Re: What's that black dust in monitors?

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 17:55:33 +0200, Zak Gave us:

What the hell is this? More bent, f*ck'd logic?

message

EPA is constrained by Congress. Congress is constrained by leashes held by big contributors, in this case trucking, railroad, and shipping industries.

they

Maybe he rides with Dan Quayle:

"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 14:47:48 -0400, Keith R. Williams Gave us:

Yes, but you are a goddamned idiot. All you can interpret are the convolutions in your shit.

Yes, I do.

Said the usenet retard that follows people around like a puppy dog... no... a cockroach. Yeah... that's it... you're a cockroach.

Said the retard that hasn't made a viable contribution in months.

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 13:40:56 +1000, Rob Judd Gave us:

Not yer pal, twit. At least not while you defend the retard.

How about 4 miles wide, because I was viewing horizontally.

Just try Google on "nitrogen dioxide" "nitrogen tetroxide" equilibrium

They coexist in a ratio that varies with pressure, and nitrogen tetroxide is referred to as a dimer of nitrogen dioxide. One of the hits that says dimer:

dioxide"!

But it does say that nitrogen dioxide is also present and gives that color to the cloud! And also mentions PM2.5 carbon! Fine carbon particles do exist in the air!

I have been through and over brown clouds in airplanes. It is not unusual for them to be only a few thousand feet thick.

Look at

Says nitrogen dioxide absorbs visible light and causes the brown cloud

Although focusing on other nitrogen oxides, says that NO2 causes "brown cloud"

Says nitrogen dioxide gives the "Phoenix brown cloud" its color

Mentions nitrogen dioxide giving the brown color, along with sulfates caused by sulfur dioxide emissions causing haze and reduction of visibility.

Says that nitrogen dioxide absorbs visible wavelengths and creates the "Brown Cloud"

Sure as hell does, I see it lots of times!

Tell me why and how you think fine soot does not rise the way other fine dust does, especially given web pages giving a cause of "brown cloud"'s color other than or in addition to nitrogen dioxide usually being carbon particles!

Most data findable from Googling "nitrogen dioxide" "brown cloud" that supports any specific alternative to nitrogen dioxide as causing the visible "brown cloud" claim that carbon particles are a/the culprit! Where do you propose such carbon particles come from? Diesel engines? Buildings with oil heat?

Bad diesels make large amounts of coarser soot particles, not-so-bad ones make less and finer soot but they still make fine soot and plenty of them are doing that!

Tell me where they have monitors in air not affected by diesel trucks, buildings with oil heat, etc.!

I have been saying not-so-out-of-tune diesel engines produce finer soot, as opposed to bad ones producing soot coarse enough to visibly fall out! Or do you propose another source of carbom PM2.5 particles, which is a primary alternative candidate to nitrogen dioxide for the "brown cloud"?

But I did stuff up the gas-to-air mixture, for the purpose of producing soot particles fine enough to scatter blue light more than longer wavelengths of visible light. And the soot was not always that fine but sometimes it was, depending on how big the flame was and how completely I blocked the air intakes.

I did not claim that this was the case. My only claim related to abused propane torches was that soot can be fine enough to preferentially scatter blue light, not that propane torches, abused or otherwise, were normally significant sources of what builds up in monitors and TV sets!

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

And this isnt 'brown clouds', this is right down on the horizon.

And that stuff you see in Sydney is nothing like 'brownish but transparent air', its a nothing like transparent smog/haze right down on the horizon.

You dont get that either, and the PPM levels of NOx with thunderstorms aint anything like that 1 PPM level anyway.

Just as hopeless as your previous silly stuff pulled using google.

You wont find a single reputable scientific source saying anything like that completely silly 'just two NO2 molecules stuck together more than being a different compound)'

Cloud cuckooland 'chemistry'

Doesnt say a damned thing about that terminally silly stuff being discussed, 'just two NO2 molecules stuck together more than being a different compound)'

Utterly mangled all over again.

Try a real science site.

dioxide"!

Bullshit it does. That para above clearly says 'Extremely small particles are the principal cause of the brown cloud'

Look up the word 'principal' some time.

