Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => That CAN'T be true! => Topic started by: smart on 12/08/2016 13:11:18
-
JP-900 is a advanced coal-based jet fuel for military aircrafts. However, low-dose exposure to combustion-derived nanoparticles (CDNPs) is probably toxic. Therefore, could coal-based jet fuel (JP-900) emit ultrafine particles in the environment?
-
JP 900 was planned to be derived from coal used in coking ovens.
A small percentage of volatile hydrocarbons is present in coal; with a new design of oven, these volatiles could be extracted from coal which is normally used to produce coke (carbon black) for iron smelting.
These hydrocarbons would still be distilled in a fuel refinery, so there would be effectively no carbon soot left in the fuel. The burning process in a jet engine is a much more stable process than the compression-triggered detonation of diesel fuel, which produce the damaging soot from incomplete combustion in diesel vehicles.
In particular, there will be none of the minerals that produce fly ash when coal is burnt in power stations, so it is not a secret plot to produce chemtrails.
This report for the government suggested shutting down the whole JP 900 project, since it would make minimal contribution to fuel for jets: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2007/RAND_TR465.pdf
-
Aviation fuel of any sort contains fewer ash particles than any road fuel.
-
Essentially, jet fuel is jet fuel.
A jet engine does a very good job of burning that fuel so neither coal- nor petroleum- derived fuel would give rise to much particulate matter and there would be practically no difference between the two varieties.
The distillation process is such that it would remover almost everything bu hydrocarbons from the product (with traces of sulphur and nitrogen compounds too). Those are not going to produce "ash".
-
The levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in JP-900 is significantly higher (75) than for JP-8 (20): http://www.energy.psu.edu/sites/default/files/files/JetFuels.pdf
Also, exposure to increased levels of hydrocarbons and particulate matter (PM2.5) is toxic: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20368125
Note that JP-900 increased levels of hydrocarbons may be useful for inducing cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), by producing photochemical aerosol in the atmosphere: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135223109700054X
I would like evidences that JP-900 is not in use for geoengineering purpose but it seem likely that a coal-derived jet fuel is being used as a organic aerosol to act as a cloud condensation nuclei.
-
The levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in JP-900 is significantly higher (75) than for JP-8 (20): http://www.energy.psu.edu/sites/default/files/files/JetFuels.pdf
I would like evidences that JP-900 is not in use for geoengineering purpose but it seem likely that a coal-derived jet fuel is being used as a organic aerosol to act as a cloud condensation nuclei.
The page you cite does not say what you claim it does about PAHs.
You are effectively asking for evidence that it's not made from unicorn horns.
-
The levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in JP-900 is significantly higher (75) than for JP-8 (20): http://www.energy.psu.edu/sites/default/files/files/JetFuels.pdf
I would like evidences that JP-900 is not in use for geoengineering purpose but it seem likely that a coal-derived jet fuel is being used as a organic aerosol to act as a cloud condensation nuclei.
The page you cite does not say what you claim it does about PAHs.
You are effectively asking for evidence that it's not made from unicorn horns.
Check the Table 1, at the bottom of the page. The levels of PAHs (hydroaromatics) and cycloalkanes are shown for JP-8 and JP-900.
-
The levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in JP-900 is significantly higher (75) than for JP-8 (20): http://www.energy.psu.edu/sites/default/files/files/JetFuels.pdf
I would like evidences that JP-900 is not in use for geoengineering purpose but it seem likely that a coal-derived jet fuel is being used as a organic aerosol to act as a cloud condensation nuclei.
The page you cite does not say what you claim it does about PAHs.
You are effectively asking for evidence that it's not made from unicorn horns.
Check the Table 1, at the bottom of the page. The levels of PAHs (hydroaromatics) and cycloalkanes are shown for JP-8 and JP-900.
I did.
Hydroaromatics and cycloalkanes are not PAHs.
Why do you insist on making it clear that you do not know what you are talking about?
-
I did.
Hydroaromatics and cycloalkanes are not PAHs.
You are clearly uneducated.
Hopefully Google is your friend...
Process for the production of hydroaromatic hydrocarbons: https://www.google.com/patents/US2299716
Hydroaromatics hydrocarbons are a subclass of PAHs produced from the distilation of coal.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycyclic_aromatic_hydrocarbon
-
Ho Hum; it's pretty obvious that only one of us is a chemist; and it's not you.
Google is great.
If you used it you could find out what you were talking about.
This is the bit you want
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromaticity#Characteristics_of_aromatic_.28aryl.29_compounds
and it shows that you need lots of double bonds to get an aromatic hydrocarbon (polycyclic or monocyclic).
We can write of your first set of candidates the cycloalkanes very easily.
They are alkanes (the hint is in the name) and thus have absolutely no double bonds so they can't possibly be aromatic.
That leaves the hydroaromatics.
Well, again, the clue is in the name.
they were aromatics- but someone added hydrogen across their double bonds so they are not aromatic any more.
The patent you cited includes this line " Aromatic-hydrocarbons, if present in substantial quantities tend to form azeotropic mixtures with the hydroaromatic hydrocarbons temperatures" which only makes sense because the hydroaromatics are not aromatic.
So, as I said, Hydroaromatics and cycloalkanes are not PAHs and The page you cite does not say what you claim it does about PAHs.
Why do you insist on making it clear that you do not know what you are talking about?
-
low-dose exposure to combustion-derived nanoparticles (CDNPs) is probably toxic
There seems to be a bit of a disconnect here:
- On the one hand, tk, in this thread you seem very concerned about low doses of combustion-derived nanoparticles released by clean combustion in jet engines, mostly at high altitudes.
- I think it is a valid concern. To bring it back down to Earth, the Volkswagen group has been subject to worldwide criticism over the past year or so for producing more of these nanoparticles than the air pollution legislation permits. I expect that other vehicle manufacturers will also be discovered to have endangered population health.
- On the other hand, in other threads, you seem to favor the legalization of direct injection of high doses of toxic combustion products directly into peoples lungs, with no requirement whatsoever for formal safety testing. I would point out that marijuana smoke contains fly ash and other nanoparticles, as well as partially-burnt organic and inorganic compounds.
It just seems a bit inconsistent...
-
- On the other hand, in other threads, you seem to favor the legalization of direct injection of high doses of toxic combustion products directly into peoples lungs, with no requirement whatsoever for formal safety testing. I would point out that marijuana smoke contains fly ash and other nanoparticles, as well as partially-burnt organic and inorganic compounds.
Smoking marijuana is a choice, but getting exposed to low-dose combustion-derived nanoparticles from geoengineering activity impede on my freedom to breathe non-polluted air. No one ever died from cannabis overdose, however the toxicity of air pollution is creating diseases and death.
-
So, as I said, Hydroaromatics and cycloalkanes are not PAHs and The page you cite does not say what you claim it does about PAHs.
Hydroaromatics and cycloalkanes are both hydrocarbons. Perhaps I should have insisted on this.
-
So, as I said, Hydroaromatics and cycloalkanes are not PAHs and The page you cite does not say what you claim it does about PAHs.
Hydroaromatics and cycloalkanes are both hydrocarbons. Perhaps I should have insisted on this.
That makes about as much sense as saying that I should "insist" that today is Sunday.
nobody is disputing it- nor are they disputing the toxicity of PAHs.
Now, perhaps you can apologise for claiming that I'm uneducated when that description fits you rather better.
what's important to remember is what Alan said earlier; jet engines do a really good job of burning hydrocarbons- much better than diesel or petrol engines.
So jet engines don't produce much by way of PAHs.
And there's no reason to suppose that the choice of JP4 or JP900 would make much difference to that.
So, you don't actually seem to have any sort of point at all. You just seem to have dose is make a fool of yourself and make insulting comments about me.
Why did you start the thread?
-
what's important to remember is what Alan said earlier; jet engines do a really good job of burning hydrocarbons- much better than diesel or petrol engines.
So jet engines don't produce much by way of PAHs.
And there's no reason to suppose that the choice of JP4 or JP900 would make much difference to that.
Actually, jet fuel like JP-8 do emit polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons:
In general, the higher MW PAHs biodegrade more slowly and have higher carcinogenic potential. Jet A and JP8 fuels had more PAHs than JP5 fuels. Jet A fuel had more mid-range MW PAHs than the military fuels.
Trace elements including Aluminium was also found in jet fuels. Thus, the presence of theses elements in coal-based jet fuel is likely.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA396143
PS: You're uneducated in the sense that you don't have the capacity to investigate on your own the evidences and prefer to believe in wishful thinking rather than science.
-
Thanks for citing that paper. It shows that JP8 (which had the most aluminium) contains about ten grams of aluminium in each tonne of fuel which is hardly worth worrying about.
