Re: What's that black dust in monitors?

DarkMatter · Sep 28, 2003

I guess the reason is the exhaust is at the back.

If the exhaust were to be in the middle of the steering wheel, I guess
cars would be much cleaner.

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

Richard Henry · Sep 28, 2003

Keith R. Williams said:
From what I've read recently, this stuff is far worse than what
is expelled by a typical gasoline engine, yet the EPA thinks it's
peachy. Tighter regulations on diesel engines is coming.

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

DimBulb doesn't drive. ...too stoopid to pass the test. He
chooses to pollute the Usenet instead.

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."

DarkMatter · Sep 28, 2003

From what I've read recently, this stuff is far worse than what
is expelled by a typical gasoline engine, yet the EPA thinks it's
peachy. Tighter regulations on diesel engines is coming.

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

DimBulb doesn't drive.

Yes, I do.

...too stoopid to pass the test.

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

He
chooses to pollute the Usenet instead.

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

DarkMatter · Sep 28, 2003

It's a pun, pal.

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

Don Klipstein · Sep 28, 2003

I meant a layer of air 4 miles thick
doesnt 'flow out of some thunderstorms'

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

Still aint brown at 1PPM, even thru 4 miles of it!

Bullshit. You dont ever get 'just two NO2 molecules
stuck together more than being a different compound)'

Fantasyland chemistry.

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:

http://www.customsensorsolutions.com/trickgas.htm

Particles of many kinds, actually. Doesnt have to be carbon.

Its that that produces the spectacular red sunsets with major fires.

Its wrong. Basic physics. Steve clearly aint gotta clue and his
'credentials' are complete duds as far as physics is concerned.

Thats the same one.

Nope, just one actually. And plenty of pig ignorant shit turns up on the web.

We'll see.

The first para of that says

Extremely small particles are the principal cause of the brown cloud.
These tiny particles, too small to be seen without a microscope, are
measured in microns, with one micron equal to about one-seventieth
(1/70) of the diameter of a human hair. Particulate matter less than
2.5 microns, often referred to as PM2.5, is a significant cause of haze.
Each particle, about the size of a single grain of flour, can float in the
atmosphere for days, behaving much like a gas. Over half of the
PM2.5 in Phoenix is caused by the burning of gasoline and diesel fuel
in vehicles (sometimes referred to as on-road mobile sources) and in
off-road mobile sources, such as construction equipment like loaders
and bulldozers, locomotives, lawn mowers, leaf blowers, and other
devices that emit air pollution as they move1. PM2.5 particles containing
carbon, like soot from tail pipes, are particularly effective in reducing
visibility, because they both scatter and absorb light.

Which is exactly what I said, using a lot more words.

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!

3. Is it a brown cloud day? A brown cloud appears to envelop
the scene but quickly thins out at higher elevations.

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

the particle and black carbon levels -- they are usually high.
Ozone will be low and relative humidity may vary.

Doesnt say a damned thing about NOx
being the cause of a visible brown haze.

Try again.

http://www.webref.org/chemistry/n/nitrogen_dioxide.htm

Says nitrogen dioxide absorbs visible light and causes the brown cloud

http://www.webref.org/chemistry/n/nitrogen_dioxide.htm

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

http://www.phoenixvis.net/instrumentation.html

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

http://www.phoenixvis.net/instrumentation.html

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

http://www.shsu.edu/~chemistry/Glossary/lmn.html

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

Nope, you just havent got a clue about the basics.
Those dont rise like say smoke from a fire does.

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

Not far. THATS what matters.

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!

Looks like you aint gotta clue about what's being
discussed, whether that stuff rises that much.

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?

A properly setup diesel engine does just that. Its only the badly
setup trucks that generate high levels of the jet black soot you
see inside monitors adjacent to the FBT, and 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.

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!

What was being discussed was how many diesel trucks produce
much JET BLACK SOOT. You claimed that that somehow ends
up in monitors. 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.

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

Got SFA to do with whether the jet black soot you can see with
badly setup diesel engines is what ends up inside monitors.

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"?

Nope. It doesnt produce JET BLACK SOOT normally
either unless you completely stuff up the gas to air mixture.

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.

And that doesnt happen enough for it to be the
source of the jet black soot we see inside monitors.

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 ([email protected])

Rod Speed · Sep 28, 2003

Don Klipstein said:
Rod Speed wrote

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.

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

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

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

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'

They coexist in a ratio that varies with pressure,

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

and nitrogen tetroxide is referred to as a dimer of nitrogen dioxide.

Utterly mangled all over again.

One of the hits that says dimer:

http://www.customsensorsolutions.com/trickgas.htm

Try a real science site.

But it does say that nitrogen dioxide is also
present and gives that color to the cloud!