No one ever said they didnt. What was clearly being discussed was whether the HEAPS OF JET BLACK SOOT SEEN WITH VERY BADLY SETUP DIESEL ENGINES is at all common in the air even in a builtup area.

Pity I wasnt even discussing 'brown clouds' at all.

Got SFA to do with whether '"Brown Cloud" air pollution is nitrogen dioxide or nitrogen dioxide'

Its much more complicated than that and its primarily particles, not NOx at all.

Pity its just plain wrong and doesnt even cite a shred of evidence for that particular claim. There are plenty of other references, with MUCH better credentials, that say nothing like that, including

Same one again.

See above.

Pity about what

says and even you must be able to grasp that its the SAME SITE.

Pity the other bit of the SAME SITE says something completely different.

They're obviously all just repeating the same drivel without a shred of substantiation cited to substantiate that claim.

Pity about

which does spell out the detail much more and is in fact scientifically correct.

Nope, fraid not.

Getting completely silly now.

Basically it aint got anything like the same volume of hot air driving it as a fire, and the soot particles are much larger and heavier, thats why they look so bad. You dont get anything like that with a fire.

Even you must have noticed that brown aint jet black.

DOESNT SAY THAT ITS THE JET BLACK SOOT FROM BADLY SETUP DIESEL ENGINES THATS THE SOURCE OF THOSE CARBON PARTICLES.

Most combustion of carbon based fuel.

Nope. They're only a tiny part of the total combustion of carbon based fuels.

Which dont happen to produce much of the JET BLACK SOOT seen in monitors adjacent to the FBT.

And even you should be able to grasp that its just a tad unlikely that many buildings in pacific islands are actually heated with oil heaters, so you STILL HAVENT EXPLAINED HOW MONITORS THERE HAVE THE SAME JET BLACK SOOT SEEN IN THEIR MONITORS.

More basic logic.

Nope, they dont produce unburnt carbon.

They just produce the usual products of combustion, which doesnt include carbon particles with a properly setup combustion system, because thats inefficient and stuffs the fuel economy.

as Ken pointed out, you STILL get that inside monitors, even when there are bugger all diesel trucks in use at all, let alone many setup that badly. So it cant be coming from diesel trucks.

Basic logic.

Pacific islands, as Ken pointed out.

You're wrong.

There's plenty more combustion of carbon based fuels than just diesel trucks.

Thats just plain wrong too.

You cant explain why you STILL get that jet black soot in monitors even when there aint no diesel trucks in use at all, SO IT CANT BE COMING FROM THEM.

Basic logic.

All completely and utterly irrelevant to what happens much with normal propane combustion, SO THAT CANT BE THE SOURCE OF THE JET BLACK SOOT SEEN IN MONITORS EITHER.

All completely and utterly irrelevant to what happens much with normal propane combustion, SO THAT CANT BE THE SOURCE OF THE JET BLACK SOOT SEEN IN MONITORS EITHER.

So it was completely irrelevant waffle, just like the 'brown clouds' are in spades.

So when brownish air looks like the "usual brown cloud" but is less opaque than usual but has the nitrogen dioxide brown color, you are going to say it's not brown cloud and therefore nitrogen dioxide does not cause visible air pollution?

And how does that disprove either sort of brownish air being tinted by nitrogen dioxide, and how does that disprove presence of fine soot particles in the air?

I did claim even less can make visible air coloration, and thunderstorms are easily 4 miles wide.

dioxide"!

the

Look further down than the first paragraph then! If you still say that this document does not also say that nitrogen dioxide gives "brown cloud" its color than I will call you a liar!

You are stuck on "badly setup" or "very badly setup" ones, while ones not so badly set up make fine soot!

When sometimes they are small enough to preferentially scatter blue light?! Besides, when smoke reaches 1,000 feet or a few thousand feet it's usually mainly for reasons other than heat from the source.

Of course a cloud of particles fine enough to preferentially scatter blue light will look brown to transmitted light, but how does that make carbon brown? Or are you now going to claim that carbon is brown?

You seem to have this hangup on diesel engines setup badly enough to make really coarse soot!

I said diesel engines as an example and not as a limitation!