The PAH data in Table 5 illustrate Alan's point that there's generally a lot more in gasoline or diesel than in jet fuel.
Of course that's not the point.
The presence of PAHs in diesel exhaust doesn't come directly from that in the fuel.
The PAHs are by-products of inefficient combustion.
So what goes into the jet engine doesn't matter much.
What makes the difference is how well the fuel is burned and jet engines are pretty good at burning stuff so the traces of PAHs in the fuel (again- the figures in that table are in grams per ton and in many cases the quantities are too small to measure) will mainly get burned passing through the engine.
-
No one ever died from cannabis overdose, however the toxicity of air pollution is creating diseases and death.
Epidemiologists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology) are the people who study rates of disease and death, and their causes.
- It is known that people who live near coal-fired power stations with unfiltered smokestacks have higher mortality than people who live equally near powerstations with dust filters in the smokestack.
- However, you can't look at two neighbors and say definitively that "this person died from pollution from the powerstation, and that person (with the same cause of death) did not". You have to do epidemiology on a statistical basis.
- Epidemiology can be informed by laboratory experiments, which can then set safe limits for exposure.
- Experiments with dangerous substances on humans are normally rejected by todays ethics committees (even if they are volunteers), so you normally end up testing mice.
- Individuals and organisations knowingly violating safe limits for their employees or the public should be punished for harming society
- As far as I know, nobody has yet set safe concentration limits for cannabis smoking, but the hints from cigarette smoke suggest that it has a very low safe dose, that should be kept as far as possible away from other people
So, tk, when you say "No one ever died from cannabis overdose" you are comparing apples and oranges. What I think you mean is that it is hard to point to an individual and say definitively that they died from smoking cannabis (especially because in most jurisdictions they need to keep their addiction a secret). Such statements must be validated by epidemiological evidence.
When the epidemiology evidence is in, I think you will find that people today are being killed by cannabis.
I feel that repeating a mantra like "No one ever died from cannabis overdose" in a thread supposedly promoting public health is a little disingenuous.
-
PS: You're uneducated in the sense that you don't have the capacity to investigate on your own the evidences and prefer to believe in wishful thinking rather than science.
Well, that's not what uneducated means- and it's not a realistic characterisation of me.
But never mind.
Lets' see what happens when I do a bit of investigating.
OK the first thing I discover from my investigation is that,for some reason, you seem to want to believe that someone or some group is covertly geoengineering the Earth and they are using planes to do it by spreading fly ash into the atmosphere.
Now we can investigate further and see what happens.
Well, lets imagine that I'm the one doing this.
I'm sitting here stroking my white fluffy cat and contemplating world domination (or whatever it is- you never seem to give a reason for doing this, but... whatever)
so I chuckle to myself and dream up my evil plans.
I start out on a fairly modest scale
"Aha! I will double the amount of dust in the atmosphere- that will let the world know I'm not to be messed with!"
(really, doubling it's not a huge target- we can get back to that later).
OK, lets see how much dust I need.
well there are reasonable good estimates of the amount of dust in typical air.
The estimates vary but 0.01 mg/cubic metre is a reasonable value.
To a rough approximation a cubic metre of air weighs about a kilogram so there's something like a hundred million times more air than dust.
OK and the atmosphere weighs about 5.1480×10E18 kg
So there's something like 5E10 Kg of dust in it.
That's 50 million tonnes.
I need to roughly match that to double the current dust concentration.
And I want to mix that in with the jet fuel so I can "clandestinely" load it onto planes.
OK; how much jet fuel does the world use?
Well, because I am actually capable of investigating evidence I can find that data fairly easily.
http://www.indexmundi.com/energy/?product=jet-fuel&graph=production
It's of the order of 5 million barrels a day.
And a barrel is about 140Kg
So that's 700,000 tonnes of jet fuel each day.
Or about 21 million tonnes per month.
Now that's an important timescale- it's roughly how long it took most of the dust which was blown into the air by an unpronounceable Icelandic volcano to drop out and allow us to start flying planes again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_travel_disruption_after_the_2010_Eyjafjallaj%C3%B6kull_eruption
Obviously, it's not good enough that I put all the dust in the air just once- the effect wouldn't last.
So I have to keep replenishing my dust cloud. And, as I say, it only seems to stay up there for a month or less, so I have to resupply it each month.
So, to a rough approximation I have to add 50 million tonnes of dust to the 21 million tonnes of jet fuel- and keep doing this every month.
That means (by weight) there's more than twice as much dust as there is fuel.
OK you say that's ash from coal.
The world mines (+ burns) about 8 billion tonnes of coal a year; 700 or so million tonnes per month.
According to this
https://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/1528/report.pdf
coal contains about 5 or 10% ash.
So that's something like 33 to 66 million tonnes of ash per month.
So, you think they are putting more than half of the world's coal-ash into jet fuel.
And you accuse me of wishful thinking?
You can stop trolling now.
-
I need to roughly match that to double the current dust concentration.
And I want to mix that in with the jet fuel so I can "clandestinely" load it onto planes.
Why double the atmospheric dust concentration in your calculations? The purpose of clandestine geoengineering activity is to covertly modify the weather by using either coal-based secondary organic aerosols (SOA) or aerosolized jet fuel.
-
"Why double the atmospheric dust concentration in your calculations?"
Remember, i said I'd get back to it.
"Aha! I will double the amount of dust in the atmosphere- that will let the world know I'm not to be messed with!"
(really, doubling it's not a huge target- we can get back to that later).
Well that volcano very roughly doubled the amount of dust.
And it didn't have a lasting effect.
So, to achieve anything, you need to do better.
And this "aerosolized jet fuel."! is moving the goal posts- but it still makes no sense. Jet fuel evaporates and is destroyed by oxidation in the atmosphere without making much difference to global warming.
You seem to be making it up as you go along.
What were you saying about wishful thinking?
-
Ever heard of trimethylaluminium (TMA) ?
From wikipedia:
Trimethylaluminium is one of the simplest examples of an organoaluminium compound. Despite its name it has the formula Al2(CH3)6 (abbreviated as Al2Me6 or TMA) as it exists as a dimer. This colorless liquid is an industrially important compound but must be handled with care due to its pyrophoricity; it evolves white smoke (aluminium oxides) when the vapor is released into the air.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trimethylaluminium
The wishful thinking is to assume this aerosolized jet fuel is nothing more than water vapor.
-
Ever heard of trimethylaluminium (TMA) ?
From wikipedia:
Trimethylaluminium is one of the simplest examples of an organoaluminium compound. Despite its name it has the formula Al2(CH3)6 (abbreviated as Al2Me6 or TMA) as it exists as a dimer. This colorless liquid is an industrially important compound but must be handled with care due to its pyrophoricity; it evolves white smoke (aluminium oxides) when the vapor is released into the air.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trimethylaluminium
The wishful thinking is to assume this aerosolized jet fuel is nothing more than water vapor.
I have worked with trimethylaluminum. It's really nasty stuff! Pyrophoric is almost an understatement, TMA is violently reactive, bursting into flame and forming fireballs or explosive mixtures with air. I think it is HIGHLY unlikely that TMA is being put on commercial airlines (oh, maybe a TMA confinement failure took out MH-370...) I will point out, however, that some sounding rockets DO release small quantities of trimethylaluminum at very high altitudes to study air currents in the upper atmosphere. However, you have more exposure to aluminum from your deodorant or a potato baked in aluminum foil, so don't get too excited...
-
more info about trialkylaluminums:
triethylaluminum burning (watch as it reignites by itself after the flame is extinguished)
spontaneous ignition of trimethylaluminum: (start watching at 1:33 if you are impatient)
video of sounding rockets releasing TMA in atmospheric study (release at 2:03)
-
Ever heard of trimethylaluminium (TMA) ?
From wikipedia:
Trimethylaluminium is one of the simplest examples of an organoaluminium compound. Despite its name it has the formula Al2(CH3)6 (abbreviated as Al2Me6 or TMA) as it exists as a dimer. This colorless liquid is an industrially important compound but must be handled with care due to its pyrophoricity; it evolves white smoke (aluminium oxides) when the vapor is released into the air.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trimethylaluminium
The wishful thinking is to assume this aerosolized jet fuel is nothing more than water vapor.
Re .
"The wishful thinking is to assume this aerosolized jet fuel is nothing more than water vapor."
Nobody said it was.
It would be easier if you stuck to one made-up story rather than leaping from one absurdity to the next each time your beliefs are exposed as nonsense.
Why don't you write a nice clear list of the stuff you believe then we can go through the lot and point out (once and for all) why it is nonsense.
-
No one with the capital necessary to perform this supposed geo-engineering is going to waste it on an exercise with little prospect of return. They would rather carry on making money in the sure and certain hope that they will be dead before the proverbial excrement fouls up the blades of the fan.