) for NASA and continuing to fund Mars Curiosity, an SUV-sized robotic rover launched in 2011 whose mission Obama extended indefinitely in December 2012.

blogs.scientificamerican.com...

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

What has the nature of the fabric got to do with them being airships or not?
They are still bags of fabric filled with a lifting gas = airships.
At a "nano scale" everything is made of atoms - so what???

Because nano particles have very little internal area, normal heat dissipation doesn't take place. This mechanism was described in several links I put up earlier. Because they have a high surface area they are more combustible than less surface area materials.

The carbon fibre is not individual particles - it is fabric.

And AFAIK carbon particles of any size are not pyrphorric - they are well known and "nano" carbon has been around literally forever (as far as the life of eth earth is concerned) - it is called soot.

reply to post by Phage


Thankyou for your very thorough post. You seem to have included every circumstance. I have given it a lot of thought, not because I agree with it in any way, although there is nothing wrong with any of your numbers that I can find. And there is nothing wrong with the way you have concluded, if we were dealing with bulk materials. But we are not. These are no dimensional, one dimensional and two dimensional objects. The fabrics and strings and wires and composites are in some aspects 3 dimensional but contain within them the less dimensional.

So consider my scenario: every gram of a certain nano substance I have is going to cover 800 square meters because that is the surface area per gram. That's 1/28th of an ounce (sorry...I'm really bad with the metric system so I have to try and put it into something I can understand) of nano paricles that are going to give me coverage over 957 square yards. So 28 grams (1 ounce) should provide coverage for 22,400 square meters or 26,796 square yards.

454 grams of the stuff will give me a pound and will cover 363,200 square meters or 434,478 square yards.

So with 1 pound, I've covered .14 square miles.

50 pounds (which is less than 1/2 the weight of an average person) is going to cover 7 square miles. Now I'm getting somewhere. 50 pounds can easily go on an airplane.

Las Vegas, for instance, is 131 square miles (or was back in 2001) so I will need 937 pounds of stuff to cover it. I may need two planes. And they're going to have to fly back and forth, but that's something that we've seen before so no distress about that.

Using the cirrus forming processes already in place, coverage is assured. Researching for water absorbency as a trait will get rid of the enemy - rain. There is also a process, which I've read about but not enough to give an explanation, wherein the particles align themselves - something to do with the electrons and the dimension.

So all of this would give a much lower ppm than any you have stated or would it? What would be the point of measuring cubes for one dimensional objects? Or a two dimensional object? They know no depth. And yet they give a lot of coverage.

The tests with aluminum nano in the links I put up were very very specific. It is obvious that this had been sought and these particular combustion points on particular sizes were adequate for their purpose.

I can understand how in very specific conditions, tons and tons and tons would be required for adequate ppm. And how it would be a freak of winds or something like that for a flash to happen in the sky or a tornado that caught up enough density to flame up and become a torch (there were some sightings I believe in S. America) but these particles of nano size are a law unto themselves. And, even as a group, they do not conform. Each size and type is lawless even within the group.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

My source simply listed the items implied in that statement. And presupposed desperation.

Here is what your source said:

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...
Please point out where Holdren says he fully supports this. Please point out where he fully advocates the use of barium, magnesium, aluminum, nano-fibers, bacillus blood spores and other chemicals.

edit on 8/3/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Well here you go then, from the main stream media:

Obama's science chief eyes drastic steps

reply to post by tsurfer2000h

Pollution...Imagine that...

If you're trying to say by that that Holdren cares about pollution - I'm not so sure. Holdren seems interested in researching things that are not of any tangible benefit to Americans. Elitist-like, he feels that his judgement of what is important should prevail over benefit.

Holdren Defends NSF Grant Review

Holdren Attacks House Bill, Defends NSF's Grant Selection Process

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

and he still doesn't make any sense:

Interrupted by audience members complaining about the President’s cuts to funding for space exploration, Holdren replied that the NASA of the previous administration was badly managed and poorly funded

Not if you don't leave this out...

“The NASA we inherited was hopelessly behind schedule,” he said. He also added that Obama has taken steps to re-balance the administration’s space policy, including preserving $1 billion in funds (just a 0.8 percent cut) for NASA and continuing to fund Mars Curiosity, an SUV-sized robotic rover launched in 2011 whose mission Obama extended indefinitely in December 2012.

blogs.scientificamerican.com...

