|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
Boeing 747 Cabin Air Filter
 Sun Oct 15, 2000 10:28 pm
|
 |
|
I need the part number and OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) of the cabin air filter used on a Boeing 747.
Related information:
"TECHNOLOGY FOR THE GOOD CLIMATE ON BOARD" www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRH9910/FR9910g.htm
Quote from this article:
"Airlines and aircraft manufacturers are increasingly installing highly efficient filters in their aircraft. Since the end of the eighties all Airbus aircraft are fitted with so called HEPA filters (high efficiency particulate arrestor) which filter out up to 99,97 percent of all particles in the air. According to Airbus, the bacteria concentration in the air supply is at least equivalent to intensive care room recommendations."
October 1999 -- "Cabin Air Quality"
ihtm.11net.com/tw_caq.htm
"Most domestic airlines in the United States use high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters on their aircraft ventilation systems. There is not one standard for the required efficiency of the installed filter, however studies indicated the "in the field" efficiency of such filters are in the ninety percent range for removing particulate, bacteria and viral particles. Since viral diameters are in the range of 0.003-0.05 microns and the best HEPA filters can filter down to about 0.3 microns, the actual percentage of filtered viral particulate is questionable."
*List of aircraft with and without recirculation:
Without recirculation: Boeing 727-100, 727-200, 737-100, 737-200; Lockheed L1011-1/100, L1011-50; McDonnell Douglas DC9-30, DC9-50, DC10-10
With recirculation: Airbus Industrie 310, 320, 330, 340; Boeing 737-300, 737NG, 747, 757, 767; McDonnell Douglas DC9-80/MD80, DC10-40, MD-11
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Once again, I request the part number and the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) for the cabin air filter of a Boeing 747.
They want hard data, be a part of sticking it to them. |
| |
|
|
goldrush
Joined: 04 Sep 2000
Posts: 109
Location: No, Calif. USA |
|
Tue Oct 17, 2000 5:17 pm
|
|
|
Try www.sacskyranch.com just off I-5. Many ex-and current airline wrenches pass thru there. Put an ad up. |
| |
|
|
Duncan Kunz
Joined: 19 Oct 2000
Posts: 582
|
|
Thu Oct 19, 2000 10:09 pm
|
|
|
Dear Sore Throat:
I personally appreciate your looking for data, and think you may be on the right track. Your approach makes sense, in that if you DO acquire a used filter from a commercial aircraft, you would be able to make the following assumptions regarding the presence of atmospheric pollutants:
If there ARE suspicious particles in the filter, either:
1. The filter picked up the suspicious particles in situ, i.e., from the air outside the aircraft. These particles (1.a) could be in contrails, (1.b) could be 'fallout' from contrails, or (1.c) could be in the outside atmosphere from another means, e.g., breakdown of normal atmospheric particulates or spewed there from, say, a volcano or earth-bound pollution;
2. The filter picked up the particles from ambient air in the aircraft;
3. The filter was inadvertently contaminated during the manufacturing process or in transport prior to being installed in the aircraft.
If there ARE NOT suspicious particles in the filter, either:
1. There is no such thing as suspicious particles in contrails;
2. The aircraft did not fly through any contrails during the time the filter was in use;
3. The filter was cleaned prior to its being discarded;
4. The putative suspicious particles were simply not trapped by the filter during its use.
So when you think about it, acquiring a used ECS filter from a commercial aircraft would be 'an additional piece to the puzzle', but you couldn't use the information (by itself) to prove or disprove anything.
Now this doesn't mean that you'd be wasting your time. For example, if you were to find barium salt residue in several filters, you would have (circumstantial) evidence that there are suspicious particles somewhere, and you might be able to design another experiment to narrow down the origin of those particles (i.e., from aircraft ambient or external air sources).
Similarly, if you were to find nothing at all in several filters, you would have (again, circumstantial) evidence that there simply are no particles in aircraft contrails.
Obviously, your best approach would be to perform in-situ collecting, that is, flying to where the contrails are and using a pitot-type probe to collect the particulate matter and have it analyzed by a competent and recognized laboratory. Your doing this, and publishing the information in open literature, would certainly go a long way to convincing skeptics like myself and the rest of the people on this board that there is something to the contrail issue.
Unfortunately, previous reports fall quite a bit short in this aspect. The anonymous report Mr. Carnicom posted on his website was an example of this. I'd really appreciate your reading my critique of that report and letting me have your feedback.
I understand that several organizations and individuals have been soliciting money from the chem-trail community to help with their research. I do not know the scope of this research, of course; but I am sure that they are at least considering some type of in-situ collecting program that would -- in my opinion -- provide the most valuable information.
I know it is difficult for anyone (myself certainly included) to re-evaluate our beliefs based on what evidence we come across. It looks like you are taking those first steps. I can only hope that, whatever results you get from your investigations, you incorporate that data and those results into your view on contrail pollution.
And, of course, based on those results (and others like them) I could just as easily change my views!
