0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The long chain alcohols produce a useful smoke that persists for reasonable time. Dodecanol (C12) is useful when temperatures are below 100 F (38 C) but evaporates rapidly at higher temperatures. Alcohols with longer hydrocarbon chains have lower vapor pressure and therefore should be more persistent. Decanol (C10) is useful around 75 F; whereas octanol (C8) is only useful at cooler temperatures. JP-8 consists principally of hydrocarbons in the C11 to C14 range. Oxidation of dodecane (C12), tridecane (C13), and tetradecane (C14) to alcohols will convert those components of JP-8 into useful smoke components. In contrast, it will be necessary to oxidize decane(C10) and undecane (c11) to carboxylic acids or diols to produce useful smoke materials. Even though oxidation of the C12, C13, and C14 components to corresponding alcohols will produce effective smoke constituents, further oxidation will generate a more effective smoke.http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a297044.pdf
Why do you say "implicated"?The reaction they are talking about is2 C12H26 +O2 ---> 2 C12H26OThat's the oxidation of dodecane- which is present in JP8 to form dodecanol which is less volatile than the dodecane and just about does the job of making "smoke" as long as the weather isn't too warm.With smaller molecules, like decane you need to oxidise them more. Decanol is too volatile- except in cold weather, but decanediol and decanoic acid- which are less volatile- will make "smoke".(Incidentally, do you realise this has nothing to do with conspiracy nonsense?)
[If solar obscuration is produced by chemtrails,
There's plenty of evidence of ordinary vapor trails altering the diurnal surface temperature cycle. The effect can be intriguingly paradoxical. A lot of high altitude traffic at night can reduce radiative heat loss so that you don't get pre-dawn fog, but early morning vapor trails reduce solar heating and if there is a radiation fog, it takes longer to burn off.
Quote from: alancalverd on 23/08/2016 22:25:55There's plenty of evidence of ordinary vapor trails altering the diurnal surface temperature cycle. The effect can be intriguingly paradoxical. A lot of high altitude traffic at night can reduce radiative heat loss so that you don't get pre-dawn fog, but early morning vapor trails reduce solar heating and if there is a radiation fog, it takes longer to burn off. There's lots of interesting physics. It's just that tkadm30 keeps trying to introduce stuff that's baseless gibberish, rather than science.
Chemtrails science is based on atmospheric physics. I'm still amazed you deny this phenomenon. Besides, you still don't explain what is a jet fuel surrogate... Is it an additive added to the fuel ?
This paper is about finding a method to make persisting smoke from JP-8 jet fuel mixture. I think the vapor phase photooxidation of dodecanol is producing the high density plume known as chemtrails. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp211531h
The jet engine burns the fuel (JP8 or otherwise) almost entirely to carbon dioxide and water.The water condenses out to form the condensation trail.
Jet fuel JP-8 is of technical interest to the military aviation industry. JP-8 is now the single battlefield fuel for all US Army and Air Force equipment, replacing gasoline altogether and gradually replacing diesel fuel. Hence, emissions from the combustion of this fuel are the subject for this investigation. The emissions from the combustion of JP-8 fuel are examined and are compared to those from diesel fuel No. 2, burned under identical conditions. Combustion occurred inside a laboratory furnace in sooty diffusion flames, under adverse conditions that typically emit large amounts of products of incomplete combustion (PIC). Under such conditions, even compounds that otherwise might appear only in trace amounts were present in sufficient quantities for detection. The study reports on emissions of CO, light volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds with an emphasis on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), particulate emissions, oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and oxides of sulfur (SO2). Some PAH compounds are suspected of posing a threat to human health, benzo[a]pyrene being listed as a bio-accumulative toxin by the EPA. An afterburner was also used to examine the effects of longer furnace residence time. Results have demonstrated that PAH emissions from the combustion of diesel fuel were higher than those of JP-8, under most conditions examined. Moreover, as the temperature of the primary furnace was increased, in the range of 600–1000 °C, most of the emissions from both fuels increased. Particulate emissions were reduced by the afterburner, which was operated at 1000 °C, only when the primary furnace was operated at the lowest temperature (600 °C), but that condition increased the CO emissions. Overall, transient combustion of these two fuels, burning in laminar and sooty diffusion flames, did not reveal major differences in the emissions of the following PIC: C1–C4 light aliphatic hydrocarbons, PAH, CO and particulate matter.Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223291156_PAH_and_other_emissions_from_burning_of_JP-8_and_diesel_fuels_in_diffusion_flames
The way you talk is like every aircraft produces a high density plume, which is obviously incorrect. I'm also confident that kerosene-based hydrocarbons jet fuel emit toxic PAHs and particulate matter, including oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and oxides of sulfur (SO2):So, once again, your wishful thinking is a proof of your incapacity to investigate the evidences that clandestine geoengineering activity is real.
Do you not realise that, even if those reading don't spot it I will point out that your assertion that "The way you talk is like every aircraft produces a high density plume, "is obviously at odds with what I said which was "How well that contrail persists depends on the local temperature and humidity." which indicates that the trail is entirely dependent on the local "weather".
Re" toxic PAHs and particulate matter, including oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and oxides of sulfur (SO2):"The categories "PAHs and particulate matter," do not include "oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and oxides of sulfur (SO2)".
No. That's pseudo-scientific voodoo. Contrails do not persist and do not depend on the weather/humidity. You have absolutely no evidences that such contrails can produces a persisting high density plume. Ok, I give you credit for this. However it feels logical that the combustion of kerosene-based jet fuel coemit aliphatic hydrocarbons like n-dodecane (a surrogate) and PAHs. Still, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur do react with PAHs in the atmosphere and the photooxidation of n-dodecane yield a high density plume of aerosolized hydrocarbons (smoke) from the formation of secondary organic aerosol.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11270-007-9611-x http://authors.library.caltech.edu/43279/1/acp-13-11121-2013.pdf
Kerosene contains sulphur in an average proportion of 400 ppmm (mg per kg fuel, usual values range from 10 to 1000 ppmm, and the specification limit is 3000 ppmm). Burning kerosene produces SO2 with an emission index of about 0.8 (0.6–1.0) g kg−1, or 800 ppmm as expected for a complete combustion of the sulphur (the molecular mass of SO2 is double that of elementary S). A few percent of the SO2 is further oxidized into SO3 which reacts with water vapour to form H2SO4 (gaseous sulphuric acid). The emission index of H2SO4 is about 0.04 g kg−1 (0.01 to 0.1). This gas has an extremely low saturation vapour pressure and therefore readily condenses together with water vapour into aqueous solution droplets of sulphuric acid, after sufficient dilution and cooling of the exhaust gas (Vancassel et al. 2004). Accordingly, fuel sulphur is an important source of volatile particles in the exhaust. However, the number concentration of volatile particles is only a very weak function of the fuel sulphur content. A flight experiment with the DLR ATTAS consuming fuels of different sulphur contents in its two engines, 6 and 2700 ppmm, showed that the number of particles in the 10 s old plume increased by a factor of 3 to 4 from the low to high sulphur exhaust plume (Petzold et al. 1997), while the ratio of the fuel sulphur contents was 450 (see also Schumann et al. 2002, Fig. 7). Thus there must be sink processes acting in the plume leading to a strong buffering effect in the relation between sulphur content and concentration of volatile particles including droplets of sulphuric acid solution. Indeed, the sulphuric acid droplets and condensable hydrocarbons condense together with water vapour on soot particles, thereby enhancing the ability of the latter to serve as condensation nuclei for contrail formation.https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/Contrails-from-biofuels-scoping-study-final-report.pdf
Kerosene-based jet fuel (JP-8) can be used for obscuration purpose and do produces oxides of sulfur which may contributes to chemtrail formation:
Mislabelling it as chemtrails when the report is called "Condensation trails from biofuels/kerosene blendsscoping study" is a bit dishonest of you isn't it?
