Effect of mid-range Mohs (hardness scale) Volcanic Ash on aircraft v Aluminium oxide

TWCobra

Senior Member.
One of the most often heard claims by chemtrailers is that Aluminium oxide is being sprayed by aircraft. Presumably this means that other aircraft are flying in an atmosphere laden with aluminium oxide and would be colliding with the particles all the time.

In the early 80's a British Airways 747 (Speedbird 9 from Kuala Lumpur to Perth, Australia) had a volcanic ash encounter over Java as Mt Galunggung erupted unannounced. One of the effects was to clog the engines as the heat in the combustion chambers turned the silicates effectively into glass, which caused all four engines to flame out. They got them all back after they exited the ash cloud.

As the flight returned to Halim airport near Jakarta, the captain thought that the weather had gone foggy because the view out of his windows was "fuzzy". What had actually happened was that the volcanic ash had abraded the windscreens, as well as all the leading edges of the wings, tailplane ,vertical stabilizer and engines. All had to be replaced before the aircraft could fly again.

Volcanic ash has a Mohs scale rating of between 5 and 6. Aluminium oxide has a Mohs scale rating of 9. It is used as an alternative to industrial diamonds. It is used to make sandpaper.

Chemtrailers ask us to believe that aircraft fly around all day in aluminium oxide fall-out. I would suggest such a suggestion is ludicrous considering that a 10 minute ash encounter did this to the 747's windscreens.

ba_009_windshield.jpg

This has been posted before by I made a film of me in my A330 flying through hours of what many people consider to be chemtrails. My windscreens remain mysteriously unaffected. Funny about that.

[video=youtube_share;EB5WiCZHXws]http://youtu.be/EB5WiCZHXws[/video]
 

Billzilla

Senior Member.
That 747 ended up with European Aviation, Paul Stoddard's mob. Some of the guys I flew with in Air Atlanta reckoned it was in our fleet but I checked and tracked it down to EA.
I was always nervous flying in & out of that area (was based in KL for five years) and always read the notams to make sure we were clear of any volcanic plumes. Saw plenty of them out the windows as well.
In the mid 90's I flew a Citation 2 in PNG and operated in & out of Tokua when Rabaul was erupting.
Photo on late downwind ....



Had a compressor wash on return to Port Moresby every time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TWCobra

Senior Member.
Even incidental contact by an aircraft with volcanic ash will leave abrasion. One of the Qantas 767's VH-OGF, was flying to Hong Kong not long after the Mt Pinatubo eruption. The pilots thought they were flying in relatively clear air. In reality they were flying in a thin, dispersed layer of ash that was almost invisble to the eye. It looked like a layer of haze.

From that day on OGF sported a burnished set of leading edges on its wings, clearly visible from inside the aircraft. Now CT believers tell us that the air is full of aluminium oxide which is much harder, almost diamond like yet, pilots do not report mysterious abrasion damage to their aircraft?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Even incidental contact by an aircraft with volcanic ash will leave abrasion. One of the Qantas 767's VH-OGF, was flying to Hong Kong not long after the Mt Pinatubo eruption. The pilots thought they were flying in relatively clear air. In reality they were flying in a thin, dispersed layer of ash that was almost invisble to the eye. It looked like a layer of haze.

From that day on OGF sported a burnished set of leading edges on its wings, clearly visible from inside the aircraft. Now CT believers tell us that the air is full of aluminium oxide which is much harder, almost diamond like yet, pilots do not report mysterious abrasion damage to their aircraft?
Are aircraft told to avoid rocket polluted air as it drifts into air lanes used by airlines . . . ?

 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
Yes they are. They are called Restricted Areas and they are activated for every launch. No pilot would deliberately fly into the exhaust plume of a rocket launch.
 

FreiZeitGeist

Senior Member.
By the way...

Are aircraft told to avoid rocket polluted air as it drifts into air lanes used by airlines . . . ?
Aluminium is common used as part of the "Fuel" in Solid Rocket Propellants - Like the 2 Boosters from the shuttle

Source: http://www.braeunig.us/space/propel.htm

This Aluminium used in solid Rockets is powdered as small as possible for best reaction. By the way - Pure Aluminium Powder is highly self-explosive, it can burn in a Dust explosion.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Yes they are. They are called Restricted Areas and they are activated for every launch. No pilot would deliberately fly into the exhaust plume of a rocket launch.
So how long would it take for this polluted air to become safe to transverse . . . ? Seems the aluminum oxide would eventually disperse to a concentration that would no longer be a threat . . . otherwise all air traffic would have to be suspended down wind of any rocket launch for hours or days . . . so it is a question of temporary concentration (ppb or ppm) not whether aluminum oxide could be safely released into the atmosphere in significant quantities . . .
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
So how long would it take for this polluted air to become safe to transverse . . . ? Seems the aluminum oxide would eventually disperse to a concentration that would no longer be a threat . . . otherwise all air traffic would have to be suspended down wind of any rocket launch for hours or days . . . so it is a question of temporary concentration (ppb or ppm) not whether aluminum oxide could be safely released into the atmosphere in significant quantities . . .
Hours would be my guess George. The shutoff of the solid rocket boosters on the shuttle was at 150,000 feet and a little over two minutes from liftoff. Most of the aluminium oxide would be in the stratosphere or... heyyyyyy maybe THAT was your covert operation?

As far as CT theory goes, the persistent contrails are actually a visible blanket of chemicals, mainly Aluminium oxide emitted in large quantities from many jets. Other jets fly in this blanket... like I do. If it is visible then it must be a significant concentration. The question is, why do jets who have a service life of decades, exhibit no signs of flying in this highly abrasive concoction?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Hours would be my guess George. The shutoff of the solid rocket boosters on the shuttle was at 150,000 feet and a little over two minutes from liftoff. Most of the aluminium oxide would be in the stratosphere or... heyyyyyy maybe THAT was your covert operation?

As far as CT theory goes, the persistent contrails are actually a visible blanket of chemicals, mainly Aluminium oxide emitted in large quantities from many jets. Other jets fly in this blanket... like I do. If it is visible then it must be a significant concentration. The question is, why do jets who have a service life of decades, exhibit no signs of flying in this highly abrasive concoction?
If the aluminum was a fuel additive I don't think the visibility would be due entirely to the aluminum but to the same aerosol atmospheric laws that persistent contrails exhibit (primarily water vapor going into liquid and solid state) . . . the idea that dry dedicated aluminum injection could sustain such visibility is way over the top . . . not going to happen . . .

Sure we need about 20 shuttle launches each day . . . might work . . . LoL!!!
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
Yes but if Aluminium is a fuel additive you run into the problem of destroying the fuel system and the engines. Pure aluminium burns at 4000C. The byproduct of burning it is Aluminium oxide.

Putting pure aluminium through a combustion chamber would ignite it and destroy the combustion chamber. If the fire in the combustion chamber didn't destroy the engine, the aluminium oxide by product through the turbine would.

If it is aluminium oxide being used then similar problems occur. It is indissoluble in jet fuel which means it would destroy fuel pumps by abrasion. Then it would get to the turbine, a mechanism delicately balanced on oil bearings which spins at many thousands of RPM. Any unbalancing caused by erosion would destroy the turbine.

Additives in the fuel simply does not make sense from the point of view that the trails would always be visible at any altitude. They patently are not.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Yes but if Aluminium is a fuel additive you run into the problem of destroying the fuel system and the engines. Pure aluminium burns at 4000C. The byproduct of burning it is Aluminium oxide.

Putting pure aluminium through a combustion chamber would ignite it and destroy the combustion chamber. If the fire in the combustion chamber didn't destroy the engine, the aluminium oxide by product through the turbine would.

