Chemtrail Patente Inklusive Barium Zusammensetzungen

DGLR Luftfahrt-Forum

Für alle Chem­trail Zweif­ler — alle US-Patente

Geschrie­ben von: Rea­list
Datum: 4. April 2004, 21:45h

Chem­trail Patente — die Rea­li­tät für alle Zweifler

A method and appa­ra­tus for alte­ring at least one selec­ted region which nor­mally exists above the earth’s sur­face. The region is exci­ted by elec­tron cyclo­tron reso­nance hea­ting to the­reby increase its char­ged par­ti­cle den­sity. In one embo­di­ment, cir­cu­larly pola­ri­zed elec­tro­ma­gne­tic radia­tion is trans­mit­ted upward in a direc­tion sub­stan­ti­ally par­al­lel to and along a field line which extends through the region of plasma to be alte­red. The radia­tion is trans­mit­ted at a fre­quency which exci­tes elec­tron cyclo­tron reso­nance to heat and acce­le­rate the char­ged par­ti­cles. This increase in energy can cause ioniza­tion of neu­tral par­ti­cles which are then absor­bed as part of the region the­reby incre­a­sing the char­ged par­ti­cle den­sity of the region.Atmo­s­phe­ric Geo­en­gi­nee­ring is occu­ring in our skies daily, and on a world­wide basis.
For those who doubt the fea­si­bi­lity of these spe­cial ope­ra­ti­ons, just take a look at the fol­lo­wing Patents.
Chem­trail Patents:
Method and appa­ra­tus for alte­ring a region in the earth’s atmo­s­phere, iono­s­phere, and/or magne­to­s­phere
United Sta­tes Patent 4,686,605 / East­lund / August 11, 1987

Method of modi­fy­ing wea­t­her
United Sta­tes Patent 6,315,213 / Cor­dani / Novem­ber 13, 2001

A method for arti­fi­ci­ally modi­fy­ing the wea­t­her by see­ding rain clouds of a storm with sui­ta­ble cross-linked aqueous poly­mer. The poly­mer is dis­per­sed into the cloud and the wind of the storm agi­ta­tes the mix­ture cau­sing the poly­mer to absorb the rain. This reac­tion forms a gela­ti­nous sub­stance which pre­ci­pi­tate to the sur­face below. Thus, dimi­nis­hing the clouds abi­lity to rain.

Pro­cess for absor­bing ultra­vio­let radia­tion using dis­per­sed mela­nin
United Sta­tes Patent / 5,286,979 / Ber­li­ner / Febru­ary 15, 1994

This inven­tion is a pro­cess for absor­bing ultra­vio­let radia­tion in the atmo­s­phere by dis­per­sing mela­nin, its ana­logs, or deri­va­ti­ves into the atmo­s­phere. By appro­priate choice of mela­nin com­po­si­tion, size of mela­nin dis­per­so­ids, and their con­cen­tra­tion, the mela­nin will absorb some quan­tity of ultra­vio­let radia­tion and the­reby les­sen its over­all effect on the crit­ters who would nor­mally absorb such radiation.

Liquid ato­mi­zing appa­ra­tus for aerial spray­ing
United Sta­tes Patent / 4,948,050 / Picot / August 14, 1990

A rotary liquid spray ato­mi­zer for aerial spray­ing is dri­ven by a varia­ble speed motor, dri­ven in turn by power from a varia­ble speed AC gene­ra­tor. The gene­ra­tor is dri­ven from a power take-off from the engine of the spray­ing air­craft, a drive assem­bly inclu­des a device for con­trol­ling the speed of the gene­ra­tor rela­tive to the speed of the engine. The par­ti­cu­larly con­ve­ni­ent drive assem­bly bet­ween the gene­ra­tor and the power take-off is a hydrau­lic motor, which dri­ves the gene­ra­tor, dri­ven by a hydrau­lic pump dri­ven from the power take-off. The speed of the hydrau­lic motor can be con­troll­ably varied. Con­ve­ni­ently the AC motor is a syn­chro­nous motor.

