Spontaneous Ignition in the Sky

reply to post by Phage

Then I guess there would be no room for discussion.

Certainly not about chemtrails. The uses of the technology, or misuse is what I need to study further.

Edit to add

It's not really that complex if you take a bit of time to look at it.

Looks like you were editing while I was responding. Inspired by you and luxordelphi, I will be taking a bit of time to look at it.

reply to post by Phage

What do you mean "the size was within agglomerations"?
Do you mean by "sonically thinned" that the 80 micron size was achieved by hitting clumps of particles with ultrasound?

The saftey sheet says:

• Comprised of agglomerated 80nm particles

I took this to mean that the substance had agglomerated to 80 nm and that a sonic blast was used to break it up into less than that. I see now that I was wrong and in re-reading, you are right. The agglomeration was in micrometers and they broke it up to 80 nm.

Yes. Two tests each with a different weight in the pile of particles.

Weight is not really very well addressed in this safety sheet because volume and weight do not follow golden rules at nano sizes.

There was no ignition in either test. If you look at the temperature trace the "anomaly" you are talking about was a slight transient change in the temperature which occurred at 24 hours. Do you think an increase of less than 1º after the temperature had dropped several degrees indicates ignition? Do you have a different definition of ignition than most people? To me it means something starts to burn, not that its temperature rises a bit.

Because the nano size is unable to dissipate heat the way a micro size can, it is significant that the temperature started to rise. It is also significant that these researchers were expecting weather in a test tube or a warehouse or an argon filled glove box and that they use this explanation to excuse a sudden rise in heat after a steady drop.

Why then do you suppose they would make the following statements as a conclusion based on these tests?

• Nano-aluminum poses hazards not found with micron-sized aluminum powders

• Nano-aluminum is very sensitive to electrostatic discharge

• Dust clouds of nano-aluminum in air present an explosion hazard at even small concentrations of aluminum and small amounts of ignition energy

reply to post by luxordelphi

It is also significant that these researchers were expecting weather in a test tube or a warehouse or an argon filled glove box and that they use this explanation to excuse a sudden rise in heat after a steady drop.

I have no idea what you are talking about. "Expecting weather?" Are you claiming that there was self ignition but it is being covered up? Why would they do that in industrial safety testing? But again, how do you define ignition?

Why then do you suppose they would make the following statements as a conclusion based on these tests?

You know that those statements are not regarding the pyrophoricity tests, right? You know they are not about self ignition, right?
The reason they make those statements is because:
Nano-aluminum poses hazards not found with micron-sized aluminum powders
Nano-aluminum is very sensitive to electrostatic discharge
Dust clouds of nano-aluminum in air present an explosion hazard at even small concentrations of aluminum and small amounts of ignition energy

So, what are those "small concentrations" they talk about. Let's see, oh, here it is: .098 g/L, that's 98 ppm. As far as being explosive goes, that may be a low number. But as far as finding a concentration that high outside, in the sky...I don't think so. Any idea what the proposed concentrations for SRM are? I don't think you going to find that they approach that level.

But since you feature the use of sulfate-based aerosols in your OP (questionable source aside), I'm not sure what your point is in the first place. Shouldn't you be looking at the explosive characteristics of sulfates instead of aluminum?

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Yes...they do it all by themselves. So, say that there is a substance which at 10 nm is wonderful for atmospheric sun screen but, unknown to us, at 9 nm self-ignites and explodes and that we, accidentally, in testing some new sonic weapon, create that situation. There is no cybernetic simulation that can encompass the quantum and the atmosphere because there are too many unknowns. Here's the headline: 'Man creates marvelous new material to save the planet and injects it into the stratosphere where it explodes into flame destroying earth.' R.I.P.

So what you are saying is that all research into anything new should be stopped in case it accidentally destroys the earth?? ;puz:

but those aren't actually clouds - but they are just airships - cloth envelopes full of lifting gas - that will be large and flat and deployed to create shade.

They are not just airships. They are made of carbon composites. Nano. (...wonder if they have lithium ion batteries??...)

What has the nature of the fabric got to do with them being airships or not?

They are still bags of fabric filled with a lifting gas = airships.

At a "nano scale" everything is made of atoms - so what???

reply to post by network dude

I am glad that we can agree that all this is just a proposed idea and you must have just been a bit confused when you wrote that the effects have already been noticed by some. Since they would have to have been in full swing with these operations in order to produce the effect you describe.

