REPORT ABUSIVE REPLY
New Chemtrail Poll: Do you believe in Chemtrails?
Quoting: George B
From other Thread . . . Thread: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand. (Page 29)
Quoting: George B Quoting: SnakeAirlines
... Quoting: George B
Why didn't you answer this part of the question . . .
"Also why do research where you test the visibility of combustion trails from aircraft where the sulfur content is 5,000 ppm. . . .???? Seems a waste of money and time to me. . . .don't you think. . . just inquiring minds at work here. ." .
I am asking YOUR
opinion . . . I don't care about THEIR
answer . . . why would you spike sulfur in jet fuel to 5,500 ppm when the maximum allowed concentration is 3,000 and the average is 300 to 800 . . .
if the maximum allowable concentration of sulfur in jet fuel is 3,000 ppm Quoting: George B
You keep erroneously saying that...
The 3000ppm is a DOD maximum allowable for contract buying of jet fuel...
That number has nothing to do with the civi use of fuels...
Environ Sci Technol. 2012 Apr 17;46(8):4275-82. Epub 2012 Mar 28.Source
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States
". In contrast, the maximum sulfur content of aviation fuel has remained unchanged at 3000 ppm (although sulfur levels average 600 ppm in practice)
[link to www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
And you conveniently ignore this from your 'abstract':At ambient temperatures 5 K below the threshold temperature for contrail onset, the plume became visible about 10 m after the engine exit for high sulfur content, but 15 m after the engine exit for low sulfur content......The high-sulfur contrail grew more quickly but also evaporated earlier than the low-sulfur contrail.
Yes. . . . it supports my assumption . . . the whole effort was to test the visibility and persistence trends of geoengineering level concentrations of sulfur compounds in jet fuel . . . which by-the-way was done in 1995 . .
Sufficient time to integrate these findings into operational process . . . FROM:JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 101,
NO. D3, PP. 6853-6869, 1996
Received 22 June 1995; accepted 27 October 1995; published 20 March 1996.
Citation: Schumann, U., J. Ström, R. Busen, R. Baumann, K. Gierens, M. Krautstrunk, F. P. Schröder, and J. Stingl (1996), In situ observations of particles in jet aircraft exhausts and contrails for different sulfur-containing fuels, J. Geophys. Res., 101(D3), 6853–6869, doi:10.1029/95JD03405.
[link to www.agu.org
Please verify you're human:
Reason for reporting: