peer reviewed research on aluminum content of rainwater required

Boston

Active Member
So you would have the scientific process begin with bias ? I don't look at anything without considering the basic data. If aluminum were being sprayed into the atmosphere, there would be an associated increase in Al levels somewhere. From there I'd look to see where that Al came from found "somewhere". Its called respecting the process.

Its pretty obvious that spraying AL through jet fuel wouldn't work anyway, since it burns so much hotter than jet fuel and would melt the engine, but still finding multiple errors in any hypothesis carries more weight than simply finding one.

I guess I'm unclear as to your confusion. There's a number of places to begin any investigation.

One thing you might be forgetting is that global dimming is a well established phenomenon, but its not happening because of some clandestine effort to deliberately seed the atmosphere. Check this out and realize that although chemtrail enthusiasts seem to have it all mixed up, there is some validity to the mechanisms they describe.

See http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...31zatw&usg=AFQjCNEyj_l22kyZFHlU33rpWbXpWimG9w

In a nut shell aerosol pollution alters the structural make up of the clouds, from fewer larger droplets to more but smaller ones, thereby increasing the albedo of the cloud. Global cooling does offset some global warming due to altering the albedo of the clouds. Its just that the chemtrail people developed a whole slew of false assumptions based on some simple facts. Typical of some of the more far out hypothesis that get floated around every once in a while.

I just enjoy looking into some of them, no need to get all excited ;-)
 

Pete

Member
So you would have the scientific process begin with bias ?

In theories which have been reached through other more obviously flawed theories/ideas, then yes. You debunk the first ones and hence rule out all of the tripe thereafter.
 

Boston

Active Member
I'm sorry Boston, I'm still a bit confused. Regardless of your current opinion, just looking at the known facts already concerning the actual evidence of lack of: equipment/organisation/man-power/justifications/that the contrails are magically lasting longer due to issues outside of known physics; surely this says enough?

In theories which have been reached through other more obviously flawed theories/ideas, then yes. You debunk the first ones and hence rule out all of the tripe thereafter.

all the issues you mention are open to debate, they represent probabilities and worse yet, opinion, not factual analysis. By going through the data and finding factual analysis of AL levels over time a conclusive result can be established, devoid of any emotional attachment to any particular belief or opinion. By removing the arguable from consideration and only considering hard scientific data concerning LA ratios within the atmosphere it took all of about an hour to determine that no additional LA is found within the sampling areas other than what might be expected from residual manufacturing pollution, see ref. #6

In a nut shell I'd rather cut through the BS and get straight to the data pool, which in this case shows zero support for the hypothesis presented

Interesting that you seem almost angry that I went at it with an open mind tho. I'm going to have to guess that you don't have a background in the sciences ?

I'm not in it to debunk anything, I'm in it to discover what is factual and what is not. If that disproves a given hypothesis then so be it, but beginning any exorcise with the intention of "debunking" something compromises the scientific process, no matter how ridiculous the initial hypothesis may be. I believe its called maintaining ones objectivity

cheers
B
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
In a nut shell I'd rather cut through the BS and get straight to the data pool, which in this case shows zero support for the hypothesis presented cheers
B
Well, yes, but the conspiracy of chemtrails is agile enough to switch to another satanic element/compound in a heartbeat to counter the debunk of one, two, three, or any other elements.

They began by claiming ethylene dibromide, then cadmium, etc. there could be 117 elements and million or more compounds they could choose from, and how many organisms?

Remember the magicians trick where you hide the pea under three/four shells? That is the way they operate.

But what if you force the magician to uncover all the shells at once?

That is what I did here. It goes to the effect, and not the substance chosen, thus short circuiting their shell game.

Hope you find it interesting.............
 
Last edited by a moderator:

HappyMonday

Moderator
I guess I'm unclear as to your confusion. There's a number of places to begin any investigation.

In a nut shell aerosol pollution alters the structural make up of the clouds, from fewer larger droplets to more but smaller ones, thereby increasing the albedo of the cloud. Global cooling does offset some global warming due to altering the albedo of the clouds. Its just that the chemtrail people developed a whole slew of false assumptions based on some simple facts. Typical of some of the more far out hypothesis that get floated around every once in a while.

I just enjoy looking into some of them, no need to get all excited ;-)

I think it's best to define exactly what you mean by 'chemtrails' or the 'chemtrail theory'. Some of the users here have been tracking the evolution of the theory since the term was coined, and the theory itself is under some pressure to shift it's meaning at the moment in my opinion.

The array of meaning people attach to the term allows for a lot of wriggle room for those who try to profit from the use of it, and leads to conflation with a number of topics that are only vaguely connected at best.