Lami­nar micro­jet ato­mi­zer and method of aerial spray­ing of liquids
United Sta­tes Patent / 4,412,654 Yates / Novem­ber 1, 1983

A lami­nar micro­jet ato­mi­zer and method of aerial spray­ing involve the use of a stream­lined body having a slot in the trai­ling edge the­reof to afford a quie­scent zone wit­hin the wing and into which liquid for spray­ing is intro­du­ced. The liquid flows from a source through a small dia­me­ter ori­fice having a disch­arge end dis­po­sed in the quiet zone well upst­ream of the trai­ling edge. The liquid released into the quiet zone in the slot forms drops cha­rac­te­ristic of lami­nar flow. Those drops then flow from the slot at the trai­ling edge of the stream­lined body and disch­arge into the slipst­ream for free distribution.

United Sta­tes Patent: — US3813875 / Issued/Filed Dates: June 4, 1974 / April 28, 1972

A che­mi­cal sys­tem for releasing a good yield of free barium (Ba°) atoms and barium ions (BA+) to create ion clouds in the upper atmo­s­phere and inter­pla­ne­tary space for the study of the geo­phy­si­cal pro­per­ties of the medium. Inventor(s): Paine; Tho­mas O. Admi­nis­tra­tor of the Natio­nal Aero­nautics and Space Admi­nis­tra­tion with respect to an inven­tion of , Hamp­ton, VA 23364

NASA: BARIUM — Che­mi­cal Formulas/Suppliers
source: gis­gaia
This is the »Descrip­tion of Pre­fer­red Embo­di­ments« link in the NASA Barium Patent lis­ted above. Asto­un­ding that this infor­ma­tion was gene­ra­ted in l969 and now,30 years later, there is evi­dence of Barium satu­ra­tion in our atmosphere.

The Barium/Fuel mix­tures are lis­ted below along with the suppliers.

Descrip­tion of Pre­fer­red Embo­di­ments:
Refer­ring now to the dra­wings and more par­ti­cu­larly to FIG. 1, there is shown a seg­ment of a sui­ta­ble car­rier vehi­cle 10, such for example a rocket motor. Vehi­cle 10 is employed to carry fuel tank 11, insu­la­ted oxi­di­zer tank 13 and com­bus­tion cham­ber 15, along with the necessary instru­men­ta­tion, from earth into the upper atmo­s­phere or into inter­pla­ne­tary space. Fuel tank 11 is in fluid con­nec­tion with com­bus­tion cham­ber 15 and oxi­di­zer tank 13 is in fluid con­nec­tion with com­bus­tion cham­ber 15 by way of respec­tive con­du­its 17 and 19. A pair of val­ves 21 and 23 are dis­po­sed wit­hin the respec­tive con­du­its 17 and 19. Val­ves 21 and 23 are adap­ted to be selec­tively and simul­ta­neously opened by a sui­ta­ble battery-powered timing mecha­nism, radio signal, or the like, to release the pres­su­ri­zed fuel and oxi­di­zer from tanks 11 and 13. The fuel and oxi­di­zer then flow through con­du­its 17 and 19 and impinge upon each other through a cen­trally posi­tio­ned mani­fold and sui­ta­ble jets (not shown) in com­bus­tion cham­ber 15 where spon­ta­neous igni­tion occurs. The reac­tion pro­ducts are then expel­led through the open ends of com­bus­tion cham­ber 15 as plasma which inclu­des the desi­red barium neu­tral atoms and barium ions as indi­vi­dual species.

The fuel uti­li­zed in fuel tank 11 is eit­her hydra­zine (N2 H4) or liquid ammo­nia (NH3) while the oxi­di­zer employed is selec­ted from the group con­sis­ting of liquid fluo­rine (F2), chlo­rine trif­luo­ride (ClF3) and oxy­gen dif­luo­ride (OF2). When using hydra­zine as the fuel, barium may be dis­sol­ved ther­ein as barium chlo­ride, BaCl2, or barium nitrate, Ba(NO3)2, or a com­bi­na­tion of the two. When using liquid ammo­nia as the fuel, barium metal may be dis­sol­ved ther­ein. The com­bi­na­tion found to pro­duce the hig­hest inten­sity of Ba° and Ba+ reso­nance radia­tion in ground based tests invol­ved a fuel of 16 per­cent Ba(NO3)2, 17 per­cent BaCl2 and 67 per­cent N2 H4 ; and as the oxi­di­zer, the cryo­ge­nic liquid fluo­rine F2 and in which an oxi­di­zer to fuel weight ratio was 1.32.
Other com­bi­na­ti­ons of ingre­dients tes­ted are set forth in Table I below:

