Max Bliss debates chemtrails

Status
Not open for further replies.

GregMc

Senior Member
I guess it would be a way to do it that explains the contrail gap.


View attachment 3659

Mike, I think they have been claiming it is put through the engines. As I had explained to James Mulholland and Energysupply2008, TMA is pyrophoric and will burn instantly in contact with air. Jet fuel requires high temperatures, and carefully designed engine configuration to break it into tiny droplets and igniters to get it to burn in the first place. TMA simply combusts when exposed to air which is entirely different to the elaborate steps needed to get jet fuel to burn. So in contradiction to the meme initiated by energysupply2008 that jetfuel will use up all available oxygen and leave none for TMA and it miraculously will have to wait untill it is in the atmosphere before it burns to produce a white trail of aluminium oxide, the opposite is the case. The TMA will always burn first and produce its combustion byproducts inside the engine, making a clear gap impossible.

If there is a gap at the beginning of the trail then it cannot be TMA being used
 

TWCobra

Senior Member
Hi Greg, those little nozzles are a couple of metres behind the exhaust, so there would be a gap there.
As I said before, does anyone know what fraction aluminium oxide is of the TMA combustion process?
I can't imagine small amounts of TMA creating some of the huge contrails we see.
More work on your theory required, Max!
 

GregMc

Senior Member
Ok, I see his nozzles comment now you were referring to. My bad. So he's talking external combustion in sufficient quantities to make huge white plumes? I think the passengers looking out the windows would be alarmed by the intense light from the flames that would be produced! Trimethyl Aluminium produces bright illuminating flames, it doesn't just slowly smoulder making a bit of smoke.
 
Last edited:

Woody

Member
I would have to find it again, but they have experimented with this in the past. Putting additives into the fuel according to a patent on aerial distribution I had read, had a reverse effect and caused heating.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member
The USAF experimented with adding this stuff to afterburners, but its instability and special handling requirements meant it was considered unsuitable.

No current airliner operates with afterburners.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
The balanced equation for a stoichiometric redox (complete combustion) reaction of TMA is:

Al2(CH3)6 + 12O2 = Al2O3 + 6CO2 + 9H2O
TMA + oxygen = aluminum oxide + Carbon Dioxide + Water

with plenty of oxygen, the reaction of 1 gram TMA with 20 grams oxygen yields the following products:

Al2(CH3)6 + 12O2 = Al2O3 + 6CO2 + 9H2O
[1 gram] + [20 grams] = [0.707229 grams] + [1.83156 grams] + [1.12463 grams]
TMA + Oxygen = Aluminum Oxide + Carbon Dioxide + Water

What does this imply to you, Max Bliss?
 

Ross Marsden

Senior Member
The correct expression (to 2 dp) is:

Al2(CH3)6 + 12O2 = Al2O3 + 6CO2 + 9H2O
[1 gram] + [*2.66 grams] = [0.71 grams] + [1.83 grams] + [1.12 grams]
TMA + Oxygen = Aluminum Oxide + Carbon Dioxide + Water


If you are giving it 20 grams of oxygen, you will get **17.34 grams of surplus oxygen along with the other combustion products.

The point you are making is unclear (to me, at least).

(* and ** These are the correct figures. I dunno where 1.27 came from.)
 
Last edited:

David Fraser

Senior Member
The correct expression (to 2 dp) is:

Al2(CH3)6 + 12O2 = Al2O3 + 6CO2 + 9H2O
[1 gram] + [1.27 grams] = [0.71 grams] + [1.83 grams] + [1.12 grams]
TMA + Oxygen = Aluminum Oxide + Carbon Dioxide + Water

If you are giving it 20 grams of oxygen, you will get 18.73 grams of surplus oxygen along with the other combustion products.

The point you are making is unclear (to me, at least).
Thank you Ross. I have memory problems after my stroke and I thought I was going mad as I could not get the numbers to add up.

I may be wrong but I think the point is the amount of Al2O3 is less than the amount of TMA so how much TMA is needed for a chemtrail (and given it is in fuel how much can be added before the plane stops?)
 

TWCobra

Senior Member
(and given it is in fuel how much can be added before the plane stops?)
Max's theory states that it isn't in the fuel, but somehow stored in the centre wing tank and pumped into the hot exhaust in flight. The point was in trying to calculate the efficiency of such a method, once you ignored the profound technical and logistical problems.
Thanks guys... Makes me wish I had paid more attention on chemistry class!
 

TWCobra

Senior Member
So, can someone check my arithmetic here..?

Specific Gravity of TMA = 0.74 therefore 1litre of TMA weighs 0.74 kg

Burning TMA yields an Aluminium oxide weight of 71% of the original weight of the TMA?

Therefore 1 litre of TMA yields .525 kgs of AL2O3?

Cost of TMA bought straight from the manufacturer, I am assuming any mass government program would be cheaper than this but I have to start somewhere...

100 grams = 353 AUD = ~ 400 USD=~4000 USD per kg TMA

So to get 1 ton of Al203 into the atmosphere, albeit at the rack rate, requires an expenditure before any logistical and organisational costs are considered of,

4000x1000/.525= ~7.69 million USD/ ton?

I'll wait till more mathematical minds confirm that before I issue the challenge for Max to do a bit more work on his theory.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member
The currency is reversed so first error there... 353 AUD used to be worth ~400 USD till a couple of months ago...

