Contrails ON....Contrail OFF.....You Decide.....

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
For those that think that Chemtrails are not real, please explain how you cut contrails on and off. Why would one want to cut contrails off and on? Can you even cut contrails off and on? Also, what are these nozzles on these planes used for? To release urine during flight.....or is that a piss poor excuse....I think not.....Get Real, get informed....You are NOT loved by your government....They are not what or who you think they are......


edit on 7-4-2011 by Caji316 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Caji316
 


What you'll hear from the de-bunkers is that it's fuel dumping. O.K. If it IS fuel dumping, it is being dumped from almost the entire trailing edge of the wing.

en.wikipedia.org...:FuelDumpA340-600.JPG


This is a pic of a fuel dump on an A340-600. Notice fuel only coming from a dedicated nozzle, not the entire
wing area. Also, fuel dumping is NOT the norm (think of the cost of jet fuel). Usually it's a last ditch effort to get weight down in the event of landing when gear has been compromised, or didn't come down properly. It would be done at lower altitude, as a plane is circling the runway, in preparation for an emergency landing, NOT when cruising along with landing gear up, all systems normal.



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
If you really want to know go down and ask someone that lives around the gulf of mexeco they watched it happen for days. Those spaying aircraft didn't just pop up out of nowhere they was in use before and there in use now. Company's don't invest that kind of money into something there not going to use.
edit on 7-4-2011 by FarBeyondDriven69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   
No it's not fuel dumping - it is aerodynamic contrails.

The video was created by a KC-10 Flight Engineer specifically to hoodwink chemtrail believers - see fake and hoax chemtrail videos

At the start of this video TE points to "nozzles" under the wings - however the "spray" isnt' actually coming from just those - it is coming from almsot teh whole width of the wing - and it varies in intensity almost continuously across it's width - showing the variability of moisture in the air.

the "nozzles" are the DC/KC-10's flap mechanisms - you can see multiple images of them at this page - www.airlinercafe.com...



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


So now contrails are not the result of hot exhaust gasses from the engines, but of aerodynamic lift from the wings???
"Aerodynamic contrails are independent of exhaust contrail formation. Whereas exhaust contrails need cold conditions to form, aerodynamic contrails probably form under warmer conditions (i.e. lower altitudes) and may be complimentary forms of contrails.
Looking at the altitude of the video, would you guess the temperature to be warm? No, VERY cold at that altitude.
Keep trying.



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by JBTECH71
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


So now contrails are not the result of hot exhaust gasses from the engines, but of aerodynamic lift from the wings???


Nope.

they can result from both.



"Aerodynamic contrails are independent of exhaust contrail formation. Whereas exhaust contrails need cold conditions to form, aerodynamic contrails probably form under warmer conditions (i.e. lower altitudes) and may be complimentary forms of contrails.


dunno where you got that from, but it is only a partial explaination.


Usually one observes them under humid conditions near the ground where they are short–lived phenomena. Aerodynamic contrails appear also in cruise levels where they may persist when the ambient atmosphere is ice–supersaturated. In the present paper we present a theoretical investigation of aerodynamic contrails
in the upper troposphere.


- from the American Meterorological Society journal online

You probably did some high-school physics, so hopefully this will make sense - in a nutshell the air flowing over the top of the wing is at lower pressure than that underneath. As the air on top drops in pressure its temperature drops - this is the gas law that used to be taught in Form 6/year 12. It is also one of the fundamentals that lets air conditioning and refrigeration work.

As the temperature drops, the air cannot hold as much moisture as it did at its previous higher temperature.. If there is too much moisture at it's "new" temperature, the excess will condense out.

THAT is what causes aerodynamic contrails.


Looking at the altitude of the video, would you guess the temperature to be warm? No, VERY cold at that altitude.
Keep trying.


Looking at your comments you probably didn't really understand much about aerodynamic contrails, but now you do, so you don't have to worry about this particular non-existant evil any more - happy to have helped



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Here's the same video explaining what's happening in terms of aircraft structures, science and sarcasm........enjoy






posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


In the present paper we present a Text investigation of aerodynamic contrails
in the Text.

Like I said, warmer altitudes Text produce aerodynamic contrails. Look at the altitude the jet is at. Obviously very cold at that altitude. More likely to produce short lived engine exhaust based contrails.