Sys­tem Opti­mum O/F Per­cent
16.7% BaCl2 -
83.3% N2 H4 /ClF3
2.36 68.0
26% BaCl2 -
74% N2 H4 /ClF3
2.08 70.0
50% Ba(NO3)2 -
50% NH3 /ClF3
1.52 -
42.9% Ba(NO3)2 -
57.1% N2 H4 /ClF3
1.19 50.0
16.7% BaCl2 -
83.3% N2 H4 /F2
1.95 68.8
26% BaCl2 -
74% N2 H4 /F2
1.71 70.6
21% BaCl2 -
9% Ba(NO3)2 -
70% N2 H4 /F2
1.57 68.5
17% BaCl2 -
16% Ba(NO3)2 -
67% N2 H4 /F2
1.31 68.1
13% BaCl2 -
21.5% Ba(NO3)2 -
65.5% N2 H4 /F2
1.34 63.7
9% BaCl2 -
30% Ba(NO3)2 -
61% N2 H4 /F2
1.04 63.7
42.9% Ba(NO3)2 -
57.1% N2 H4 /F2
0.976 43.0
42.9% Ba(NO3)2 -
57.1% N2 H4 /OF2
0.694 46.9
26% BaCL2 -
74% N2 H4 /OF2
1.22 52.8
The con­di­ti­ons under which each of the com­bi­na­ti­ons lis­ted in Table I were tes­ted were ambi­ent and the per­cen­tage ioniza­tion was cal­cu­la­ted by equa­ti­ons set forth in NASA Con­tract Report CR-1415 publis­hed in August 1969.
The che­mi­cal supplier and manu­fac­tu­rers sta­ted purity for the various che­mi­cals employed are set forth in Table II below:
Supplier Purity
N2 H4
Olin Mathie­son Che­mi­cal
Tech­ni­cal Grade
Com­pany, Lake Charles,
97–98% N2 H4
Loui­siana (2–3% H2 O)

Air Pro­ducts and Che­mi­cals
Tech­ni­cal Grade
Allen­town, Pa.

J. T. Baker & Co. Rea­gent Grade
Phil­lips­burg, N.J.

J. T. Baker & Co. Rea­gent Grade
Phil­lips­burg, N.J.

F2 Air Pro­ducts & Che­mi­cals
Allen­town, Pa.
Allied Che­mi­cal Co.
Baton Rouge, La.
Allied Che­mi­cal Co.
Baton Rouge, La.

A solu­bi­lity study of various mix­tures con­tai­ning Ba(NO3)2, BaCl2 and N2 H4 was made at room tem­pe­ra­ture and is shown in the tri­an­gu­lar plot of FIG. 2. Seven solu­ti­ons that were used in the tests enu­me­ra­ted in Table I are indi­ca­ted by refe­rence let­ters in FIG. 2 as fol­lows:
a. 16.7% BaCl2 — 83.3% N2 H4
b. 26% BaCl2 — 74% N2 H4
c. 21% BaCl2 — 9% Ba(NO3)2 — 70% N2 H4
d. 17% BaCl2 — 16% Ba(NO3)2 — 67% N2 H4
e. 13% BaCl2 –21.5% Ba(NO3)2 –65.5% N2 H4
f. 9% BaCl2 — 30% Ba(NO3)2 — 61% N2 H4
g. 42.9% Ba(NO3)2 — 57.1% N2 H4

