Methane Cloud?

[Martin]

Saw just a real short clip of something on the Disc channel tonight
about how methane clouds affect aircraft. Lower pressure causes the
plane to drop because of reduced lift, and the altimeter to read a
climb because of the pressure change. I think this show may have been
in the context of bermuda triangle stuff. Maybe Im just out of the
loop but I had never heard of this happening (flying into a cloud of
methane I mean). They seemed to have some pretty reputable people
talking about it. Anyone experience this or hear of it?

[BTIZ]

the only way I could figure flying into a methane cloud serious enough to
have any effect on flight.. would be low level over a stock yard pen..

and then I think the effect would be more on the physical condition of the
pilot.. and not the aerodynamic effect of the wings or altitude sensors..

BT

"Martin" > wrote in message
om...
> Saw just a real short clip of something on the Disc channel tonight
> about how methane clouds affect aircraft. Lower pressure causes the
> plane to drop because of reduced lift, and the altimeter to read a
> climb because of the pressure change. I think this show may have been
> in the context of bermuda triangle stuff. Maybe Im just out of the
> loop but I had never heard of this happening (flying into a cloud of
> methane I mean). They seemed to have some pretty reputable people
> talking about it. Anyone experience this or hear of it?

[Jay Beckman]

"Martin" > wrote in message
om...
> Saw just a real short clip of something on the Disc channel tonight
> about how methane clouds affect aircraft. Lower pressure causes the
> plane to drop because of reduced lift, and the altimeter to read a
> climb because of the pressure change. I think this show may have been
> in the context of bermuda triangle stuff. Maybe Im just out of the
> loop but I had never heard of this happening (flying into a cloud of
> methane I mean). They seemed to have some pretty reputable people
> talking about it. Anyone experience this or hear of it?


Martin,

It's a theory that's been "floating" around for some time, but mostly
regarding it's effect on ships.

They've modeled the effect of a methane mega-bubble on bouyancy and have
shown that a large ship would basically drop like a stone if it were to sail
across such a bubble. Hence no SOS, no life boats, no sign of ship or crew.

I'm just guessing, but I'm pretty sure there would have to be a similar
effect on an aircraft due to a decrease in air density?

FWIW...

Jay Beckman
Chandler, AZ

[Teacherjh]

>>
They've modeled the effect of a methane mega-bubble on bouyancy
<<

Whazzat? Methane dissolved in the ocean to the extent that the water's density
goes down enough to sink a ship?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Aardvark]

Teacherjh wrote:
> They've modeled the effect of a methane mega-bubble on bouyancy
> <<
>
> Whazzat? Methane dissolved in the ocean to the extent that the water's density
> goes down enough to sink a ship?
>
> Jose
>
A good read on this at ....
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/afp/20031020/methane.html

[G. Burkhart]

"Martin" > wrote in message
om...
> Saw just a real short clip of something on the Disc channel tonight
> about how methane clouds affect aircraft. Lower pressure causes the
> plane to drop because of reduced lift, and the altimeter to read a
> climb because of the pressure change. I think this show may have been
> in the context of bermuda triangle stuff. Maybe Im just out of the
> loop but I had never heard of this happening (flying into a cloud of
> methane I mean). They seemed to have some pretty reputable people
> talking about it. Anyone experience this or hear of it?

I watched that Discovery episode last week and they went into detail about
the theory that methane gas bubbles could sink ships and tested the theory
in a lab with model ships and air bubbles.

There was also a theory that flying through a methane gas cloud would effect
flight; one that a piston engine would quit if there was 1% methane in the
air and another that a simulator flight into such a cloud would cause
reduced lift because of less dense air and the altimeter would climb rapidly
even though the aircraft was dropping.

http://media.dsc.discovery.com/news/afp/20031020/methane.html

[Pepperoni]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> They've modeled the effect of a methane mega-bubble on bouyancy
> <<
>
> Whazzat? Methane dissolved in the ocean to the extent that the water's
density
> goes down enough to sink a ship?
>
> Jose

Yes, exactly. There are big methane-hydrate deposits off the east coast,
kept stable by the pressure at great depth. There was an oil platform lost
due to a well head blowout that caused the same effect. Lots of theories
about methane-hydrates and lowered sea levels during ice ages>>> release of
methane causes global warming, ending ice age>>> cycle repeats every 11-
20,000 years.

