72
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 12:01 am
@Ionus,
Oh. I didn't pick up on that. Still, abrasion is only part of the problem, from what I've heard. It seems that the very fine particles from this volcano are able to sinter themselves to the turbine buckets. I presume the environment is the same whether pure turbo jet or fan jet, and that the same situation occures in both engine types.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 02:00 am
@roger,
Quote:
It seems that the very fine particles from this volcano are able to sinter themselves to the turbine buckets.
Thats exactly what I would have assumed so why could turbo prop fly but turbo fan are grounded ? As I said before, if they had of distinguished between turbo prop/shaft/fan and recip engine prop, it would have made more sense. As for turbo jet aircraft, all the air goes through the engine rather then a large amount being bypassed like with turbo fan/prop, and turbo shaft may be in the same position as turbo jet depending on if they have large particle filters, the vast majority of civilian helicopters do not. All this means what did they take into account to distinguish that LIGHT aircraft could fly, but HEAVY aircraft couldnt ? It is nonsensical to me at least.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 02:11 am
@Ionus,
Matter of altitude, I suppose. Not that I know.

Whirlyflopters, regardless of powerplant, are low altitude affairs. Not sure exactly what is included in "light aircraft", but the recips are definately below the critical level of the dust cloud. There are some light turboprops that are properly presurized, but I think even they are designed for lower altitudes than airliners.

That's my guess. What's yours?
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 02:53 am
@roger,
Quote:
the recips are definately below the critical level of the dust cloud.
Agreed. Unless they are vintage war machines...were they allowed to fly ?
Quote:
There are some light turboprops that are properly presurized, but I think even they are designed for lower altitudes than airliners.
Agreed. This is usually for the efficiency of the engine.
Quote:
That's my guess. What's yours?
Oh I am not guessing. Some posts back whilst the ban was in place I suggested that large aircraft could fly if they stayed below 10,000ft. I dont know if the restriction for light aircraft was for them to remain below flight level 100, but many light aircraft (turbo prop) are oxygen equipped and pressurised whereas recip engine prop are usually not. I couldnt comment further without reading the official release saying what could fly or couldnt fly. I just wanted to make the point that what I know of, the limited ban is very puzzling and makes no sense. It didnt distinguish the real problem as being dust abrasing windscreens, airframe and compressors and melting on turbines but rather came up with a nonsensical difference between light and heavy aircraft. Very puzzling....
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 02:33 pm
As of December 20, 2007, more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
381
Geologist Brian R. Pratt, a professor in the Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada, is an award-winning sedimentologist and paleontologist who specializes in earth's environmental history in Deep Time. Pratt is also a skeptic of climate change fears. "I have reviewed the observational evidence of climate change which leads me to interpret climate fluctuations and weather patterns as natural phenomena not caused by anthropogenic activities," Pratt told EPW on November 27, 2007. "I am very concerned that Earth's physical, chemical and biological processes are being widely misunderstood by the public, by politicians and even by many scientists. Consequently, ‘stopping' global warming has been adopted as a mission by people with the power to cause severe economic harm and divert efforts away from more critical measures involving conservation, population growth, poverty and so forth," he wrote. (LINK)

0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 02:44 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus, I've piloted both jet and propeller driven aircraft. I have been trained in both to not fly near--either side, in front, behind, above, or below--clouds of volcanic ash. Actual engine failures have been enountered when that training has been ignored. The problem is that both cylinder and turbin driven engines have failed in such cases. Also, cabin window visibility continues to be severely limited after having passed through such clouds.
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 09:35 pm
@ican711nm,
The only reason I made the distinction between piston engine and turbo engines is a desperate attempt to understand their logic. If we can not fathom why they distinguished between light aircraft and commercial liners, if it is not based on engine type....what possible reason is left ?
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 12:48 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus, probably they do not have a rational reason for distinguishing the difference in consequences "between light aircraft and commercial liners" flying through volcanic ash. But your try to get their reason was a good try!
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 02:03 pm
@ican711nm,
Far as I could figure out engine type was one factor, but with flight level being the main factor - ceiling for props is a whole lot lower. This is the last flight (Moscow to the Italian coastline, plane had to land in Vienna instead) before total shutdown of European airspace - looks like he couldn't make it over the Alps without getting into the plume of volcanic ash, or maybe the plume started dropping: http://www.flightradar24.com/about.php
http://www.flightradar24.com/media/ural.jpg
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 02:55 pm
@High Seas,
Jets generally fly no higher than 60,000 feet above sea level. Props generally fly no higher than 30,000. As I recall, the Iceland volcanic ash was mostly located between 15,000 and 45,000 feet.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 05:42 am
@ican711nm,
The Alps are tricky, you get sudden updrafts and downdrafts of several thousand feet a minute - warm air from North Africa meets cold air from Scandinavia over that mountain range. Military flights get real-time satellite downloads but commercial or private aviation only gets radar echoes in real time, showing "precipitation"; could be just plain rain or could be volcanic ash. Even so I saw a report about a Finnish military jet that flew through that ash and suffered severe damage.

