[smart (OP)]

Is there any chance of you settling down an working out what you are talking about?
Have you forgotten that your original point was that dimethyl sulphate is carcinogenic?
It is, but since there's none of it present, that doesn't matter.

This is clearly not true. Lee's study demonstrated the presence of dimethyl sulfate in coal fly ash.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7350652

The fact that you must consider is that dimethyl sulfate was formerly recognized as a chemical weapon.

It's true that sulphates in air promote aerosol formation- but there's no reason to leap from that to the idea that anyone is actually deliberately doing geoengineering with them on anything but an experimental scale.

What are you smoking? Geoengineering is far beyond the experimental scale. It is considered a "clandestine" operation since its use has been officially prohibited by the UN biodiversity treaty, except by the U.S.

And, for what it's worth, even the article you cite says that using high sulphur (cheap) fuel in jets would be the easy way to do it.
Who would pay for energy needed to get powdered rock into the air when you can do the same thing- better- for free?

Geoengineering is a profitable way to reuse coal fly ash. I believe the corporations are quite interested in generating revenues from geoengineering.

[Bored chemist]

It's not a credible assertion- even if there's a paper about it- because the stuff would boil or burn off during the process of making ash.
If you can find a full version of the paper I will have a look to see where the mistake is.
Seriously- that ash is red hot when it's made and the sulphate esters boil a good couple of hundred degrees lower than that.
How is it possible?


Lots of things were considered as chemical weapons- including nitric acid- which is naturally present in rain water.
Nobody is saying that dimethyl sulphate is anything but a very nasty carcinogen.
But since there's no credible source of it in fly-ash and even if there were it would be destroyed by water, there's no need to worry about it.

" Geoengineering is far beyond the experimental scale. It is considered a "clandestine" operation since its use has been officially prohibited by the UN biodiversity treaty, except by the U.S."
Ah! that explains everything- it's a "secret"
OK
First question- how do you know about it if it's such a secret?
It's obviously not your field of expertise so it can't be because you are some government scientist breaking the wall of silence.

Secondly, why are they doing it at all?
As you say, the international consensus is that it's a bad idea.


"Geoengineering is a profitable way to reuse coal fly ash."
Who pays?
As I have said, it would be much easier to just relax the requirements for flue gas stripping.

[smart (OP)]

It's not a credible assertion- even if there's a paper about it- because the stuff would boil or burn off during the process of making ash.
If you can find a full version of the paper I will have a look to see where the mistake is.
Seriously- that ash is red hot when it's made and the sulphate esters boil a good couple of hundred degrees lower than that.
How is it possible?

Coal fly ash is a dried powder. The burning process of coal is different from the process of tropospheric injection which uses a nozzle to spray the aerosol as a vapor.

Lots of things were considered as chemical weapons- including nitric acid- which is naturally present in rain water.
Nobody is saying that dimethyl sulphate is anything but a very nasty carcinogen.
But since there's no credible source of it in fly-ash and even if there were it would be destroyed by water, there's no need to worry about it.

The toxicity of dimethyl sulfate exposure require further research. The presence of dimethyl sulfate in coal fly ash is a hard evidence that dms is a chemical agent in airborne particulate matter.

" Geoengineering is far beyond the experimental scale. It is considered a "clandestine" operation since its use has been officially prohibited by the UN biodiversity treaty, except by the U.S."
Ah! that explains everything- it's a "secret"
OK
First question- how do you know about it if it's such a secret?
It's obviously not your field of expertise so it can't be because you are some government scientist breaking the wall of silence.

Secondly, why are they doing it at all?
As you say, the international consensus is that it's a bad idea.


"Geoengineering is a profitable way to reuse coal fly ash."
Who pays?
As I have said, it would be much easier to just relax the requirements for flue gas stripping.

I don't think geoengineering (chemtrails) is much a secret now. The real purposes and functions of geoengineering remains however to be validated. Likewise, the toxic effects of geoengineering on human health is highly controversial and poorly understood.

[Bored chemist]

"Coal fly ash is a dried powder. The burning process of coal is different from the process of tropospheric injection which uses a nozzle to spray the aerosol as a vapor."

