Airliner ISA

[Sev Clarke]

Hi Oswald,

Have you considered using ordinary passenger jets to disseminate ISAs? Should powdered ferric chloride in a heavy oil matrix be injected into the jet’s hot exhaust via ceramic nozzles, see 

 AI Overview

Jet engine exhaust temperatures vary significantly by engine type and power, typically ranging from 600-1000°C (1100-1800°F) for normal operation in common airliners, but reaching up to 1500°C (2700°F) or more in fighter jets, especially with afterburners, which can push temperatures to 2000°C (3600°F) or higher, due to the addition of fuel and air for maximum thrust.

the fuel would burn and the salt would probably be sublimated into gas which then coalesced into nanoparticulates suitable for photocatalytically-oxidising methane for some days or weeks before each formed cloud and were later rained out. 

This might save AMR much development time and cost.

Regards,

Sev

[Oeste]

Hi Sev

It would be a rather dangerous undertaking to spray ferric chloride by passenger jets or other flying vehicles flying short below or short above the tropopause because the ferric chloride emission would change to chloride atoms within this altitude full of UV-A photons. These chloride atoms are ozone depletion catalysts and would damage or destroy the stratospheric ozone layer. Let the jets fly below an altitude of 4 km best above a shiny cloud layer reflection with an increased amount of UV photons. That will do no harm if you avoid upwind regions of thunderstorm clouds.

The so called hail flyers act below thunderstorm clouds. They want to prevent from hail stone damages. This is known from southern Germany and other places in the world. It should be forbidden because they inject the halogenide salt silver iodide into the cloud base. The strong upwinds in the thunder storm cloud transport the iodide particles to their tops in tropopause altitudes or higher. Jodine atoms are even a stronger ozone depletion catalyst and will much easyer burn holes into the ozone layer where it comes into use. 

But imagine if every jet plane would become provided with ferric chloride injections this would not only burn local holes into the ozone layer: it would just destroy the northern hemispheres ozone layer just above the area where most of the world population lives. Bad result of such measure: skin cancer increase. Good result of such measure: a substantial increase of the atmospheric oxidation capacity with the result of decreased lifetimes of the oxidation sensitive greenhouse gases and particles ethane, VOCs, pollen, black soot, smoke aerosols, carbon monoxide, tropospheric ozone. Snow and ice surface reflectivities would increase. According to the disappearance of organic CCN particles from the atmosphere cloud cover would decrease.......

Franz  

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/531E2F00-34FE-407A-882E-6525911AA4CA%40icloud.com.

[Sev Clarke]

Hi Franz,

You make some good points. Nor would it be good to have the ISA releases at lower jet levels near to take-off and landing, as these tend to be near populated areas. Perhaps balloons or blimps tethered mainly in remote regions at altitudes less than 4km might be better vectors, with the ISA/fuel mix being pumped up to the balloon by PV/wind/battery power and then sprayed out in a fine mix before ignition. Electric-powered pumps might need to be placed at intervals up the pumpline. The pumping process should cease when cloud of certain types, mist or rain were forecast there. Each balloon might carry weather sensors and comms to help defray the expense and improve forecasting. Arrays of such balloons might be placed in and around where methane emissions were expected, such as rice paddies, mines, landfills, termite and fracking areas, pipelines, other industry sources, melting permafrost, feedlots and swamps. Anchored buoys might be used to tether vector balloons at sea.

I am unsure what measures might be required to offset lightning risk and that to fliers.

Methane-sensing satellites should be able to map and measure the methane reduction achieved, and maybe the PACE satellites would be able to measure some of the other atmospheric pollutants that the ISA treatment had reduced.

Sev

On 23 Jan 2026, at 8:22 pm, Oeste <oe...@gm-ingenieurbuero.com> wrote:

Hi Sev

It would be a rather dangerous undertaking to spray ferric chloride by passenger jets or other flying vehicles flying short below or short above the tropopause because the ferric chloride emission would change to chloride atoms within this altitude full of UV-A photons. These chloride atoms are ozone depletion catalysts and would damage or destroy the stratospheric ozone layer. Let the jets fly below an altitude of 4 km best above a shiny cloud layer reflection with an increased amount of UV photons. That will do no harm if you avoid upwind regions of thunderstorm clouds.

The so called hail flyers act below thunderstorm clouds. They want to prevent from hail stone damages. This is known from southern Germany and other places in the world. It should be forbidden because they inject the halogenide salt silver iodide into the cloud base. The strong upwinds in the thunder storm cloud transport the iodide particles to their tops in tropopause altitudes or higher. Jodine atoms are even a stronger ozone depletion catalyst and will much easyer burn holes into the ozone layer where it comes into use. 