Now roughly 320 USD or 6.2million per ton
 

Ross Marsden

Senior Member
How about this:

1 ton of TMA burnt yields 0.71 tons of AL2O3.
To get 1 ton of Al2O3 you need to burn 1.41 tons of TMA.

So for each ton of Al2O3 in the air by this method you need:
cost per 100 gram x 10,000 for the cost per ton of TMA x 1.41 (to get 1 ton Al2O3 from the 1 ton of TMA) = several million US dollars.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
Ah! Mass budget argument again!
Yes, a very powerful one it is, too.
You can see the mind of an engineer at work there.
Ross, I ran the figures with an excess of oxygen which bumped up the yield of alumina just a bit.

Yes, the real point is that if you want to put aluminum oxide into the air, carrying TMA isn't really an efficient or safe way to do it, since for a given mass of TMA, you get 30% less mass of alumina that the TMA you took off with.

Plus, Max is claiming that the less than explosive level of oxygen produced by a standard aviation fuel tank inerting system would be sufficient to prevent auto-ignition of TMA. It won't. Only a well pressurized nitrogen gas inerting sytem will work because TMA is so pyrophoric. So, such a system would require special attention, special loading procedure with guys in fireproof suits, add risk to passengers, crew, and airports, and reduce payload because of special pressurized tanks and nitrogen gas cylinders.

So, Max, ask your expert how these hurdles were handled. If you do you will either begin to see someone's ruse is starting to look like a *Fail*, or you will know whoever has been feeding you bunk doesn't have your best interest in mind. In that case, you need to ask why you fell for it, etc.
 

FreiZeitGeist

Senior Member
/Conspiracy-Mode on/

Hey, that is the price for TMA THEY want us to think to be real!

The Truth(tm) is: TMA is one of the cheapest substances of the universe!!!1
It comes from the backside of the moon where giant TMA-Mining-Facilities are.
TMA is the fuel for the Flying-Discs they are hiding from us!!

/consiracy-Mode off/

Sorry, could not resist ;)
 

TWCobra

Senior Member
Yes give us a quote, Max. It should be eminently debunkable. You owe us at least that after some rather public accusations.
 

Noblelox

Member
Like this guy?


I commented on a Facebook post about getting the stuff tested and he tried to friend me. er No thanks. It may well have been a pollen release or something but a lack of dead animals suggest a lack of toxicity. Also who owns a military respirator and why? Well I know one but less said the better ;)
It's fantasy land but to you and me it's a massive china clay quarry not far away
 

pseacraft

Active Member
Those in the know would garner a fair amount from the MFD's. :p Nice n warm where you were, hehe. We usually see the upper 60's in the winter and touch the 90's in the summer which is hell on my electronics.
 

Noblelox

Member
I'm curious to know how much info people can get from this short video.
Well! I saw a flash of red so it has to be super man.:eek: Apart from that I would have thought, being totally ignortant of such things, that that would be classified as a near miss. Apart from that very little other than wings level and a near easterly heading.
 

justanairlinepilot

Active Member
Of course you know cobra!

Southwest airlines with 1000 feet vertical separation as required by rvsm.

Notice on the right display a little triangle with a -09 next to it? That's the TCAS system keeping tabs on other aircraft.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
I'm curious to know how much info people can get from this short video.
I've never seen this display before and am not a pilot, but here is what I gather:
Time is 11:07 CST
Your speed is .77 mach (586 mph)
Your heading is 069 degrees
Altitude is 41,000 ft.
trimmed with nose up 0.1 degrees
Cabin Pressure 29.92" Hg
You are headed to Detroit, and are 172 nm from waypoint JOT (Joliet, IL), which would put you very close to Topeka, KS.
 

justanairlinepilot

Active Member
Almost completely correct Jay...
29.92 is standard atmosphere which we set at altitudes at or above 18,000 feet. It's for the aircraft altimeter.
And we are going mach .784. We don't have auto-throttles.
Heading is 062 degrees

Trick question...who is flying the airplane? The captain or the first officer?

The point of the video is to show that even at our altitude it is still difficult to determine another aircraft's position. Of course the iPhone camera is set to infinity so it's not the best quality video.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
29.92 is standard atmosphere which we set at altitudes at or above 18,000 feet. It's for the aircraft altimeter.
Just to expand upon that, below 18,000 feet the main concern is with avoiding the ground, so you want the altimeter to be as accurate as possible. So you set it based on the data available at the nearest airport. This is particularly important when landing, so when arriving at an airport you have to set your altimeter adjustment to the local pressure.

Above 18,000 feet, you are more concerned with avoiding other aircraft. So it's important that everyone uses a consistent reference for altitude. So everyone sets the altimeters the same, at 29.92, even though this will result in inaccurate altitude readings - it's going to be the same relative to other planes. So if you are at an altimeter reading of 31,000 feet, and oncoming traffic is at 32,000 feet by their altimeter, you should actually have 1,000 feet between you, even if you might actually be at 31,300 and 32,300.
 

pseacraft

Active Member
Autopilot...the Capitain is obviously too busy making a video and the FO I hope is hitting on some attractive flight crew....I purposely left that open for both sides of the coin... hehehe
 

captfitch

Active Member
PF is in the right seat. FMS2 showing on the PFD. You don't have an AFCS annunciation showing but I'll assume the FMS might follow it.
 

captfitch

Active Member
I like your touch screen control! We would have that I think except it would be tough in turbulence.

In the lower left hand corner.... Fail to report? Do you need to interact with the system every 30 minutes to prove you're awake? I'm thinking of the sleeping button on a train.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top