Regards,
------------------
Duncan Kunz / duncan.kunz@prodigy.net
Mesa AZ / 480-891-2525 |
| |
|
|
Duncan Kunz
Joined: 19 Oct 2000
Posts: 582
|
|
Fri Oct 20, 2000 4:00 pm
|
|
|
Dear Mr. Sorethroat:
I was not aware that the "Report #1" came from the Spotlight; Mr. Carnicom chose not to tell where he got the information. He said, "The following report has been made available for posting on www.carnicom.com, and will also be made available on the main site. The author is not specified at this time." I am not sure why Mr. Carnicom chose not to share the origin of the story with others on his board; however, it is his board, and he can do whatever he pleases.
I would also like to point out some comments of yours that, to be honest, concern me greatly. I am speaking about your continued beating of a comment I made regarding Air filtration as part of the ECS of commercial aircraft.
On October 8th, you posted the following at http://zone1.accessboards.com/cgi-bin/forum/contrail/messagesubject.cgi?topic=12361316
"Since you no longer post at the Carnicom board (for whatever reason), I have yet to see any response from you in regards to the filtration of air within commercial airplanes. AS you should remember, you posted that there was NO SUCH FILTRATION. And as a matter of fact, you posted it all in caps for emphasis. Do you still stand by this position, or are you prepared to admit that you were in error?"
The next day, at the same site, I posted the following:
"Dear Mr. Sore Throat: After a communication from a Mr. Wisequakker (also, I believe, a Boeing employee), I did retract my statement. It turns out that there is internal filtration on Boeing (and presumably other manufacturers') aircraft. This is to keep the air, (because the aircraft is pressurized) from picking up and re-circulating odors and other impurities."
You obviously read that post, because, on October 13, you posted the following:
"Mr. Kunz, I agree completely that our research into the ChemTrail phenomena would be enhanced considerably by additional hard scientific data. You could significantly advance this effort by providing some information. What is the part number(s) for the cabin filtration unit on Boeing 747's and who is the OEM?"
Yet just yesterday, on the Carnicom forum, you posted the following:
"Well Kunz,
Why not use this opportunity to admit that you were wrong about the presence of filters on commercial aircraft? You were proven WRONG weren't you? There are many of us who happen to think that you're wrong about a great many other observations as well.
Time to exit, stage left."
Now obviously you knew that I was mistaken in my comments on air filtration and immediately admitted it. Yet here it is a couple of weeks later, that you are saying just the opposite. Not only that, but (unlike your posts to me, which are courteous) your attitude seemed to be insulting. This leads a serious question:
Do you think you need to perpetuate falsehoods (by your implication that I had not recanted when I did) to get "points" with the more radical chem-trail devotees? Your question must've been a rhetorical one, and the only reason I can think of is that you want to get your point across by personal attacks.
Mr. Sorethroat, I had hopes that you were above such methods. My posts to you, although disagreeing with your beliefs, were certainly factual and courteous. I did not speak courteously to you and then change my tone of voice behind your back. Most importantly, I did not deliberately resort to false statements in order to impress my 'friends' on another forum.
I can understand why you would want to do this - other politicians do it all the time. They will say one thing to one audience and another thing to another. Truth is irrelevant to them; they want to get the greatest number of people on their time.
I had hoped that you were more interested in the truth of the Chem-Trail hypotheses then the politicking of it. It appears I was wrong.
|
| |
|
|
LTC8K6
Joined: 20 Oct 2000
Posts: 267
Location: Tar Heel State |
|
Fri Oct 20, 2000 9:39 pm
|
|
|
Here you go throat, another statement regarding cabin air for you.
From: http://www.airlinesafety.com/articles/BoeingCabinAir.htm
"Current Airplane Design
Our airplanes typically provide ventilation of 13 to 20 cubic feet per minute (cfm) of air per occupant. Outside air typically makes up half of the total air circulation - 6.5 to 10 cfm - while the remaining air is highly filtered recirculated air. The filtration systems used on most Boeing products are High Efficiency Particulate Air Filters (HEPA-type), similar to that used in hospital operating rooms. The systems provide essentially particle-free air."
50% outside / 50% filtered. How many different sources do you need?
I'll tell you again. The air is eventually put through a HEPA filter, but it's initial entry into the cabin is unfiltered. Duncan Kunz was essentially correct. If you were to fly in front of a 747 dispensing a killer poison, the occupants of the 747 would be killed by it. It would circulate for a time before all of it were filtered.
|
| |
|
|
LTC8K6
Joined: 20 Oct 2000
Posts: 267
Location: Tar Heel State |
|
Fri Oct 20, 2000 9:52 pm
|
|
|
This was left out of Sorethroat's above post because it contradicts his position.
Another one from your favorite source, Throat.
From:
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRH9910/FR9910g.htm
"Still, there is a reason why the air quality on board is often critisized by the occupants. That is because of the extremely low relative humidity. On Earth, we are used to a humidity of approximately 40 to 70 percent. However, at typical cruise flight levels, the air only has a relative humidity of roundabout three percent. While early airliner generations used solely fresh air (and such only the extremely dry air) for the cabin, in modern aircraft approximately 40 percent of the cabin air is recirculated and reused (in some aircraft, such as the 747-400 this percentage can even be up to 54 percent)."
