I actually fill a service . . . I stimulate this Forum's verbal skills . . . presenting opportunities for participants to argue positions they may not have otherwise . . .
I am not Jammonius . . . I did attend law school . . . never graduated . . . got drafted instead and never returned . . .
So why is the sulfur not reduced from the jet fuel yet?
http://www.epa.gov/tier2/
Not testing for something because you do not expect to find it it is the most unscientific thing you can do. It should make sense as to why it is so obvious, but if you can't figure it out and you don't want to take my word for it, then you must have missed this quote from a scientist that I posted a couple of pages ago.
I just proved that chemicals are being added to the fuel, [/quot]
Fuel is a chemical - several actually - in its own right. This chemical (a mix of several hydrocarbons) has other chemicals added to it for various purposes - the allowed chemical are listed in Def Std 91-91 - anything other than what is listed in this is not allowed in civil aviation, and if you have any evidence that something else is being used then you should probably take it to hte police or civil aviation authorities.
he sulphur content in modern jet fuels is actually REDUCED from "normal" by refining companies in order to reduce pollution too - the standard allows 3000 parts per million, but it is often down around 4-780 these days - which costs a fair bit of effort to achieve.
There was nothing at all in your quote that supports such a conclusion that I can see.
Actually airliners could stop making contrails immediately by choosing to fly at non-contrail altitudes. This would almost always involve flying LOWER than they do not (since airliners are more efficient at high altitude so they try to fly as high as possible) - and so would result in burning more fuel therefore making more pollution.
Not quite the scenario as you see it!!
Does your face go blue much??!!
No one has seen a persistent robot cat in the sky . . .
Is this doublespeak? I just said that they are acting in a cost effective way. You just supported my claim with this statement.
I did not say I would hold my breath. I don't expect an internet user from the wild to have an open mind. That is extremely rare. I see the clique thanking each other left and right for posts that bash other users and are not even helpful... so if my post is useful at least to make you laugh (not that its not serious, but because you just don't understand it) than please, thank me for the useful post.Does your face go blue much??!!
The research on increased sulfur in jet fuels and visual persistence seems to indicate the differences are minor, if I am not mistaken . . . my position is . . . it doesn't matter. . . it does not change the fact that sulfur compound concentrations increase in the troposphere and stratosphere when jet fuel has higher sulfur content . . .
WHAT pollution reduction measures?
Immediate safety for the customers and potential health implications are apples and oranges. Also the airline industry does not control the automobile industry or vice versa... but the fuel refineries supply to both industries.
Yes. It is both present AND added.
Prove it.
People here get thanks for much less I have seen.
1997 Study . . . Different Sulfur findings with higher ppm. . . http://europa.agu.org/?view=article&uri=/journals/jd/97JD02209.xml :blobr:
"Microphysical properties of jet exhaust aerosol and contrails were studied in the near field of the emitting aircraft for different fuel sulfur contents. Measurements were performed behind two different aircraft (ATTAS test aircraft of type VFW 614 and Airbus A310‐300) using fuels with sulfur contents of 6 ppm and 2700 ppm, respectively. *. . . The concentration of the dry accumulation mode aerosol, i.e., predominantly soot particles, was not affected by the fuel sulfur content. At a plume age of 10 s, an increase in total number concentration (Dp > 0.01 µm) by a factor of 3.5 in the high sulfur case compared to the low sulfur case was observed. . . . *The high fuel sulfur content also caused an increase in the typical number concentrations of contrail particles by about one third with respect to low sulfur fuel, while the effective diameter of the size distribution was lowered at a fuel sulfur independent ice water content. . . Part of the difference in contrail particles may be caused by different ambient conditions, but the major differences are assumed to be caused by different engine and wake properties.
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2012/05/ultra-low-sulfur-jet-fuel-radar
The costs and benefits of introducing ultra-low sulfur fuel for aviation have been weighed up in a new study, and there are unexpected pros and cons. Modelling showed that desulfurising jet fuel would improve air quality, preventing between 1000 and 4000 deaths globally each year. It would cost the global aviation industry $1-4 billion (£0.63-2.5 billion) per year - ¢2-7 per gallon of jet fuel - which equates to an increase in the cost of jet fuel of around 2%.
But the study also pointed to climate downsides: desulfurising fuel would reduce the formation of cooling sulfate particles, which currently offset some global warming. 'Overall, desulfurising jet fuel would reduce aviation's impact on public health by perhaps a quarter, but may increase its climate impact by about a tenth,' notes lead author Steven Barrett of the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), US. 'If you compare the costs and the benefits they come out as being broadly even in our analysis.'
A photograph taken during the SULFUR series of experiments and shown in Figure 4-2 shows an image of a “young” contrail produced in the plume of an “ATTAS” aircraft. The two engines of the aircraft contained different fuel sulphur concentrations, one was 170ppm(m) and the other 5500ppm(m) [9]. The image clearly shows that the time required for contrail formation is greater with respect to a decreasing fuel sulphur concentration. It was also observed with respect to the higher fuel sulphur concentration engine that contrail formation ceased at an altitude of about 25-50 ft less than the other. However, regardless of the different times for the onset of contrail formation both plumes had a diameter of about 20m after a time span of about 20s. It was reported that the peak particle number densities were 30,000cm3 for particles above 7nm in diameter and 15,000cm3 above 18nm. It was noted that the number of particulates with a diameter of 7nm increased by less than 50% when the fuel sulphur content was increased by a factor of 30. It has been postulated by the authors of the report, that the increase in particulate concentration is a function of the sulphuric acid formed from the conversion of sulphur trioxide which interacts with soot and provides condensation nuclei. It was concluded from the work that the dependence of the fuel sulphur concentration upon the formation of ice particles is still uncertain.
Well it said contrail particles not exhaust particles... and contrails are visible so that is why I correlated the two.
I never once said a persistent trail in the sky was a chemtrail on this Thread . . . my point being the persistent contrails observed are the reason some one might've been interested in doing research on them instead of robotic cats . . .
FALSE! Kerosene refining process does not remove sulfur
I linked to the source from my quote, and the article is small. Less than one page. Please find it for yourself.
