Bunk: Hygroscopic Aluminum Oxide Cloud Seeding:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Popular on Facebook:

upload_2013-8-29_10-33-46.png

I believe the first problem here is that while their chemical equation is balance, Al203 will not react with H20. Aluminum oxide is insoluble in water.

It seems like this "Aluminum Oxide" seeds clouds is becoming the meme in chemtrail circles - probably because some of the promoters have discovered that the ice budget argument holds water.

It would be handy to have a concise debunking of this.
 
Look at relative masses of their reactants


Molar mass of Al2O3 102grams (slight rounding of figures: Al 26.98 to 27)
Molar mass of H2O 16grams
102 grams of Al2O3 needed for 48 grams of water


So they still need 102 tons of Al2O3 per 48 tons of water for just 150 tons of aluminium hydroxide

No conspiracy saving there.
 
Last edited:
Industrial production of aluminium Hydroxide from Wiki:

Virtually all the aluminium hydroxide used commercially is manufactured by the Bayer process[5] which involves dissolving bauxite in sodium hydroxide at temperatures up to 270°C.
Content from External Source
One of the by-products of this is the "red mud" that was a disaster in Hungary when storage facility dam burst in 2010.

also according to that article the hydroxide can be dehydrated and there is no mention of it being formed by hydration such as the picture suggests.

But the basic debunking has to be that Al2O3 is insoluble and not hygroscopic at all - the reaction is simply impossible!

Edit: I wonder if they are getting confused by an article like this one about Aluminum Oxide-hydroxide powder, where it says that:

Both materials are highly hygroscopic. To avoid degradation of the material properties, do not expose it to humidity.
Content from External Source
and it notes that the powder is made up of:

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION
IPC material: aluminum hydroxides AlOOH - 55% wt., Al(OH)3 - 33% wt., alumina А12О3 - 5% wt, metallic aluminum Al - not more 5% wt., absorbed water - about 2%. DTC material: alumina А12О3 - not less than 95% wt, the balance is Al(OH)3.
Content from External Source
Are they looking at this and suggesting that "both materials" = the Al2O3 and the hydroxides??

whereas I read it as saying that "both materials" refers to the 2 forms it commonly comes in:

This material is available in two versions such as : (1) IPC - with basic constituent ALOOH and (2) DTC - with basic constituent γ-Al2O3.
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:
OK - my misunderstanding of hygroscopic - I assumed it meant absorbing water by a chemical change.

activated alumina is aluminium oxide with a highly porous structure (as opposed to the crystalline structure as used in abrasives for example) - it is used as a desiccant that absorbs water into its physical structure without undergoing any chemical change as far as I can see.
 
What's would be the point of creating clouds of aluminum hydroxide?
Generally, the proponents of that gambit are saying:
The more they spray, the less rain will fall. Period. The science to back up this statement is undisputed in regard to the effects of an atmosphere that is saturated with particulates. Rainfall is diminished and dispersed. To many “condensation nuclei” keeps the water vapor from combining into large enough droplets to fall as rain, thus precipitation greatly reduced or eliminated all together. (search “geoengineering aerosols cause drought”). Clouds that would have produced regional rain are blown apart by the aircraft sprayed particulates into vast featureless dirty looking canopies now “artificially altered” and mostly rainless cloud cover that at times stretches over multiple states. In addition to the drought causing effect of excessive condensation nuclei, there is the problem of diminished evaporation due to the reduction of sunlight also caused by SAG (stratospheric aerosol geoengineering) and SRM (solar radiation management). And lets not forget the reduction of wind, still further reducing evaporation , also a consequence of the ongoing global spraying of our once blue skies. (search “atmospheric aerosols reduce wind and rain). ‘
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/geoengineering-and-global-drought/

Previously, I did some basic calculations looking at claims that barium hydroxide, also a dessicant, would dry up rain over a single county. Here were the figures which quickly become absurd:
Claim #2-

A predicted 3” rain in Siskiyou County, California, was dried up by jets spraying barium, which is a desiccant.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/finteg...rphy-and-g-edward-griffin-chemtrails-revealed
This is not the only time Murphy has referenced this claim. In his Youtube video, “Hawaii Revisited”, he said:


Is Murphy’s claim plausible, or not? He is obviously unfamiliar with chemistry and aviation, and his comments also show that he doesn’t actually know anything barium. This is odd, especially since he has been making claims about barium for years.

The facts are that while barium metal does react with water, it is not a very good desiccant, while barium oxide is! I actually think that barium oxide is what Murphy refers to. So let’s just see what Murphy’s claim comes down to on paper.

What would be required to use barium oxide as a desiccant sprayed from an airplane to “sequester” a 3” rain down to a ½” rain?

First, we are trying to subtract a 3” rain minus ½”, so that equals 2 & ½ inches of rain. A 1” rain falling over one square mile yields 17.38 million gallons of water:
http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthrain.html

17, 380,000 gallons x 2 & 1/2” of rain equals 43,450,000 gallons of water. Hmmm, these numbers are already starting to look pretty big, eh, and this is only the amount of water that would fall over one square mile!

Now for the chemistry, remember high school, folks? Maybe Michael slept through this one…..

Here is the chemical equation for barium oxide reacting with water:
BaO (s) + 2 HOH (l) ---> Ba(OH)2
So, one mole of barium oxide will react with one mole of water to produce one mole of barium hydroxide.
The molecular weight of water is 18 grams/ mole.
The molecular weight of barium oxide is 153 grams/mole.
Water weighs 3780 grams/gallon, so 43,450,000 gallons of water weighs
43,450,000 x 3780 gm/gal. = 164,241,000,000 grams

164,241,000,000 grams / 18 gm./mole = 912,450,000 moles
So, 912,450,000 moles of water will react with 912,450,000 moles of barium oxide.

How much does 912,450,000 moles of barium oxide weigh?
912,450,000 moles of barium oxide x 1/153 grams/mole = 5,9637,254 grams

Converting grams to pounds:
5,9637,254 grams/ 3780 = 131,649 pounds

So, reacting 2 & 1/2 inches of rain over one square mile requires 131,649 pounds of barium oxide.

Siskiyou County contains 6,347 square miles. To adsorb the water for Siskiyou County, where Murphy says the incident occurred.:
131,649lbs./sq.mi. x 6,347 sq. mi. = 835,579,816 lbs.

How many flights would Murphy’s claim require?
A 747 cargo jet can carry 124 tons, 248,000 lbs.
835,579,816 lbs./248,000 lbs/flight = 3369 flights

Conclusion: Michael J. Murphy’s claim that jets spraying barium(oxide) could have reduced rainfall by 2 & ½ inches over Siskiyou County would require 3369 flights of 747 cargo class jets. The claim is quite simply preposterous. This example is just one of many in which people who believe in chemtrails appear to simply repeat what others say with no proof or rational examination whatsoever.

Murphy's statement that, "Its hurting people, its killing people, and many people have died from this. What do you think people would do if they found out that there might be corporations behind their incredible losses?”, sounds like a provocation. He bears the responsibility for these statements, because besides being baseless, they are very reckless to make towards his target audience of known gullibles.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/the-claims-of-michael-j-murphy-a-factual-examination.172/#post-804
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So, what the motive for reducing rainfall? Counteract global warming? Fabricate evidence for global warming? Sell drought-resistant seeds?
I think this is strictly for local consumption there in the western US which has been dry for a few years. What about the verdant eastern US? Francis Mangels of Mt. Shasta, CA has claimed that, "they are stealing our rain", and that half a continent away somehow they are able to get the rain to fall after being absorbed. He didn't get into details about how that was done, he's not much into details, actually.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top