AZ residents at chemtrail hearing: ‘We’re being sprayed like we’re bugs and it’s really not

a reply to: F4guy

There is almost no ambient water vapor present at contrail making altitude, but it doesn't take much to hit saturation, and sublimation to ice crystals.

Since I learned the term deposition from one of your posts, I have to ask if you meant deposition rather than sublimation?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: F4guy

I'm not comparing it to ground level humidity, but if there wasn't plenty of humidity at altitude, then there wouldn't be persistent contrails, now would there?

"Plenty?" "Plenty?" What does "plenty" mean? Does that mean many grams of H2O (gas) per kilogram of air? Or maybe a lot of water vapor compared to what the air will carry at saturation? If I asked one of my P Chem students to tell me what the ionization energy was of the 6p^2 electron in a lead atom, and he responded, "plenty", he fails.
And the persistence of a contrail depends almost exclusively of the sublimation rate of the ice particles which depends on many factors such as surface area , temperature, density gradient, partial pressures, etc, discussion of none of which furthers this thread.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: F4guy

There is almost no ambient water vapor present at contrail making altitude, but it doesn't take much to hit saturation, and sublimation to ice crystals.

Since I learned the term deposition from one of your posts, I have to ask if you meant deposition rather than sublimation?

Yes. Deposition is exothermic. Sublimation isendothermic. So gas to ice is deposition.

a reply to: F4guy

Thanks.

What do you think of the notion presented in this thread that in Arizona A-10s are spraying 'grids' at about 5,000' - 7,000' that last for about three hours?

a reply to: F4guy

Plenty. As in enough so that when a plane flies through the area, it leaves a persistent contrail. Plenty, as in, if there wasn't enough, there would be no contrail. Plenty, as in, "that's a pretty contrail".

I didn't think it was THAT hard to understand.

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: F4guy

I'm not comparing it to ground level humidity, but if there wasn't plenty of humidity at altitude, then there wouldn't be persistent contrails, now would there?

"Plenty?" "Plenty?" What does "plenty" mean? Does that mean many grams of H2O (gas) per kilogram of air? Or maybe a lot of water vapor compared to what the air will carry at saturation? If I asked one of my P Chem students to tell me what the ionization energy was of the 6p^2 electron in a lead atom, and he responded, "plenty", he fails.
And the persistence of a contrail depends almost exclusively of the sublimation rate of the ice particles which depends on many factors such as surface area , temperature, density gradient, partial pressures, etc, discussion of none of which furthers this thread.

Considering that the persistence of contrails depends on other factors, such as temperature and even air pressure, "plenty" is accurate. He can't give a number value, because that number value will vary depending on other conditions. There is more than one value for humidity that fits the bill for "enough humidity".

The bottom line is that, depending on the other factors, there can be enough humidity on the air above Tuscon to have those contrails persist -- therefore, there is "plenty" (i.e., there can be enough humidity).

If you want numbers, take a look at the historical weather balloon sounding data fro the Tuscon station. You will see that there are times when the RH at 35,000 feet is 70% and the temperatures are below -40, which is a good "rule of thumb conditions" in which contrails can persist. However, that's just a rule of thumb, and those values can vary depending on the combination of the values along with pressure.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: F4guy

Thanks.

What do you think of the notion presented in this thread that in Arizona A-10s are spraying 'grids' at about 5,000' - 7,000' that last for about three hours?

The Air Combat Command West A-10 Demonstration Team operates out of Davis Monthan AFB in Tucson, AZ. These demo teams are set up with smoke systems where a paraffin based oil is injected into the engines which produces a lot of smoke in the exhaust. They are not "spraying" anything out of nozzles but when the smoke system is toggled on, it might look like it. And the tanks on an a-10 are pretty small compared to an airliner. The hog carries 11,000 pounds compared to the 747's 400,000.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: F4guy

Plenty. As in enough so that when a plane flies through the area, it leaves a persistent contrail. Plenty, as in, if there wasn't enough, there would be no contrail. Plenty, as in, "that's a pretty contrail".

