[smart (OP)]

Dodecanol is a useful jet fuel surrogate to produces a persisting smoke, according to this:

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

Can somebody explain how a jet fuel surrogate is implicated in the vapor phase oxidation of long chains hydrocarbons ?

[Bored chemist]

Why do you say "implicated"?
The reaction they are talking about is
2 C12H26 +O2 ---> 2 C12H26O
That'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?)

[smart (OP)]

Why do you say "implicated"?
The reaction they are talking about is
2 C12H26 +O2 ---> 2 C12H26O
That'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, then it's important to understand why the JP-8 jet fuel mixture is implicated in the vapor phase oxidation of hydrocarbons. I think we're getting closer to the truth.

[Bored chemist]

[
If solar obscuration is produced by chemtrails,

it isn't.


Chemtrails don't exist.
Unless you can actually post some evidence for them, you should stop now.
Nothing you have posted before is evidence of the existence of chemtrails.

[alancalverd]

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. 

[Bored chemist]

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.

There's lots of interesting physics.
It's just that tkadm30 keeps trying to introduce stuff that's baseless gibberish, rather than science.

[smart (OP)]

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.

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 ?

[Bored chemist]

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 ?

You say "Chemtrails science is based on atmospheric physics. "
Well, at one level, it's true.
It would not technically be impossible.
It would also not be technically impossible for me to be typing this while riding a giraffe down Kensington high Street.
But the fact that it is possible does not make it true- or even likely.

You have not yet put forward any evidence to show that chemtrails are actually being made anywhere.
Most of the ideas you have put forward have been shown to be impossible.
None of what you have posted  suggests that there is any sensible reason why anyone would be doing it.

As for "Besides, you still don't explain what is a jet fuel surrogate."
Why did you somehow hallucinate that doing so was my job?
You cited the paper, you asked a question about it - but the question didn't make much sense. I asked you "Why do you say "implicated"?"
and you have yet to answer (and that IS your responsibility)

"Is it an additive added to the fuel ?"
No.
Do you understand what the paper is about?

[smart (OP)]

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

[Bored chemist]

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

You might very well think that but you are clearly mistaken.
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.
How well that contrail persists depends on the local temperature and humidity.
For the record, photooxidation reactions are generally slow.
Most of teh hard UV has already been absorbed by passing through the stratosphere, and things like saturated hydrocarbons and alcohols don't absorb longer wavelengths than that (until you get to such low energies that they can't promote chemical reactions)

So you are wrong in thinking that it could be a photo chemical reaction and wrong in thinking that the hydrocarbons are present.

Do you not feel you would do better to learn some basic science rather than carrying on misleading yourself (and wasting our time) like this with stuff you plainly don't understand?

[smart (OP)]

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.

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):

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

So, once again, your wishful thinking is a proof of your incapacity to investigate the evidences that clandestine geoengineering activity is real.

[Bored chemist]

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.

Why do you do that?
The bit where you put in a misleading quote and a daft assertion- immediately after I post something?
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".

Is it that you didn't read what I wrote, that you didn't understand it, or that you didn't think anyone would notice?


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)".
You are talking nonsense as usual.

The paper you cited specifically talks of " Combustion occurred inside a laboratory furnace in sooty diffusion flames, under adverse conditions that typically emit large amounts of products of incomplete combustion (PIC). ".

That's clearly not the same as a jet engine,so why did you think it was important?
Again, at best it suggests that you have little or no idea what you are talking about.

[smart (OP)]

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".

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.

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)".

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

[Bored chemist]

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

"You have absolutely no evidences that such contrails can produces a persisting high density plume. "
Yes I have. I posted a picture in the other thread. Would you like me to post it here too?
However you have no evidence that chemtrails exist at all.