What definition do you use, and can you list some of the false assumptions you've found being held by chemtrail believers?
 

Pete

Member
In a nut shell I'd rather cut through the BS and get straight to the data pool, which in this case shows zero support for the hypothesis presented

Interesting that you seem almost angry that I went at it with an open mind tho. I'm going to have to guess that you don't have a background in the sciences ?

I'm not in it to debunk anything, I'm in it to discover what is factual and what is not. If that disproves a given hypothesis then so be it, but beginning any exorcise with the intention of "debunking" something compromises the scientific process, no matter how ridiculous the initial hypothesis may be. I believe its called maintaining ones objectivity

cheers
B

I think perhaps I seem angry (and apologies if I do), because in my eyes you are pursuing a mindless quest. You are naively believing that chemtrail believers will suddenly take your figures over and above their own: They won't. By analyzing whether there is any more Aluminium on the ground, you don't actually shoot the chemtrail believers theory down at all. You'll just make them claim that your figures are part of the conspiracy.

Perhaps you are being a tad too scientific, after all, chemtrail believers don't particularly give much thought to scientific arguments. (Yes I have a background in science and engineering).

That's why I tend to argue against these statements:

"Contrails never used to last this long."
"The contrails that are chemtrails spread out across the sky"
"Its hot here, so there shouldn't be contrails up there"
"Thats a nozzle."
"Major airline companies are spraying using additives in the fuel".

You can at least provide balanced arguments, and reason, against these. But pointing to a study won't cut it with a believer, no matter how much it should!

Also, I stand by my point which is: You evidently weren't on the fence, if it took you "all of about an hour" convince yourself. As if you were on the fence, and, as you said, "I've an extensive background in climate sciences and have a habit of not forming any opinions until I get a chance to read a number of research papers on whatever and probably doing a year or two of research into something." It does make one wonder what exactly you were researching for a "year or two"? No offence like ;)...
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'm not in it to debunk anything, I'm in it to discover what is factual and what is not.

Debunking is discovering what is factual and what is not. So you are essentially debunking whenever you set out to discover the facts behind a claim. Perhaps you won't find any bunk, but that does not mean you are not debunking.

I'm not sure why need more data than from Belfrey's post though.

I think that all of these can be found in the threads that Jay linked to above, but here are a few that I keep handy because they are earlier references, published before most of the conspiracy theorists think that "chemtrails" started (in the 1990s). There are also more recent references in the literature, as you can find by doing an ordinary literature search, for terms like "elemental composition rainwater aluminum".

Rutherford, GK. 1967. A preliminary study of the composition of precipitation in S.E. Ontario. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 4(6): 1151-1160. Found Al in rainwater samples ranging from 520 to 1120 ppb (800 avg.).

Struempler, AW. 1975. Trace metals in rain and snow during 1973 at Chadron, Nebraska. Atmospheric Environment 10(1): 33-37. Found 350 ppb (avg.) in rainwater; 1530 ppb avg. in rapid thunderstorms.

Vermette, SJ and VG Bingham. 1986. Trace elements in Frobisher Bay rainwater. Arctic 39(2): 177-179. Found Al ranging from 150 to 1300 ppb (760 avg).
 

Boston

Active Member
OK well we go about things very very differently then. I'd typically spend quite some time on any given question, and on this one thus far, I've not found a shred of data to support the theory. Your for whatever reason thinking I"m interested in convincing someone else of my findings when convincing anyone of anything isn't my job at all. My efforts are to improve myself and my understanding of how things work. Scientific curiosity, objectivity and process. And yes I'll continue keeping my eye out for additional trace element data from whatever sources I can find. I really couldn't care less if some hippie watching clouds float by does or doesn't believe in the data

Also your presenting a group of subjective arguments, worthless in MHO when the data is right in front of everyone who cares to look

Oh and I can fall off a fence pretty quick given the right set of measurements. Doesn't mean I won't try and maintain my scientific objectivity and continue looking at information as it comes along. I've really no clue what your on about. But best of luck to you, and try and relax a little. ;-)
 

Boston

Active Member
Mick, the more data the merrier. Its taken four major temp studies that all agree with one another to convince some rather prominent scientists that warming is real, although they were in the extreme minority at that point. Had to do there own actually, but in the end its the data that will win the day. I just dont often go for subjective arguments. There is on occasion that a subjective argument works best, but this isn't that occasion. In this case if someone tells me the government is dumping large quantities of something into the atmosphere, and I go to the research on atmospheric composition, and that substance isn't there in unusual quantities, then I'm not likely to believe anyone is dumping whatever into the atmosphere.