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.

And also mentions PM2.5 carbon!
Fine carbon particles do exist in the air!

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.

I have been through and over brown clouds in airplanes.

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

It is not unusual for them to be only a few thousand feet thick.

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.

Says nitrogen dioxide absorbs visible light and causes the brown cloud

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 http://www.phoenixvis.net/causes.html

http://www.webref.org/chemistry/n/nitrogen_dioxide.htm

Same one again.

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

See above.

http://www.phoenixvis.net/instrumentation.html

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

Pity about what http://www.phoenixvis.net/causes.html says
and even you must be able to grasp that its the SAME SITE.

http://www.phoenixvis.net/instrumentation.html

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

Pity the other bit of the SAME SITE says something
completely different. http://www.phoenixvis.net/causes.html

http://www.shsu.edu/~chemistry/Glossary/lmn.html

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

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

Pity about http://www.phoenixvis.net/causes.html
which does spell out the detail much
more and is in fact scientifically correct.

Sure as hell does,

Nope, fraid not.

I see it lots of times!

Getting completely silly now.

Tell me why and how you think fine soot
does not rise the way other fine dust does,

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.

especially given web pages giving a cause of
"brown cloud"'s color other than or in addition
to nitrogen dioxide usually being carbon particles!

Even you must have noticed that brown aint jet black.

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!

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

Where do you propose such carbon particles come from?

Most combustion of carbon based fuel.

Diesel engines?

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

Buildings with oil heat?

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.

Bad diesels make large amounts of coarser
soot particles, not-so-bad ones make less
and finer soot but they still make fine soot

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.

and plenty of them are doing that!

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.

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

Pacific islands, as Ken pointed out.

I have been saying not-so-out-of-tune diesel engines produce finer soot,

You're wrong.

as opposed to bad ones producing soot coarse enough to visibly fall out!

Or do you propose another source of carbom PM2.5 particles,

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

which is a primary alternative candidate
to nitrogen dioxide for the "brown cloud"?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

Don Klipstein · Sep 28, 2003

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

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 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.

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?

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

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

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.

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

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!

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.

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

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 http://www.phoenixvis.net/causes.html

Same one again.

See above.

Pity about what http://www.phoenixvis.net/causes.html 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. http://www.phoenixvis.net/causes.html

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

Pity about http://www.phoenixvis.net/causes.html
which does spell out the detail much
more and is in fact scientifically correct.

In the fourth paragrph or so, that page says:

"Nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide gases from burning of fossil fuels
also contribute to the brown cloud. Nitrogen dioxide gas is brown, giving
that color to the haze."

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.

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.

Even you must have noticed that brown aint jet black.

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?

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

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

Most combustion of carbon based fuel.

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

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.

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

And your favored http://www.phoenixvis.net/causes.html says that
offending particles stay in the air for days!

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.

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:

Pity about http://www.phoenixvis.net/causes.html
which does spell out the detail much
more and is in fact scientifically correct.

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.

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.

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?

Pacific islands, as Ken pointed out.

You're wrong.

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

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

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.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

Glen Walpert · Sep 28, 2003

Or do you propose another source of carbom PM2.5 particles, which is a
primary alternative candidate to nitrogen dioxide for the "brown cloud"?

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

Fred Abse · Sep 28, 2003

nitrogen tetroxide
is referred to as a dimer of nitrogen dioxide.

Does that mean you get ten to the buck?

Sorry, I just couldn't resist it!

DarkMatter · Sep 28, 2003

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.

Finally, someone makes a correct observation.

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

DarkMatter · Sep 28, 2003

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.

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.

Rod Speed · Sep 28, 2003

Glen Walpert said:
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.

Or live on a pacific island.

Rod Speed · Sep 28, 2003

Don Klipstein said:
Rod Speed wrote

So when brownish air looks like the "usual brown cloud"

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

but is less opaque than usual

More than the usual haze effect outside big citys.

but has the nitrogen dioxide brown color,

Nope, much ligher than that.

you are going to say it's not brown cloud

Yep, no 'cloud' at all.

and therefore nitrogen dioxide does not cause visible air pollution?

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.

And how does that disprove either sort of
brownish air being tinted by nitrogen dioxide,

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.

and how does that disprove presence
of fine soot particles in the air?

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 **** all soot in the air at all, most obviously with
pacific islands, and so that cant be where its coming from.

Basic logic.

I did claim even less can make visible air coloration,

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

and thunderstorms are easily 4 miles wide.

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.

Look further down than the first paragraph then!

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

If you still say that this document does not also say
that nitrogen dioxide gives "brown cloud" its color

The first para clearly says PARTICLES ARE THE PRINCIPAL CAUSE

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

than I will call you a liar!