I didn't think it was THAT hard to understand.

High altitude contrails don't come from the moisture or humidity in the air. They form from burning the hydrogen in jet fuel in an oxygen rich environment. It's not stoichiometrically perfect but C12H26 + O2 --->H2O +CO2. Account for the nitrogen in the air and you get some NOx. And the sulfur inherent in any fossil fuel results in some SO2 which can mix with the H2O to make H2SO4 in solution, or, acid rain. A simple look at the numbers clearly shows the source of high altitude contrails. A 747 burns about a gallon per second. That's 6.67 pounds. Let's call it 7. To burn efficiently takes about 105 pounds of air. Since it's an international flight, let's say 47 kg of air to about 3 kg of fuel. Even at 100% humidity, that means you have 47 grams of water to make the pretty contrail. So in that second you have sucked in about 1/100 of a gallon of water, far less than an ounce. Since in that second you have traveled 742 feet through the air, a half ounce (fluid measure) of water won't make a big enough trail to be seen from many miles away.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing


They are not screaming along and not flying at 35,000 feet; also there is no noise. They are visible enough to see a slight profile and as they are silver its hard to determine altitude. My best guess; are flying at an altitude between 5000-7000 feet. Thanks for your response F4guy.

And making a trail? Seriously this is a classic case of you not comprehending how far away the actual aircraft or contrail actually is. I suggest that you get Flight Radar 24 phone app and get yourself clued up as to how far away and how high aircraft producing contrails actually are. With your claims of 5,000-7000 feet you are really clutching at straws.

The following thread is a classic example of an individual like yourself not understanding just how far away or how high that contrail actually is. The result is that he (Woody) can't match up what he is observing on Flight Radar 24 because he is grossly underestimating both height and distance.

www.metabunk.org...

Get yourself the phone or tablet app and do some comparison on flights against what you claim to see.

play.google.com...

contrailscience.com...

So here is your chance to prove your info and theory. Take video or photographs, document the time and location and post your evidence of your claims of 5-7,000 feet. What you are describing is a 'smoking gun' so all you have to do is record it and present the evidence.

a reply to: F4guy
I see. Thank you very much for that information. I had been previously assured by the "chemtrail" proponent that

There is no reason for grid patterns to be flown over the prairies (cattle country) in Arizona, particularly grazing land. There are private landing strips here and there for small prop planes some ranchers own but we know who owns what planes as they have distinctive color patterns. No air shows out here that would explain the fancy flying looping techniques; or the fact the 'contrails' don't dissipate and cause eye watering, dry caughing and nose bleeds.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
I should have known better. Thanks again

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: F4guy

Plenty. As in enough so that when a plane flies through the area, it leaves a persistent contrail. Plenty, as in, if there wasn't enough, there would be no contrail. Plenty, as in, "that's a pretty contrail".

I didn't think it was THAT hard to understand.

High altitude contrails don't come from the moisture or humidity in the air. They form from burning the hydrogen in jet fuel in an oxygen rich environment.

Not as far as I know they don't. The vast majority of the moisture, at least in long and persistent contrails, comes from the atmosphere itself.

What do contrails contain?

Persistent contrails are ice clouds, so they are mostly made of ice. They also are likely to contain aircraft exhaust products (including soot and dissolved gases like sulfur dioxide) , but they are overwhelmingly made from moisture condensed out of the surrounding air. In one example reported by Knollenburg (October 1972, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, Pages 1367-1374), the amount of moisture released by the burning of jet fuel from a research aircraft was 1.7 grams of water for every meter of flight path. However, the total water measured in a persistent contrail produced by the aircraft was conservatively measured (that is, it was likely an underestimate) to be between 20700 to 41200 grams of water for every meter of the contrail path! Nearly all of the contrail is created from the moisture in the atmosphere.

science-edu.larc.nasa.gov...


