The evolution of an idea and experiments conducted so far (5 Nov 2006)

Modified 28th Dec 2006

 

 

The evolution of the idea is history now so it has been moved to the end of this section. The conclusion was that an additive in the fuel that produced microscopic crystals of silica on burning would be a good place to start.

 

Silica, sand and glass are silicon dioxide so the next question was how to get this into the aircraft fuel and thence into the aircraft engine exhaust.  Silicon is the sort of element which forms the base part of acids and salts.  These are silicates but something like sodium silicate is very unlikely to dissolve in aircraft fuel.  The most likely way to ensure that the compound will dissolve in kerosene is to have a hydrocarbon part of the molecule.  A quick search of the Internet produced information on ethyl silicate and tetra ethyl silicate.

 

This compound contains the following elements: hydrogen, carbon, silicon and oxygen.  On burning in the jet engine, the hydrogen will be oxidised to water vapour, the carbon to carbon monoxide or dioxide and the Silicon will either become pure Silicon, which will appear as microscopic crystals, or silicon dioxide, which is sand which will also appear as microscopic crystals as the molecules coalesce on cooling in the jet exhaust.

               

 

Further search of the Internet produced a supplier (contact details attetraethylsilicate.htm) and I ordered the minimum quantity.  Being a bit unusual it took several months to come but arrived on Friday 27th of October.  By Monday 30th I was confident that this material was behaving as I had hoped and predicted and in many ways better.

 

Experiments performed over the weekend 28 29th October 2006.

 

The first (nerve-racking) test was to see whether it would be dissolve in paraffin.  If it didn't it would be useless and months of waiting for it to arrive would have been wasted.

 

Fortunately it did dissolve and seemed to mix with paraffin in any ratio.  Jet aircraft fuel is called kerosene but it is really the same as the paraffin used so widely in paraffin heaters before central heating became so common.

 

Note 1.  All the burns were done in my garden shed.  This was so that I didn't have to breathe whatever was produced.  I could light the blowlamp, close the door and observe what was happening from the outside through the window.

Note 2.  I used an old-fashioned paraffin blowlamp borrowed from my father-in-law.  The paraffin is  fed  by pumping pressure from the reservoir through a tube which goes through the flame and then out through a small nozzle.  In this way the paraffin is a vapour under slight pressure as it comes into the air and burns.  This is a reasonable simulation of the burning in the combustion chamber of a jet engine but probably the temperatures are significantly lower.  Any happy campers or plumbers from a generation ago will remember that lighting these things, and primus stoves, is a black art.  Often very black!

Note 3.  I set up a rack of three 60 what domestic spot lamps which I hoped would illuminate the reflective particles produced.

Note 4.  All burns were done at night so that I could see reflection better.

 

I then proceeded with "the burns".  The following is a slightly edited version of the notes I took at the time of doing each burn.

 

Burn 1.

>10% solution.  I started by using the solution that I had from the solubility check. This was really far more concentrated then I would ever see being used.  Burning seemed to be similar to paraffin alone but nothing was visible in the lights. This did however have one useful outcome.  After the burn there was a thick white deposit on the fuel tube of the blowlamp and inside the flame tube.  This looked particularly bright and reflective and was a light powder when touched or scraped off.  I have collected and kept some of this but have not yet found a way of analysing what it is.

 

Burn 2.

3% solution.  Similar burn still nothing visible.  Burnt for half an hour.

 

 

Changed light system completely.  I went and got a spot lamp from a local disco.  This is designed to point vertically downwards and appear as a column by picking up the smoke in a disco.  Exactly what I wanted.  I set it up horizontally inside the garden shed so that I was looking at right angles to the beam when looking through the window.  When not burning the beam is not visible from this direction.  Any smoke or mist or particles should therefore show up clearly.

 

Burn 3.

1% solution.  Now there is definitely something in the beam.  But is it just smoke or water vapour?  The reflective mist or smoke was still there 10 minutes after turning off the burn.

 

Burn 4.

Pure paraffin.  Comparison obviously needed so I cleaned the blow lamp really well to get rid of all traces of tetra ethyl silicate inside and all products on the tubes outside.  It was interesting to note that there was no new white powder on the burn tube area after the long burn with the 1% solution.  This should be good news for jet engines.  I then did a half-hour burn in the open air to really clean the blowlamp.

Then after dark I set it up again in the shed and had a very successful quick light.  After burn of 10 to 15 minutes there was a absolutely nothing to see in the beam.  Then it went out and produced a lot of smoke.  This smoke did look similar to what I saw during the previous burn.

 

Burn 5. 

Pure paraffin. I opened the door and cleared the smoke out as best I could and then relit the lamp.  As things cleared with time there was less and less in the beam although the burn went on for another half-hour or more.

This was obviously good news that required and other burn with the mixture for comparison.

 

Burn 6.

1% solution.  Lamp went out several times when trying to light it so there was lots of smoke by the time I eventually got it lit.  While it was burning I opened the door and cleared the smoke as I had done on Burn 4.  The shed was now fairly clear and with the burn proceeding well a new mist appeared in the beam and built up while the burn continued.  This mist was still there 20 minutes after turning off even though it was then almost light.