Yes it's pretty dry.
That's because any water that might have been there will have boiled off in the furnace.
And yet you seem to say that dimethyl sulphate will magically avoid boiling off.
How is that possible?

"The burning process of coal is different from the process of tropospheric injection which uses a nozzle to spray the aerosol as a vapor."
Yes they are different
Burning coal actually happens.
They make the ash into cement.
There is no credible reason to believe that they spray it round.
And you need to learn the difference between a vapour and an aerosol.

"The toxicity of dimethyl sulfate exposure require further research. "
Why?
Everyone knows that it's very toxic- and a known carcinogen.

"The presence of dimethyl sulfate in coal fly ash is a hard evidence that dms is a chemical agent in airborne particulate matter."
Well, no.
At best it's debatable evidence because they strip the ash out and don't send much of it into the air.
Then there's the questionable presence of dimethyl sulphate in that ash,
Then there's the fact that dimethyl sulphate has probably never been used in anger as a chemical weapon.

"I don't think geoengineering (chemtrails) is much a secret now. "
Unicorns are not secret either,and for the same reason.

[smart (OP)]

"Coal fly ash is a dried powder. The burning process of coal is different from the process of tropospheric injection which uses a nozzle to spray the aerosol as a vapor."

Yes it's pretty dry.
That's because any water that might have been there will have boiled off in the furnace.
And yet you seem to say that dimethyl sulphate will magically avoid boiling off.
How is that possible?

There's no boiling which occurs with ultrasonic nozzles. The coal fly ash is released through the troposphere producing sulfate aerosols (SO2).

"The burning process of coal is different from the process of tropospheric injection which uses a nozzle to spray the aerosol as a vapor."
Yes they are different
Burning coal actually happens.
They make the ash into cement.
There is no credible reason to believe that they spray it round.
And you need to learn the difference between a vapour and an aerosol.

Chemtrails actually happens whether you like it or not. The evidences are directly observable and verifiable through scientific literature.

"The toxicity of dimethyl sulfate exposure require further research. "
Why?
Everyone knows that it's very toxic- and a known carcinogen.

"The presence of dimethyl sulfate in coal fly ash is a hard evidence that dms is a chemical agent in airborne particulate matter."
Well, no.
At best it's debatable evidence because they strip the ash out and don't send much of it into the air.
Then there's the questionable presence of dimethyl sulphate in that ash,
Then there's the fact that dimethyl sulphate has probably never been used in anger as a chemical weapon.

Wrong. DMS was first used by the Germans during WW1.

[Bored chemist]

"There's no boiling which occurs with ultrasonic nozzles. "
nobody said it did.
Were you deliberately missing the point?

"Chemtrails actually happens whether you like it or not. The evidences are directly observable and verifiable through scientific literature."
prove it

"DMS was first used by the Germans during WW1. "
that's interesting; can you provide a reference?

[smart (OP)]

"There's no boiling which occurs with ultrasonic nozzles. "
nobody said it did.
Were you deliberately missing the point?

No. I think you're confusing actual contrail vapor and a aerosol emitted for geoengineering purpose.

"Chemtrails actually happens whether you like it or not. The evidences are directly observable and verifiable through scientific literature."
prove it

It's already done. The evidences that Dr. Marvin Herndon proposes are helping science to progress toward the truth.

"DMS was first used by the Germans during WW1. "
that's interesting; can you provide a reference?

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_sulfate#History

[Bored chemist]

I saw the wiki page but it doesn't cite evidence.
It refers to two pages
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/di-sulfa.html
and
http://www.kumed.com/medical-services/poison-control/~/media/Imported/kumed/documents/dimethyl-20sulfate.ashx
but neitehr of those mentions warfare
So, once again, do you have any actual evidence?

Also, this may seem like a silly question, but do you understand that fire is hot?
OK,let me know when you get lost.
If you have something like water or dimethyl sulphate- which is rather volatile, and you put it in a fire- which is hot- the material boils away.
In the case of dimethyl sulphate the vapour that forms is combustible.