"However it feels logical that the combustion of kerosene-based jet fuel coemit aliphatic hydrocarbons like n-dodecane (a surrogate) and PAHs"

OK so you think it's logical that burning decane which is stuff like kerosene gives decane which is stuff like kerosene.
You don't understand what surrogate means in this context.
 and you get one thing sort of right.
It is true that traces of PAHs will be produced, even by the high temperature combustion in a jet engine.
But a  lot more would be produced if the same fuel were burned in a piston engine.
They won't do much and will eventually get washed out by the rain.
And, of course, as everyone as said all along, there are traces of combustion by-products. But there isn't a lot of them.
(you may remember that I said "The jet engine burns the fuel (JP8 or otherwise) almost entirely to carbon dioxide and water."). The key word there is "almost".

You seem to be ignoring reality.
As I pointed out, photooxidation of decane (and the things like it) will be slow, yet you say silly things like " photooxidation of n-dodecane yield a high density plume of aerosolized hydrocarbons (smoke)"
well there's not much decane- almost all of it got burned- and it's not going to photooxidise every fast.
So it obviously can't form a high density anything.

You need to stop citing papers you don't understand.

The first one says "Both sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide were found to have significant positive correlations with total particulate PAHs as well as with most individual PAH species studied, suggesting they mostly share the same common emission source and transportation pattern. "
which essentially says that all the components of smoke occur together because they are all made together.

True, but obvious.

Table 2 of the second paper shows that, in order to get a reasonable degree of reaction, they had to wait  for something like 18 or 36 hours.
That's so slow that any "plume" structure would have dispersed.
And yet you think that it's quick enough to be seen forming behind the plane.
As I keep saying; you need to learn a lot more science before you can make anything better than naieve guesses at what's happening.

[evan_au]

The analysis has been done in other threads to show that fly ash and other hypothetical "chemtrail" chemicals cannot possibly be delivered via jet fuel - and every kilogram costs money in a plane!

How about turning your attention to a real source of worldwide pollution that doesn't weigh down aeroplanes: high-sulphur bunker fuels.
- Their long-chain molecules (up to 70 carbon atoms) produce a myriad of chemical compounds in their transformation from a thick, tar-like substance to carbon dioxide and water in the smokestack.
- It is said that current fuel used on these huge container ships has thousands of times more sulphur than fuel used in road vehicles.
- Sulphur compounds cause breathing difficulties and acid rain
- These fuels cause measurable pollution, harm human health, and are banned near major ports.
- These emissions occur over all the worlds shipping lanes, and reflect sunlight back out into space.

See: https://www.transportenvironment.org/publications/sulphur-marine-fuels

[Bored chemist]

Evan
It won't help. I already explained to tkadm30 that, if "They" really wanted to increase the reflectance of the Earth for  geoengineering it would be much easier to reduce controls on sulphur emissions.
But he's determined to believe in chemtrails- even though he hasn't got any evidence for them

[smart (OP)]

Kerosene-based jet fuel (JP-8) can be used for obscuration purpose and do produces oxides of sulfur which may contributes to chemtrail formation:

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

[Bored chemist]

Kerosene-based jet fuel (JP-8) can be used for obscuration purpose and do produces oxides of sulfur which may contributes to chemtrail formation:

Yes there are traces of sulphur in fuel, and it will contribute to the production of condensation trails.
That's more or  less what that report says. Nobody is adding sulphur to the fuel- they just are not removing all of it. (It costs more money to strip out the last traces)
Mislabelling it as chemtrails when the report is called "Condensation trails from biofuels/kerosene blends
scoping study" is a bit dishonest of you isn't it?

[smart (OP)]

Mislabelling it as chemtrails when the report is called "Condensation trails from biofuels/kerosene blends
scoping 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". I agree though that the terminology of a "chemtrail" is poorly defined and prone to misinterpretation. As far as I know, contrails forms from the wingtips and not from the combustion of aerosolized jet fuel.

[Bored chemist]

Well, I guess it's more dishonest to label a persisting high density plume a "contrail".

Unless it is a contrail that happens- due to local weather- to be persistent and dense.
However labelling anything a chemtrail even though there is  no evidence that they exist is, shall we say, interesting.