It's quite complex, but basically, as I understand it, the air at that altitude is often supersaturated with respect to ice deposition. The ice crystals from the exhaust act as seed crystals and trigger ice deposition out of the "ice supersaturated" atmosphere.

If the atmosphere is not ice supersaturated then you will only see a short trail from the engine exhaust itself, or even no trail at all.

a reply to: Witness2008

There are enough aircraft flying around that don't appear on the tracking programs. So obviously military flights will and do make up a good proportion of these unaccounted for flights. So why it is puzzling if a C-17, C-5, etc transits your area and doesn't appear on such programs? It is only your paranoia and belief in chemtrails that makes you think that they are up to no good.

originally posted by: Rob48
...Not as far as I know they don't. The vast majority of the moisture, at least in long and persistent contrails, comes from the atmosphere itself...

You are correct, Rob.

Consider the new high-bypass engines being used today. Most of the air sucked into the front of the engine (up to 85%) bypasses the combustion chambers of the engine altogether, and is instead compressed and exhaust out of the back of the engine again.

So it could be that about 85% of the exhaust was simply the ambient air to begin with -- and that ambient air could have contained quite a bit of water vapor. that water vapor would then be present in the exhaust, which could -- through compression and deposition -- condense out of the exhaust, and freeze into ice crystals upon hitting the cold air.

Although back to what F4guy said, the water created by the burning of the fuel can add to contrails, and sometimes the soot created could help provide nucleation points on which the ice crystals/contrail could grow

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: totallackey

And here, after long last, even through previous posts denying the taking of any sides, we have an ATS mod admitting which side of the fence he/she is on in the subject of unicorns. Denying ignorance my ass...

Okay, something needs to be made clear and 100% here. ATS doesn't necessarily work like every other site on the internet where Staff are concerned. Where any of us post casually as participating members within a thread? We are, for all purposes, and for the rest of that thread, ONLY members. No Mod'ing where we participate and that is iron clad.

It's how we maintain the enjoyment of being participating members without the inherent conflicts that would come by mixing the two hats.

That means, you're not disagreeing with an ATS Moderator. You are disagreeing with Wrabbit the member. Nothing more, nothing less and disagree we certainly do. It's with respect on my part, but certainly agreement to disagree.

Wrabbit, I want to write something first...

I sincerely hope you enjoyed your respite away, however brief...

Now, it becomes not only a matter of disagreement, it becomes an issue of, for a lack on my part of a better way of putting it, "truth in advertising." For many of the past few weeks in many of these chemtrail threads, you have painted a picture of having, "taken no side," in the discussion.

I was merely pointing out that at long last, despite the previous protestations on your part to maintain the illusion you have no horse in the race, that indeed, you do...

And yes, it saddens me a little to see someone else fall for such obvious tripe as this chemtrail crapola...

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

There is no reason for grid patterns to be flown over the prairies (cattle country) in Arizona, particularly grazing land.

Go onto Skyvector at the following link and type in KPHX in top left hand box. It will fix the map on Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport to orientate yourself. Make sure it is set on 'World Hi'. This will show the upper air routes over Arizona.

skyvector.com...

So yes upper air routes exist over Arizona

Have a look on Flight Radar 24. The following link should be centred on KPHX.

www.flightradar24.com...

Now take into consideration both military and civilian flights transiting Arizona and you will get grids.

So what part of Arizona do you live in? No need to disclose your exact location but just a general region. In general you will still be able to see aircraft making contrails out to about 50 miles away with the naked eye.

originally posted by: tommyjo

originally posted by: Aisling
Example of a clear sky, before spraying commenced.

These photos show the spraying just starting. We stood outside and watched them. This is not normal air traffic for us.

One of the planes, original view, and a zoomed in view

Another plane, original view and zoomed in view

Prior to spraying, the sky was clear, sunny, and crisp. Once the planes showed up and spraying began, it remained cloudy the rest of the day.

OK. How can picture 1 be taken before the 'spraying' started?