Well, I guess it's more dishonest to label a persisting high density plume a "contrail".
Evidence is not wishful thinking..
Believing that chemtrails is an assault on human health is definitely Some Big Important Thing.
Once again, I remind you that you have no actual evidence that it is happening.
Climate change is a ideology and clandestine geoengineering activity is a real phenomenon. The evidences for geoengineering modification of the climate is through observation.
Climate change is a documented fact - you just have to look at the weather records.There is absolutely nothing "clandestine" about it. We burn a lot of fossil fuel.You have yet to provide any evidence of any observation that shows that geoengineering is real. Though you have cited some total nonsense, and even some things that outrightly lie about it.
That video is a first-step toward the CIA accountability of strastospheric aerosol injection.
I might be reiterating what has already been written in this long running discussion but the simplest way to inject more sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere would be to ease the regulations against burning high sulfur diesel fuel by ships, to do it by modifying aircraft fuel would be vastly expensive whereas the latter would cost nothing.
Quote from: tkadm30 on 03/12/2016 19:54:38That video is a first-step toward the CIA accountability of strastospheric aerosol injection.No it is not.Stop trying to mislead people about itAnd, more importantly, it does not say what you claimed it did.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/12/2016 20:35:28Quote from: tkadm30 on 03/12/2016 19:54:38That video is a first-step toward the CIA accountability of strastospheric aerosol injection.No it is not.Stop trying to mislead people about itAnd, more importantly, it does not say what you claimed it did.You are an expert in disinformation. I don't have your skills to manipulate and deceive readers with such dishonest intentions.
The video, and the claims you made about it, show that you do not reliably tell the truth.Why should anyone trust anything you post?
Climate engineering is a mainstream idea. Do you understand that isn't the same as saying it's actually happening?
Quote from: Bored chemistClimate engineering is a mainstream idea. Do you understand that isn't the same as saying it's actually happening?Clandestine geoengineering activity is a real (observable) phenomenon. How can you possibly understand climate change if you don't understand the necessity of observation to validate a scientific hypothesis?
We don't question the validity of your observation, we question the validity of your interpretation.
I could say that it is easily observable that the sun goes around the Earth. I literally see it every single day--how could you even question something that is so simple and so easily observed? Well, it turns out that, while there is nothing wrong with my eyes, what I think I am seeing is not really happening--it turns out that what I observed is the rotation of the Earth, and this can be proven by taking into account evidence that is slightly more difficult to observe, and doing a slightly more complex analysis of the observed data.
You claim to see jets depositing trails of chemicals designed to manipulate the global climate. I don't doubt that you see trails behind the jets (I see them too), but I don't agree with your analysis of the composition of these trails, why they exist, and what their effect on the environment actually is.
Do you remember that you utterly failed to show that the trails left behind planes are anything but water?If you observe water, but claim that it's unicorn pee then use it as evidence of unicorns, you have left science behind and you are on a flight of fancy.Well, until you show that the trails are not water, you have not shown any evidence of anything other than boring trails of water. As I said before, you have seen your breath "steam" on a cold day.Why do you say these trails are anything different?
btw, you can observe easily that the water molecular properties differ from a engineered nanoparticle.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 05/12/2016 20:54:31Do you remember that you utterly failed to show that the trails left behind planes are anything but water?If you observe water, but claim that it's unicorn pee then use it as evidence of unicorns, you have left science behind and you are on a flight of fancy.Well, until you show that the trails are not water, you have not shown any evidence of anything other than boring trails of water. As I said before, you have seen your breath "steam" on a cold day.Why do you say these trails are anything different?Many things are under investigation. btw, you can observe easily that the water molecular properties differ from a engineered nanoparticle.
Climate change is perhaps the most obvious evidence that clandestine geoengineering activity is altering the weather and Earth biota.
Clandestine geoengineering activity is not easily observable.
Clandestine geoengineering activity is a real (observable) phenomenon.