I also said oil heated buildings as an example and not as a limitation.

And your favored

says that offending particles stay in the air for days!

Only perfectly ideally, which many don't do! If .1% or ,01% of the carbon becomes soot, that's not going to significantly impact fuel economy!

Above you say:

That page says over half your favored PM2.5 is caused by gasoline and diesel vehicles. Other pages I already cited giving causes of "brown cloud" color other than nitrogen dioxide say it's carbon particles.

If dust can come to Florida from the Sahara Desert enough to affect air transparency, and if PM2.5 stays in the air for days, then how far does a monitor need to be from sources of airborne carbon particles to disprove the stuff being carbon?

So you propose gasoline, home heating oil and and natural gas being the main cause of airborne carbon particles in "brown cloud"?

in spades.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Diesel engines are certainly a major source of carbon particles fine enough to disperse for thousands of miles, as are fossil fuel power plants, wood cooking fires, and jet engines.

According to a Sept 2003 article in Photonics Spectra, "particulate matter in the form of soot is one of the most significant pollutants from jet engines". A soot measurement system is described, and a 3D time/position/concentration plot is shown where the soot concentation in an engine peaks at 4 mg/m^3 during run up to full power with steady state full power emissions of 0.3 mg/m^3. They do not identify which engine but do state that the system is being used to test new engine designs, so this is probably about as good as it gets today. Note that this soot is essentially invisible to the eye; jet engine exhaust normally looks perfectly clear. (The particles are detected optically after heating them to incadesence with a laser).

I have also seen references stating that emissions from wood fires and fossil fuel combustion in India, China and Indonesia block up to 10% of sunlight from reaching the surface of the earth for around 1000 miles downwind, an effect believed significant enough to alter long term weather, and that soot is found in all recent snow/ice deposits in Antartica.

Bottom line is that if you live on planet earth you cannot get away from fine soot in your air unless perhaps you work in a good cleanroom.

Regards, Glen

Does that mean you get ten to the buck?

Sorry, I just couldn't resist it!

--
Then there's duct tape ... 
              (Garrison Keillor)
nofr@sbhevre.pbzchyvax.pb.hx

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 13:15:34 GMT, Glen Walpert Gave us:

Finally, someone makes a correct observation.

Just like pollen.... thousands of miles. Thank you.

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 13:15:34 GMT, Glen Walpert Gave us:

Exactly.

Also, and that which accumulates inside a monitor case is not an emission from within the device. It is an attracted accumulation, drawn from the air.

It isn't "It's coming from the FBT..." as one uninformed poster has stated.

Or live on a pacific island.

Nope, nothing like a cloud at all. Just a brown haze on the horizon. With it visibly decreasing with height above the horizon.

More than the usual haze effect outside big citys.

Nope, much ligher than that.

Yep, no 'cloud' at all.

I JUST said that its not NOx, its the just particles in the air. Just like all haze effects are. And the evidence for that is that it goes away after heavy rain.

If it really was due to NOx, it wouldnt.

YOU made the claim that its tinted by NOx, YOU get to do the proving. Thats how science works.

If it was actually due to NOx it would be quite transparent. It aint, so its clearly due to particles in the air, not NOx.

Never ever claimed that either.

I JUST rubbed your nose in the FACT that the jet black soot seen inside monitors adjacent to the FBT is also seen in monitors where there is f*ck all soot in the air at all, most obviously with pacific islands, and so that cant be where its coming from.

Basic logic.

What matters is whether the concentrations that you can get with thunderstorms are visible. They aint.

Not the downdrafts out of them they aint. And while you can certainly get some NOx formation in thunderstorms, you certainly dont get entire 4 mile wide downdrafts from thunderstorms with significant and visible NOx levels.

dioxide"!

web.

haze.

the

containing

reducing

No point when the first para clearly says ARE THE PRINCIPAL CAUSE

The first para clearly says PARTICLES ARE THE PRINCIPAL CAUSE

Even you should be able to read and comprehend that in the first sentance.

You can do anything you like, including stand on your head and whistle dixey if thats what turns you on.

Might be better to look up the correct form, 'principle' instead tho.