Cheers
B
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
In this case if someone tells me the government is dumping large quantities of something into the atmosphere, and I go to the research on atmospheric composition, and that substance isn't there in unusual quantities, then I'm not likely to believe anyone is dumping whatever into the atmosphere.

I'm interested in why you'd spend all this time on researching such a thing. Was it:

A) It sounded like something that the government would do, so it seemed worthwhile checking if they were.
B) There was significant evidence that they were doing it
C) It was just interesting
D) Some other reason.

?

Obviously you would not spend time researching any old random theory. What was it about this one that made the grade?
 

Boston

Active Member
I"m going to have to go with A and C

I guess I get tired of people asking me what I think of something that I've never investigated. I've done my share of climate studies and whoever mentioned it was right, this is akin to those studies. That and I'm not doing anything right now. So when I'm speaking to folks about climate I've sometimes had someone pipe in with something about chemtrails, to which my only possible response was that I know nothing about any unusual increase in trace gasses other than whats typically associated with fossil fuels combustion. I guess I kinda got curious.

I wouldn't put much of anything past what I see as a corporate oligarchy bordering on fascism, minus the strong arm dictator of course that always seemed to be fascism's Achilles heel.

what might really bake Pete's noodle is now I'm feeling an urge to go look up Sr and Ba, see if there's any increase in either of those.

Gives me a chance to learn something.

Cheers
B
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
just looking at the known facts already concerning the actual evidence of lack of: equipment/organisation/man-power/justifications/that the contrails are magically lasting longer due to issues outside of known physics; surely this says enough?

all the issues you mention are open to debate, they represent probabilities and worse yet, opinion, not factual analysis....

False. The calculations showing what is necessary in terms of aircraft and infrastructure to achieve what the chemtrail theory says it does are not opinions but factual analysis, the impossibility of dispersing anything other than jet fuel through the engines is factual, the impossibility of hauling enough material around in non-passenger airplanes to disperse through nozzles to the extent that is claimed is factual analysis, the scientifically studied properties of contrail persistence are not opinion but factual data, the impossibility of a contrail observed in the sky to be affecting the ground and atmosphere below it within minutes as is claimed is factual analysis.
Where do you get the idea these are just opinions open to debate?

Edit.. I don't have a problem with you analysing the data the way you have, only your statement that to falsify the theory through these other means represent bias and are not factually based.
 

Boston

Active Member
E gads you are just spoiling for an argument. I'll go with my original qualifications for reviewing data.

I'm pretty discerning about opinion, doesn't fly in my way of investigation. I don't believe it nor do I disbelieve it, but raw data is going to win the day on this one, so if some of you could please post links to specific published articles concerning rainwater chemical content it would be most appreciated. In order for me to accept a study its going to have to list its methodology as well as note what university or lab conducted the study. Name the authors, be dated, list all contributing researchers, note references and citations, list raw data collection protocols, and list when and where it was published, also that publication may not be bias or industry related. IE nothing from any source with a vested interest in the outcome of the data.

For instance
Barium in North Atlantic Rainwater
T D Jickells et al 1992

which does mention on PG 2 paragraph 1 Ba's use as an engine lubricant and diesel additive, however it also notes, PG 1 paragraph 2 that only about 30% of atmospheric Ba comes from motor vehicle combustion. The paper also notes the highest concentrations of Ba found were in Barbados with the most likely source being the Sahara PG 4 paragraph 5. PG 5 paragraph 3 and conclusions are also interesting in that they suggest an anthropogenic source, combustion, both coal and motor vehicles as an enrichment source. At no point does this paper suggest there is any particular area that is experiencing an unusually high concentration of Ba. Which in regards to the chemtrail hypothesis is telling in that if there is no spike in Ba then there is unlikely any localized enrichment program.

Obviously its impossible to draw any conclusions from just one paper and the authors do mention this is merely a baseline study but still, no localized spikes is something that corroborates previous findings concerning Al.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
now I'm feeling an urge to go look up Sr and Ba, see if there's any increase in either of those.

Gives me a chance to learn something.

Cheers
B

Here are some of our links for that:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/82...rontium-And-Barium?highlight=strontium+barium

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/135-Chemical-Composition-of-rain-and-snow

When looking at barium and strontium, remember that the ratio of Ba and Sr to aluminum is higher in marine aerosols than crustal aerosols, so the distance from a marine source can mean a significant difference. You would expect less Ba and Sr farther from marine sources, except around local lithology with enriched levels such as ancient sea basins where Ba and possibly Sr may be more common. We see that on the chemtrails water samples, Utah stands out with higher strontium due to it being in the Great Basin of the US, and barium is high in the desert southwestern US, where it is mined. West coast samples likey with a strong marine influence will be higher in Ba and Sr than the midwestern US, and higher rainfall areas generally less overall for all three, due to less dust.

