|
|
toxdoc
Joined: 17 Jan 2001
Posts: 23
Location: Williamstown, KY,USA |
 Tue Aug 14, 2001 2:12 pm
|
 |
|
Mr Chemtrails.Org,
The following is from an email I sent Miss 3:
The +100 additive makes the fuel more thermally stable, in that it doesn't "cook" prior to entering the actual combustion chamber. So, if there are no poorly combusting particles formed before the fuel reaches the combuster, more fuel is efficiently burned and less soot, ash and partiulate matter form.
Think of how cooking oils will breakdown and blacken (well if you don't burn down the kitchen) if you heat them too hot. That oil that once had that certain, "Wessonality" can eventually form a black tarry sludge. If you had an atomizer and could spray the original oil into a hot flame, it would flare and burn very well. As you try this with with oil that has been exposed to higher temps you get less efficient combustion and more soot up to the point that if you can spray it, you'd get little more than scorched tarry balls.
The pictures you refer to are dramatic. However, you are interpreting them somewhat incorrectly. The soot buildup on the engine is simply prevented from occuring, not scrubbed away as you and Miss 3 seem to imply. The engine started out clean and stayed that way. Why do you presume that the deposits are sulfur compounds by the way? They should be mostly ash.
|
| |
|
|
3T3L1
Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Posts: 1344
Location: Lubbock, Texas |
|
Tue Aug 14, 2001 3:03 pm
|
|
|
toxdoc -
I would agree that the higher thermal stability of JP-8+100 should make for a cleaner-burning fuel. The reason Michael and I are making the assumption that soot particles are being scrubbed from USAF engines is the following:
http://www.wrs.afrl.af.mil/infores/sstories/ss96/ss59_96.htm
The printing is not easy to read, but the figure legend on the right says, "200 Hours on JP-8 then 56 Hours on JP-8+100."
The accompanying article comes from an af.mil address and says, "JP-8+100 is improved JP-8 fuel with a 'fuel injector cleaner'" I think Michael and I both assumed (perhaps wrongly) that, to a certain extent, gums, varnishes and carbon deposits were still being formed, but that these no longer adhere to engine parts very well because of the scouring properties of JP-8+100. Hence, they go out into the atmosphere and are available as nucleation centers for droplet formation.
[Edited 2 times, lastly by 3T3L1 on 08-19-2001] |
| |
|
|
BOB B
Joined: 19 Jan 2002
Posts: 307
Location: LINDEN ,TEXAS,CASS |
|
Mon Apr 01, 2002 5:51 pm
|
|
|
Military aircraft using microscopic metal particles or what ever the jp-8-100 additive is(I've yet to here anyone who actually can tell me what is in it, exactly)does not explain what I'm seeing, and [*flames removed*]. However, if commercial aircraft are using similar additives,it could explain exactly how this operation could occur without the pilots who are doing it being aware of it.The density at which the right sized and shaped particle could be suspended in kerosene is tremendous,as i have personally tested this theory and the results were as I suspected.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Thermit on 04-01-2002] |
| |
|
|
Thermit
Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3136
Location: Texas |
|
Mon Apr 01, 2002 6:33 pm
|
|
|
quote:
The density at which the right sized and shaped particle could be suspended in kerosene is tremendous,as i have personally tested this theory and the results were as I suspected.
