[Gasification] Aviation'sroleinglobalwarming...9/11 aftermathprovestheoriesonH20incontrailsindramatic fashion.

Wed Mar 26 19:25:21 CDT 2008

I have see what they are doing, and it makes allot of sense - that's why I 
brought it up.

Greg H.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marc Smith" <m.smith at kleanindustries.com>
To: "'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'" 
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 12:23
Subject: Re: [Gasification]Aviation'sroleinglobalwarming...9/11 
aftermathprovestheoriesonH20incontrailsindramatic fashion.

> Greg,
>
> http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2019.html
>
> Your on the right track - look at Japan and their infrastructure - should
> answer a few questions?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
> [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Greg and 
> April
> Sent: March 23, 2008 9:18 AM
> To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
> Subject: Re: [Gasification]Aviation'sroleinglobalwarming...9/11
> aftermathprovestheoriesonH20incontrailsin dramatic fashion.
>
> All I can tell you is from personal experience is that when I was in the
> army, I personally watched them fuel 5-6 hummers ( diesel engines ), 
> before
> fueling a dozen M1 Abrams, which has a jet turbine for an engine, and upon
> asking, was told that the fuel was diesel.
>
> I still find it interesting that while JP4 ( Jet B ) and JP8 ( Jet A ) 
> have
> kero, the kero makes up perhaps only half the mix.
>
> A more energy dense fuel, could take care of the price to climb into the
> stratosphere, OTOH, allot of aircraft are wasting fuel by making short 
> hops
> of less than 100 miles - they barley get to cruising altitude and they are
> descending to land.    In this case perhaps a ground based transport like
> high speed train linking cities that close to one major airport, is the
> better solution.
>
> I think that current engine tech and fuel tech have taken us to about the
> best possible level of efficiency, and we are going to have to increase 
> the
> fuel density to go much further - especially as far as aircraft are
> concerned.
>
> Just remember, that as far as fuel efficiency is concerned ( passenger
> miles ), flying is the most inefficient, and taking the train, is better
> than even the bus.
>
>
> On a semi related side note, I have been playing around with fuel mixes 
> with
>
> my diesel Land Cruiser, and have used up to 50% kero, 45% veggie oil (
> coconut ) and 5% isopropanol and it has dropped my soot levels down to
> single digits, from the high 20's low 30's.
>
>
> Greg H.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Ken Basterfield" <ken at basterfield.com>
> To: "'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'"
> <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 5:31
> Subject: Re: [Gasification]Aviation'sroleinglobalwarming...9/11
> aftermathproves theoriesonH20incontrailsin dramatic fashion.
>
>
>> Hello Greg,
>> We don't get much call for military jet fuel, merely AvTur being sold on
>> our
>> airfields.
>>
>> I looked up the NATO definitions which include civilian use jet fuels,
>> there
>> is no reference to Diesel based fuels:
>>
>> http://www.nato.int/docu/logi-en/1997/lo-15a.htm
>>
>> Extract below.
>>
>>
>>
>> The notes at the bottom give the rated min. temperatures for the fuel.
>>
>> Depends where it is and at what time of year but your 80,000 ft high
>> military jet could be in warmer temps, and is possibly not the worst case
>> as
>> I think you implied. The ozonosphere shows a positive lapse rate, i.e
>> increasing temp with altitude.
>>
>> Since the troposhere is where the weather is, i.e where most of the water
>> is, then jet activity at these altitutes will affect cloud formation.
>> Making jets fly higher into the stratosphere might be the solution to
>> aircraft induced cloud cover. The base of the stratosphere can be 
>> anywhere
>> between about 20,000ft and 60,000ft.  There is a price of course- in the
>> extra fuel required for the added climb.
>>
>> The F40 grade of wide cut is now superceded by F34
>>
>> Ken
>>
>>
>>
>> NATO
>> Logistics
>> Handbook
>> October 1997
>> Chapter 15: Fuels, Oils, Lubricants and
>> Petroleum Handling Equipment
>> Annex A
>> Aide Memoire on Fuels in NATO
>>
>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----
>>
>> AVIATION FUELS
>> NATO CODE
>>
>> F-18
>> is an aviation gasoline (low lead) in limited use by certain NATO 
>> nations.
>> Also known as AVGAS 100LL.
>> F-34
>> is a military kerosene type aviation turbine fuel with Fuel System Icing
>> Inhibitor (FSII) (NOTE 1) used by land based military gas turbine engined
>> aircraft in all NATO countries. (NOTE 2) Also known as JP-8 or 
>> AVTUR/FSII.
>> JET A-1 or AVTUR + Additives (NOTE 3) = JP-8 or AVTUR/FSII.
>> F-35
>> is a military kerosene type aviation turbine fuel equivalent to that used
>> by
>> most civil operators of gas turbine engined aircraft. Also known as JET
>> A-1
>> or AVTUR.
>> JET A-1 or AVTUR; therefore F-34 = F-35 + Additives.
>> F-40
>> is a military wide cut type aviation turbine fuel with FSII used by land
>> based military gas turbine engined aircraft (NOTE 2). Also known as JP-4
>> or
>> AVTAG/FSII. Within NATO it is an emergency substitute for F-34/F-35.
>> F-44
>> is a military high flash point kerosene type aviation turbine fuel with
>> FSII
>> used by ship borne military gas turbine engine aircraft in most NATO
>> countries. Also known as JP-5 or AVCAT/FSII JET A and JET B (See NOTES 4
>> and
>> 5)
>>
>>
>>
>> NOTES:
>>
>>
>> FSII NATO Code S-1745. Additive to aviation turbine fuels as system icing
>> inhibitor.
>> Until 1986, F-40 was used by land based gas turbine engined aircraft in
>> all
>> NATO countries except France and the United Kingdom which had converted 
>> to
>> F-34 some 15 years earlier. Following a decision by NATO Defence 
>> Ministers
>> all nations except Turkey switched from F-40 to F-34. The conversion
>> (known
>> as Stage 1 of the Single Fuel Concept) was completed in 1988. Turkey
>> completed its conversion from F-40 to F-34 in 1996.
>> The term "additives" used in this Aide Memoire can include FSII corrosion
>> inhibitor/lubricity improver additive and static-dissipator additive
>> (SDA).
>> JET A is a civil grade of kerosene type aviation turbine fuel only
>> supplied
>> for operations in the United States. It has a freezing point of -40oC max
>> which differs from JET A-1 (-47oC).
>> JET B is a civil grade of wide cut type aviation turbine fuel which has a
>> different freezing point (-50oC) from F-40 (-58oC) and does not normally
>> contain FSII.
>> For further details about these fuels, see Annex C to STANAG 1135.
>>
>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> Checked by AVG.
>> Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1335 - Release Date:
>> 19/03/2008
>> 09:54
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gasification mailing list
>> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
>> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
>> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
> __________ NOD32 2967 (20080321) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org 