The chemtrailsproject did a fairly good job of sampling, minus a very few outliers which were so high I think they must be surface water.

They display their data here:
http://www.chemtrailsproject.com/

One thing they didn't do was any analysis. Here is a discussion, and I did some averages:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/557-Chemtrails-Project
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Boston

Active Member
I think someone mentioned this one earlier as well

Variability of trace metal concentrations in pinus jeffreyi tree rings from the Tahoe Basin Cal. USA
Kirchner et al 2008

PG 4 paragraph 3 states an overall decline in both Ba and Sr spanning a time frame of 1750 to 2008

woops sorry Jay didn't see your post, I'll go read those links now
thanks
B
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Which in regards to the chemtrail hypothesis is telling in that if there is no spike in Ba then there is unlikely any localized enrichment program.

Obviously its impossible to draw any conclusions from just one paper and the authors do mention this is merely a baseline study but still, no localized spikes is something that corroborates previous findings concerning Al.

That is where the chemtrails multi-hypothesis gambit tends to fall flat. The general claim is not of localized spikes. The claim is "Global Geoengineering" which would show elevations worldwide.
 

Boston

Active Member
And thus the argument of it being logistically impossible.

Thing is for Ba it is a fuel additive, so areas that see high traffic rates might see a "slight" increase in atmospheric trace amounts. No more than about 30% ish according to Jickells.


Hmmmm they are saying the concentrations is what times over its pre hypothesis base levels ? From there it could be determined just how much material would be needed to alter the concentration by that amount. Might be interesting to crunch that out and find out if there's even enough ever been produced to artificially enrich the atmosphere to that degree.

But still if there's zero evidence of any increase over time then there's really no point in deviating from the reviewed science
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Historic data in itself with a couple sources is a piss poor method for a hypothesis. I have spent a few months studying Al and as a lazy academic I understand how to manipulate data for basic scrutiny.


http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/tox201221.pdf part 41

I could easily manipulate that data to support a pro chemtrail stance, especially based on a NATO hypothesis. I have spent the past 7 months on this, my background is I was a psychiatric nurse in the army for over 14 years, then I took redunda anmdncy and went to Uni. I then spent over 10 years bumming around Uni around biology/environmental economics/environmental sciences. Then I had a breakdown, stopped drinking and raised my kids on my own. Since then I had returned to care work, qualified as a counsellor and training to be a forensic psychologist. Unfortunately I had a stroke last year and my I have memory issues but a friend got me into chemtrails. Since then I have been hooked. I was able to access data sets etc to disprove chemtrails but found it really hard. My speciality was water and there is no way I can isolate chemtrails given all the sources of Al3. Neither can I specifically identify a source and that is the issue. Anyone can claim a hypothesis until proven.
 

electrojet

New Member
Hi Boston,

I don't think you will see convincing data for increased Al, the trace amounts of metals is not quite enough to show up in your collection methods. The industrial age has stirred up plenty of these metals from terrestrial sources as well.

The interest for me is in electrical properties of clouds and how these clouds might be further altered through ground based heaters or other defense technology. Clouds are electrical in nature. The microphysics of clouds and the role of aerosols are of major interest. Atmospheric chemistry and electric forcings are where the action is.

So you would have the scientific process begin with bias ? I don't look at anything without considering the basic data. If aluminum were being sprayed into the atmosphere, there would be an associated increase in Al levels somewhere. From there I'd look to see where that Al came from found "somewhere". Its called respecting the process.

Its pretty obvious that spraying AL through jet fuel wouldn't work anyway, since it burns so much hotter than jet fuel and would melt the engine, but still finding multiple errors in any hypothesis carries more weight than simply finding one.

Have you seen the research on Aluminum being suitable for jet engines? The issues that u mention appear to have been solved already with regards to jet fuels. Coatings do wonders/polymers have been developed already.

Regards,


Bryan
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Hi Boston, I don't think you will see convincing data for increased Al, the trace amounts of metals is not quite enough to show up in your collection methods.

Aluminum will always turn up in dust, considering it's abundance. Boston hasn't spoken about any collection methods.

electrojet said:
Have you seen the research on Aluminum being suitable for jet engines? The issues that u mention appear to have been solved already with regards to jet fuels. Coatings do wonders/polymers have been developed already.

1. Show me how aluminum is suitable for jet engine fuel.

2. What sort of "wonders" would coatings /polymers do?

I noticed that earlier this month you claimed that aluminum silicate clay is being sprayed on Orange County, CA. You do know what clay is, don't you?
I don't really think you know very much about jet engines or fuel, and maybe less about minerals, but you are the one making these claims, so show us the evidence for why you say these things.....

So let’s play DARPA with just the three-above-named technologies. We can envision exoskeletons or genetically engineered humans with bees’ wings able to hover, or even human memories encoded on chips of these insect-sized drones, and giving whichever creation an implant to “super-size” its hearing, and voila our very own hu-bee, or bee-man…whatever. Or, why go to all that trouble? Just make the bee-drone with its enhanced memory and super-hearing but an extension of a human operator in a drone center in an underground bunker, and drop zillions of the things from airplanes when you’re spraying Orange county with aluminum silicate, and you have an instant drone army of spies to spy on the sick people in Orange county. Make some of them mosquitoes, and you have a nifty little delivery system for vaccines or …er…. other toxins. Forget about those KGB Prussic acid or polonium-shooting umbrellas or CIA poisoned cigars…. old news.

Don’t laugh…if a hack from South Dakota can think of it, they probably thought of it a long time ago. And with a virtually bottomless well of money to dip into, just think of all the other possibilities.

See you on the flip side.


Read more: SO WHAT HAS ALL THAT FRAUD BEEN PAYING FOR? PLAYING DARPA, OF COURSE...
- Giza Death Star Community
http://gizadeathstar.com/2013/05/so-what-has-all-that-fraud-been-paying-for-playing-darpa-of-course/
 

Boston

Active Member
I'm curious as well. I would point out that all of my research into this matter is conducted by reviewing peer reviewed and published articles concerning both historic and present levels of materials being claimed to have been sprayed into the environment, Ba Sr and Al. None of the papers reviewed showed anything synonymous with artificially enhancing these materials in the environment. Collection methods used in these research papers are clearly spelled out in detail and have been professionally reviewed for accuracy. While there is some evidence of elevated levels of Al in China around Al production facilities, and some evidence of the combustion of fossil fuels as being a source for "some" of the Ba observed in present samplings, overall there appears to be a slight decline in Ba over the last ~300 years and no significant rise in Al in the past several thousand years. If you have any published works suggesting otherwise I'd be most interested in seeing them.

Oh and plasma physics is something I'm reasonably familiar with so if you could please elaborate on your ideas I'd be curious to hear what you have to say.
 

electrojet

New Member
Hi Jay,

I will link the research on Al that is suitable for use as a jet fuel additive. I have to pull it out of a trunk-o-links, and dust them off a bit. The research done is patent and papers, nothing that conclusively shows it is actually being utilized. I am just looking to address the fairly frequent claim that Al is not ever suitable as a jet fuel additive. I imagine that you would have already bumped into research on al as a fuel improver being the chemtrail hawk that you are.

I did not make any claim regarding aluminum silicate clay being sprayed in OC., Ca. The link that you provided is one place where the EISCAT ph'd job posting can be seen on the internet.

Aluminum will always turn up in dust, considering it's abundance. Boston hasn't spoken about any collection methods.


1. Show me how aluminum is suitable for jet engine fuel.

2. What sort of "wonders" would coatings /polymers do?

I noticed that earlier this month you claimed that aluminum silicate clay is being sprayed on Orange County, CA. You do know what clay is, don't you?
I don't really think you know very much about jet engines or fuel, and maybe less about minerals, but you are the one making these claims, so show us the evidence for why you say these things.....

Peace,

Bryan
 

Boston

Active Member
Have you seen the research on Aluminum being suitable for jet engines? The issues that u mention appear to have been solved already with regards to jet fuels. Coatings do wonders/polymers have been developed already.

I guess I have a few questions about this. I've some background in energetics and am one of those loony few who actually makes their own fuel. So I'm not to slouchy when it comes to engines in general, although I do believe I mentioned I'm not a jet engine mechanic by any means. My take on this is going to be that each type engine is designed specifically for a given fuel, as the varying fuels burn at vastly different temps and the delivery pressure, atomization rates and BTU value, I'm sure a number of other things as well, all play very important and specific roles in any engines design parameters. AL burns at twice the temp of what a jet engine is designed for, and its highly abrasive, It would be like putting aluminum powder in your cars fuel tank but a whole lot worse. It would trash the engine in no time. Ive no clue how coatings or polymers would effect the abrasive nature of aluminum, I've got aluminum oxide sand paper just as I believe someone already mentioned and its no joke, makes a great abrasive.

