posted 02-02-2003 05:36 PM            

In order not to derail this thread I have adressed this statement made by CS here ~
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum15/HTML/000023.html#0

posted 02-02-2003 11:57 PM            

This was the understood arrangement at the time that I temporarily left this forum, but you are not keeping your side of the deal.
Perhaps you have simply forgotten that the argument ever went through the stage that I have described. As a result, we see no progress in the project of distinguishing between true and false claims in relation to chemtrails.

posted 02-03-2003 02:40 PM            

"""A CFM-56 is a CFM-56""" (It's good to see statements like this. It gives me a chance to review turbines for beginners again)

I must again refer you to the work being done by General Electric, John Ackermann, Randy Lewis, William Stowell and others.

The invention describes the use of turbine engines for the chemical reaction process.

It provides documentation that a CFM56 can be utilizied to compliment the theories of this board.

Anyone that states that you can't cram anything other than fuel through a turbine....... is wrong........

Further research on the Lewis's, Ackermann's, Rosnethal's and Stowell's of the world will support the chemtrail theory. It is understood that a patent does not a chemplane make but a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
http://patft.uspto.g ov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=13&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=CFM56&OS=CFM56&RS=CFM56

>>>As a non-limiting, general guideline, chemical reactions with a heat output up to the maximum output of a typical commercial aircraft engine are very suitable for this invention. An example of such an engine is General Electric's CFM56 model, which consumes approximately 4,500 kg of jet fuel per hour under take-off conditions, with an average heat output of about 43,000 kJ/kg. Thus, the total energy output would be about 195,000 kJ/hr, which generates approximately 11,500 newtons of thrust. A reaction size which more closely parallels heat output of the engine under cruise conditions would be more common for this invention. Such reactions consume less than about 1,400 kg of fuel per hour, with a corresponding heat output of less than about 5.8 million J/hr.<<<

>>>A wide variety of turbine engines may be modified and used in carrying out the present invention. They are all well-known in the art and described in a variety of references. Exemplary sources include U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,476,224; 5,475,979; 5,474,258; 5,472,313; 5,460,002; 5,435,126; 5,419,112; 5,404,709; 5,396,760; 5,323,604; 4,419,044; 4,414,815; 3,484,847; 3,484,144; and 3,448,582.<<<

Further information to establish the possibilities.

>>>Method and apparatus for protecting crops from frost by jet-dispersed, microencapsulated aerosols.<<<

[URL=http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=157&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&s1=%27jet+turbine%27&p=4&OS=%22jet+turbine%22&RS=%22jet+turb ine%2]http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=157&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&s1=%27jet+turbine%27&p=4&OS=%22jet+turbine%22&RS=%22jet+tur bine%2[/URL] 2

"""Assuming Boeing was being paid enough to do this secretly (although god knows why, as they don't make much money out of military contracts, commercial is the cashcow"""

This is no secret, it's just a little covert.
Again, the money spent upgrading KC135's to pacer-crag, cfm56 and 'other' modifications does not a chemplane make. I do find the large dollar value and the timing most interesting.

BOEING SITE search for ?KC-135 engine modification? http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1997/news.release.970120a.html http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1995/news.release.951010.html http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1998/news_release_980922n.htm http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1997/news_release_971111o.html http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1997/news.release.970326a.html http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2001/q2/news_release_010504n.htm
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1997/news.release.970106c.html

Yes the ability and capability exists, but who wants to disclose it?

Keyword search: Aerial Spray System http://w3.afrc.af.mil/units/910aw/spray/dod.af.htm

"""PS. I know you probably won't, but anyone with an ounce of common sense (linked to my name, getit? With the average IQ of this board you probably won't...) can see how incrediably stupid this theory is."""

My IQ must be on the average low side. If I had any common sense i'd have givin' up on the theory long ago.

No common sense here, just balls.

posted 02-04-2003 12:46 AM            

and the exact reason why General Electric furthers their research with this
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=315&f=G&l=50&d=FT00&s1=%27aircraft+engine%27&p=7&OS=%22aircraft+engine%22&RS=%22aircr aft+engine%22

>>>Engine having resistance to particle deposits<<<

>>>While the dielectric coating reduces the magnitude of the electric field which attracts particles, the repulsive force produced by the accumulated particles repels additional particles of the same charge. By reducing particle deposits, exemplary embodiments of the invention can reduce degradation in engine performance and provide significant cost savings through avoidance of maintenance.<<<

Research goes back to at least 1958
http://home.attbi.com/~kknowlto/typical.htm

This is sick

>>>In August and September of 1958, Dugway ran six night trials on the Aerial Spray Grid. The tests used a low flying F-100A with a modified a 275-gallon fuel tank to act as the spray dispenser. A critical point of the test was the performance of a nozzle that would spray out liquid particles 5 microns or less in size, so that minute drops of the liquid agent would float in the air over a wide area.<<<

And as long as there's money in it
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1999/news_release_990104n.htm

>>>Boeing Wins KC-10 Aircrew Training System Contract
ST. LOUIS, January 4, 1999 - The Boeing Company was selected as the winner of the U.S. Air Force KC-10 Aircrew Training System contract. The 10-year contract has a total initial value of about $80 million.<<<

>>>Under a $1.5 billion contract awarded in June 1998, Boeing performs contractor logistics support for the Air Mobility Command fleet of 59 KC-10 tankers at the Boeing Aerospace Support Center in San Antonio, Texas, as well as at McGuire Air Force Base, Travis Air Force Base, Ramstein Air Base, Germany, and Yokota Air Base, Japan.<<<

If I was Boeing, I'd get a debunker!!

posted 02-04-2003 02:34 AM            

So chemicals are mixed in with the fuel? I assume the hundreds of engine engineers at GE/Snecma, RR and Pratt are all in on it, as well as all the oil companies.