The EXIF data has it down as being taken at 1:46:50, Jun 29th. All the rest of the Jun 29th images were taken before the first image. Pic 6 is coming up with a day of May 26th taken by a Canon Powershot.


Pic 1

June 29, 2014 1:46:50AM (timezone not specified)
(8 hours, 45 minutes, 51 seconds ago, assuming image timezone of US Pacific)


regex.info...


Pic 2

Date: June 29, 2014 1:41:42AM (timezone not specified)
(11 hours, 45 minutes, 11 seconds ago, assuming image timezone of US Pacific)

regex.info...

Pic 3

Date: June 29, 2014 1:44:40AM (timezone not specified)
(11 hours, 43 minutes, 35 seconds ago, assuming image timezone of US Pacific)

regex.info...

Pic 4

June 29, 2014 1:45:17AM (timezone not specified)
(11 hours, 46 minutes, 22 seconds ago, assuming image timezone of US Pacific)

regex.info...


Pic 5

June 29, 2014 1:40:55AM (timezone not specified)
(11 hours, 52 minutes, 22 seconds ago, assuming image timezone of US Pacific)

regex.info...

Pic 6

June 29, 2014 1:40:00AM (timezone not specified)
(11 hours, 54 minutes, 32 seconds ago, assuming image timezone of US Pacific)

regex.info...

Pic 7

Canon PowerShot A4000 IS
Lens: 5 - 40 mm
Shot at 40 mm (shot wide open)
Exposure: Auto exposure, 1/125 sec, f/5.9, ISO 400
Flash: Off, Did not fire
Focus: Single, Face Detect, with a depth of field of from 22.64 m to infinity.
AF Area Mode: Multi-point AF or AI AF
Date: May 26, 2014 8:13:16PM (timezone not specified)
(1 month, 3 days, 22 minutes, 48 seconds ago, assuming image timezone of GMT)

regex.info...

Pic 8

June 29, 2014 1:38:11AM (timezone not specified)
(12 hours, 1 minute, 38 seconds ago, assuming image timezone of US Pacific)

regex.info...


For the vast majority of the aircraft images we have a date and time. All you have to do is provide the location and with the time data we can re-create the Flight Radar 24 picture once the times are converted back to Greenwich Mean Time. Here is your opportunity to track down and identify those 'unmarked' aircraft and to prove that this is not "normal" air traffic.

Oh, Holy Cow...you actually caught one of THE REAL LIARS telling a REAL LIE!!!

Katy, bar the door now...

a reply to: tommyjo

Correct.

Consider the flights from the major airports in Texas (Dallas and Houston) going to Southern California and Las Vegas...AND THEN consider the paths of the flights coming from Chicago and the Northeast U.S. flying into Southern California. The air routes used by many of those flights would cross each other over Arizona.

a reply to: tommyjo

All you have to do is provide the location and with the time data we can re-create the Flight Radar 24 picture once the times are converted back to Greenwich Mean Time.

We are getting chem-trailed HEAVILY here in N. Montana. I prefer to not give my exact location.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I see no reason to think air traffic is a stranger to Northern Montana. www.flightradar24.com...

a reply to: Rob48
You have hit on a very important and little understood point. Because of the paucity of e condensation nucleii at the flight levels, the atmosphere can reach a supersaturated condition where RHi (relative humidity ice phase) can reach 140%. The excess carbon (that which doesn't make CO2) can provide those nucleii. Then, you add in homogenous deposition on the exhaust water, and you can end up with a contrail with 10,000 times the water mass as the exhaust trail. In fact, since water is the only substance that can saturate Earth's atmosphere, a very good scientific argument can be made that a persistent trail MUST be water. Other planets might have trails of sulfur or CO2 or ammonia, but on Earth, it's water. Look up ice budget" articles.

a reply to: F4guy

In fact, since water is the only substance that can saturate Earth's atmosphere, a very good scientific argument can be made that a persistent trail MUST be water.

That argument *may* have been made. I haven't read this yet www.metabunk.org... I hope it's good.