A mix­ture below the Satu­ra­tion Line, that is toward the Ba(NO3)2 or BaCl2 cor­ners con­tai­ned a solid and a solu­tion phase whe­reas the salts were in com­plete solu­tion above the satu­ra­tion line.
All fuel mix­tures or sys­tems descri­bed were easily hand­led except the 50 per­cent Ba(NO3)2 –50 per­cent NH3 sys­tem. This sys­tem cau­sed clog­ging of the feed val­ves due to pre­ci­pi­ta­tion of the Ba(NO3)2. In addi­tion the light values obtai­ned using this sys­tem was rela­tively low.
In tes­ting of each of the fuel mix­tures set forth in Table I the Ba° light was grea­ter than the Ba+ light for a given oxidizer/fuel ratio in each of the mix­tures. The maxi­mum light occur­red in all sys­tems at a point loca­ted bet­ween the stoi­chio­me­tric O/F and 3 per­cent less than the stoi­chio­me­tric O/F. The stoi­chio­me­tric O/F is defined as being equi­va­lent to the oxi­di­zer to fuel weight ratio in a balan­ced equa­tion assu­ming the salt is con­ver­ted to free Ba, F to HF, Cl to HCl and O to H2 O. For example, one sys­tem tes­ted had an O/F ratio of 142 grams oxi­di­zer per 100 grams fuel or 1.42÷1.00. If the barium is assu­med to be con­ver­ted to BaF2 then the stoi­chio­me­tric O/F is 1.47. Since the grea­test light out­put in all cases occur­red with O/F less than stoi­chio­me­tric it is appa­rent that little of the Ba was com­bi­ned as BaF2 or BaCl2. This was con­fir­med by spec­tro­gra­phic ana­ly­sis.
In Table II the various sys­tems are lis­ted in decre­a­sing light out­put or rela­tive light inten­sity as mea­su­red by pho­totu­bes in mil­li­volts, the­reby indi­ca­ting the rela­tive barium yield.
(per­cent weight for fuel)
INTENSITY, mil­li­volts
Ba° 5535 A
Ba+ 4554 A
17% BaCl2 –16% Ba(NO3)2 –67% N2 H4 /F2
13% BaCl2 –21.5% Ba(NO3)2 –65.5% N2 H4 /F2
21% BaCl2 –9% Ba(NO3)2 –70% N2 H4 /F2
9% BaCl2 –30% Ba(NO3)2 –61% N2 H4 /F2
26% BaCl2 –74% N2 H4 /F2
26% BaCl2 –74% N2 H4 /OF2
16.7% BaCl2 –83.3% N2 H4 /F2
9100 3350
42.9% Ba(NO3)2 –57.1% N2 H4 /F2
9000 1800
42.9% Ba(NO3)2 –57.1% N2 H4 /OF2
7300 1330
42.9% Ba(NO3)2 –57.1% N2 H4 /ClF3
663 94
50% Ba(NO3)2 –50% NH3 /ClF3
221 44