Holdren's vision for NASA seems to be outsourcing, not funding. And irrelevance. (Honestly...I don't even remember how we got onto this subject.) But no and no and no: I don't think he has NASA's interests at heart or even in mind. The whole thing is just bizarre.

Statement By John P. Holdren...

Holdren Gets Grilled on the Hill

Originally posted by luxordelphi

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

My source simply listed the items implied in that statement. And presupposed desperation.

Here is what your source said:

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...
Please point out where Holdren says he fully supports this. Please point out where he fully advocates the use of barium, magnesium, aluminum, nano-fibers, bacillus blood spores and other chemicals.

Well here you go then, from the main stream media:

Obama's science chief eyes drastic steps

If it's the MSM then it can't possible be true!!

But seriously - what he is quoted as saying there is:

"It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury ... of ruling any approach off the table."

and

"We're talking about all these issues in the White House," Holdren said. "There's a very vigorous process going on of discussing all the options for addressing the energy climate challenge."

which pretty much disproves any assertion that he "fully supports the process".

reply to post by luxordelphi

So consider my scenario: every gram of a certain nano substance I have is going to cover 800 square meters because that is the surface area per gram.

Oh my. You really have no idea what you are talking about. My efforts were wasted.

reply to post by Phage


There's actually a term for this - the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Wiki article on the effect

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

The carbon fibre is not individual particles - it is fabric.

I'm not sure what your point is here but, yes, carbon nano, is combined within other substances to form composites which can be a kind of fabric. In this article under future uses (it's an older article) they list bullet proof clothing.

What Are Carbon Nanotubes

Scientists don't know everything about carbon nanotubes or CNTs for short, but they do know that they are very thin lightweight hollow tubes made up of carbon atoms.

When applied to products, these properties provide tremendous advantages. For example, when used in polymers, bulk carbon nanotubes can improve the electrical, thermal, and electrical properties of the products.

And AFAIK carbon particles of any size are not pyrphorric - they are well known and "nano" carbon has been around literally forever (as far as the life of eth earth is concerned) - it is called soot.

Soot? The same article makes a distinction:

Arc discharge was the first method used for synthesizing carbon nanotubes. Two carbon rods placed end-to-end are arc vaporized to form the carbon nanotubes. While this is a simple method, the carbon nanotubes must be further separated from the vapor and soot.

Your statement that carbon particles of any size are not pyrophoric is...I don't think that's known yet. You had previously stated that you have knowledge of dust explosions so, to add to that, here is some of the very little that is so far known about nano dust explosions:

Dust Causes Explosions, And Apparently Nanodust Causes Mega-Explosions

The explosive properties of normal dust are pretty well known, but what about non-traditional dust? Not all dusts are created equal — and dust derived from the materials of the future could present a very different type of danger.

Dust is defined as a teeny solid less than 420 microns in diameter, but that does not cover the nanoscale world. Nanodust, and its potential explosive properties, is relatively under-studied.

A general rule of thumb in the world of dust research holds that the smaller the particle size and the greater its surface area, the more explosive it is.

Nanoparticles are tiny, but have a large relative surface area because of the way atoms are arranged in them. They also tend to want to clump together, and this is one of the properties that makes items like carbon nanotubes and graphene so interesting to study. But these large agglomerations of nanoparticles, called nanpowders, are also pretty explosive, igniting with just 1 millijoule of energy.

They could ignite with a spark, a collision or mere friction, according to Worsfold and colleagues. And because they’re so small, nanoparticles can remain suspended in the air for days or weeks and you would never know it.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by luxordelphi

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

My source simply listed the items implied in that statement. And presupposed desperation.

Here is what your source said:

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...
Please point out where Holdren says he fully supports this. Please point out where he fully advocates the use of barium, magnesium, aluminum, nano-fibers, bacillus blood spores and other chemicals.

Well here you go then, from the main stream media:

Obama's science chief eyes drastic steps

If it's the MSM then it can't possible be true!!

But seriously - what he is quoted as saying there is:

"It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury ... of ruling any approach off the table."

and

"We're talking about all these issues in the White House," Holdren said. "There's a very vigorous process going on of discussing all the options for addressing the energy climate challenge."

which pretty much disproves any assertion that he "fully supports the process".

The question was more in the line of editorial license and how much future it's ok to predict based on a few sentences coupled with historic remarks and statements and actions.

So one person interprets John Holdrens' remarks as full support of geoengineering in the geoengineers gone mad sense and another interprets them literally and a third is wondering what desperation might mean to this man.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

So consider my scenario: every gram of a certain nano substance I have is going to cover 800 square meters because that is the surface area per gram.

Oh my. You really have no idea what you are talking about. My efforts were wasted.

edit on 8/5/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

So you're not going to show me how to cube up something that only extends in one direction? Or two?

reply to post by luxordelphi

No.
Because you have no understanding of why 1 gram of nanoparticles can have a surface area of 800 square meters or even what it means.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

No.
Because you have no understanding of why 1 gram of nanoparticles can have a surface area of 800 square meters or even what it means.

edit on 8/6/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I read your explanation of putting them in a cube (a box) (the in the box thing) in order to figure ppm. It didn't explain to me how the particle itself, extending in only one direction, becomes cubic. Perhaps you could direct me to a link.

reply to post by luxordelphi

No I can't because the entire concept escapes you.
A link won't do it. You need...something else. Something you won't find in any link.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

The carbon fibre is not individual particles - it is fabric.

I'm not sure what your point is here but, yes, carbon nano, is combined within other substances to form composites which can be a kind of fabric. In this article under future uses (it's an older article) they list bullet proof clothing.

the point is that these are not individual particles floating round in the air, which is what the original point you were making seemed to be about.

And AFAIK carbon particles of any size are not pyrphorric - they are well known and "nano" carbon has been around literally forever (as far as the life of eth earth is concerned) - it is called soot.

Soot? The same article makes a distinction:

Arc discharge was the first method used for synthesizing carbon nanotubes. Two carbon rods placed end-to-end are arc vaporized to form the carbon nanotubes. While this is a simple method, the carbon nanotubes must be further separated from the vapor and soot.

I wasn't saying soot is nanotubes - I am pointing out hat nano-sized carbon particles have been around since the earth was formed,in the form of soot.

Your statement that carbon particles of any size are not pyrophoric is...I don't think that's known yet.

We DO know that nano-soot is not pyrophoric because we have been workign with hte stuff for a hundred years or more!

You had previously stated that you have knowledge of dust explosions so, to add to that, here is some of the very little that is so far known about nano dust explosions:

Dust Causes Explosions, And Apparently Nanodust Causes Mega-Explosions

etc

This misses the point - dust explosions exist - they are not a new phenomena as a result of the "deliberate" manufacture of nano-particles.

They also are not something that involves spontaneous combustion - they require a spark or other ignition source.

I think you are extrapolating that all nano-particle might be pyrophoric because 1 particular combination was - despite the vast amount of evidence that this is not the case - do you see carbon nano-tubes or bucky-balls combusting anywhere?? No - you don't.

You extension is like saying that all liquids are flammable because petrol is, or all solids are explosive because TNT is. It's just an association fallacy - being "nano" doesn't make everything pyrophoric any more than having carbon atoms makes everything as flammable as petrol.

Explosions of tiny particles of coal dust were a constant threat in my time in the coal industry, these were what we would now call nano particles, an extremely fine dust that could be mistaken for smoke that was generated from the cutting process. The danger was always of a spark, not spontaneous combustion, and as a result things as innocuous as foil sweet wrappers, battery powered watches etc were and are banned underground. The way these explosions were prevented from engulfing the entire mine was with dust traps of equally fine stone dust, on boards which the blast would upset, which would mingle with the coal dust and put the explosion out. Nano certainly does not equal combustible.

Originally posted by luxordelphi

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by luxordelphi

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...

Well here you go then, from the main stream media:

Obama's science chief eyes drastic steps

If it's the MSM then it can't possible be true!!

But seriously - what he is quoted as saying there is:

"It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury ... of ruling any approach off the table."

and

"We're talking about all these issues in the White House," Holdren said. "There's a very vigorous process going on of discussing all the options for addressing the energy climate challenge."

which pretty much disproves any assertion that he "fully supports the process".

The question was more in the line of editorial license

Only if that is a euphemism for "completely changing the meaning of what he actually said"

So one person interprets John Holdrens' remarks as full support of geoengineering in the geoengineers gone mad sense and another interprets them literally and a third is wondering what desperation might mean to this man.

I am wondering why you are desperate at all?

how about you look at he words and take the meaning of them for what they are - there is no interpretative issue here - the person who says this is evidence that "He fully supports the process of .. etc" is simply wrong.

And given the context I suspect deliberately so.