So the ash that is left behind does not contain dimethyl sulphate
So coal fly ash does not contain dimethyl sulphate.

Are you still with me?  Did you understand all that?

If not please let me know which bits you can not grasp and I will see if I can explain them.

[smart (OP)]

Also, this may seem like a silly question, but do you understand that fire is hot?
OK,let me know when you get lost.
If you have something like water or dimethyl sulphate- which is rather volatile, and you put it in a fire- which is hot- the material boils away.
In the case of dimethyl sulphate the vapour that forms is combustible.

So the ash that is left behind does not contain dimethyl sulphate
So coal fly ash does not contain dimethyl sulphate.

This is a bogus analysis of how coal fly ash gets vaporised. Theres no heat or burning occuring with ultrasonication. It would be unsafe in my opinion to burn coal to obtain fly ash in flight. I believe the compound used for geoengineering is coal fly ash powder. The dimethyl sulfate is produced once the aerosol condense with water to form a gas. DMS is a by-product of coal fly ash reacting with water vapor.

[smart (OP)]

Here's a picture showing how coal fly ash get processed in coal power plants:



And here's a patent which describe a method for injecting Welsbach materials into the atmosphere:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F5003186

NB: Aluminium oxide (which is found in coal fly ash) is a Welsbach material which "absorbs strongly the long-wavelength infrared radiation released by the earth".

[Bored chemist]

Also, this may seem like a silly question, but do you understand that fire is hot?
OK,let me know when you get lost.
If you have something like water or dimethyl sulphate- which is rather volatile, and you put it in a fire- which is hot- the material boils away.
In the case of dimethyl sulphate the vapour that forms is combustible.

So the ash that is left behind does not contain dimethyl sulphate
So coal fly ash does not contain dimethyl sulphate.

This is a bogus analysis of how coal fly ash gets vaporised. Theres no heat or burning occuring with ultrasonication. It would be unsafe in my opinion to burn coal to obtain fly ash in flight. I believe the compound used for geoengineering is coal fly ash powder. The dimethyl sulfate is produced once the aerosol condense with water to form a gas. DMS is a by-product of coal fly ash reacting with water vapor.

Stop yacking on about it being vapourised. Practically nobody vaporises coal ash- the boiling point is stupidly high. Why would you bother?
Why would you even talk about it?


So, what I posted is not "a bogus analysis of how coal fly ash gets vaporised" because it's not an analysis of something that never happens.
Have you got that?

OK lets start again.
Do you understand that fire is hot?

So, the very hot ash will not contain DMS.
Have you got that?
Coal ash does not contain stuff that would boil and or burn off in a fire.

So you have to make up some explanation of how it gets there.
And the best you can come up with is  this "The dimethyl sulfate is produced once the aerosol condense with water to form a gas. DMS is a by-product of coal fly ash reacting with water vapor."
And that's obviously stupid.
Since water destroys DMS, it doesn't make it.

Why don't you stop, take the time to learn some science and then come back and apologise for cluttering up the forum?

[smart (OP)]

Since water destroys DMS, it doesn't make it.

Not true. monomethyl sulfate (methyl sulfuric acid) is produced from the hydrolysis of DMS.

Dimethyl sulfate hydrolyzes slowly in cold water but rapidly in warm water and acidic solutions. The hydrolysis occurs stepwise, initially forming methyl sulfuric acid, then sulfuric acid and methanol.

https://www.chemours.com/Dimethyl_Sulfate/en_US/tech_info/chem_properties.html

I think you're acting plain silly in ignoring the fact that DMS is a sulfate aerosol precursor.

[Bored chemist]

Since water destroys DMS, it doesn't make it.

Not true. monomethyl sulfate (methyl sulfuric acid) is produced from the hydrolysis of DMS.

Dimethyl sulfate hydrolyzes slowly in cold water but rapidly in warm water and acidic solutions. The hydrolysis occurs stepwise, initially forming methyl sulfuric acid, then sulfuric acid and methanol.

https://www.chemours.com/Dimethyl_Sulfate/en_US/tech_info/chem_properties.html

I think you're acting plain silly in ignoring the fact that DMS is a sulfate aerosol precursor.

