'reflective' aviation fuel additive research to reduce global warming
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'reflective' aviation fuel additive research to reduce global warming
I'm helping a gentleman who is researching delivery mechanisms for getting reflective particles into the upper atmosphere to have a cooling effect on the earth's atmosphere. The potential for the reflective particles is widely accepted, so now the challenge to get this material into the upper atmosphere.
Paul Crutzen is a researcher in this field with the Max Planck Institute in Germany. He has conducted extensive research on the ozone layer and won a Nobel Prize. He has recently suggested firing specially designed artillery shells into the upper atmosphere to spread microscopic sulphur particles.
The gentleman I'm helping has had an idea to make the process more economical. This is to deliver the reflective particles to the upper atmosphere using additives in jet fuel.
Experiments so far have used tetra ethyl silicate as an additive. There is only one silicon atom of the thirty-three in the molecule. The rest of the molecule is hydrocarbon so it is not surprising that it is a colourless liquid similar to aviation kerosene, which dissolves in kerosene in any proportion.
To simulate a jet engine a paraffin blowlamp has been used (paraffin and kerosene are the same). The solution burns just like paraffin. At a concentration of 1% a mist or smoke is visible in the beam of a theatre spotlight. This does not appear with the pure kerosene. It is probable that the mist is microscopic crystals of silicon dioxide. This is silica or sand chemically (though the particles are smoke sized) so it would be chemically inert in the atmosphere and on falling to earth. Tetra ethyl silicate is so similar to aviation kerosene that it will probably make no difference to the engine when used in low concentration.
If further research confirmed the above, this solution to global warming could be started almost immediately at negligible cost. Feedback of the effect on global temperature would be available within a year or so and if discontinued the products would settle to earth within two to three years.
The gentleman is NOT interested in making money from this. He is looking to get this research moved into academic or commercial organisations quickly so some serious progress can be made in a timely manner.
If this is your line of work or know of anyone who may be able to help please can you PM me?
Kind Regards,
MrSurrey
Paul Crutzen is a researcher in this field with the Max Planck Institute in Germany. He has conducted extensive research on the ozone layer and won a Nobel Prize. He has recently suggested firing specially designed artillery shells into the upper atmosphere to spread microscopic sulphur particles.
The gentleman I'm helping has had an idea to make the process more economical. This is to deliver the reflective particles to the upper atmosphere using additives in jet fuel.
Experiments so far have used tetra ethyl silicate as an additive. There is only one silicon atom of the thirty-three in the molecule. The rest of the molecule is hydrocarbon so it is not surprising that it is a colourless liquid similar to aviation kerosene, which dissolves in kerosene in any proportion.
To simulate a jet engine a paraffin blowlamp has been used (paraffin and kerosene are the same). The solution burns just like paraffin. At a concentration of 1% a mist or smoke is visible in the beam of a theatre spotlight. This does not appear with the pure kerosene. It is probable that the mist is microscopic crystals of silicon dioxide. This is silica or sand chemically (though the particles are smoke sized) so it would be chemically inert in the atmosphere and on falling to earth. Tetra ethyl silicate is so similar to aviation kerosene that it will probably make no difference to the engine when used in low concentration.
If further research confirmed the above, this solution to global warming could be started almost immediately at negligible cost. Feedback of the effect on global temperature would be available within a year or so and if discontinued the products would settle to earth within two to three years.
The gentleman is NOT interested in making money from this. He is looking to get this research moved into academic or commercial organisations quickly so some serious progress can be made in a timely manner.
If this is your line of work or know of anyone who may be able to help please can you PM me?
Kind Regards,
MrSurrey
If the exhaust smoke particles are silica then I'd have to wonder about the deleterious effect of the silica on a turbine engine's internals. I suspect wear rates would be increased a fair amount.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: orbital
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silica is a constituent of volcanic ash. The effects of this are well known on jet engines, fouling them internally, causing degraded performance and ultimately flameout. Even at smoke particle size, one would imagine it would cause damage.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree Re-Entry....
except that volcanic ash is introduced into the engine via the compressor section(s).
This fuel additive, as suggested, would be introduced into the combustion chambers directly, and therefore would only be exposing the turbine section to the silica compound, at very high temperatures.
The effect of this exposure is the point here, which may be somewhat different to the engine being exposed to the silica throughout the entire combustion cycle process.
Just a thought...