BobB, please detail your experiments and results. |
| |
|
|
BOB B
Joined: 19 Jan 2002
Posts: 307
Location: LINDEN ,TEXAS,CASS |
|
Mon Apr 01, 2002 7:37 pm
|
|
|
Duncan, as usual, your thinking I'm going to give into you, but at your insistence, and due to your employment by the BOEING corp as a public representative , and your participation in a chemtrail"conspiracy nut"(forgive me Thermit, it's for effect!) forum, Im going to tell you!.......................................................................................First one must obtain a particle of proper size and shape---the way I did it, I heated aluminum until it oxidized, pulverized the powder(@50ml) and disolved this mechanically pulverized powder in common kerosene, which as you know is of similar properties and density of "jet fuel"...I was able to disolve 10 ml of aluminum oxide into i liter of kerosene, with no rapid deposition.it is important to note that these particles were not treated, and would eventually, i realize settle out<>maybe you can answer this..is the fuel rtank of an aircraft agiated by any device which could keep these particles suspended, such as fuel recirculation fron engines(my car has one!)It is my belief that with a polymer coating on the particles, one could suspend much more aluminum oxide in fuel.If this stuff showing up in our ecosystem and in the bodies of our dead loved ones turns out to be to reduce maintainance costs in aircraft,it's criminal, it's truely criminal..Aluminum paricles of a size such as is being created(perhaps in the combustion process) are killing people, this stuff is deadly>As an element, aluminum is poisomous.what ordinarily protects us from its toxicity is it relatively low reactivity to oxidation or absorbtion.however, when the particle size is reduced beyond a certain size, say 10 microns, the bodies defenses are breached by direct absorbtion into the bloodstream through the aleova of the lung(not sure of spellin').So your like a lawyer or somethin, Duncan??My father died and his autopsy indicated abnormal levels of aluminum in his bloodstream,and this is filed with the state of Texas
[Edited 2 times, lastly by BOB B on 04-02-2002] |
| |
|
|
Duncan Kunz
Joined: 19 Oct 2000
Posts: 582
|
|
Mon Apr 01, 2002 8:41 pm
|
|
|
"Duncan, as usual, your thinking I'm going to give into you, but at your insistence, and due to your employment by the BOEING corp as a public representative , and your participation in a chemtrail"conspiracy nut"(forgive me Thermit, it's for effect!) forum, Im going to tell you!"
Thank you.
"First one must obtain a particle of proper size and shape---the way I did it, I heated aluminum until it oxidized, pulverized the powder(@50ml) and disolved this mechanically pulverized powder in common kerosene, which as you know is of similar properties and density of "jet fuel"..."
I have two concerns with your methodology. Before I go any further, please understand that I am not an expert in jet engines, so you can take my comments with whatever amount of NaCl you choose.
First, I did talk to Dave and Other Dave, a retired O-6 and W-4 respectively (or is it the other way around?). Both are retired helicopter pilots who have become bloated aerospace bureaucrats (just like you-know-who) and the aircraft they flew are all turbine powered. They both say that any particulate matter that would find its way into the exhaust would come from the engine stuff that spins real fast and tends to degrade during engine operation, e.g., the turbine blades. And turbine blades are high-carbon steel, not aluminum.
Second, regardless of the metal composition, when a turbine blade sheds some microscopic pieces in the exhaust plume, they may or may not oxidize; that would be a function of the ambient temperature, the presence of ambient oxygen, the length of time that the metal is in contact with the oxygen, the surface area-to-volume ratio of the pieces, and probably a couple of other things I don't know about.
I am sure that, as a man of science yourself, you are aware that the makeup of any metal oxide is completely different that its composite elements, so trying to infer the rate of dissolution of microscopic high carbon steel by observing the dissolution rate of Aluminum Oxide is chancy at best.
"...is the fuel rtank of an aircraft agiated by any device which could keep these particles suspended, such as fuel recirculation fron engines..."
The only fuel tank I am familiar with are the two fuel tanks on the AH-64 helicopter. They do not have a recirculation or agitation device, although they do have a nitrogen inerting system.
Now if you are talking about fuel additives in the tank, rather than combustion byproducts from the engine (and they are completely different things), then you could postulate anything imaginable in the tank! Of course, this additive would either be put in the fuel by the gasoline formulators or added later at re-fueling time by the ground crew. Either way, you inject even more conspirators into the mix.
"It is my belief that with a polymer coating on the particles, one could suspend much more aluminum oxide in fuel.'
I don't know if it is feasible to place a polymer coating on an oxide; but even if it were, I can't see how coating a particle would make it last longer in suspension. If the polymer coating would add mass greater than the fuel it would displace, the particulates would be lighter - but they'd also be bigger, which might tear up the turbine blades. Increasing the fuel's surface tension might help, but that would certainly change its characteristics.
"If this stuff showing up in our ecosystem and in the bodies of our dead lover ones turns out to be to reduce maintainance costs in aircraft,it's criminal, it's truely criminal."
If the people who formulate the fuel know that an added benefit to fuel results in increased risk of mortality, they are criminally liable - just like the cigarette and alcoholic drink manufacturers are, and the purveyors of heart-clogging high-cholesterol hamburgers are.