Methane hydrate exists as ice
http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html
http://sepwww.stanford.edu/public/docs/sep96/paper_html/
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20011212methane.html

[Ben Haas]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message news:<d_Bnc.17385$k24.10128@fed1read01>...
> "Martin" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Saw just a real short clip of something on the Disc channel tonight
> > about how methane clouds affect aircraft. Lower pressure causes the
> > plane to drop because of reduced lift, and the altimeter to read a
> > climb because of the pressure change. I think this show may have been
> > in the context of bermuda triangle stuff. Maybe Im just out of the
> > loop but I had never heard of this happening (flying into a cloud of
> > methane I mean). They seemed to have some pretty reputable people
> > talking about it. Anyone experience this or hear of it?
>

The main problem will be the motor will quit running because of the
lack of oxygen. The plane will fall from the skies for sure then.....
It's that gravity thing ya know. <g>
>
> Martin,
>
> It's a theory that's been "floating" around for some time, but mostly
> regarding it's effect on ships.
>
> They've modeled the effect of a methane mega-bubble on bouyancy and have
> shown that a large ship would basically drop like a stone if it were to sail
> across such a bubble. Hence no SOS, no life boats, no sign of ship or crew.
>
> I'm just guessing, but I'm pretty sure there would have to be a similar
> effect on an aircraft due to a decrease in air density?
>
> FWIW...
>
> Jay Beckman
> Chandler, AZ

[Greg Copeland]

On Mon, 10 May 2004 03:17:58 +0000, Teacherjh wrote:

>>>
> They've modeled the effect of a methane mega-bubble on bouyancy
> <<
>
> Whazzat? Methane dissolved in the ocean to the extent that the water's density
> goes down enough to sink a ship?
>
> Jose


Well, I don't think it was dissolved. I recently watched a show called,
"Diving the Bermuda Triangle", or something like that. They showed
footage of a large area on the sea floor where steady streams of bubbles
popped up from the floor and rose to the surface. Seems this is called a
methane field. It's theorized that an undersea quake could cause the
floor to shift enough to release a huge bubble of methane. They did some
research to show that a large enough methane bubble could easily sink a
ship. They also tested to see what effect it would have on a plane's
motor. On a large rotory engine, only 1% methane contamination was
required to cause the engine to quit. Less than 1% was enough
to cause an RPM drop. As it approaches 1%, sputtering occurs and then
finally, the engine quiets.

This theory, while unproven, seems to get some support because the
"Bermuda Triangle" appears to have large methane fields scattered
throughout.

They hoped to use this knowledge to locate planes which were lost during
WWII. Oddly, they found 5-planes, that crashed at 5-different times that
were all within 1.5 miles of each other, but no known methane field
exists in the area. When reviewing the paperwork of the discovered
planes, it appears that several of the planes did sputter and quit.
And, the flight of planes which they expected to find in a methane field,
were not found. Go figure.

It was an interesting story.

[C J Campbell]

The theory does not pan out because it is based on a false premise: that the
Bermuda triangle exists. There is nothing supporting the idea that flying or
sailing through there is any more dangerous than anywhere else. Since the
Bermuda triangle is a myth, any explanation of why it exists is going to
have more holes in it than the sea has bubbles. Simply put, the Bermuda
triangle is a high traffic area and thus gets more accidents. Adjusting the
accident rate for the amount of traffic going through there shows the
Bermuda triangle to be no more dangerous than anywhere else.

There are methane fields in other parts of the world, too, and volcanic
vents of all types that release large volumes of all kinds of obnoxious
gases. Whether these events are dangerous to ships or aircraft is one thing.
They might be and it should be investigated. But they are not the cause of
the "Bermuda triangle."