If it is aluminium oxide being used then similar problems occur. It is indissoluble in jet fuel which means it would destroy fuel pumps by abrasion. Then it would get to the turbine, a mechanism delicately balanced on oil bearings which spins at many thousands of RPM. Any unbalancing caused by erosion would destroy the turbine.

Additives in the fuel simply does not make sense from the point of view that the trails would always be visible at any altitude. They patently are not.
I think visibility depends upon concentration . . . I would agree that it doesn't make sense based upon temperature and corrosion issues ; however, it has been suggested as a technique by scientific papers . . . I don't know if they really considered all the potential problems . . .

Also, it would require significant engineering but would some type of after combustion chamber injection be possible like an afterburner that would avoid moving parts and be added in the exhaust stream?
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
Anything is possible. There is nothing like that on any commercial aircraft that I am aware of. Why does it need to be combusted BTW? The byproduct of burning aluminium is aluminium oxide, which is what many CT believers are convinced is being sprayed. Why not simply spray it?

Any spraying apparatus would run into similar problems with erosion and abrasion, but in fairness there may be workarounds for that.
 

Billzilla

Senior Member.
Additives in the fuel simply does not make sense from the point of view that the trails would always be visible at any altitude. They patently are not.
That's the killer of the whole half-arsed theory of the additives being in the fuel.
And the total lack of any extra equipment found anywhere else in any airliner ever kills the other half-arsed theory of it being injected only at certain times of the flight.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Anything is possible. There is nothing like that on any commercial aircraft that I am aware of. Why does it need to be combusted BTW? The byproduct of burning aluminium is aluminium oxide, which is what many CT believers are convinced is being sprayed. Why not simply spray it?

Any spraying apparatus would run into similar problems with erosion and abrasion, but in fairness there may be workarounds for that.
Bottom line . . . IMO there are only two substances cheap and abundant enough to use in a CT scenario and they are Aluminum and SOx . . . seems Aluminum cannot be used without detection so it just leaves SOx . . .
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Jesse3959 The Cloud Edge Effect Science and Pseudoscience 14
Getoffthisplanet Is this sparkling effect a known CCD or lens aberration? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 21
Wiggles Claim: Distant Objects Being Obscured Is Due To the "Mirror Blocking" Effect of Inferior Mirages Flat Earth 7
Mick West Geoengineering Watch and the Wagon Wheel Effect Contrails and Chemtrails 20
Uncle Thanky The Missing Coriolis Effect Science and Pseudoscience 8
Mick West The P900 Rippling Orb Effect & Taking Photos of Venus Flat Earth 23
Ric Werme Curious effect over commercial airplane wing. I suspect reflections from ice Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 58
deirdre Berenstain VHS says Berenstein General Discussion 37
Mick West Why People are 'Suddenly' Seeing Strange Beams of Light Around the World - The Reddit Effect General Discussion 23
Pete Tar Vox article on Debunking, avoiding The Backfire Effect Practical Debunking 0
Whitebeard Explained: Colorado Man Photographs Flying Jellyfish-Like ‘Critters’ [Water on Lens, Caustic Bokeh] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 17
Henk001 High altitude clouds don't have a cooling effect Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Lone Bison Contrail Question for Skeptics - What's the Effect of Contrails on Climate? Contrails and Chemtrails 233
Brandon The Kopp-Etchells Effect (Helicopter Light Scintillation Halo) Contrails and Chemtrails 23
Pete Tar Emoto's water crystal formations illustrate alleged effect of human intent on matter. UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
oroboros The backfire effect gambit Contrails and Chemtrails 16
Jay Reynolds The Dunning-Kruger effect Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Wiggles Measuring the radius of Earth using Long Range Observations (LROs) Flat Earth 0
Bunkmeister Explained: Coast Guard Geographic Range Table promoted by flat earthers Flat Earth 15

Related Articles

Top