Dear baby rogue: my experience with the military has been that they keep their schedules.

I just wonder how much a cloud might weigh if it's filled with highly concentrated powder? What type of delivery method might be needed to get that much tonnage airborne?

This is an interesting question. And I have a question: why would you have to fill up a cloud when you could just put the stuff out there and it would make a cloud, in the right conditions. We see that everyday with jets and cirrus. But, anyway, here's what a cloud weighs:

How much does a cloud weigh?

Well scientist Peggy LeMone says that a little cumulus cloud weighs about the same as 100 elephants! A thunderstorm cloud is like 200,000 elephants!

Couldn't find one for cirrus but since they don't rain I guess it would be somewhere between 100 and 200,000 elephants. Hope that helps.

I wish for alternative fuels to reduce or eliminate pollution by vehicles.

I hope you're including jet aircraft in that 'vehicles' because otherwise your vested interests are showing. And just how green are green fuels and what is Monsanto's role in them? If it's not one thing, it's another.

The rest of your post is just nonsense. I'm not proposing lynching anyone...yet. I believe that proponents of some of these geoengineering proposals have just lost their way and have forgotten that they were meant to be caretakers of our planet and that it is not to be used as a giant experimental laboratory because that is reckless and endangering.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

How do you think that would be dispersed across the sky? How many tonnes are you thinking it would take to achieve whatever effect you envisage?

Smart clouds. Remote controlled clouds. Artificial clouds. Invisible (until they flame up) clouds. I wasn't thinking of tons (is that the same as tonnes?)...more like the right circumstance like in the lab thing where they discovered that a nano particle of the same substance as a micro particle behaves differently by spontaneously exploding.

tons and tonnes are close enough to each other to be semantically equivalent IMO.

Remote controlled clouds?? What does that even mean??

Remember these bubbles SPONTANEOUSLY combust - you do not light them up - they do it all by themselves

The clouds, which cost $500,000 each, are made of lightweight carbon and held aloft with helium. Solar-powered engines move them via remote control. According to developer Dr. Saud Ghani, head of the university's mechanical and industrial engineering department, a prototype cloud should be ready for testing by the end of the year.

- item 1 in the gallery of the proposals

okay. I'm liking the thought that we'll put all the nano particles in a bag in case we has to retrieve them if this thing doesn't work as panned.
remote-control direction is nice.
um, we will ensure this remote-control is extremely secure so some terrorist with fancy radio gear (these kids and their gadgets) doesn't hijack one and drop it in the super bowl, or whatever?
right?

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


In order to see what he really believes we'd have to read his book, written before glory years like science advisor to the prez were on the horizon.

reply to post by luxordelphi

That doesn't change the fact that your source grossly distorted his stated position.
Why did they do that?

I'm reading that this stuff can self replicate. Pretty alarming.

A KC tanker uses about 2,500.00 gallons of fairly toxic fuel, with each gallon of that fuel producing 19 lbs of CO2. I suspect the intent is not to protect us from global warming.

I have always suspected that chemtrails were needed to make the upper atmosphere of the earth much more military friendly.

reply to post by luxordelphi

In order to see what he really believes we'd have to read his book, written before glory years like science advisor to the prez were on the horizon.

And you have read that book I take it?

reply to post by Phage

Please define "smart particles" and how that term applies to the article you linked.

Particles that do what is wanted of them, on their own, without intervention beyond introducing or creating the right conditions. From the article that I linked on the ozone:

Nanotechnology could save the ozone layer

The scientists believe that this occurred because nanoscopic perfluorodecalin droplets became encapsulated by self-assembled polystyrene nanospheres.

and that assembly looks like this:

Self Assembly of Polystyrene Nanoshpheres

If they are in a high enough concentration and if they are bubbles containing hydrogen and oxygen. Please show us where it is proposed that bubbles containing hydrogen and oxygen would be useful for SRM and would be applied at such concentrations.

You're getting way too liberal with the chopping up of my statements. What's next: cut and paste? What concentrations? They're all different. Why would I have to show that nanobubbles are used in SRM? All I have to show is that nano and micro don't have the same rules and that nano, even amongst themselves, don't have the same rules. And that nano rules are being made up as we go along and I have shown that and will continue to show it here:

Effect of particle size on combustion of aluminum particle dust in air

No universal law of flame speed exists for the entire range of particle sizes.