There is nothing mysterious about any of the wrecks found in the area so
far.

The Discovery Channel has a distressing amount of crap on it that is not
science. It seems obsessed with paranormal phenomena, spiritualism, and
UFOs.

[Bob Chilcoat]

I have a lot of trouble imagining that a 1% methane concentration will stop
an engine. I use a propane torch (unlit) to start balky engines. If you
direct a stream of propane into the carburetor of an engine, it will run
fine. Running an engine 1% richer doesn't seem like a big deal.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)

I don't have to like Bush and Cheney (Or Kerry, for that matter) to love
America

"G. Burkhart" > wrote in message
news:w%Cnc.59722$0H1.5953725@attbi_s54...
> "Martin" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Saw just a real short clip of something on the Disc channel tonight
> > about how methane clouds affect aircraft. Lower pressure causes the
> > plane to drop because of reduced lift, and the altimeter to read a
> > climb because of the pressure change. I think this show may have been
> > in the context of bermuda triangle stuff. Maybe Im just out of the
> > loop but I had never heard of this happening (flying into a cloud of
> > methane I mean). They seemed to have some pretty reputable people
> > talking about it. Anyone experience this or hear of it?
>
> I watched that Discovery episode last week and they went into detail about
> the theory that methane gas bubbles could sink ships and tested the theory
> in a lab with model ships and air bubbles.
>
> There was also a theory that flying through a methane gas cloud would
effect
> flight; one that a piston engine would quit if there was 1% methane in the
> air and another that a simulator flight into such a cloud would cause
> reduced lift because of less dense air and the altimeter would climb
rapidly
> even though the aircraft was dropping.
>
> http://media.dsc.discovery.com/news/afp/20031020/methane.html
>
>

[Greg Copeland]

On Mon, 10 May 2004 07:28:01 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:

> The theory does not pan out because it is based on a false premise: that the
> Bermuda triangle exists. There is nothing supporting the idea that flying or

Or you can accept the fact that the triangle is a simple area marked on a
map, which has three sides where a great number of missing ships and
planes go unexplained. It's not the fact that the accident rate is
greater or less than other areas, it's the fact that so many go missing
unexplained. As such, myth a lore grows. Thusly, scientific theories pop
up from time to time in an attempt to explain the unexplained. As such,
it's easy to discount the myth and legend but foolish to discount valid
research, as you're willing to do.

The fact that you insist on calling it a myth is completely orthogonal to
any of the research and facts to date. It's fairly easy to dismiss your
comments outright on this topic as they don't appear to be reflective in
the least. Research which is supported by experiment, theory and
scientific method is great. The fact that you seem willing to dismiss
this simply because you're caught up in the mythos surround it, is pretty
silly.

[Greg Copeland]

On Mon, 10 May 2004 10:31:15 -0400, Bob Chilcoat wrote:

> I have a lot of trouble imagining that a 1% methane concentration will stop
> an engine. I use a propane torch (unlit) to start balky engines. If you
> direct a stream of propane into the carburetor of an engine, it will run
> fine. Running an engine 1% richer doesn't seem like a big deal.
>

This was proven by repeated experiement whereby, they directly injected
methane into the intake and calcualted the ratio. The radial engine
reproducably died at 1%. While probably not 100% scientific (as only one
radial engine was used and not independently reproduced), it certainly
makes for a powerful argument.

[Kyler Laird]

Greg Copeland > writes:

>On a large rotory engine, only 1% methane contamination was
>required to cause the engine to quit. Less than 1% was enough
>to cause an RPM drop. As it approaches 1%, sputtering occurs and then
>finally, the engine quiets.

I'm not sure that I caught everything correctly when that was happening
but I thought someone said that the methane caused an over-rich mixture.
So...what happens if you lean the mixture?