But imagine if every jet plane would become provided with ferric chloride injections this would not only burn local holes into the ozone layer: it would just destroy the northern hemispheres ozone layer just above the area where most of the world population lives. Bad result of such measure: skin cancer increase. Good result of such measure: a substantial increase of the atmospheric oxidation capacity with the result of decreased lifetimes of the oxidation sensitive greenhouse gases and particles ethane, VOCs, pollen, black soot, smoke aerosols, carbon monoxide, tropospheric ozone. Snow and ice surface reflectivities would increase. According to the disappearance of organic CCN particles from the atmosphere cloud cover would decrease.......

Franz  

Am 23.01.2026 um 01:11 schrieb 'Sev Clarke' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC):

Hi Oswald,

Have you considered using ordinary passenger jets to disseminate ISAs? Should powdered ferric chloride in a heavy oil matrix be injected into the jet’s hot exhaust via ceramic nozzles, see 

 AI Overview

Jet engine exhaust temperatures vary significantly by engine type and power, typically ranging from 600-1000°C (1100-1800°F) for normal operation in common airliners, but reaching up to 1500°C (2700°F) or more in fighter jets, especially with afterburners, which can push temperatures to 2000°C (3600°F) or higher, due to the addition of fuel and air for maximum thrust.

the fuel would burn and the salt would probably be sublimated into gas which then coalesced into nanoparticulates suitable for photocatalytically-oxidising methane for some days or weeks before each formed cloud and were later rained out. 

This might save AMR much development time and cost.

Regards,

Sev

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/531E2F00-34FE-407A-882E-6525911AA4CA%40icloud.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/533cbbf3-8530-49ad-bd62-5612d3b8ad36%40gm-ingenieurbuero.com.

[oswald....@hispeed.ch]

Hello Sev,

 

adding to Franz…

 

We do not think that dual use ideas are worth considering. Dual use is every cooling application which is added to an existing technology. E.g. passenger planes, cargo ships etc.

 

Why not dual use?

 

Adding particles to the atmosphere is a highly challenging business on many levels. Henceforth it should be minimized, in other words: Get as much cooling as possible out of as little material as possible. This optimization is possible only if you can decide the time and location of the material and have full control over the dispersion technology. Any kind of dual use would force you to compromise, which means you need more material. Since material cost is around 50% of all cost, that’s economically useless. But more important than cost considerations are environmental restrictions, which will shurely be applied by whoever will regulate this business.

 

AMR does not consider any dual use concepts.

 

Regards

 

Oswald Petersen

Author of „GeoRestoration – Cool the Climate with Natural Technology“

Atmospheric Methane Removal AG

Lärchenstr. 5

CH-8280 Kreuzlingen

Tel: +41-71-6887514

Mob: +49-177-2734245

https://amr.earth

https://georestoration.earth

https://cool-planet.earth

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/533cbbf3-8530-49ad-bd62-5612d3b8ad36%40gm-ingenieurbuero.com.

[Sev Clarke]

Hi Oswald,

An aversion to dual use ideas sounds as if you are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Surely if an add-on to an existing use helps the climate it should be evaluated on its own net benefits. I suspect that you are referring to my earlier idea that was to use passenger jet planes to disseminate ISA by vaporising ferric chloride in their exhausts. Franz has already shown that that would not be a good idea as it would release the nanoparticles at a height that would generate substantial other environmental harm, whatever its cooling benefits would be. However, using ISA nanoparticulate release from low altitude balloons would not generate that harm, would not be dual use, and would provide excellent control. 

Regarding environmental restrictions, once the method had been validated and optimised, I suggest that the regulatory bodies would insist that businesses deploy such methods where they were the cause of the methane emissions.

Sev 

 AI Overview

<image001.jpg>

Jet engine exhaust temperatures vary significantly by engine type and power, typically ranging from 600-1000°C (1100-1800°F) for normal operation in common airliners, but reaching up to 1500°C (2700°F) or more in fighter jets, especially with afterburners, which can push temperatures to 2000°C (3600°F) or higher, due to the addition of fuel and air for maximum thrust.

the fuel would burn and the salt would probably be sublimated into gas which then coalesced into nanoparticulates suitable for photocatalytically-oxidising methane for some days or weeks before each formed cloud and were later rained out. 

This might save AMR much development time and cost.

Regards,

Sev

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/531E2F00-34FE-407A-882E-6525911AA4CA%40icloud.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/533cbbf3-8530-49ad-bd62-5612d3b8ad36%40gm-ingenieurbuero.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/001b01dc8c78%2402824c10%240786e430%24%40hispeed.ch.