I'm just not clear on what your insinuating in either this or frankly any of that last. I'f you'd please elaborate in detail I'd be curious to understand what your trying to get at.

Cheers
B
 

electrojet

New Member
Greetings,

Al for fuel. There are other links on developing fuel improvers that have Al. This study is regarding ethanol and diesel or bio diesel mostly. Al as a fuel improver in JP-8 is discussed on page 18

http://www.eng.utoledo.edu/mime/gra...(Ethanol) and Hydrocarbons--Matthew Jones.pdf

Ultra low sulfur fuel. Here is a patent from wayyy back in '03, http://www.google.com/patents/US7309416 other metals to reduce sulfur from coal burning or fuels may include Zn,TiO, or ZnTiO

Bryan

Character is what you are in the dark. -D.L. Moody
 

electrojet

New Member
Hi Boston,

The stuff I have seen is for al as a fuel additive to increase performance and reduce fuel density. This is trace amts. of super small Al.
Properties of nano sized Aluminum should be looked at as opposed to jumbo sized Aluminum.

Bryan
 

Boston

Active Member
I didn't read the whole thing so I'll have to eventually, when I have a few more moments, but the specific reference to Al as a fuel additive is for solid rocket fuels ( I'm well aware of its use a solid rocket propellant ) not liquid propellants, and certainly not jet fuel where high pressure mechanical fuel pumps and longer burn times are required. I'd be very surprised to find Al being added to liquid fuels but feel free to prove me wrong, is all one big fat learning experience.

woops I should have read a little further, it does say they are adding it to liquid fuels, well yah learn something every day but I gotta read this whole thing and then cross reference it with some kinda peer reviewed work to check its validity but, yah, it does say liquid fuel additive, my bad.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Greetings, Al for fuel. There are other links on developing fuel improvers that have Al. This study is regarding ethanol and diesel or bio diesel mostly. Al as a fuel improver in JP-8 is discussed on page 18http://www.eng.utoledo.edu/mime/gra...(Ethanol) and Hydrocarbons--Matthew Jones.pdf

They didn't try flying a plane with that fuel. The paper is a Master's thesis studying the ignition and combustion of aluminum in fuel, not the practical use of it in any sort of internal combustion engine.

They burned the fuel in a container called a calorimeter, which measures the heat produced. That is all they did. This sort of fuel is not practical for use in jet engines. Ask any mechanic or engineer familiar with the fuel systems of jet engines. Adding solids to jet engine fuels is suicide. Better yet, go make some of this aluminum fuel and run it in a gasoline weed-eater for awhile. The experiment will cost you about $200. You will see.

calorimeter.jpg

Bottom line regarding chemtrails and jet fuel. The "chemtrails" people are seeing has already been determined to come from ordinary commercial passenger jets. There are thousands of photos showing these ordinary commercial jets making them, and NO photos of any military jets "spraying".

These are seen on a daily basis worldwide, everywhere. Taking a picture is NO BIG DEAL. If you want to take a picture of any of these, go right ahead and do so, but you freaks don't want to do that, you want to keep it a big secret that ordinary planes make contrails. Once folks find out your big secret, that water vapor behaing badly is the secret ingredient of "chemtrails", it will al be over and you don't like that.

If anything unusual is suspected of being in the fuel, just get a goddamn fuel sample analyzed you freaks, or STFU.
 

Boston

Active Member
yup, I gathered that, but I'm only about half way through it. The guy seems to be testing the various mixtures using the flash test, droplets on a hot plate. I do something similar to check waste motor oil for emulsified water. I guess he did mention something about a calorimeter in there somewhere as well.

There's a government dep that tests fuels, specifically internal combustion engine fuels for quality and, something else can't quite remember. I should know this cause I make biodiesel, but I conduct my own tests. All anyone would really have to do is go ask for a sample at the airport. They'd ask a few questions but they'd give it up in the end. I've some racing buddies and they buy av gas all the time.

on a side note. I notice there's some system of thanks and thanked, OK I'm kinda slow sometimes, I take it we're kinda supposed to make note of particularly well constructed posts ?
 

justanairlinepilot

Senior Member.
I've an extensive background in climate sciences

Just curious...

I'd like to know what this means to you...would you mind letting me know? The reason I asked is you left all of it out of your profile. I'm not asking for personal info, just give me something like education, degree achieved, work experience?


Thanks much...
 

Boston

Active Member
I was wondering when someone would get around to asking. The short answer is, I am absolutely nobody, a small fish in a big pond.

But if you have any climate questions I'd be happy to give them a go.