 

Burn 7. 

1% solution. Carefully cleaned the blowlamp in the garage and checked that the jet was straight before starting another burn.  Another hopeless light up.  Lots of paraffin vapour and smoke.  Eventually got a good flame.  Left the door open for a long time to clear the air.  When I closed the door the mist built up quickly and fairly continuously in a way that it simply didn't when the pure paraffin was used.

I consider this burn and Burn 5 to be directly comparable in conditions and totally different in outcome.  Very strong evidence of mist from the tetra ethyl silicate.

 

Conclusion.  Generally all good.  What is produced is "smoke" or very similar to smoke or mist (water vapour).  This is hardly surprising and suggests that the particles are smoke sized.  This would be great, as the particles would float in the upper atmosphere for a long time.

 

Further experiment conducted on Dec 28th 2006

 

To show how similar tetra ethyl silicate is to aviation kerosene I tried a “burn” with pure t-e-s.

Burn 8.

The conclusion was that it burns just like paraffin in a blow lamp. Slightly more coloured flame and maybe more difficult to light, but generally the same.

I feel that this supports  my belief that t-e-s in low concentration in kerosene will make no difference to the jet engine, the two chemicals are very similar.

 

Back to global warming                           

 

Go to introductory page of website

 

 

 

The Evolution of an Idea

Note; although the idea started with aircraft con- or vapour trails, my suggestion is to simulate the solid particles produced by volcanic eruptions which stay in the atmosphere for  a year or two not the vapour trails which disperse after a few hours.

 

This all started about a year ago when I saw a BBC Horizon programme about the effect of aircraft condensation trails.  The clear skies in the immediate few days after 911 allowed a good estimate of the global cooling effect to be made and it was significant.  There have also been similar programmes about the effect of pollutants particularly smoke in South East Asia due to forest fires.

 

This all seemed fairly obvious when I heard it.  The effects of volcanic eruptions, such as Mount St Helens, were well reported and we were always warned that one of the effects of nuclear war would be the nuclear winter afterwards.  I think I almost immediately thought of adding something to aircraft fuel to increase this effect.  I wrote the following letter to the Daily Telegraph and similar letters to 20 or 30 relevant UK people and organisations.  This included the heads and publicity people of most UK airlines, Rolls-Royce, gas turbine research at Cambridge and any prominent broadcaster who did a programme vaguely related.

 

 

To The Editor, The Daily Telegraph                                                                                 2005

 

Dear Sir.

Most of us now accept that global warming is happening and that glaciers are disappearing even quicker than predicted.

This is a new form of global problem and we don't have ways of agreeing on adequate measures. China is industrialising rapidly and buying up oil supplies. India is developing rapidly and so is the rest of Southeast Asia -- and then there is Africa to come. Does anyone seriously believe that we can reduce carbon emissions enough, before the sea laps over the cocktail party terrace of the House of Commons while the EEC argues over the fishing rights on the former Holland and Cambridgeshire. The present discussions do sound like negotiations over towel spaces around the swimming pool on the Titanic.

Recent published research does suggest an alternative solution. Emissions from commercial aircraft put impurities into the upper atmosphere that have a significant global cooling effect by reflecting sunlight. It's like a mini nuclear winter, which has happened many times in prehistory due to volcanoes. Surely we can develop an additive to aviation fuel, which would increase this effect and get global warming under control quickly.

A messy solution. Yes. And bound to cause unpredictable consequences, but surely still better than pretending that we can reduce carbon emissions quickly enough to avoid the even worse predictable consequences.

With careful formulation we might be able to reduce UV radiation to reduce skin cancers and the extra air flights necessary to get fresh food from Africa to the rich nations would not seem so environmentally damaging.

Anyone got a better idea?

John Gorman   M. A. (Cantab.)

Member of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers

Member of the Institution of Electrical Engineers

Chartered Engineer

 

Did I get any response?  Not a Dickie Bird.

 

The next step was also a television programme, maybe Horizon again, on the areas in the Sahara where the surface sand has been turned to glass.  I forget why this had happened but it immediately struck me that very small particles of glass would have the right reflective properties.  (I don't now think that the particles produced are glass).

 

Sand and glass are both silicon dioxide so the next question was how to get this into the aircraft fuel and thence into the aircraft engine exhaust.  Silicon is the sort of element which forms the base part of acids and salts.  These are silicates but something like sodium silicate is very unlikely to dissolve in aircraft fuel.  The most likely way to ensure that the compound will dissolve in kerosene is to have a hydrocarbon part of the molecule.  A quick search of the Internet produced information on ethyl silicate and tetra ethyl silicate.

 

This compound contains the following elements: hydrogen, carbon, Silicon and oxygen.  On burning in the jet engine, the hydrogen will be oxidised to water vapour, the carbon to carbon monoxide or dioxide and the Silicon will either become pure Silicon, which will appear as microscopic crystals, or silicon dioxide, which is sand which will also appear as microscopic crystals as the molecules coalesce on cooling in the jet exhaust.