|
|
klondike
Joined: 11 Jun 2002
Posts: 50
|
Cover of a new book
 Wed Jul 31, 2002 2:39 am
|
 |
|
You will never believe what appears on the cover of a new book called, I think: "The Heroes Among Us: the story of flight 93."
On the back of the book's cover is a little blurb by no other than our Imperial leader, GW Bush.
On the front of the book is a photo of an airplane making a chemtrail. The chemtrail extends from the edge of the book all across the front.
So what is this?
1)The book editor/publisher thought it was a niced photo and don't know anything about chemtrail. It is a goof?
2) They know enough about chemtrails to post the ludicrous photo on the book's cover so people will see what they experience daily and feel comfortable with the sight of chemtrails. Propoganda, mind control, psyops?
|
| |
|
|
Thermit
Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3136
Location: Texas |
|
Wed Jul 31, 2002 3:38 am
|
|
|
 |
| |
|
|
skeeto
Joined: 30 Jul 2002
Posts: 3
Location: New York |
|
Wed Jul 31, 2002 4:34 am
|
|
|
Here's a larger image of the cover from Amazon.  |
| |
|
|
Unhappy Trails
Joined: 10 May 2002
Posts: 256
Location: Seattle, WA |
|
Wed Jul 31, 2002 8:50 am
|
|
|
That's what it looks like to me too Klondike. UN BE LIEVA BULL! Surely this was previewed, skewed, and reviewed. I salute their stupidity.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Unhappy Trails on 07-31-2002] |
| |
|
|
Catnip57
Joined: 22 Apr 2001
Posts: 596
Location: Central Washington |
|
Wed Jul 31, 2002 9:01 am
|
|
|
Maybe this is some new subtle form of symbolism that they're trying to convey to the masses.
Personally I think it's a very unusual picture to use for a book cover. It would be interesting to know what the people were thinking when they decided to use this picture. |
| |
|
|
klondike
Joined: 11 Jun 2002
Posts: 50
|
|
Wed Jul 31, 2002 5:32 pm
|
|
|
It may, in fact, be a way to supplant this image in the minds of people and to equate this image with heroism and patriotism.
Therefore, anyone who questions chemtrails is questioning the heroic acts of true partiots.
Quite a mind control technique.
These people are clever, but so far from truth that their clever minds will eventually be their own ruination.
Peace to all. Allegience to none but God in peace through Love.
|
| |
|
|
PacerLJ35
Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 456
Location: Millbrook, AL, USA |
|
Sat Aug 03, 2002 2:47 am
|
|
|
Looks like alot of the many contrails I've been seeing in the past 4 days.
Tuesday- flew from Maxwell AFB to Nellis AFB. Wednesday- made a short hop to Barstow California, and back to Nellis. Thursday- flew from Nellis to Las Vegas for a fuel stop, then headed east to Randolph AFB in Texas. Friday (today) flew from Randolph to Hurlburt Field, Florida, then to McGuire AFB in New Jersey and back to Maxwell. Finally I can get some rest! Nothing like sitting in the cockpit of a Learjet on the Nellis ramp in 105 degree heat, cooking alive. |
| |
|
|
PacerLJ35
Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 456
Location: Millbrook, AL, USA |
|
Sat Aug 03, 2002 6:59 am
|
|
|
klondike:
From your post at Carnicom's-
"Contrails, as I recall, eminate from the wingtips of planes or from the flaps and ailerons. Moisture gets trapped in those control flaps and creates the contrail which is wispy thin."
No, you're thinking of wingtip vortices, which are an entirely different thing. Wingtip vortices are formed when the airflow rushing over the wingtip forms a very tight high pressure vortex. As the air becomes pressurized, it causes the water to condense. This can also be seen at other points along the wing, including between engine nacelles and along the wing's cambered top surface.
The moisture doesn't come from water trapped in the flaps or ailerons. It comes from ambient moisture. That's why wingtip vortices are usually a low-altitude high-humidity occurance.
"Most flights create no or very little contrail activity. And contrails only haoppen at high altitude."
That first statement is not true. Many flights produce contrails of varying persistance and character. The second is correct, depending on what you define as "high altitude". High altitudes bring colder air masses. The colder the air mass, the smaller the capacity for that air mass to hold water. At temperatures of -40 on down, the relative water capacity is very low, and it takes only a very tiny amount of water to bring the air to saturation.
Most of the water vapor is already present in the air mass, but the engine brings soot particles to the equation, and it also compresses heats and then rapidly cools the air as it moves through the engine. This is what produces the billowy white contrails you see in the sky. The soot serves as a nucleus for the ice particles to form around.
"Rocket fuel, like what's in a giuded missiles, burns white smoke in its trail. But jet engines do not burn rocket fuel."
True, airplanes generally do not use rocket fuel. But rocket exhaust is very different from contrails. |
| |
|
|
klondike
Joined: 11 Jun 2002
Posts: 50
|
|
Sat Aug 03, 2002 5:42 pm
|
|
|
Say Pacer, you didn't come up with that magic bullet theory, did you?
Sorry, but you are wrong. Contrails are not produced from the soot of jet engines or any other part of jet engine exhaust.
Jet engines do not, and have never, produced contrails. And jet engines burn relatively cleanly too.
As I say, the only thing that even comes close to the look of chemtrails is the burning of rocket fuel, which I've seen often enough from the deck of a warship.
The closest thing to chemtrail activity is a crop dusting spray plane. They look very similar.
Besides, contrails aren't controlled as the chemtrails are. A pilot, for instance, doesn't and can't turn on and off a contrail as it is caused by naturally occuring circumstances.
People,.please don't also confuse the smoke generated from planes during airshows with chemtrails.
And contrails do not cause drought, nor can they stop the rain or dry everything out, nor soak up the moisture from clouds nor make people sick.
Chemtrails are chemtrails are chemtrails.
Peace to all. |
| |
|
|
PacerLJ35
Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 456
Location: Millbrook, AL, USA |
|
Sat Aug 03, 2002 9:27 pm
|
|
|
Give me a break klondike....even Thermit would call you out on that claim that jet engines don't produce contrails.
What YOU are referring to are called wingtip vortices, and they are much smaller than contrails.
THIS is a page about wingtip condensation. http://www.af.mil/environment/contrails_wingtip.shtml
Yes, I know it's a USAF page, but this information can be found and confirmed by a host of other sources.
THIS is a page about contrails. http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/class/contrail.html
This was written by Steve Ackerman, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and director of the CIMSS program.
"Jet engines do not, and have never, produced contrails. And jet engines burn relatively cleanly too."
Contrails and condensation vortices are two entirely different things. And yes, jet engines are "clean burning", but they still produce soot. And by burning fuel at a rate of 2000+ lbs/hour, it can produce more than enough soot to produce contrails. Some days I can see the shadow of my contrail while flying over an overcast deck of clouds. So your idea that airplane engines "do not, and have never" produced a contrail is very very wrong.
"As I say, the only thing that even comes close to the look of chemtrails is the burning of rocket fuel, which I've seen often enough from the deck of a warship."
Ok, so now a sailor on a ship can tell a bunch of pilots that they are wrong about contrails. My, how this logic works.
"The closest thing to chemtrail activity is a crop dusting spray plane. They look very similar."
I'd say that cropdusting is the ONLY chemtrail activity. Having flown through what you call a "chemtrail" at altitude, it is several hundred feet in diameter....pretty large. And it looks alot like a cloud instead of a plume of chemicals.
Here is an example of what I see every time I fly:
http://www.geocities.com/pacerlj35/contrails.html
The jet leaving the contrail was a Gulfstream business jet headed to the Miami area.
I think you are very misinformed about contrails. Do yourself a service and spend some time reading up on the subject (outside the chemtrail websites).
Or better yet, go ask the hundreds of other pilots on Flightinfo.com about the difference between contrails and condensation vortices.
http://forums.flightinfo.com |
| |
|
|
Unhappy Trails
Joined: 10 May 2002
Posts: 256
Location: Seattle, WA |
|
Sat Aug 03, 2002 9:53 pm
|
|
|
So Pacer, explain the 'rocket' only logic here.