Cheers
B
 

justanairlinepilot

Senior Member.
I was wondering when someone would get around to asking. The short answer is, I am absolutely nobody, a small fish in a big pond.

But if you have any climate questions I'd be happy to give them a go.

Cheers
B

So, it's a secret? If you look at my profile I clearly explain my experience in life, I've even given my full name. You can even validate my experience through some of my video posts.

Why are you being so shy?

I just want to know your definition of "extensive background in climate science" means.

If you don't want to reveal anything, so be it. It just makes it more difficult to take your word as Google is a great source for making your knowledge base look better than it really is.
 

Boston

Active Member
No worries, I had my bank account ripped off/hacked/identity theft call it what you will, a few years ago and ever since I reveal nothing. I went round and round about this on another site a while back and eventually sent some proof of education to one of the other members who I'd known for a few years on the site. With the understanding that he not reveal anything of course, it made zero difference to the climate deniers anyway but for some reason they thought they had something.

Oh and keeping up on ones education means constantly searching for new research, the net is a fantastic tool, which should result in your knowledge base being more extensive than it really "was" .

anyway think what you will, I'm just a flea on the ass of life, the proper flea powder might be to simply not accept what I have to say on the issue. Its entirely up to you, but I think a little research later and you'd find my answers quite accurate.

Cheers
B
 

justanairlinepilot

Senior Member.
No worries, I had my bank account ripped off/hacked/identity theft call it what you will, a few years ago and ever since I reveal nothing. I went round and round about this on another site a while back and eventually sent some proof of education to one of the other members who I'd known for a few years on the site. With the understanding that he not reveal anything of course, it made zero difference to the climate deniers anyway but for some reason they thought they had something.

Oh and keeping up on ones education means constantly searching for new research, the net is a fantastic tool, which should result in your knowledge base being more extensive than it really "was" .

anyway think what you will, I'm just a flea on the ass of life, the proper flea powder might be to simply not accept what I have to say on the issue. Its entirely up to you, but I think a little research later and you'd find my answers quite accurate.

Cheers
B


Sorry to hear you were ripped off/hacked and identity stolen. I appreciate your humbleness, your qualifications will emerge from the sanity of your posts and the ability to accept the humility of your errors, as we all have them.
 

Boston

Active Member
Oh and I'll get shit wrong, not claiming to never make an error. I'm just pretty well versed in climate studies, and enjoy the subject. I also go up every once in a while in my buddies split tail bonanza. Really fun plane ( sorry for the edit, English isn't my first language ) . I'll pat myself on the back for having a cast iron stomach tho, that thing swims through the sky.

Cheers
B
 

justanairlinepilot

Senior Member.
Oh and I'll get shit wrong, not claiming to never make an error. I'm just pretty well versed in climate studies, and enjoy the subject. I also go up every once in a while in my buddies split tail bonanza. Really fun plain. I'll pat myself on the back for having a cast iron stomach tho, that thing swims through the sky.

Cheers
B

It's called a "V" tail bonanza, aka, "the doctor killer". It was subject to Dutch-role and subsequent in-flight breakup. I learned this at my local airport in South Dakota, where I learned how to fly. We had one on the field and I refused to fly in it.

A very interesting read:

http://www.tsgc.utexas.edu/archive/general/ethics/vtail.html
 

Boston

Active Member
I'll check it out, and again, my apologies for the bad spelling and grammar. I've had difficulties with English, kicks my ass actually. I'll give it a read, not sure how long a thread that is but I'll give it a go regardless. I'm an OK flier, never really took any training but I love to fly. My friends with whatever are always cool cause I'm more than happy to pay half the fuel and I really do have a great stomach. Which is, I guess a huge concern among bush pilots. I don't really know anything about it, but I love to fly so developing a good rep as a co pilot has really gotten me into some interesting planes. Even got to fly an twin turbo otter out of Ketchikan, talk about living life, I didn't do anything important mind you, but once off the ground, I did get to fly for a significant time, I was just bouncing off the walls, damn its my dream plane. Your a lucky guy if you get paid to fly mate.

cheers
B

Oh and didn't know that plane was some kinda problem, I'll check out the link once I"m, well, lets just say I'm back in from a nice evening out with some friends and probably be better off waiting till morning to go check that link ;-)
 

electrojet

New Member
Here are some links that in general support the concept of nano metal fuel improvers. None of these support a claim of what typical chemtrail theorists contend. Reducing fuel use is a continual goal. Any of these being used would be trace amts....that stay aloft for months or years.