Dust Explosion Characteristics of Agglomerated 35 nm and 100 nm Aluminum Particles

The characteristics of dust cloud explosions with the two powder sizes, 35 nm and 100 nm, revealed considerable differences,

This may be because the initial melting temperature of 35 nm Al is 435.71°C, while that for 100 nm Al is 523.58°C, higher by 87.87°C. This study discovered that explosive property between the 35 nm Al and 100 nm Al powders after agglomeration were different.

Downdraft Table for Aluminum Dust Collection

Aluminum dust must be treated with care and respect. Aluminum particles - when in dust, powder, or flake forms from operations such as grinding, finishing, polishing, etc. - may be suspended as a dust cloud in air and consequently may ignite and cause serious damage. If the dust cloud is unconfined the effect is simply one of flash fire. If, however, the ignited dust cloud is at least partially confined, the heat of combustion may result in an explosion.

and here's one for sulphur dust:

Sulphur

A cloud of sulphur dust is subject to risk of explosion and will easily be ignited by sparks from e.g. iron to iron, static electricity caused by friction and even among particles of sulphur.

Here's a good story to go with all these safety issues dated April 24, 2013 - this year.

Government issues first safety rules for nano-dust

All a person can really say about that is: late, late, late in the day.

A carbon fiber composite structural framework, like bicycle frames. There is nothing that says or implies the use of nano sized particles.

I very strongly disagree...there is something that says or implies the use of nano. In almost every story on the net about this artificial cloud, the words 'lightweight' and 'very lightweight' etc. are used. So it's not a misquote. Carbon composite is and already has been lighter than more traditional materials but this is lightweight even for that.

What Is High Grade Carbon Composite?

The latest generation of carbon composite is called nano carbon composite. This composite utilizes even smaller carbon strips that are stiffer than ever before. This builds the strength into the matrix while still allowing extra flexibility. By utilizing the smaller strips, this composite comes in lighter than former carbon composites. Its manufacturers claim the nano composite is 27 percent stronger than other carbon materials even with its lighter weight

reply to post by luxordelphi

Particles that do what is wanted of them, on their own, without intervention beyond introducing or creating the right conditions. From the article that I linked on the ozone:

Then I guess by your definition just about any chemical reaction involving particles would qualify then. Ok. Got it. I thought it meant something more sophisticated.

Why would I have to show that nanobubbles are used in SRM?

Because it is nanobubbles containing oxygen and hydrogen which spontaneously ignited. So far you haven't shown that property in the SRM materials which are currently proposed.

And that nano rules are being made up as we go along and I have shown that and will continue to show it here:

Well yes, because they are relatively new materials. But what about that concentration thing?

Dust Explosion Characteristics of Agglomerated 35 nm and 100 nm Aluminum Particles

Oh. Problem. That "agglomerated" part. It's talking about particles that get stuck together so I'm not sure it helps your argument.

The nanoparticles of 35 nm Al and 100 nm Al powders, respectively, formed particles with average sizes of 161.3 nm and 167.5 nm in agglomeration.

161 to 167 microns. That's not really in the nano range anymore and something that size wouldn't be much good for SRM would it? The optical properties wouldn't be right and I think they'd sort of settle out of the sky pretty quickly. In any case the minimum concentrations were pretty high:

The Pex,e test results for the two powders, 35 nm Al and 100 nm Al, with different dust concentrations for the dust explosion test are charted in Figure 5. Based on BS EN 14034-3, the MEC for the two samples of different particle sizes were 40 g/m3 and 50 g/m3.

www.hindawi.com...
Any luck on finding the SRM concentrations? Do they talk about using 40 -50 ppm?

I very strongly disagree...there is something that says or implies the use of nano.

No, there isn't.

Carbon composite is and already has been lighter than more traditional materials but this is lightweight even for that.

Why do you say that?

What Is High Grade Carbon Composite?

Maybe you should start with "what is carbon composite." It isn't loose particles.
en.wikipedia.org...

Once again: Your "cloud"

reply to post by Phage

I have no idea what you are talking about. "Expecting weather?" Are you claiming that there was self ignition but it is being covered up? Why would they do that in industrial safety testing? But again, how do you define ignition?

Ignition, spontaneous ignition is not something that I am defining myself. In fact I first read about it recently when doing another thread. This was the article I read:

Flow Friction or Spontaneous Ignition?