"Aluminum paricles of a size such as is being created(perhaps in the combustion process) are killing people, this stuff is deadly>As an element, aluminum is poisomous.what ordinarily protects us from its toxicity is it relatively low reactivity to oxidation or absorbtion.however, when the particle size is reduced beyond a certain size, say 10 microns, the bodies defenses are breached by direct absorbtion into the bloodstream through the aleova of the lung(not sure of spellin')."
BobB, make up your mind. Are you talking about the absorption rate of metallic aluminum (which you seem to be doing when you say '...as an element, aluminum...") or about aluminum oxide which is what you did your research on?
"So your like a lawyer or somethin, Duncan??"
No. My first degree was a BA in English in 1969 followed fifteen years later by a BSE (logistics), (U of Md and ASU, respectively) and I am now struggling through an MBA program at the University of Phoenix. I have taken exactly two law courses, both in international contracts, and they were the most boring courses (outside of managerial accounting) I have ever taken. I am nothing like a lawyer, thank God.
"My father died and his autopsy indicated abnormal levels of aluminum in his bloodstream,and this is filed with the state of Texas"
Bob, in your post at http://pub31.ezboard.com/fcontrailsandchemtrails22884frm1.showMes sageRange?topicID=397.topic&start=1&stop=20, you said, referring to your father, "...A DEATH WHICH NO DOCTOR COULD EXPLAIN AND AN AUTOPSY FAILED TO FIND A CAUSE OF." (emphasis mine). [Flame deleted by 3T3.]
------------------
Duncan Kunz / duncankunz@cox.net
Mesa AZ / 480-891-2525
[Edited 3 times, lastly by 3T3L1 on 04-02-2002] |
| |
|
|
BOB B
Joined: 19 Jan 2002
Posts: 307
Location: LINDEN ,TEXAS,CASS |
|
Mon Apr 01, 2002 9:40 pm
|
|
|
Duncan, the high aluminum concentration was noted, but not listed as the cause of death, which is "undetermined" The oxygen combined with the aluminum in the oxide compound can be seperated by several metabolic processes in the body into oxygen and base aluminum, which is HIGHLY TOXIC IN THE BLOODSTREAM... Oxides of aluminum would be perfect for the scrubbing process, thier hard enough and the edges of the particles tends to be jagged.(under microscopic analysis)Not trying to be a smartass, Duncan, I kind of respect you as an advesary in this controversy, because you take a kickin' and keep on tickin, but surely you and I both know the concentration of s!@# in the sky and in the enviroment is not due to a small amount of metalic compounds added to clean injector plates.This is an intention effort to utilize commercial aircraft to mitigate the Earths thermal budget..But heres where Boeing need to cut their own losses, and speak out, and maybe we the public, will forgive them for thier complicency.In your previous reply you stated "If the polymer coating would add mass greater than the fuel it would displace, the particulates would be lighter - but they'd also be bigger, which might tear up the turbine blades." I believe the word "volume" should replace the word mass.Also, the polymer coating, being relatively soft and probably engineered to be combustable would do little damage in my opinion to metal parts, even after extended operation.On the contrary, I believe the polymer coating would prevent erosion in fuel lines and injector mechanisms, as well as fuel pumps, protecting these parts from contact with the metal particles before they are combusted along with the fuel
[Edited 3 times, lastly by BOB B on 04-02-2002] |
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Tue Apr 02, 2002 8:38 am
|
|
|
I don't think so Bob B, I would say that a good recipe for a contrail is trace amounts of sulfur, carbon, titanium, iron, etc... from the fuel and surface of the engine, suspended in an ice crystal matrix.
cha cha cha
------------------
T/S |
| |
|
|
BOB B
Joined: 19 Jan 2002
Posts: 307
Location: LINDEN ,TEXAS,CASS |
|
Tue Apr 02, 2002 5:51 pm
|
|
|
Someone finally made me laugh....Thank you, the seeker |
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Tue Aug 13, 2002 8:36 am
|
|
|
BobB gave this forum some one of a kind truly special posts...as a fan...I'm bumping this thread...and if I could find the "exhaust hose being routed into the cab of his truck by strange men" post....I'd bump it too...
------------------
T/S |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 9:03 am
|
|
|
|
|
Login