Are you deliberately trolling, or just not bright enough to understand that water destroys dimethyl sulphate and so it doesn't manufacture it?

The DMS which is really a sulphate aerosol precursor us dimethyl sulPHIDE.
It's produced in nature by things like decaying seaweed.

And it's oxidised and hydrolysed to form sulphuric acid (and things like CO2, methanol and formaldehyde).
There might even be some dimethyl sulphate made along the way, but it won't last because it will be destroyed by water.
If someone were adding dimethyl sulphate to teh iar it would 9quite quickly) react to form sulphuric acid which does promote aerosol formation.
Now, since I have never said otherwise, it's plainly inaccurate for you to say "I think you're acting plain silly in ignoring the fact that DMS is a sulfate aerosol precursor."

What I'm saying is that nobody is adding dimethyl sulphate to the atmosphere.
In particular, they are not adding it  by adding coal fly ash - because coal fly ash hasn't got dimethyl sulphate in it.
And among  the reasons foir this is that
if you wanted aerosols of sulphates- three's an easy way to get sulphate into the air. Just relax teh requirements for scrubbing flue gases.
On the other hand,iit is known to cause problems
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain

If you want to add it further up you could add some sulphur compounds to jet fuel.
In fact it's easier than that, you could (again) relax teh requirements to remove the sulphur.
And you could add it as any of lots of sulphur containing chemicals- but dimethyl sulphate would be a stupid cjoice- when it gets wet (and everything does) it would produce sulphuric acid. You don't want that in fuel tanks on planes.
And it's horribly toxic an and expansive.

So, nothing you hav suggested makes any real sense

[smart (OP)]

Have you thought about what they could be possibly spraying if we assume that the coal fly ash hypothesis is wrong?

This is why science is critical to the understanding and progress of truth. Believing that chemtrails are composed of water vapor simply make no sense. This theory (propaganda) is scientifically invalid.

If you want me to accept your ideas then provide a solution for this problem. Otherwise, the coal fly ash hypothesis is a reasonable and legitimate postulate.

[smart (OP)]

Why does geoengineering/chemtrails topics keeps getting moderated or
blocked on this forum?

[Bored chemist]

Why does geoengineering/chemtrails topics keeps getting moderated or
blocked on this forum?

Because it's a science website and you haven't produced any evidence that the topics ( as you describe them) actually exist.
For example, you have yet to produce any evidence that he trails behind aircraft are anything other than  water.

This has been explained to you at length: what can we do to help you understand?

[smart (OP)]

Please tell me the purpose of spraying plain water vapor if you consider this an "evidence"?

Otherwise I'm not sure you understand the concept of stratospheric aerosol injection.

Thank you.

[Bored chemist]

How do you expect them to burn a hydrocarbon like jet fuel without producing water vapour?
This has been pointed out to you before.

It's not that I don't understand stratospheric injection: the problem is that you have provided no evidence that it takes place on anything but a minuscule research scale.

[smart (OP)]

How do you expect them to burn a hydrocarbon like jet fuel without producing water vapour?
This has been pointed out to you before.

It's not that I don't understand stratospheric injection: the problem is that you have provided no evidence that it takes place on anything but a minuscule research scale.

A persistent aerosol emitted from a nozzle has nothing to do with commercial jet engine combustion. So either the military use a nozzle to inject aerosols or the nanoparticles are mixed with the military jet fuel.   

[Bored chemist]

How do you expect them to burn a hydrocarbon like jet fuel without producing water vapour?
This has been pointed out to you before.

It's not that I don't understand stratospheric injection: the problem is that you have provided no evidence that it takes place on anything but a minuscule research scale.

A persistent aerosol emitted from a nozzle has nothing to do with commercial jet engine combustion. So either the military use a nozzle to inject aerosols or the nanoparticles are mixed with the military jet fuel.

Can you get it into your head that there is no evidence for the nozzles.
There is no evidence for nanoparticles (except as the smoke from coal fired power stations)
There is no evidence for the persistent aerosols (otehr than clouds of water droplets)