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


"we present a theoretical investigation of aerodynamic contrails
in the upper troposphere".

Sorry, new at ATS posting. Theoretical investigation only. NOT proven OR accepted.

the·o·ret·i·cal/THēəˈretikəl/Adjective
1. Concerned with or involving the theory of a subject or area of study rather than its practical application: "a theoretical physicist".
2. Based on or calculated through theory rather than experience or practice: "a theoretical reformer of opinions".



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by JBTECH71
 


No you missed the point - and/or quoted out of context. Go read the extract again - or better still here it is again -


Aerodynamic contrails appear also in cruise levels where they may persist when the ambient atmosphere is ice–supersaturated. In the present paper we present a theoretical investigation of aerodynamic contrails in the upper troposphere.


ther's nothing theoretical about aerodynamic contrails at high altitudes.

What is theoretical is their examination of the flow physics of the air involved - ie they are not making a model or examining an actual case.

Here's the full articleif you want to try arguing from its content rather than misquoted sematics.

Here's another reference from "Meteorology today: an introduction to weather, climate, and the environment By C. Donald Ahrens" at google books.

I guess you didn't do physics in upper high school - or perhaps you've forgotten it - shame, 'cos that's all it really is.
edit on 7-4-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Talk about contradiction. Here we have: (Aerodynamic contrails appear also in cruise levels where they may persist when the ambient atmosphere is ice–supersaturated). According to whom?

Then: In the present paper we present a theoretical investigation of aerodynamic contrails in the upper troposphere.
Theoretical=NOT proven. Just a theory. Which is it? Fact? Proven? Theory?
If anyone puts a theory on paper or text, is it automatically proven? It's gospel because it's written?



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by JBTECH71
 


So you didn't bother to read the paper and try to understand it then.

And so you can continue to repeat your sophism with some kind of clear conscience.

I can only assume you choose not to read the paper because you don't to know why you are wrong.

C'est la vie - you get used to such tactics from chemmies


However, here's the abstract of a paper about why and how aerodynamic contrails form at high altitudes- nothing theoretical about tho' sorry, so you'll have to actually evaluate the information.

edit on 7-4-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Simple matter of a paper or video? Your own links state "theoretical" investigation. Come now, even a basic understanding of science should reveal the difference between theory and fact NO?

Do you understand what a theory is? It's not FACT at all. Just a theory!!! Kind of like an opinion.



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by JBTECH71
 


Since you think that opinion is like theory you also have to admit that Tanker Enemy's video is only his OPINION.

And there are plenty of reasons to conclude that he is wrong - very possibly deliberately - including the video I posted.

So in you silly little equation I have video PLUS paper. you only have video.

I win



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


(However, here's the abstract of a paper about why and how aerodynamic contrails form at high altitudes- nothing theoretical about tho' sorry, so you'll have to actually evaluate the information).

Flawed from the start: Abstract=1. thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances.

Or: theoretical; not applied or practical: abstract science.

So umm. Which is it exactly?



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by JBTECH71
 


Talk about contradiction. Here we have: (Aerodynamic contrails appear also in cruise levels where they may persist when the ambient atmosphere is ice–supersaturated). According to whom?


According to about 52 years of published scientific articles and studies of cirrus and contrail formation. These began as "theoretical" because the '50s technology did not permit the measurement and analysis that have since proven the "theory" to be true.



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


52 years of published scientific articles and studies of cirrus and contrail formation. Should be simple to disprove then. Where is the concrete, not theoretical, not abstract, published proof. Articles are NOT proof. Show me irrefutable evidence. Not abstract, or theoretical studies. Go right ahead.



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


52 years of published scientific articles and studies of cirrus and contrail formation. Should be simple to disprove then. Where is the concrete, not theoretical, not abstract, published proof. Articles are NOT proof. Show me irrefutable evidence. Not abstract, or theoretical studies. Go right ahead.



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   
There seems to be a growing number (especially where I live in South London ) of CHEMTRAIL like formations, the amount of them seems to outnumber the quantity of regular normal contrails that regular aircraft put out.
Yesterday I was off work and seeing as it was a nice day spent it out in the garden, I counted 15 normal flights but about 20 aircraft forming CHEMTRAILS.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join