Inventor(s):
Werle; Donald K. , Hillside, IL
Kasparas; Romas , Riverside, IL
Katz; Sidney , Chicago, IL
Applicant(s):
The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Navy, Washington, DC News, Profiles, Stocks and More about this company
Issued/Filed Dates: Aug. 12, 1975 / July 22, 1974
Application Number: US1974000490610
IPC Class: B64D 1/16;
Class: Current: 244/136; 040/213; 116/214; 241/005;
Original: 244/136; 040/213; 116/114.F; 241/005;
Field of Search: 244/136 040/213 241/5,29 222/3;4 239/171 116/28 R,114
R,114 F,114 N,124 R,124 B,124 C
Legal Status: Gazette date Code Description (remarks) List all possible codes for US
Aug. 12, 1975 A Patent
--
July 22, 1974 AE Application data
--
Abstract
Light scattering pigment powder particles, surface treated to minimize inparticle cohesive forces, are dispensed from a jet mill deagglomerator as separate single particles to produce a powder contrail having maximum visibility or radiation scattering ability for a given weight material.
Attorney, Agent, or Firm: Sciascia; Richard S.; St. Amand; Joseph M.; Primary/Assistant Examiners: Blix; Trygve M.; Kelmachter; Barry L.
U.S. References: Show the 1 patent that references this one
Patent Issued Inventor(s)
Title
US1619183* 3 /1927 Bradner et al.
US2045865* 6 /1936 Morey
US2591988* 4 /1952 Willcox
US3531310 9 /1970 Goodspeed et al. PRODUCTION OF IMPROVED METAL
OXIDE PIGMENT
USR0015771* 2 /1924 Savage
* some details unavailable
CLAIMS:
1. Contrail generation apparatus for producing a powder contrail having
maximum radiation
scattering ability for a given weight material, comprising:
a. an aerodynamic housing;
b. a jet tube means passing through said housing, said tube means having an inlet at a forward end of said housing and an exhaust at a rearward end thereof;
c. a powder storage means in said housing;
d. a deagglomeration means also in said housing;
e. means connecting said powder storage means with said deagglomeration
means for feeding
radiation scattering powder from said powder storage means to said deagglomeration means;
f. the output of said deagglomeration means dispensing directly into said jet tube means for
exhausting deagglomerated powder particles into the atmosphere to form a contrail; and
h. means for controlling the flow of said powder from said storage means to said deagglomeration means.
2. Apparatus as in claim 1 wherein said jet tube means is a ram air jet tube.
3. Apparatus as in claim 1 wherein an upstream deflector baffle is provided at the output of said
deagglomeration means into said jet tube means to produce a venturi effect for minimizing back
pressure on said powder feeding means.
4. Apparatus as in claim 1 wherein said deagglomerator means comprises:
a. means for subjecting powder particles from said powder storage means to a hammering action to aerate and precondition the powder; and
b. a jet mill means to further deagglomerate the powder into separate particles.
5. Apparatus as in claim 4 wherein pressurized gas means is provided for operating said
deagglomeration means.
6. Apparatus as in claim 1 wherein said radiation scattering powder
particles are titanium
dioxide pigment having a median particle size of about 0.3 microns.
7. Apparatus as in claim 1 wherein said radiation scattering powder
particles have a coating of extremely fine hydrophobic colloidal silica thereon to minimize interparticle cohesive forces.
8. Apparatus as in claim 1 wherein the formulation of said powder consists of 85% by weight of
TiO2 pigment of approximately 0.3 micron media particle size, 10% by weight of colloidal silica of
0.007 micron primary particle size, and 5% by weight of silica gel having an average particle size of 4.5 microns.
9. The method of producing a light radiation scattering contrail, comprising:
a. surface treating light scattering powder particles to minimize
interparticle cohesive forces;
b. deagglomerating said powder particles in two stages prior to dispensing into a jet tube
by subjecting said powder particles to a hammering action in the first stage to aerate and
precondition the powder, and by passing said powder through a jet mill in the second stage
to further deagglomerate the powder;
c. dispensing the deagglomerated powder from the jet mill directly into a jet tube for
exhausting said powder into the atmosphere, thus forming a contrail.
10. A method as in claim 9 wherein said light scattering powder particles is titanium dioxide pigment.
11. A method as in claim 9 wherein said powder particles are treated with a coating of extremely
fine hydrophobic colloidal silica to minimize interparticle cohesive forces.
12. A method as in claim 11 wherein said treated powder particles are further protected with a silica gel powder.
Background/Summary:
BACKGROUND
The present invention relates to method and apparatus for contrail generation and the like. An earlier known method in use for contrail generation involves oil smoke trails produced by injecting liquid oil directly into the hot jet exhaust of an aircraft target vehicle. The oil vaporizes and recondenses being the aircraft producing a brilliant white trail. Oil smoke trail production requires a minimum of equipment; and, the material is low in cost and readily available. However, oil smoke requires a heat source to vaporize the liquid oil and not all aircraft target vehicles, notably towed targets, have such a heat source. Also, at altitudes above about 25,000 feet oil smoke visibility degrades rapidly.
SUMMARY
The present invention is for a powder generator requiring no heat source to emit a "contrail" with sufficient visibility to aid in visual acquisition of an aircraft target vehicle and the like. The term "contrail" was adopted for convenience in identifying the visible powder trail of this invention. Aircraft target vehicles are used to simulate aerial threats for missile tests and often fly at altitudes between 5,000 and 20,000 feet at speeds of 300 and 400 knots or more. The present invention is also suitable for use in other aircraft vehicles to generate contrails or reflective screens for any desired purpose. The powder contail generator is normally carried on an aircraft in a pod containing a ram air tube and powder feed hopper. Powder particles, surface treated to minimize interparticle cohesive forces are fed from the hopper to a deagglomerator and then to the ram air tube for dispensing as separate single particles to produce a contrail having maximum visibility for a given weight material. Other object, advantages and novel features of the invention will become apparent from the following detailed description of the invention when considered in conjunction with the accompanying drawing.
Drawing Descriptions:
DESCRIPTION OF DRAWING
FIG. 1 is a schematic sectional side-view of a powder contrail generator of the present invention.
DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENT
The powder contail generator in pod 10, shown in FIG. 1, is provided with a powder feed hopper 12 positioned in the center section of the pod and which feeds a powder 13 to a deagglomerator 14 by means of screw conveyors 16 across the bottom of the hopper. The deagglomerator 14 produces two stages of action. In the first stage of deagglomeration, a shaft 18 having projecting radial rods 19 in compartment 20 is rotated by an air motor 21, or other suitable drive means. The shaft 18 is rotated at about 10,000 rpm, for example. As powder 13 descends through the first stage compartment 20 of the deagglomeration chamber, the hammering action of rotating rods 19 serves to aerate and precondition the powder before the second stage of deagglomeration takes place in the jet mill section 22. In the jet mill 22, a plurality of radial jets 24 (e.g., six 0.050 inch diamter radial jets) direct nitrogen gas (at e.g., 120 psig) inward to provide energy for further deagglomeration of the powder. The N2, or other suitable gas, is provided from storage tanks 25 and 26, for example, in the pod.
The jet mill 22 operates in a similar manner to commercial fluid energy mills except that there is no provision for recirculation of oversize particles. Tests with the deagglomerator show that at a feed rate of approximately 11/2 lb/min, treated titanium dioxide powder pigment is effectively dispersed as single particles with very few agglomerates evident.
The nitrogen gas stored in cylinder tanks 25 and 26 is charged to 1800 psig, for example. Two stages of pressure reduction, for example, by pressure reduction valves 28 and 29, bring the final delivery pressure at the radial jets 24 and to the air motor 21 to approximately 120 psig. A solenoid valve 30 on the 120 psig line is connected in parallel with the electric motor 32 which operates the powder feeder screws 16 for simultaneous starting and running of the powder feed, the air motor and the jet mill deagglomerator.
Air enters ram air tube 34 at its entrance 35 and the exhaust from the jet mill deagglomerator passes directly into the ram air tube. At the deagglomerator exhaust 36 into ram air tube 34, an upstream deflector baffle 38 produces a venturi effect which minimizes back pressure on the powder feed system. The powder is then jetted from the exhaust end 40 of the ram air tube to produce a contrail. A pressure equalization tube, not shown, can be used to connect the top of the closed hopper 12 to the deagglomeration chamber 14. A butterfly valve could be provided at the powder hopper outlet 39 to completely isolate and seal off the powder supply when not in use. Powder 13 could then be stored in hopper 12 for several weeks, without danger of picking up excessive moisture, and still be adequately dispensed.