[Oeste]

Hi Oswald and Sev,

Sev is right: according to our new cloud brightening and methane depletion model also we will also use the marine traffic similar just as Sev wants to do with the micro bubble system. As long as the use of such measures produces economic advantage for the ship owners such climate and environment restoring means will need no fight for sponsering.

Franz

[oswald....@hispeed.ch]

Hello Franz, Sev,

 

it is a current trend to work with certain companies which are interested in reaching “Net-Zero”. That’s a plausible and applaudable measure. However these measures do not scale to climate cooling, they are only meant to remove as much CO2 as the companies emit. In case of cloud brightening it is an additional problem that at this stage no MRV mechanism exists for such measures. Still: Good work!

 

AMR is interested in cooling the climate. Global Cooling is the buzzword. This is not possible with dual use. Let me explain why?

 

Any dual use technology can be separated into the two measures. Let’s work with an example of a container ship travelling the Santiago – Shanghai route. Due to the ships schedule it travels 3 weeks one way. We install Franz cloudmaker (or Sevs bubblemachine) on this ship and off we go. So we have our dual-use.

 

We could of course have another containership following the first one and doing the same, however with no freight on board. The 2^nd ship is a single-use climate cooler. With that one we can change the route and the schedule, so we get more cooling but of course we loose the revenue from transporting containers. We might as well use a smaller boat and make that boat travel in the best locations available, which would probably increase the efficiency of the process by one or two orders of magnitude. But then you may find that in fact planes do an even better job …  All in all you will find that it is always more efficient to separate both processes.

 

But… the companies who want to reach Net-Zero want to do that with their own tech. The efficiency of these measures is deplorable, because the self-interest of these companies destroys that efficiency.

 

Balloons are not dual-use, but balloons do not fulfil the requirements. Planes do. We plan to disperse 6 tons per trip. You cannot do that with a balloon, since it remains local, and also it just can’t carry the load.

 

Regards

 

Oswald Petersen

Author of „GeoRestoration – Cool the Climate with Natural Technology“

Atmospheric Methane Removal AG

Lärchenstr. 5

CH-8280 Kreuzlingen

Tel: +41-71-6887514

Mob: +49-177-2734245

https://amr.earth

https://georestoration.earth

https://cool-planet.earth

 

[Sev Clarke]

Hi Oswald,

See my responses in bold below.

Cheers,

Sev

On 24 Jan 2026, at 9:23 pm, <oswald....@hispeed.ch> <oswald....@hispeed.ch> wrote:

Hello Franz, Sev,

 

it is a current trend to work with certain companies which are interested in reaching “Net-Zero”. That’s a plausible and applaudable measure. However these measures do not scale to climate cooling, they are only meant to remove as much CO2 as the companies emit. In case of cloud brightening it is an additional problem that at this stage no MRV mechanism exists for such measures. Still: Good work!

 

AMR is interested in cooling the climate. Global Cooling is the buzzword. This is not possible with dual use. Let me explain why?

 

Any dual use technology can be separated into the two measures. Let’s work with an example of a container ship travelling the Santiago – Shanghai route. Due to the ships schedule it travels 3 weeks one way. We install Franz cloudmaker (or Sevs bubblemachine) on this ship and off we go. So we have our dual-use. My anchored, wind turbine powered nanobubble-generating toruses use freely available surface ocean currents and gyres for dispersal over hundreds or thousands of kilometres. The main multiple use is provided by the Buoyant Flakes which provide nanobubble-stabilising surfactants, nutriated biomass (including fish), carbon sequestration, oxygenation, de-acidification, and albedo. 

 

We could of course have another containership following the first one and doing the same, however with no freight on board. The 2^nd ship is a single-use climate cooler. With that one we can change the route and the schedule, so we get more cooling but of course we loose the revenue from transporting containers. We might as well use a smaller boat and make that boat travel in the best locations available, which would probably increase the efficiency of the process by one or two orders of magnitude. But then you may find that in fact planes do an even better job …  All in all you will find that it is always more efficient to separate both processes. 

 

But… the companies who want to reach Net-Zero want to do that with their own tech. The efficiency of these measures is deplorable, because the self-interest of these companies destroys that efficiency. 

 

Balloons are not dual-use, but balloons do not fulfil the requirements. Planes do. We plan to disperse 6 tons per trip. You cannot do that with a balloon, since it remains local, and also it just can’t carry the load. Au contraire, using an ordinary, corrugated plastic tank on the ground or in water for material storage, small, electrically-powered pumps, a strong, hollow & flexible tether made from, say, Zylon, a passive balloon or blimp, spray nozzles and igniters could easily volatilise and disperse 6 tons per week of ferric chloride powder in a combustible oil (possibly made renewably from depolymerised waste biomass). Free, prevailing winds and turbulence would see to the dispersal. No crewed vessels are required, except for periodic maintenance and resupply.