Wrong. Because that stuffs the fuel economy. Soot is always the result of incomplete combustion and that always indicates less than efficient use of the fuel.

cloud"

Pity para 1 says

"Extremely small particles are the principal cause of the brown cloud"

Pity para 1 says

"Extremely small particles are the principal cause of the brown cloud"

Diesel exhausts dont have anything like the same volume of hot gases required to make it rise to anything like the same extent.

Wrong. Thats why you get the inversion effect.

Never said it does. YOU were the one waffling on about soot from diesel engines having a damned thing to do with the completely irrelevant 'brown clouds' that dont have a damned thing to do with THE JET BLACK SOOT THAT CAN BE FOUND INSIDE MONITORS.

Corse not.

Because properly setup diesel engines dont produce soot.

Pity its a trivial source of carbon particles, even in big citys, and clearly cant be where the JET BLACK SOOT FOUND IN MONITORS IN THE PACIFIC ISLANDS IS COMING FROM.

Pity you STILL havent managed to propose where purported soot in the atmosphere WITH PACIFIC ISLANDS is coming from.

And since whats seen inside monitors on pacific islands is no different to whats seen in monitors in big citys, its just a tad unlikely that its actually coming from the air at all.

Basic logic.

Doesnt say a damned thing about PACIFIC ISLANDS WHERE THE SAME SOOT IS FOUND INSIDE MONITORS.

Wrong. Anything on the lean side of no soot will still have no soot.

Doesnt say a damned thing about PACIFIC ISLANDS WHERE THE SAME SOOT IS FOUND INSIDE MONITORS.

Basic logic.

Taint 'my favoured PM2.5' That just produces HAZE and aint SOOT.

Pity that aint SOOT thats as visibly SOOT as is found inside monitors.

Doesnt matter a damn what some pig ignorant repetition claims, what matters is that its actually PARTICLES that that the 'principal' cause of brown cloud, and that aint anything like the SOOT found in monitors.

AND EVEN YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO GRASP THAT PACIFIC ISLANDS DONT GET THAT POLLUTION BROWN CLOUD EFFECT AT ALL, so it cant be that thats getting into their monitors.

Basic logic .

Even you must have noticed that dust aint soot.

And that aint soot either.

8

The pacific islands will do fine BECAUSE THEY DONT HAVE THOSE BROWN CLOUDS DUE TO POLLUTION AT ALL.

Basic logic.

Nope, I dont give a FRF what the cause of 'brown cloud' is, BECAUSE THAT AINT SEEN IN THE PACIFIC ISLANDS WHERE THEY DO SEE THAT SOOT INSIDE MONITORS.

a

cloud"?

I can guarantee you that you'll still get it on a Pacific Island. Been there, seen that. :-)

Ken

Not that heavy pollution smog being discussed you dont.

Not that heavy pollution smog being discussed you didnt.

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 09:47:37 +1000, "Rod Speed" Gave us:

You are the only retard that added the word "heavy". The discussion, as I recall, is about that particulate which IS able to stay aloft for vast distances. DOH!

You really haven't a clue! I thought you were a game from an senior-adolescent. The exhaust from diesels contains significant carcinogenic materials. It *will* be regulated severly soon. They are *not* in any way cleaner than modern gasoline engines. The latter has had the bad stuff regulated out of them for

*decades*.

You lie a lot too.

Wow, he didn't use one swear word. Perhaps I'm having an effect!

Dream on, wannabe!

--
  Keith

I talk about air that is colored brown but transparent, transparent enough for you to say, "Yep, no "cloud" at all" and you say it's particles. I am talking about brownish air that does not preferentially reflect blue. Brown tint more than haze, and not preferentially reflecting blue light. And my experience is that rain does dissolve NOx and reduce its presence in the lower atmosphere; that's a major mechanism for getting nitrogen compounds into the soil!

What about that

that you toss at me?

And you have yet to refute my claims of the existence of more transparent brownish air other than to say the brown tint is from particles or that it didn't occur.

