h a l f b a k e r yIf you can read this you are not following too closely.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
The plane would be equipped with two chemical tanks whose
contents are blended just before being ejected through
nozzles. Using the same non-toxic ingredients as glowsticks,
these particulates would glow at night, providing an
advertising medium to spectators at fireworks shows, outdoor
rock
concerts, and other nighttime gatherings.
Katherine Stinson
http://www.ctie.mon...ve/stinson_bio.html
She used flares, though. [jutta, Aug 29 2010]
Glow sticks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightstick
Cold light [8th of 7, Aug 29 2010]
Binary chemical weapon
http://en.wikipedia...ary_chemical_weapon
Make it up as you go along .... [8th of 7, Aug 29 2010]
Other uses for this material
Bubbling_20Turn_20Signals
[normzone, Aug 29 2010]
Radithor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radithor
Lovely stuff ... [8th of 7, Sep 16 2010]
[link]
|
| |
this is cool, if it can work! [+] |
|
| |
Just what are the 'non-toxic' ingredients in this glowing stuff people are going to inhale? and would it still glow if aerosolized? |
|
| |
// 'non-toxic' ingredients // |
|
| |
Aaach, who cares ? DO IT ! |
|
| |
//Aaach, who cares ?// Dot's not my department, says ....
[8th_of_7] did you assimilate Werner von Braun recently? I
don't think you've quite digested him yet. |
|
| |
I'd like some experiments to see whether chemiluminescence light enough to stay suspended in the air will be bright enough to be noticed from the ground. |
|
| |
PS Flares are good, too.... |
|
| |
//whether chemiluminescence light enough to stay
suspended in
the air will be bright enough to be noticed from the
ground.// |
|
| |
Dividing the chemiluminescent gloop into fine droplets
shouldn't diminish its visibility. In other words, if you can
see a glowstick, you should equally be able to see the
same amount of material in the form of a mist, as long as
there is the same amount of material along the same
eyeline, if you see what I mean. |
|
| |
The only problem would be if the droplets evaporated
(which could probably be overcome if it were a problem -
add a high concentration of a humectant such as glycerol),
or if the reaction were adversely affected by oxygen
(which it isn't). |
|
| |
Before WW2, Porton Down developed "thickened" HS (mustard 'gas', blistering agents) suitable for aerial spray at both low and high altitude. Winston Churchill was very much in favour of deploying low spray mustard against any German landing and continually pressured the Ministry of Supply for greater production of chemical agents. |
|
| |
The technology is still available, so appropriate gelling agents and dispensing tanks with mixing nozzles for 2-part systems (developed by the US and USSR for fluoroalcohol binary nerve agents) are also Baked. |
|
| |
"Oh, lookit. It says 'Eat Plochman's Mustard' .... oh, God, it burns, it burns!" |
|
| |
Yeah, all that good stuff, yeah .... |
|
| |
And you though Capsaicin was "hot" .. |
|
| |
> Dividing the chemiluminescent gloop into fine droplets shouldn't diminish its visibility. |
|
| |
But consider how light passes through a bottle of water much more readily than through the same amount of water dispersed as a fog. Some sort of refraction and bouncing around happens to the light at the droplet surface that doesn't happen in the interior. So, I think it's possible that the amount of light emitted by a cloud of a luminescent liquid is proportional to its surface, not to its volume. Or maybe the gaps between the droplets are big enough for that not to matter. It might depend on the density of the cloud or the size of the droplets. |
|
| |
This is a beautiful summer night idea. Many +++++'s |
|
| |
Even if it didn't glow, you could use reflective stuff and hit it with a spotlight from the ground. |
|
| |
// it's possible that the amount of light emitted by a cloud
of a luminescent liquid is proportional to its surface, not
to its volume.// |
|
| |
I'm not so sure. Imagine a small spherical volume sitting in
the middle of a glowstick. The light it emits can travel in
any direction, either towards you or away. Maybe one
photon in a million (if you're viewing from a distance)
travels toward your eye and gets seen. |
|
| |
Now explode the glowstick, so that you have fine mist
(but with the same amount of liquid in your line of site).
Consider now one droplet, somewhere in the middle of
this mist. It will give out photons in random directions (as
before), but now each photon will be scattered many
times before it leaves the cloud. However, as it starts out
in a random direction, and is then scattered randomly, it
should still have the same one-in-a-million chance of
eventually travelling toward your eye. |
|
| |
Meh, forget chemiluminesence, just write it in something flammable, and then ignite as soon as the plane is well away. It won't last long, but it should be extremely visible for a few seconds. |
|
| |
[+] MechE, that's a great retrofit. |
|
| |
Hi there wonderer!!! Glad you wondered back. |
|
| |
If you heat the glowstick stuff it shines all the brighter. |
|
| |
Why would anybody bone this? Hope it's not one of
those people who think condensation trails are a
government plot to spray chemicals that make
squirrels jittery or something. [+] to offset that
erroneous bone. |
|
| |
First, show me a nontoxic glowstick. |
|
| |
AFAIK such a thing does not exist. |
|
| |
//First, show me a nontoxic glowstick. // The contents of
glowsticks are not especially toxic. Relax. |
|
| |
Another annonymous sniper bone? What's not to love? They're not talking about spraying radium here. I don't think. |
|
| |