Anyway, and back to the topic here: does anyone know if all that ash cloud will have any long-term effects on climate? Previous volcanic eruptions cooled the whole planet - not sure how this latest one compares, though.
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 09:28 am
It may have a significant effect on weather, but not on climate--eruptions just don't last that long. Even Tambora only affected the weather for a couple years, 1816 significantly, much less so the next several years, and no one seems to think this is anywhere near as large. Even Laki in Iceland in the 1780s was bigger.

Here's an interesting take on it, with a bit about plane engines as well:
Quote:
The last time Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull volcano blew, the eruption lasted more than a year, from December 1821 until January 1823, reports Sally Sennert, a geologist at the Smithsonian Institution.

"This seems similar to what's happening now," she says.

The volcano is erupting small, jagged pieces of rocks, minerals and volcanic glass the size of sand and silt into the atmosphere, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. This volcanic ash can even be as small as 1/25,000th of an inch across.

Volcanic ash is formed during explosive volcanic eruptions. Once in the air, the wind can blow these tiny ash particles tens to thousands of miles away from the volcano. Life-threatening and costly damages can occur to aircraft that fly through an eruption cloud, reports the geological survey.

"Silica in the ash gets into the engine and heats up and melts, which causes the engines to stop," says Sennert.

Based on reported damages from ash encounters, the hazard posed to aircraft can extend more than 3,000 miles from an erupting volcano. (Click here for a map of the ash zone over Europe).

Fortunately for the USA, Sennert says the wind direction is such that the ash cloud is traveling east-southeast, toward Europe and away from the USA.

However, as Science Fair noted previously, the Eyjafjallajokull volcano isn't necessarily the main problem. It's Katla, Iceland's noisier neighbor, that's the concern. If lava flowing from Eyjafjallajokull melts the glaciers that hold down the top of Katla, then Katla could blow its top, pumping gigantic amounts of ash into the atmosphere.

The potential eruption of Iceland's volcano Katla could send the world, including the USA, into an extended deep freeze.

"There's no telling how long the eruptions could last," says Sennert about the Eyjafjallajokull volcano."These explosions could go on for some time."



http://www.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/04/iceland-volcano-eruption-could-last-months/1
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 09:34 am
And here's the NASA take on the volcano, with a couple of very cool satellite photos. They say the ash plume is waning already, tho it has the possibility of going for months.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/iceland-volcano-plume.html
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 11:06 am
@High Seas,
Quote:
Anyway, and back to the topic here: does anyone know if all that ash cloud will have any long-term effects on climate? Previous volcanic eruptions cooled the whole planet - not sure how this latest one compares, though.

As an eruption it isn't that large. Whether it will cause cooling seems still a question. Some say the amount ejected isn't enough to have any long term effects
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 05:09 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Some say the amount ejected isn't enough to have any long term effects
It makes one wonder, knowing that climate change has occurred in the past, just how vulnerable our modern economy is... this was just an insignificant little puff on the volcanic scale.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 05:40 pm
@Ionus,
State of Emergency declared in Louisians. 5,000 barrels of crude a day pouring into the Gulf of Mexico and no way of stopping it. Cost not be be included in the pump price.

Makes the coal ship on the Great Barrier Reef look like a pinprick might do to a dartboard.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 11:55 pm
@spendius,
When it first happened I wondered why they didnt set fire to it, but that is what they eventually did. This is where you will see countries fail to co-operate, companies play dodge ball with legalities thrown at them and the greenies indulge in their usual end of the world hysteria.

At no stage will anyone who tut-tuts all this consider driving less or legislation reigning back profits in the shares market.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 07:09 am
One does wonder if ican is going to be quite so loud in his "Drill, baby, drill" mantra again any time soon.
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 07:42 am
@MontereyJack,
You know if you dont like oil you dont HAVE to buy it.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 08:08 am
There are places and ways to get it without such dire consequences. And if we had any sense, considering its inevitable decline, we'd work harder at developing alternatives.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.22 seconds on 02/10/2025 at 08:54:55