From the above infor­ma­tion, it is rea­dily seen that the 17 per­cent BaCl2 –16 per­cent Ba(NO3)2 –67 per­cent N2 H4 /F2 sys­tem gave the grea­test amount of light inten­sity of the 4554 A Ba+ and 5535 A Ba° spec­tral lines. Ambi­ent tests showed that the opti­mum oxi­di­zer to fuel ratio of this sys­tem was 1.32 to 1.00. This sys­tem con­tai­ning 8.52 weight per­cent barium was esti­ma­ted to be 68.1 per­cent ioni­zed. Also since this sys­tem had the lar­gest rela­tive light inten­sity it would be expec­ted to give the grea­test amount of Ba° and Ba+ and would appear to be the opti­mum sys­tem for a barium pay­load. In all sys­tems tes­ted it was found that the rela­tive light reached a maxi­mum at the O/F cor­re­spon­ding to the stoi­chio­me­tric equa­tion yiel­ding barium as one of the reac­tion pro­ducts and that the rela­tive light out­put was sen­si­tive to the O/F. Moving to eit­her side of the opti­mum O/F cau­sed a sharp decrease in rela­tive light.
In vacuum tests the igni­tion of each sys­tem tes­ted was smooth and like the ambi­ent tests, took place in the com­bus­tion cham­ber. The rapid expan­sion in vacuum cau­sed a decrea­sed atom and ion den­sity in the lumi­nous flame which cau­sed the light inten­sity to be about 1/37 to 1/50 the inten­sity mea­su­red in ambi­ent tests. The per­cen­tage ioniza­tion was appro­xi­mately the same for vacuum and ambi­ent tests.
The ope­ra­tion of the inven­tion is now belie­ved appa­rent. Initi­ally, fuel tank 11 is char­ged with the fuel con­tai­ning the desi­red quan­tity of dis­sol­ved barium salt and pres­su­ri­zed with helium. The fuel tank pres­sure may be in the range of 6.89 to 20.06 ¥ 105 Newton/meter2. Oxi­di­zer tank 13 is also char­ged with the appro­priate oxi­di­zer and pres­su­ri­zed. Cryo­ge­nic oxi­di­zers such as OF2 and F2 are con­den­sed from gases in the clo­sed oxi­di­zer tank which must be main­tai­ned enclo­sed in a liquid nitro­gen bath. The oxi­di­zer feed valve 23 and con­duit 19 must also be main­tai­ned at liquid nitro­gen tem­pe­ra­ture with a liquid nitro­gen jacket when employ­ing a cryo­ge­nic oxi­di­zer.
The non­cryo­ge­nic oxi­di­zer, ClF3, may be pres­su­ri­zed into the clo­sed oxi­di­zer tank 13 from a supply bottle with super dry nitro­gen.
Com­bus­tion cham­ber 15 is for­med of stain­less steel, alu­mi­num, or the like F2 com­pa­ti­ble metals and is inter­nally par­ti­tio­ned by the mani­fold, not shown. The con­du­its 17 and 19 ter­mi­nate in a mani­fold having injec­tor ori­fices (not shown) moun­ted 90° to each other wit­hin each end of cham­ber 15 and sized for pres­sure drops of 5.24 to 10.2 ¥ 105 Newton/meter2 across the ori­fice. Fuel and oxi­di­zer flows are in the range of 2.05 to 6.82 Kg/sec each. The ent­ire sys­tem is car­ried into the upper atmo­s­phere or inter­pla­ne­tary space by rocket vehi­cle 10 where, in response to a sui­ta­ble signal, timing mecha­nism or the like, val­ves 21 and 23 may be selec­tively opened and clo­sed and the pres­su­ri­zed liquid fuel and oxi­di­zer will flow through con­du­its 17 and 19 into com­bi­na­tion unit 15. When the hyper­go­lic liquids impinge upon each other, they spon­ta­neously ignite to expel reac­tion pro­duct gases or plasma inclu­ding the highly lumi­nous barium neu­tral atoms and barium ions as indi­vi­dual spe­cies. All of the barium reaching the com­bus­tion cham­ber is vapo­ri­zed and released through the oppo­site ends the­reof so that a high yield effi­ci­ency is obtai­ned. The resul­ting high flame tem­pe­ra­ture, appro­xi­mately 4,000°K., and some as yet not deter­mined che­mi­cal activa­tion, pro­du­ces a rela­tively large amount of barium ions in the flame which is a highly desi­ra­ble con­di­tion. It has been esti­ma­ted from spec­tro­sco­pic mea­su­re­ments that the degree of ioniza­tion may be as high as 75 per­cent in the released plasma in com­pa­ri­son to being on the order of 1 per­cent for the pre­viously used Ba-CuO solid sys­tem which depends almost ent­i­rely on solar pho­toio­niza­tion, a time-dependent pheno­mena which fur­ther redu­ces the usa­ble barium yield of this known sys­tem.
Thus, it is rea­dily appa­rent that the pre­sent inven­tion pro­vi­des an inher­ently more effi­ci­ent pro­cess of pro­du­cing barium clouds wher­ein the degree of ioniza­tion in the released plasma is much grea­ter. The selec­tively opening and clo­sing of val­ves 21 and 23 gives the pos­si­bi­lity of a pay­load with mul­ti­ple relea­ses per­mit­ted due to the start and stop capa­bi­li­ties of the liquid sys­tem. Also, the liquid sys­tem of the pre­sent inven­tion gives the pos­si­bi­lity of con­trol­ling rates so that a trail­type release can be obtai­ned as well as a point-source type. In addi­tion, the liquid sys­tem of the pre­sent inven­tion effects the for­ma­tion of barium atoms and ions at the time of com­bus­tion and expan­sion at high tem­pe­ra­tures and results in little oppor­tu­nity for the barium to con­dense during release.
There are obviously many varia­ti­ons and modi­fi­ca­ti­ons to the pre­sent inven­tion that will be rea­dily appa­rent to those skil­led in the art wit­hout depar­ting from the spi­rit or scope of the dis­clo­sure or from the scope of the claims.