How come you left this out of your above post? You must have read it. You did that deliberately.
Once again, only about half of the cabin air has been through the HEPA filter at any given moment.
Duncan, we win again!
|
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
|
Sat Oct 21, 2000 1:30 am
|
|
|
Interesting comments.
No disagreement from me that these onboard, high efficeincy HEPA filters would obtain a very large volume composite sample of OUTSIDE AIR.
We're all in total agreement here guys.
Even Duncan Kunz has admitted his error of last summer when he adamantly stated that there was no such filtration on commercial aircraft.
Your posts simply substantiate mine...YES, there is high efficiency filtration on several models of commercial aircraft.
Despite your resources, there is no identification of a part number or supplier for these filters....which was the original request.
Don't trouble yourselves further...I'll deal with it on my own.
I find LTC8K6's chest beating quite humorous.
What precisely is it that you think you've won? It was your compatriot (Kunz) that was proven wrong. |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
|
Sat Oct 21, 2000 2:18 am
|
|
|
"JayReynolds Today, November 20, 2000, I predict that no airliner cabin HEPA air filter, either used or new, will ever be examined by 'sorethroat'. Further, that no actual material or biological analysis of a used HEPA airplane cabin filter will ever be presented at any time by any
chemtrail proponent whatsoever."
-------------------------------------------
Clueless as usual Rooster.
Can't even get the date right.
What a joke!
My prediction is that you'll be proved wrong again.
What comic relief !!!!!!!! Ha Ha Ha HA HAHAHAHAH !!!!!!!! |
| |
|
|
LTC8K6
Joined: 20 Oct 2000
Posts: 267
Location: Tar Heel State |
|
Sat Oct 21, 2000 3:46 am
|
|
|
You have been trying to show that cabin air is filtered before it enters the cabin. I have been saying it's not. That is what I have won. It isn't filtered before it enters the cabin. You left that part out of your cut and paste on purpose. You wanted those outside air filters to be full of "chemtrail" residue. Except there are no such filters. That is also what I have won.
You originally believed the HEPA filters worked on the air entering the cabin.
When you realized there were no HEPA filters working on the outside air entering the cabin, you changed your story.
Duncan was right, you were wrong.
Pray tell me why I should find your part number for you? Perpetrate your own hoax!
BTW, the new Boeing 717 is non-recirc. You just need to fly in one and you'll have your long awaited air samples. 100% fresh air in the cabin. No need to spend that $22K. |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
|
Sat Oct 21, 2000 5:46 am
|
|
|
Quite a convoluted "logic" LTC8K6, since the entire pooint of my post from the beginning has been that these filters would provide a composite sample of atmospheric air samples.
The point of a part number was to get an unused filter for an analytical blank.
I suppose you also think it's November.
How pathetic! |
| |
|
|
elvis lives
Joined: 30 Sep 2000
Posts: 143
Location: Pismo Beach, California |
|
Sat Oct 21, 2000 5:56 am
|
|
|
sorethroat....Like I told you twice already...HEPA is HEPA...99.97% efficent down to .3 mircon particulate size. If you want an unused HEPA filter to sample go to your local Hoover vaccum cleaner store, it's the same exact material.
And once again...you should see a doctor about that throat. |
| |
|
|
LTC8K6
Joined: 20 Oct 2000
Posts: 267
Location: Tar Heel State |
|
Sat Oct 21, 2000 5:59 am
|
|
|
Convoluted? Since the air in the cabin is 50/50, just take a jar with you. You'll get exactly what you want without any trouble. A nice sample that is 50% recirc/50% fresh. Compare it to ground air samples all you want. Don't see how anyone could bother you. You're bound to find "IT". Still don't see why anyone would need $22K. Better yet, hop on a 717 and get a jar full of 100% chemtrail!
I don't know about November, but now I know flu season is near.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by LTC8K6 on 10-21-2000] |
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Sat Oct 21, 2000 6:02 am
|
|
|
You really are a 'hump' throat, you can't argue with logic and facts so you whip out your "liberally educated berkley" microscope and pick out the first common error you can find....
personally I'm ready for november....
oh my I did not put november in caps....
geez I hope you can sleep....
BTW, was that not you who mispelled your 'nickname' at the trail-con board ?
How long have you been sore thraot anyway ?
------------------
T/S |
| |
|
|
LTC8K6
Joined: 20 Oct 2000
Posts: 267
Location: Tar Heel State |
|
Sat Oct 21, 2000 6:17 am
|
|
|
Besides, Throat, you know the NWO is smart enough to make their spray particles too small to be trapped by a HEPA filter don't you? They know a lot more about the filters on their planes than we do, right? You don't expect to catch them that easily do you?
They have been fooling everyone for years, but you're going to trip "them" up with that?
|
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page
1, 2 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 8:34 am
|
|
|
|
|
Login
