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
http://164.195.100.11

Method of modi­fy­ing weather
United Sta­tes Patent 6,315,213 / Corda­ni / Novem­ber 13, 2001
http://164.195.100.11/

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
http://164.195.100.11/

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
http://patft.uspto.gov/

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
http://patft.uspto.gov/

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.

ROCKET HAVING BARIUM RELEASE SYSTEM TO CREATE ION CLOUDS IN THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE
United Sta­tes Patent: — US3813875 / Issued/Filed Dates: June 4, 1974 / April 28, 1972
http://pub8.ezboard.com/

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:

TABLE I
______________________________________
Sys­tem Opti­mum O/F Percent
Ionization
Calculated
______________________________________
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:
______________________________________
Chemical
Sup­pli­er Purity
______________________________________
N2 H4
Olin Mathie­son Chemical
Tech­ni­cal Grade
Com­pa­ny, Lake Charles,
97–98% N2 H4
Loui­sia­na (2–3% H2 O)

NH3
Air Pro­ducts and Chemicals
Tech­ni­cal Grade
Allen­town, Pa.

BaCl2
J. T. Bak­er & Co. Reagent Grade
Phil­lips­burg, N.J.

Ba(NO3)2
J. T. Bak­er & Co. Reagent Grade
Phil­lips­burg, N.J.

F2 Air Pro­ducts & Chemicals
98%
Allen­town, Pa.
ClF3
Allied Che­mi­cal Co.
99.5%
Baton Rouge, La.
OF2
Allied Che­mi­cal Co.
98%
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.
TABLE III
__________________________________________________________
SYSTEM MAXIMUM RELATIVE
(per­cent weight for fuel)
INTENSITY, millivolts
Ba° 5535 A
Ba+ 4554 A
___________________________________________________________
17% BaCl2 ‑16% Ba(NO3)2 ‑67% N2 H4 /F2
27600
11800
13% BaCl2 ‑21.5% Ba(NO3)2 ‑65.5% N2 H4 /F2
23600
8340
21% BaCl2 ‑9% Ba(NO3)2 ‑70% N2 H4 /F2
20600
9100
9% BaCl2 ‑30% Ba(NO3)2 ‑61% N2 H4 /F2
16600
5970
26% BaCl2 ‑74% N2 H4 /F2
16600
6520
26% BaCl2 ‑74% N2 H4 /OF2
11800
2100
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 137 to 150 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.