In this article it says:

Tsuchiya and Sumi [9] indicate that spontaneous ignition is a complex phenomenon of combustible material ignited by its own heat of reaction without external heat or other source of ignition. The factors contributing to spontaneous heating and ignition are heat generation and heat dissipation. If heat generates faster than it dissipates, it accumulates (i.e., the temperature increases).

I was looking, at the time, for something to explain combustion without heat and found myself back at the nature and size of the nano particle/material itself as the suspect. Surface area also seemed to play an important role in spontaneous ignition and nano particles supply that.

I'm not claiming anything beyond the very narrow size parameters of the test and the outright dismissal of the spike as far as these tests go. I am claiming that a nano size is different from bulk when it comes to behavior.

Any idea what the proposed concentrations for SRM are? I don't think you going to find that they approach that level.

There is a nano substance that has 800 square meters per gram. A penny weighs 2.5 grams. 28 grams make an ounce. A meter is roughly a yard. A square meter is roughly 3.75 square miles. How much is that in parts per million?

But since you feature the use of sulfate-based aerosols in your OP (questionable source aside), I'm not sure what your point is in the first place. Shouldn't you be looking at the explosive characteristics of sulfates instead of aluminum?

I don't know. We're still stuck on (in?) bulk.

reply to post by luxordelphi

There is a nano substance that has 800 square meters per gram. A penny weighs 2.5 grams. 28 grams make an ounce. A meter is roughly a yard. A square meter is roughly 3.75 square miles. How much is that in parts per million?

That is not what I'm talking about. The tests you presented show that aluminum nanoparticles are combustible at concentrations (in air) of 40-50 grams per cubic meter of air. That means that if there was less than 40 grams of particles in a cubic meter of air it would not combust. Think of it this way. Aluminum nanoparticles have a density of about 2.7 grams per cubic centimeter so 40 grams would occupy a lump of about 15 cubic centimeters. That would be a cube about with sides of about 2.5 centimeters, about 1 inch. Now take that 1 inch cube of nanoparticles and blow them into a box 1 meter to a side. You now have a concentration of 40 g/m3.

The Aurora report talks about using H2SO4 but it should be a good starting point. They use a disperal rate of 0.03 kg per meter of horizontal travel. Now, we can make some educated guesses. To make it simple, let's say the material leaving the plane spreads evenly so we get 0.03 kg (30 grams) of material per cubic meter right out of the plane. Oops. It's already not a high enough concentration to combust (if it was aluminum) and it's going to disperse and rapidly become less concentrated.

You don't like those numbers? Go dig around in your sources and find out what the concentrations of aluminum nanoparticles (or any other particles for that matter) would be used for SRM. I think you will find that those concentrations are far less than what is required for the nanoparticles to be combustible, with or without self ignition.

Another approach: A cubic mile of air (not that much when you're talking about the sky) would require the addition of 184,000 tons of aluminum nanoparticles to be combustible. That's the payload of a thousand Boeing 747's freighters. For just 1 mile. 3 flights a day for 333 days. Dumping a full load across 1 mile of sky. A mile of sky that the plane covers in about 6.5 seconds. Not gonna happen.

Oh. One other factor to consider. Those combustion tests were done at sea level pressure, not 35,000 feet. At 35,000 feet (too low for SRM, really) there is 26% the amount of oxygen there is at sea level. A human being would die from hypoxia in a short time. That means that the concentration of nanoparticles would have to be even higher that what we have been talking about in order to ignite, if they would at all.

Even if they were applying SRM, the sky would not catch on fire.

Check my work. Please:
1 cubic mile = 4.17E+09 cubic meters
4.17E+09 x 40 grams = 1.6662E+11 grams
1.6662E+11 grams = 3.68E+08 lbs
3.68E+08 lbs = 183,907 tons

www.us-nano.com...
agriculturedefensecoalition.org... s_October_30_2010_Aurora_Flight_Sciences_Final_Report_Keith.pdf
www.altitude.org...

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

So what you are saying is that all research into anything new should be stopped in case it accidentally destroys the earth?? ;puz:

IMO, the pace of testing and safety should at least approximate the pace at which nano is being thrown into the environment. I've never seen anything like it. It's like some kind of a race.

What has the nature of the fabric got to do with them being airships or not?
They are still bags of fabric filled with a lifting gas = airships.
At a "nano scale" everything is made of atoms - so what???

Because nano particles have very little internal area, normal heat dissipation doesn't take place. This mechanism was described in several links I put up earlier. Because they have a high surface area they are more combustible than less surface area materials.