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.

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

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.

In the fourth paragrph or so, that page says:

"Nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide gases from burning
of fossil fuels also contribute to the brown cloud.

Pity para 1 says

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

Nitrogen dioxide gas is brown, giving that color to the haze."

Pity para 1 says

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

When sometimes they are small enough to preferentially scatter blue light?!

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

Besides, when smoke reaches 1,000 feet or a few thousand feet
it's usually mainly for reasons other than heat from the source.

Wrong. Thats why you get the inversion effect.

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?

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.

Or are you now going to claim that carbon is brown?

Corse not.

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

Because properly setup diesel engines dont produce soot.

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

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.

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

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.

And your favored http://www.phoenixvis.net/causes.html
says that offending particles stay in the air for days!

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

Only perfectly ideally,

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

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

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

Basic logic.

Above you say:

That page says over half your favored PM2.5

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

is caused by gasoline and diesel vehicles.

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

Other pages I already cited giving causes of "brown cloud"
color other than nitrogen dioxide say it's carbon particles.

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 .

If dust can come to Florida from the Sahara
Desert enough to affect air transparency,

Even you must have noticed that dust aint soot.

and if PM2.5 stays in the air for days,

And that aint soot either.
8

then how far does a monitor need to be from sources of
airborne carbon particles to disprove the stuff being carbon?

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

Basic logic.

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

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.

Ken Taylor · Sep 28, 2003

Rod Speed said:
Or live on a pacific island.

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

Ken

Rod Speed · Sep 29, 2003

I can guarantee you that you'll still get it on a Pacific Island.

Not that heavy pollution smog being discussed you dont.

Been there, seen that.

Not that heavy pollution smog being discussed you didnt.

DarkMatter · Sep 29, 2003

Not that heavy pollution smog being discussed you dont.

Not that heavy pollution smog being discussed you didnt.

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!

Keith R. Williams · Sep 29, 2003

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

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*.

Yes, I do.

You lie a lot too.

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

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

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

Dream on, wannabe!

Don Klipstein · Sep 29, 2003

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.

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!

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

What about that http://www.phoenixvis.net/causes.html that you toss at
me?

If it was actually due to NOx it would be quite transparent.

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.

It aint, so its clearly due to particles in the air, not NOx.

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

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 **** all soot in the air at all, most obviously with
pacific islands, and so that cant be where its coming from.

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
http://www.phoenixvis.net/causes.html 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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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"

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!

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.

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.

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.

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!

Corse not.

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.

Because properly setup diesel engines dont produce soot.

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/engine/soot.html 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.

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.

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!

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

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/engine/soot.html 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.

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

Basic logic.

http://www.phoenixvis.net/causes.html mentions soot from tailpipes as a
major component of PM2.5 and says the stuff can stay in the air for days.

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.

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!

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.

http://www.phoenixvis.net/causes.html says much of it is soot from
tailpipes (along with the brown color of "brown cloud" coming from NO2).

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 .

http://www.phoenixvis.net/causes.html says fine soot stays in the air
for days, and that is long enough for it to travel thousands of miles.

Even you must have noticed that dust aint soot.

Soot of PM2.5 size is in the air according to
http://www.phoenixvis.net/causes.html and can surely travel just as far as
non-soot dust!

And that aint soot either.
8

Your favored http://www.phoenixvis.net/causes.html says much of it is!

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

Basic logic.

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 ([email protected])

DarkMatter · Sep 29, 2003

Major snip, something you guys should learn to do.

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?

http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~agent006/smog.html

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?

Rod Speed · Sep 29, 2003

Don Klipstein said:
Rod Speed wrote

I talk about air that is colored brown but transparent,
transparent enough for you to say, "Yep, no "cloud" at all"

You didnt, you waffled on about 'brown clouds', which just happen
to be completely and utterly irrelevant to what was being discussed,
where that jet black soot inside monitors comes from.

Air that is colored brown but transparent, in spades.

And you clearly originally said 'fairly transparent' and you
have now attempted to slither off to just 'transparent'

Even you should be able to grasp that that cant possibly
the be source of the jet black soot seen inside monitors.

and you say it's particles.

Crap. I said that the brown haze I WAS TALKING ABOUT is
particles and http://www.phoenixvis.net/causes.html clearly
says that particles are the 'principal' cause of 'brown clouds'

I am talking about brownish air that does not preferentially reflect blue.

Pity its completely and utterly irrelevant to what was being discussed,
WHERE THE JET BLACK SOOT SEEN IN MONITORS COMES FROM.

Brown tint more than haze, and not preferentially reflecting blue light.

Pity its completely and utterly irrelevant to what was being discussed,
WHERE THE JET BLACK SOOT SEEN IN MONITORS COMES FROM.