Transparent tinted brown air = NO2 Hazy brown air = NO2 plus particles

But soot does exist in the air over the Pacific islands. You point out Ken's claim of sooty monitors there, and he mentions studies that say soot exists in the air there and everywhere. And your

sure mentions "PM2.5 particles containing carbon, like soot from tail pipes", and mentions that PM2.5 particles can float in the atmosphere for days!

I was talking about updrafts that settled slightly downwards after flowing from the top of the cloud. (Updrafts that move outward hrizontally from the cloud top without any subsequent downward motion are usually "anvil cloud".) I was talking about big puffs of transparent brownish air that I have seen to the sides of the upper portions of some thunderstorm clouds.

dioxide"!

web.

haze.

in the

containing

reducing

The fourth para still says NO2 is what causes the color! Do you not comprehend that?

You snip out my mention of only small fractional percentage of the carbon remaining uncombusted not doing much damage to fuel economy. Heck, they sure tolerate some carbon monoxide coming out the engine! Carbon monoxide has even been used as a major component of some fuel gases in the past!

In addition, there have gotta be plenty of engines somewhere between "badly setup" and "maximum possible combustion efficiency". And surely plenty of engines run richer than the ideal for maximum combustion efficiency to get more power from a given size engine!

How does that deny the fourth paragraph saying that nitrogen dioxide gives the cloud its color? You have failed to refute nitrogen dioxide being able to cause a brownish color in city-sized pieces of atmosphere!

No, inversion effect is usually caused by the lowest portion of the atmosphere being cooled by ground that cooled overnight by radiating into space. Sometimes also by warmer air at higher altitudes coming in from aloft. And in high pressure areas where air is sinking, a stable air can be exaggerated into an inversion. But mostly the lowest few thousand feet cool overnight, and the lowest few hundred feet cool a lot overnight. And a couple hours of sunlight can cause convection within a layer of air that is below an inversion. Wind causes turbulence that can mix air throughout all altitudes within a couple thousand feet of ground. So, depending on time of day, smoke can rise a few hundred to a few thousand feet whether it has no heat to support it at all or has a 6-alarm fire under it.

You said the brown clouds had to be particles other than diesel engine soot in opposition to my claim that soot from diesel engines (and not excluding other sources) can be what turns up inside monitors!

You claimed that brown clouds were brown from particles instead of nitrogen dioxide. Most of the web sites you say support such a claim, to the extent they mention what the particles are made of, say that carbon particles are a significant factor.

sure seems to support a notion that I have seen in newspapers over the years that some soot output from diesel engines is common to outright normal. I am sure I can find more if you force me to do a web search taking more than the 20 seconds that I spent to find that one.

Doesn't have to say "Pacific islands". It does say the stuff stays in the air for days. Does that not indicate it can float in from populated/industrial areas thousands of miles away? And that Ken that you liked to cite says that the air in the Pacific islands does contain soot (and cited studies, indicating jet engines as another source) and he sure thinks that's probably where the monitor black dust comes from!

sure seems to say that it's normal for diesel engines to produce soot, and discusses extra measures (other than a leaner mixture) to reduce soot output.

mentions soot from tailpipes as a major component of PM2.5 and says the stuff can stay in the air for days.

That page does give "soot from tailpipes" as a prime example of PM2.5! Soot that fine is still soot and is still black when precipitated into a visible mass!

says much of it is soot from tailpipes (along with the brown color of "brown cloud" coming from NO2).

says fine soot stays in the air for days, and that is long enough for it to travel thousands of miles.

Soot of PM2.5 size is in the air according to

and can surely travel just as far as non-soot dust!

Your favored

says much of it is!

NO2 gets diluted to invisible concentrations before traveling that far, and particles much larger than PM2.5 (PM10 is a major haze component) can mostly fall out before traveling that far, and PM2.5 gets diluted to a small fraction of its concentration in urban areas, but there is still soot in the air there as Ken points out! Or do you make some claim that monitors in the Pacific islands accumulate black sooty dust *as quickly* as they do in Philadelphia?

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 03:25:04 +0000 (UTC), snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) Gave us:

Major snip, something you guys should learn to do.

Look friggin' brown to me. Have "Dipstick "Slow" Speed" take a gander at that one. Even looks miles thick.

Will that idiot ever give up his bullshit position?