About Spontaneous Combustion

Pyrophoric Materials Substances that are physically capable of spontaneous combustion are called "pyrophoric." Some examples of pyrophoric materials are alkali metals, phosphorous, plutonium, sodium and potassium. The physical composition of these materials makes them highly volatile when they are exposed to air or water. The temperature at which a material will set on fire is its ignition point. A pyrophoric material has an automatic ignition point that is actually lower than room temperature. Pyrophoric materials, by design, have a larger surface area than less-combustible materials. A larger surface area means bumps and crevices are present on the surface, which increases the amount of contact these materials can have with air or water.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

That doesn't change the fact that your source grossly distorted his stated position.
Why did they do that?

edit on 8/2/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

By his stated position I'm assuming you mean the video starting at 00:00: "My personal opinion is that we have to keep geoengineering on the table, we have to look at it very carefully because we might get desperate enough to want to use it." John Holdren.

My source simply listed the items implied in that statement. And presupposed desperation.

But, in the end, congress holds the purse strings and they seem to be clutching them a bit tighter in his vicinity.

Science Advisor Gives Hopeful Progress Report on Obama's Achievements

“Science is again where it should be,” he told an audience of 200 as part of a lecture series at the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, N.J. on Wednesday, although he warned that the president’s initiatives are threatened by a Congress hesitant to support them.

Holdren, who leads the President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and co-chairs the President’s Council on Science and Technology (PCAST), told the crowd that he has helped Obama revitalize several science programs that lay dormant under the previous administration. These programs, he says, are integral to securing the U.S.’s position at the forefront of global innovation on climate change, biomedicine and, of course, space. He has had less success, however, ensuring funding for new research projects, particularly those that are experimental by nature. Citing a Congressional attempt to require research groups like the National Science Foundation (NSF) to prove that their projects are “in the national interest,” Holdren warns that the hurdle could have a freezing effect on critical scientific research.

reply to post by luxordelphi

My source simply listed the items implied in that statement. And presupposed desperation.

Here is what your source said:

He fully supports the process of releasing particles of barium, magnesium, aluminum, nano-fibers, bacillus blood spores and other chemicals to reflect sunlight away from the Earth.

truththeory.com...
Please point out where Holdren says he fully supports this. Please point out where he fully advocates the use of barium, magnesium, aluminum, nano-fibers, bacillus blood spores and other chemicals.

reply to post by Witness2008

I have always suspected that chemtrails were needed to make the upper atmosphere of the earth much more military friendly.

I, too, think that's about 50% of the answer.

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

In order to see what he really believes we'd have to read his book, written before glory years like science advisor to the prez were on the horizon.

And you have read that book I take it?

No...just selected out takes. The book has some pretty crazy statements in it. But it is from 1977 and Holdren told congress at confirmation that he didn't believe those things anymore. He does seem to be focused on owning the weather, though, if we look to more current statements:

Science Advisor Gives Hopeful Progress Report on Obama's Achievements

Under Obama, Holdren adds, PCAST has shifted priorities to give particular attention to climate change. In 2008, the President renamed the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP)—which under President Bush had focused primarily on research aimed at testing what he saw as theories of global warming—calling it the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), and turned it into a comprehensive national research program charged with assessing, predicting and responding to climate change.

and he still doesn't make any sense:

Interrupted by audience members complaining about the President’s cuts to funding for space exploration, Holdren replied that the NASA of the previous administration was badly managed and poorly funded.

reply to post by Phage

Because it is nanobubbles containing oxygen and hydrogen which spontaneously ignited. So far you haven't shown that property in the SRM materials which are currently proposed.

I have shown the more than marginal potential for spontaneous ignition in nano. The environment itself will show us what we should not do and we need to look into that environment for instances of spontaneous combustion/ignition and determine if nano particles were involved, particularly in otherwise unexplained and unexplainable instances. And particularly where the official explanation is bizarre.

But what about that concentration thing?

Well...what about it? All I see is that you have now graduated from chopping up my posts to chopping up quotes from ex sources...and

...so I'm not sure it helps your argument.

It doesn't help yours. Not with me anyway.

Maybe you should start with "what is carbon composite." It isn't loose particles.

Maybe you should start with nano; it's not bulk and it doesn't behave like bulk and the rules for bulk don't apply. When I mentioned running shoes made from nano earlier in this thread, did you think I meant loose particles, just sort of at large, swirling around in some sort of charged ethereal shoe formation?