--kyler

[C J Campbell]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 10 May 2004 07:28:01 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:
>
> > The theory does not pan out because it is based on a false premise: that
the
> > Bermuda triangle exists. There is nothing supporting the idea that
flying or
>
> Or you can accept the fact that the triangle is a simple area marked on a
> map, which has three sides where a great number of missing ships and
> planes go unexplained. It's not the fact that the accident rate is
> greater or less than other areas, it's the fact that so many go missing
> unexplained.

The trouble with that idea is that they don't go missing unexplained there
with any more frequency than they do anywhere else. In fact, Lake Michigan
probably has a higher rate of 'unexplained' accidents than does the Bermuda
triangle, and there aren't any methane vents in Lake Michigan.

[Greg Copeland]

On Mon, 10 May 2004 08:22:59 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:

>
> The trouble with that idea is that they don't go missing unexplained there
> with any more frequency than they do anywhere else. In fact, Lake Michigan
> probably has a higher rate of 'unexplained' accidents than does the Bermuda
> triangle, and there aren't any methane vents in Lake Michigan.

The problem with your logic is that it assumes that there must be a
central cause for all unexplained accidents. Which is, of course, false.
Even if it turns out a very small portion of accidents can be directly
associated with plane and ship accidents, it still can mean safer routes
for planes and ships, assuming the conditions can be fully understood.
And, even if a small portion of accidents can be directly associated with
this effect, it's impossible to determine, unless someone is doing this
research.

Just because you willy-nilly ignore the research because it has a stigma
of legend or lore surrounding it, doesn't invalidate the research. Good
research is good research even if the topic of research is mired in myth.
As it relates to this topic, it very, very easily to separate myth from
fact.

Ignoring all that, you honestly don't find it interesting to find out that
it appears a tiny amount of methane can cause an engine to stop? Even
incidental observations may have merit which benefit captains and pilots.

[Greg Copeland]

On Mon, 10 May 2004 15:08:09 +0000, Kyler Laird wrote:

> Greg Copeland > writes:
>
>>On a large rotory engine, only 1% methane contamination was
>>required to cause the engine to quit. Less than 1% was enough
>>to cause an RPM drop. As it approaches 1%, sputtering occurs and then
>>finally, the engine quiets.
>
> I'm not sure that I caught everything correctly when that was happening
> but I thought someone said that the methane caused an over-rich mixture.
> So...what happens if you lean the mixture?
>
> --kyler

I don't know. I'm honestly not sure it was associated with an overly rich
mixture. It may of been I simply missed the boat. Watching TV with a
family sometimes means you miss small portions of the show. ;) If it was
caused by an overly rich mixture, it would of been nice to find out what
happened if they continued to lean it out, so as to present a possible
range. Interesting nonetheless.

I should also correct that it was a radial engine and not a
rotary engine. That was a brain-fart on my part. Sorry.

[C J Campbell]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
>
> Just because you willy-nilly ignore the research because it has a stigma
> of legend or lore surrounding it, doesn't invalidate the research. Good
> research is good research even if the topic of research is mired in myth.
> As it relates to this topic, it very, very easily to separate myth from
> fact.
>
> Ignoring all that, you honestly don't find it interesting to find out that
> it appears a tiny amount of methane can cause an engine to stop? Even
> incidental observations may have merit which benefit captains and pilots.

I suggest you go back and read my whole post. As I said:

"There are methane fields in other parts of the world, too, and volcanic
vents of all types that release large volumes of all kinds of obnoxious
gases. Whether these events are dangerous to ships or aircraft is one thing.
They might be and it should be investigated."

I simply object to the Discovery Channel's attempt to imply that there is
something particularly mysterious or even unique about the Bermuda triangle
other than its geographic location.

The Bermuda triangle 'problem' is a complete fabrication by one Charles
Berlitz, a charlatan who did next to no research, but who published a very
popular science fiction book that a lot of people took as factual.

There may well be methane bubbles causing ships to sink and airplanes fall
out of the sky in the Bermuda triangle. But even Discovery Channel admitted
that such events would be so rare that they could never be accepted as an
explanation for any known unexplained disappearances. It would be like
trying to blame the unexplained disappearances on meteorites. Can meteorites
destroy a plane or sink a ship? Sure, but just because a plane went down or
a ship sank does not mean it was hit by a meteorite, a methane bubble, or
even beamed up into a flying saucer.

