Could "Chemtrails" be a kind of medication?

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 21 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: GeekOfTheWeek

What difference does it make whether it's a jet or not? Is combustion somehow different in a reciprocating engine?




posted on May, 21 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: GeekOfTheWeek

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: GeekOfTheWeek
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Exactly. The old days, 50's and 60's there were hardly any, if there were any, it was smoke from old jet engines. Today, jet engines are state of the art, VERY little smoke if any at all, they are designed to be highly efficient compared to when they first came out. Smoking engines are not efficient. So you would expect to never see persistent contrails.


Visible smoke has nothing to do with contrails - what makes you think there is some connection??


Even without visible smoke there is still plenty of miniscule particulates of soot and other substances for ice nucleation.



OK, you got me, I had no idea that hot jet engine exhaust puts out ice... my bad. I have no idea why I would even think that moist air going through a hot jet engine would even create steam, because as you are pointing out to me, it creates ice...


There's no need to be sarcastic about it. Are you really telling us that you need it pointing out to you that an ambient temperature that is tens of degrees below zero, will cool and freeze anything hot exposed to it?

edit on 21-5-2014 by waynos because: (no reason given)


Planes DO NOT produce steam. The water vapour is invisible whilst hot, that is why you get a gap behind the engines, the point where it freezes is where it becomes visible. Whether it persist or not.
edit on 21-5-2014 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: GeekOfTheWeek
[OK, you got me, I had no idea that hot jet engine exhaust puts out ice... my bad. I have no idea why I would even think that moist air going through a hot jet engine would even create steam, because as you are pointing out to me, it creates ice...


It's not "moist air" - it is combustion of hydrocarbons that produces the moisture - whether it be petrol, diesel, Avgas or
Jet A1, or even methane or propane - water is always one of the products of combustion - eg CH4(g) + 2O2(g) → CO2(g) + 2H2O(g)

But the point I was answering originally was about SMOKE......



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: GeekOfTheWeek




UH, those weren't JET engines. AvGas burning engines LOL


So what is the difference between a persistent contrail coming from a plane in WWII and a jet engine today?

Here's a hint...



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: applesthateatpeople




So, you trust everything that is said by a scientist?


I have no reason not too, unless of course they are shown to be wrong.



Blindly?


Can you be around every scientific discovery at the same time?



With no need to see the results firsthand?


I refer you to my answer above.



I answered your vague question (or so you said).


And remind me how was this vague again...

Do you trust science?

I guess it could be me not asking a more specific question...



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: GeekOfTheWeek




OK, you got me, I had no idea that hot jet engine exhaust puts out ice... my bad. I have no idea why I would even think that moist air going through a hot jet engine would even create steam, because as you are pointing out to me, it creates ice...


Here maybe this will help you understand...



Or if you like the more technical version.. here you go...

adg.stanford.edu...



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: GeekOfTheWeek

In an effort to be helpful and share resources here a bit, this is a relatively current (at time of posting) air temperature and wind indicator for 39,000ft elevation across the Western Hemisphere. It's part of what I use in a set I maintain. That page also has direct download data for other areas at the same altitude as well as 45,000ft and 63,000ft. All temperatures are to be assumed negative and the note in the legend indicates that as well.


Source: NOAA - WAFS Winds/Temperatures Facsimile (T4) Charts

This is boiling water at a mere -15 below, not the -50/-60 below which 39,000 feet often seems to see.



It's actually helpful to mention the temp issue, since it's another logical basis why distribution of anything biologic/organic at flight altitudes would be less than ideal. Well, outright terminal for most things to float for awhile, I'd think. (the thread's original question)



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: GeekOfTheWeek



This is boiling water at a mere -15 below, not the -50/-60 below which 39,000 feet often seems to see.



It's actually helpful to mention the temp issue, since it's another logical basis why distribution of anything biologic/organic at flight altitudes would be less than ideal. Well, outright terminal for most things to float for awhile, I'd think. (the thread's original question)


Here is one where the temp is -41C which is closer to the temp at 39,000 feet:





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join