Cheers FD
except that volcanic ash is introduced into the engine via the compressor section(s).
This fuel additive, as suggested, would be introduced into the combustion chambers directly, and therefore would only be exposing the turbine section to the silica compound, at very high temperatures.
The effect of this exposure is the point here, which may be somewhat different to the engine being exposed to the silica throughout the entire combustion cycle process.
Just a thought...
Cheers FD
This fuel additive, as suggested, would be introduced into the combustion chambers directly, and therefore would only be exposing the turbine section to the silica compound, at very high temperatures.
The effect of this exposure is the point here, which may be somewhat different to the engine being exposed to the silica throughout the entire combustion cycle process.
Just a thought...
Cheers FD
The effect of this exposure is the point here, which may be somewhat different to the engine being exposed to the silica throughout the entire combustion cycle process.
Just a thought...
Cheers FD
Why would you think 'only' exposing everything aft of the combustion chamber to sand isn't likely to be a problem? I'd bet the turbine stators & blades wouldn't be too happy, even ignoring the sandblast effect on any other engine parts in the way.
If the silica compound is still hot enough to be molten (and I suppose less abrasive) then what about its accretion on engine parts as it cools? That would also be a problem.
If the silica compound is still hot enough to be molten (and I suppose less abrasive) then what about its accretion on engine parts as it cools? That would also be a problem.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose you could inject it into the exhaust like an afterburner, but if it isn't producing any thrust then it's simply extra payload which means you will burn more fuel to carry it, so I guess you're back at square one.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Antigua, W.I.
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO, we're concerned about the wrong thing at this time - why worry about the affect of the particals on the engine when we should be worrying about their affect on the climate?
Are we all that sure that global warming is a reality? Could we be misreading a temperature fluctuation as global warming and take steps that could result in global cooling?
While I am concerned about the (apparent?) warming trend, I'm still not totally convinced that it is a long term trend and not a fluctuation.
Too many scientists saying different things, so this action might be premature.
Are we all that sure that global warming is a reality? Could we be misreading a temperature fluctuation as global warming and take steps that could result in global cooling?
While I am concerned about the (apparent?) warming trend, I'm still not totally convinced that it is a long term trend and not a fluctuation.
Too many scientists saying different things, so this action might be premature.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Florida
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/
I'm sure the conspiracy theorists in the chemtrail community would love to offer some valuable input to your friend's research.
I'm sure the conspiracy theorists in the chemtrail community would love to offer some valuable input to your friend's research.
I would say: "Don't mess with what you don't know".
Most inputs into a fundamentally chaotic system lead to an unpredictable result. Who is to say what effect reflective particles in the upper atmosphere would have? Reduced crop yields in parts of the globe? Changes in ocean currents leading to some areas warming further and others cooling? Who knows... Anyway, anything is better than another ice-age (which is well overdue, apparently).
Most inputs into a fundamentally chaotic system lead to an unpredictable result. Who is to say what effect reflective particles in the upper atmosphere would have? Reduced crop yields in parts of the globe? Changes in ocean currents leading to some areas warming further and others cooling? Who knows... Anyway, anything is better than another ice-age (which is well overdue, apparently).
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: orbital
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may be the sun will come to our rescue anyway. Sunspot activity has been declining and is predicted to continue to do so for the next decade. A less active sun increases the quantity of cosmic rays reaching the earth's surface. These promote cloud formation at low altitudes. These clouds reflect sunlight and keep the earth cool. Also, less incoming UV radiation means fewer chemical reactions in the atmosphere. This reduces heating throughout the atmosphere.
So dumping sand in the upper atmosphere might not be required.
So dumping sand in the upper atmosphere might not be required.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Near Glasgow
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bflight
I agree with Gooneyeone. We don't know enough to "change the climate." Immediately after 11thSept., sorry 9/11, when all flights were grounded and thereby no contrails, temperatures actually rose around the USA. My reference is a fairly recent "Horizon" programme about global temperatures. I remember in 1963 travelling to Cornwall along the south coast and witnessing frozen pools of seawater circa Jan/Feb after consistent very hard frosts. The talk in those days was of moving towards another Ice Age! IMHO before we all stop flying (lots of hysteria on J. Vine Show this morning, one contributor said people flying were committing mass murder!!!), we could reduce excess consumption and excess waste. We are all, (me too), guilty of that.