What about that http://www.phoenixvis.net/causes.html that you toss at me?

It clearly says that the 'principal' cause of 'brown cloud' is particles.

And you have yet to refute my claims of the
existence of more transparent brownish air

Which just happens to be completely and utterly irrelevant
to what was being discussed, WHERE THE JET BLACK
SOOT SEEN IN MONITORS COMES FROM.

other than to say the brown tint is from particles

It clearly is with THE HAZE WAS TALKING ABOUT.

or that it didn't occur.

Transparent tinted brown air = NO2

Wrong. And you initially said 'fairly transparent' anyway.

Hazy brown air = NO2 plus particles

The brown is just the particles.

And its all completely and utterly irrelevant to what
was being discussed, WHERE THE JET BLACK
SOOT SEEN IN MONITORS COMES FROM.

But soot does exist in the air over the Pacific islands.

Bullshit. And clearly at nothing like the levels seen
in major citys, so you should see significantly less
of that jet black soot inside monitors used on
pacific islands than in major citys, and you dont.

Basic logic.

Your terminally silly 'soot magnet' theory has blown up in your
face and covered you with black stuff very spectacularly indeed.

You point out Ken's claim of sooty monitors
there, and he mentions studies that say soot
exists in the air there and everywhere.

At nothing like the levels seen in major polluted citys.

And your http://www.phoenixvis.net/causes.html sure mentions
"PM2.5 particles containing carbon, like soot from tail pipes",

Pity the pacific islands dont even get those
'brown clouds' that it is clearly discussing.

and mentions that PM2.5 particles
can float in the atmosphere for days!

Pity the pacific islands dont even get those
'brown clouds' that it is clearly discussing.

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.

Pity the NOx levels seen in thunderstorm clouds aint even visible.

The fourth para still says NO2 is what causes the color!

Pity about the first para.

Do you not comprehend that?

Pity about the first para.

You snip out my mention of only small fractional percentage of the
carbon remaining uncombusted not doing much damage to fuel economy.

I didnt snip it out, it was quoted where it appeared, much further down.

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!

All completely and utterly irrelevant to where
the jet black soot seen inside monitors even on
pacific islands with **** all diesel engines in use.

Basic logic.

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!

All completely and utterly irrelevant to where
the jet black soot seen inside monitors even on
pacific islands with **** all diesel engines in use.

Basic logic.

Reams of your completely irrelevant crap
about 'brown clouds' flushed where it belongs.

Doesnt have a damned thing to do with what was
being discussed, WHERE THE JET BLACK SOOT
FOUND INSIDE MONITORS IS COMING FROM.

Yep.

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.

I didnt even comment on what CAUSES an inversion,
I was just saying that its the inversion that inversion
effect that produces smoke reaching only that level.

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.

Have fun explaining why it rises.

You said the brown clouds had to be particles other than diesel engine soot

Lie. I JUST said that diesel soot can only be a tiny part of
the total number of particles that produce a 'brown cloud'

in opposition to my claim that soot from diesel engines (and not
excluding other sources) can be what turns up inside monitors!

Pity it does even on pacific islands with **** all diesel engines.

Basic logic.

Reams more completely irrelevant crap that has no relevance
what so ever to where the jet black soot found in monitors on
pacific islands with **** all diesel engines, flushed where it belongs.

Doesn't have to say "Pacific islands". It
does say the stuff stays in the air for days.

Where ITS CLEAR VISIBLE AS BROWN CLOUD.

It obviously aint with pacific islands that
dont even get the brown cloud effect.

Does that not indicate it can float in from populated/
industrial areas thousands of miles away?

Nope, because it clearly isnt a visible BROWN CLOUD there.

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)

He didnt cite a single study and the OTHER individual that did,
didnt say a damned thing about the levels seen with pacific islands.

AND we just happen to have an atmospheric monitoring
station in Tasmania, whose primary role is to monitor
the levels of greenhouse gases AND THEY DONT
FIND SIGNIFICANT LEVELS IN THE AIR THERE.

So your terminally silly 'soot magnet' theory has blown up in your
face and covered you with black stuff very spectacularly indeed.

and he sure thinks that's probably where the monitor black dust comes from!

Doesnt matter a damn what he may or may not 'think'

What matters is that the measured soot levels are **** all
compared with what is seen in major polluted industrial citys
and since the same effect with jet black soot seen inside
monitors happens in both, it cant be your terminally
silly 'soot magnet' theory that explains that.

Basic logic.

Reams of irrelevant crap about diesel engines flushed where it belongs.

http://www.phoenixvis.net/causes.html mentions soot from tailpipes as a
major component of PM2.5 and says the stuff can stay in the air for days.