Preparation of the light scatter powder 13 is of a critical importance to production of a powder "contrail" having maximum visibility for a given weight of material. It is essential that the pigment powder particles be dispensed as separate single particles rather than as agglomerates of two or more particles. The powder treatment produces the most easily dispersed powder through the use of surface treatments which minimize interparticle cohesive forces. Titanium dioxide pigment was selected as the primary light scattering material because of its highly efficient light scattering ability and commercially available pigment grades. Titanium dioxide pigment (e.g., DuPont R--931) with a median particle size of about 0.3µ has a high bulk density and is not readily aerosolizable as a submicron cloud without the consumption of a large amount of deagglomeration energy. In order to reduce the energy requirement for deagglomeration, the TiO2 powder is specially treated with a hydrophobic colloidal silica which coats and separates the individual TiO2 pigment particles. The extremely fine particulate nature (0.007µ primary particle size) of Cobot S--101 Silanox grade, for example, of colloidal silica minimizes the amount needed to coat and separate the TiO2 particles, and the hydrophobic surface minimizes the affinity of the powder for absorbtion of moisture from the atmosphere. Adsorbed moisture in powders causes liquid bridges at interparticle contacts and it then becomes necessary to overcome the adsorbed-liquid surface tension forces as well as the weaker Van der Waals' forces before the particles can be separated.
The Silanox treated titanium dioxide pigment is further protected from the deleterious effects of adsorbed moisture by incorporation of silica gel. The silica gel preferentially adsorbs water vapor that the powder may be exposed to after drying and before use. The silica gel used is a powder product, such as Syloid 65 from the W. R Grace and Co., Davison Chemical Division, and has an average particle size about 4.5µ and a large capacity for moisture at low humidities.
A typical powder composition used is shown in Table 1. This formulation was blended intimately with a Patterson-Kelley Co. twin shell dry LB-model LB--2161 with intensifier. Batches of 1500 g were blended for 15 min. each and packaged in 5-lb cans. The bulk density of the blended powder is 0.22 g/cc. Since deagglomeration is facilitated by having the powder bone dry, the powder should be predried before sealing the cans. In view of long periods (e.g., about 4 months) between powder preparation and use it is found preferable to spread the powder in a thin layer in an open container and place in a 400°F over two days before planned usage. The powder is removed and placed in the hopper about 2 hours before use.
Table 1
_______________________
CONTRAIL POWDER FORMULATION
Ingredient % by Weight
_______________________
TiO2 (e.g., DuPont R-931)
85
median particle size 0.3µ
Colloidal Silica (e.g., Cabot S-101 Silanox)
10
primary particle size 0.007µ
Silica gel (e.g., Syloid 65)
5
average particle size 4.5µ
[Edited 3 times, lastly by Unhappy Trails on 08-03-2002] |
| |
|
|
PacerLJ35
Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 456
Location: Millbrook, AL, USA |
|
Sat Aug 03, 2002 10:03 pm
|
|
|
Nature is in alot more control than you give it credit. That's why cloud seeding went bust about 15-20 years ago. Nature defeated the scientists.
UT: Read the whole document please. It's pretty common for test and evaluation ranges to use material like that to evaluate weapons such as radar guided missiles. I could talk to a friend down at Eglin that deals with that, and confirm what I know only a little about (Eglin is the Air Force's offshore missile test range). |
| |
|
|
Unhappy Trails
Joined: 10 May 2002
Posts: 256
Location: Seattle, WA |
|
Sat Aug 03, 2002 10:06 pm
|
|
|
It's 'material like that' being sprayed everyday Pacer. |
| |
|
|
klondike
Joined: 11 Jun 2002
Posts: 50
|
|
Sun Aug 04, 2002 5:06 am
|
|
|
Dear Pacer:
You've posted 138 messages to this chemtrail forum and you don't believe the chemtrail phenomena exists.
Seems to me very strange to post to a forum in which you have no interest other than to discredit it.
I can tell you that I have seen many many contrails over the years and you can say whatever you want about vortices and soot discharged from a jet engine. Jet engines do not create contrails. Jet engines create jet engine exhaust. Period.
I know what I've seen. No airplane discharges a contrail from the exhaust in a billowing thick smoky pattern.
You're trying to confuse whoever might check in to read this forum. And it probably works most of the time.
With minimal observation from virtually anywhere in this country I suppose, anyone can observe a chemtrail and the resulting white haze and chemclouds. And if you breathe long enough you can feel the effects in your lungs.
Anyone can see these chemtrail airplanes turn on and off their spraying apparatus.
All of these chemtrail airplanes fly at relatively low altitudes. Military planes create contrails flying at much higher altitudes.
That you post to this forum for no other purpose than to discredit the information is rather strange.
Peace. |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Fri May 25, 2012 3:31 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