You know, there is a small chance that the random movement of molecules of
air could suddenly cause all the molecules to suddenly migrate to the far
side of the room, leaving you to suffocate in your chair. Your death would
probably go down as unexplained. People might come up with all kinds of
plausible theories of what killed you, and they would all probably be wrong.
Seems to me such a death would surely give you some bragging rights in the
hereafter, though. :-)

As the Discovery Channel noted, there aren't exactly heaps of wrecks lying
around these methane vents. In fact, there aren't any at all.

[Greg Copeland]

On Mon, 10 May 2004 09:08:24 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:

>
> "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Just because you willy-nilly ignore the research because it has a stigma
>> of legend or lore surrounding it, doesn't invalidate the research. Good
>> research is good research even if the topic of research is mired in myth.
>> As it relates to this topic, it very, very easily to separate myth from
>> fact.
>>
>> Ignoring all that, you honestly don't find it interesting to find out that
>> it appears a tiny amount of methane can cause an engine to stop? Even
>> incidental observations may have merit which benefit captains and pilots.
>
> I suggest you go back and read my whole post. As I said:
>
> "There are methane fields in other parts of the world, too, and volcanic
> vents of all types that release large volumes of all kinds of obnoxious
> gases. Whether these events are dangerous to ships or aircraft is one thing.
> They might be and it should be investigated."

I missed that part. Sorry.

>
> I simply object to the Discovery Channel's attempt to imply that there is
> something particularly mysterious or even unique about the Bermuda triangle
> other than its geographic location.

Sadly, most people won't watch stuff unless it's hyped like that. You can
hardly blame them for wanting to stay in business. If you must shake a
finger, shake it at the masses that require such pethetic hooks to get
them to watch.

>
> The Bermuda triangle 'problem' is a complete fabrication by one Charles
> Berlitz, a charlatan who did next to no research, but who published a very
> popular science fiction book that a lot of people took as factual.

Agreed.

>
> There may well be methane bubbles causing ships to sink and airplanes fall
> out of the sky in the Bermuda triangle. But even Discovery Channel admitted
> that such events would be so rare that they could never be accepted as an
> explanation for any known unexplained disappearances. It would be like
> trying to blame the unexplained disappearances on meteorites. Can meteorites
> destroy a plane or sink a ship? Sure, but just because a plane went down or
> a ship sank does not mean it was hit by a meteorite, a methane bubble, or
> even beamed up into a flying saucer.
>

Fair enough. One exception is that we currently have no idea how common
"methane bubbles" are, and we are only now starting to explore the risks
associated with them. In fact, we know next to nothing about them. So,
any statements which directly associate a frequency, size or scope with
them, should be considered suspect. In otherwords, any answer other than,
"unknown", as it relates to ship or plane accidents is less than accurate.

Cheers!

[Newps]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...


> Or you can accept the fact that the triangle is a simple area marked on a
> map, which has three sides where a great number of missing ships and
> planes go unexplained.

Just read a book by a guy who was involved in all kinds of secret DIA and
Navy underwater projects during the cold war. He mentions the Bermuda
Triangle. Fact is there are less ships and planes on the ocean floor here
than in other areas of the world.

[Teacherjh]

>>
Fact is there are less ships and planes on the ocean floor here
than in other areas of the world.
<<

That's because they disappeared mysteriously as they were sinking.

Jose
(and it's "fewer". Less of something you measure, fewer of something you
count)

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[White Raven]

To give the Discovery Channel its due, I remember seeing a program on it
debunking the Bermuda Triangle as well. In fact, during this program,
they selected a similarly shaped area off the coast of Spain, and made a
very good case for a "Spanish Triangle" with very similar "strange"
disappearances there. Yes, sensationalism ("something strange is
happening") sells a lot better than the mundane ("nothing strange is
happening"), but I think they at least attempted to strike a balance at
one time.