It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Performance Measurements of Silver-Iodide Smoke Generators on Aircraft.
Smith, E. J.; Warburton, J. A.; Heffernan, K. J.; Thompson, W. J.
Journal of Applied Meteorology, vol. 5, Issue 3, pp.292-295
The performance of a silver iodide smoke generator, mounted on an aircraft, was measured in flight. The ice-nucleus output was 1014 per gram of silver iodide active at 15C and 1012 at 10C. Considerable variations in the burner configuration and the solution which was burnt had little effect on the performance.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by doctordoom
Silver iodide is not laid down in a trail. It is dumped into a preexisting cloud. You have to have clouds to use silver iodide. Using it makes rain, that's all.
Originally posted by doctordoom
Performance Measurements of Silver-Iodide Smoke Generators on Aircraft.
Smith, E. J.; Warburton, J. A.; Heffernan, K. J.; Thompson, W. J.
Journal of Applied Meteorology, vol. 5, Issue 3, pp.292-295
The performance of a silver iodide smoke generator, mounted on an aircraft, was measured in flight. The ice-nucleus output was 1014 per gram of silver iodide active at 15C and 1012 at 10C. Considerable variations in the burner configuration and the solution which was burnt had little effect on the performance.
adsabs.harvard.edu...
The above excerpt is from a NASA/Harvard website. Now what would NASA be spraying silver iodide for? Weather manipulations.
The 1014 per gram is actually 10 to the 14 power, or
1,000,000,000,000,000 particles per gram, each one a little silver sliver attached to a salt particle just waiting for us to breath it in.
But you debunkers keep ignoring the facts. I feel sorry for you.
[edit on 15-3-2009 by doctordoom]
Originally posted by neformore
You can't have it both ways. Trying to do so is hypocrisy.
The members who were bragging about their credentials and constantly reminding the other members of the claims 'qualifications' did weaken their side of the argument by behaving in this manner.
Not one of them ever posted their certifications/degrees/diplomas/licenses when asked. - information that might be used to identify them could have been blocked out.
All that would have been required was for one of the debunkers on that thread to post a pic of their credentials next to to their monitor to verify that they were in possession of the qualification they proclaimed throughout the entirety of the thread.
No, I trust what I know as I work in that (scientific) field.
Originally posted by QBSneak000
or is it only one sided deal?
I mean no disrespect, just looking for clarification is all.
.... And then only so far as certain individuals on that 'one-side' are claiming to have professional expertise/accreditation/qualification, and are using those claims to attempt to convince others that their own hypothesis has more validity.
Anyhow, such an enquiry does not require Quid pro quo exchange or credentials.
Why then, do you even pretend that it does ?
Originally posted by QBSneak000
But when and if that day ever happens, I will expect the same proof of credentials that you demand.
Originally posted by QBSneak000
You asked for credentials? ok here you go. I have edited my ID card in the photo only to protect my anonymity as I would like to keep my job and somewhat privacy.
Its from Environment Canada if its too blurry to read.
Its a little blurry I know, my camera sucks but Oz can verify the validity as we know each other outside of ATS
so now that I have shown you my credentials are you going to show me yours? I think that would only be fair.
Observations of Flight Explorer confirmed contrails and highly persistent trails from jets not appearing on Flight Explorer are graphed for persistence and by date. The persistence of the highly persistent trails is an approximate generalized value of 6 hours, actual persistence could be shorter or longer. The magnitude of persistence makes accurate individual measurements difficult due to logisitical and temporal challenges.
The highly persistent trail is entirely inconsistent with the trends of identified trails observed this day. These highly persistent trails have a persistence more conveniently measured in minutes or hours, as opposed to seconds. The length of persistence of these trails has not been accurately measured due to the fact that they persist for longer than can be observed from a given location. It would be necessary to utilize a vehicle to follow these trails and produce such a measurement, however one highly persistent trail was timed at over 5 hours. This particular measurement was limited by line-of-sight visibility, the actual persistence was longer.