NO is a problem in aircraft emmissions also. Al nanoparticles reduce nitrous oxide emissions and allow for more complete combustion. This link is for a summary of the benefit of aluminum in an unusual biofuel http://nanopatentsandinnovations.bl...umina-nanoparticles-put-more-bang-in.html?m=1 also covered here. http://www.gizmag.com/nanoparticle-biofuel-performance/18361/


Al as jet fuel additive mentioned on page 14. Maybe Stephanie should have come here or contrail science ahead of her research to learn that aluminum is harmless no matter what size. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA482760


Aluminum is used in jet fuel from this link, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/20593840/


Synthetic jet fuel, as in Sasol and fischer tropsch fuel http://www.princeton.edu/cefrc/Files/Major Conf Papers/AIAA-2011-1.pdf less emmissions ( see al nanoparticles )


Nano jet http://m.yahoo.com/w/legobpengine/f...no-Jet-iw-724727284.html?.intl=us&.lang=en-us


Have a great wee-ekend everyone.


Bryan
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    24.8 KB · Views: 263

Boston

Active Member
I'm not seeing anything real convincing that aluminum is being used as a jet fuel additive, I read the article about testing it "as" an additive, but nothing about its current use in fuels.

From what I've seen so far, there's still not a shred of data to support the idea that these chemtrails exist.

ummm yah, that last link has nothing to do with Al in fuels, its a company that produces a fuel polishing devise that allows the engine to better atomize normal jet fuel. The fourth link concerns Al as a lung contaminant. The fifth link page 20 paragraph 2 gets interesting but doesn't discuss or suggest anyone is actually using Al as a jet fuel additive, its concerning research into energetics. They do however show a picture of what happens to a AL upon combustion in a Al fuel mixture and its a very distinct pattern of nodule formations. I'd think if the chemtrailers wanted to find proof they'd just go dig up some dirt and test for these AL nodules with this fingerprint. On page 24 last paragraph they are discussing nanoparticles in rocket propellants.

The first two I didn't look at, but something tells me I'd find similar problems.

Cheers
and hey, got anything like longer term scientific investigations into the levels of these chemicals in the environment that the chemtrailers think are being sprayed.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Svartbjørn The Challenge with Peer Review General Discussion 4
A Debunking Forums Reviewed Practical Debunking 0
T How much research does a truther have to do to get any respect around here? 9/11 170
A.G. Explained: Covid-19 research with pre-2020 dates in Google search results Coronavirus COVID-19 4
JFDee Research: Consequences of Travel Shutdown for Contrail Coverage Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Mick West TFTRH #13: Professor David Keith – Geoengineering Research and the Chemtrails Conspiracy Theory Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Mick West Key Temperatures in 9/11 Research 9/11 15
Mick West Paper: How paranoid are conspiracy believers? Practical Debunking 21
Mick West Argentina's Committee for Aerospace Phenomenae Research (CEFAe) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Marin B Claim: Academic research groups increasingly beholden to interests of corporate publishing groups Science and Pseudoscience 19
skephu Interesting articles about contrail research Contrails and Chemtrails 8
keefe ARM Climate Research Facility Contrails and Chemtrails 17
Graham2001 Debunked: FVX Research [Fake Web Site] Conspiracy Theories 1
MikeC Warning over aerosol climate fix from Vienna Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Thor Odinson GMO Independent Research Health and Quackery 7
Quantumbeliever Claim: CDC covers up research linking MMR vaccine to autism Conspiracy Theories 13
KC-10FE Identified: Wing with Three Gold Nozzles [D-ADLR Gulfstream G550 - German Research Plane ] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
Jason How Doing Research can Lead Both In and Out of the Rabbit Hole Escaping The Rabbit Hole 55
Leifer New supplement campaign, "Whole Body Research" Health and Quackery 35
Tybalt ‪98.7% Proven Meditation Techniqu‬e - scientific research? Science and Pseudoscience 6
Mick West Why don't Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Fund Research? 9/11 450
moderateGOP Debunking Global Research TV Conspiracy Theories 64
TomC chemtrails research kickstarter Contrails and Chemtrails 6
MyMatesBrainwashed Research can only prove that something exists Conspiracy Theories 0
Critical Thinker Interesting research on 'thought control'.... how long before CTer's freak out? General Discussion 0
Cairenn Global Research People Debunked 1
F4Jock Why Don't CT Believers Do Their Own Research? General Discussion 22
Mick West Debunked: OverpopulationIsAMyth.com (Overpopulation is a Myth, Population Research Institute) Conspiracy Theories 14
Pete Tar Internet research. How to do it effectively? Practical Debunking 47
Related Articles





























Related Articles

Top