A question about fuel

Some beleivers in chemtrails think that there is "something" in the fuel that makes them. This means there is no need for extraneous tanks to store anything on the planes.

For those who think that is the case, or think there's a good possibility it is the case I'd like you to consider this:

Fuel is being burned by jet engines all the time they are running - whether sitting at a gate waiting to be pushed back, taxiing to or from the runway, taking off, and landing, climbing and descending.

For example in this thread on Airliners.net someone says the burn on a 747 can be 35 tons/hour at takeoff, but only 10 tons/hr in cruise.

In face jet engines develop most of their power at takeoff and climb - so that is where most of the fuel is burned - or rather where it is burned at the highest rate (lbs/hour is the usual measure AFAIK).

So why then are there not massive "chemtrails" at airports and on climb-out paths all over the world??

Also it should be a cinch to get air samples from around airports and find out what is in the exhaust gasses since that is where such gasses are most concentrated!

Um...because the air is colder way up high?

Just a thought

The air/humidity/density mixture isnt conducive to contrails at low altitudes or
the chemicals can be spread at a greater rate at altitude because obviously you people getting sprayed are worth the huge expense to spray you.

reply to post by kro32


If "whatever it is" is in the fuel, then it is being burned everywhere - on the ground as well as in the air.

Sure cold temperatures may make something visible (such as water vapour) - but they wouldn't alter the composition of the exhaust.

reply to post by 12voltz


Yes I understand about water and condensation - I'm asking those people who think there is "something" in the fuel that makes "chemtrails" (and remember people only complain about "chemtrails" when they can see something - they never complain about the exhaust when it is not visible) what their theory is why the "chemtrails" are not visible all the time.

reply to post by kro32


In my honest opinion, these "chemtrails" are just jet exhaust that has more water vapour in it than before as a result of emissions reducing mechanisms on the engines that were recently mandated (anyone who knows the specifics should help me out here as I have forgotten them) These supposed chemtrails are just one more thing to make you look left so you don't see what's going on over to the right, if you catch my drift.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


S&F, I'll bet they will be in here saying, "It's actually contrails at those altitudes, but they have chemicals in the jet fuel, so the contrails are also/actually chemtrails."

Because the DC-10's engine on it's tail doesn't have to run until they are ready to release chemicals into it's exhaust.


The DC-10 can fly with just it's wing engines.


747's can leave their APU's off at the airport, taxi and fly with no APU. Then when you get to 30,000 feet....kick on the APU and spit out the chemicals with that engine.


You CAN NOT release chemicals via wing mounted engines. Bleed air from those engines are used for air in the cabin and cockpit, to pressurize the aircraft.

reply to post by Pervius


That's an interesting take Pervius - any multi engined a/c can fly without any 1 engine to some extent or other....but DC-10's, AFAIK, would find it very difficult to take off fully loaded with only the 2 wing engines - I used to work for an airline that flew them, and am not aware that they ever operated with jsut 2 going except when 1 had to be shut down due to problems!!

APU's and the tail engine on DC-10's all use the same fuel tanks as the other engines tho, so not sure why you think they are the source of chemtrails - my original question still applies......

And the main use for APU's is actually on the ground to suply electrical power when the main engines are not running. They are usually only run in flight in emergency situations.....and to test their relight capabilities for EDTO (Extended Diversion Time Operations - used to be called ETOPS - engines turn or passengers swim) - they need to be reliably relightable at cruise altitudes should an engine fail, again to provide backup electrical and hydraulic power.

I would guess that you are not all that familiar with how a/c are operated??

Edit to add - and of course ther aren't that many DC-10's & MD-11's left any more - the DC-10 is obsolete, and the MD-11 obsolescent, and most "chemtrails" are identified as coming from 2 or 4 engined a/c these days.....

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
So why then are there not massive "chemtrails" at airports and on climb-out paths all over the world??

Hmmm, you may be on to something.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Also it should be a cinch to get air samples from around airports and find out what is in the exhaust gasses since that is where such gasses are most concentrated!

You're right, it was a cinch.

Personal Exposure to JP-8 Jet Fuel Vapors and Exhaust at Air Force Bases

Typical exhaust plume from an engine run-up procedure for a KC-135 aircraft in a cold climate (-100C). During aircraft warm up, the exhaust contains unburnt and partially burnt JP-8, exposing crew chiefs and other ground per-sonnel to JP-8. During multiple-aircraft starts, a low-hanging exhaust cloud may form over the whole tarmac area.

Here's a list of the chemicals in JP-8 exhaust.

Chloroform
Benzene
Trichloroethene
Toluene
Tetrachloroethene
Ethylbenzene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Styrene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Butane
Pentane
Hexane
Heptane
Octane
Nonane
Decane
Undecane
Dodecane

And here I was thinking jet exhaust was pretty clean for some reason. Maybe contrails really are chemtrails.

reply to post by FreeSpeaker


That's from a cold start in cold weather (-100C, really cold!), which is why all those hydrocarbons are present (fuel wasn't properly burned, they are products of incomplete combustion). Regular exhaust from aircraft (not during engine startup or run up procedures) should be pretty clean, just water CO2 and some CO? Maybe a little soot too.

ETA: freespeaker, I totally did not expect you to fulfill my prophecy.

I thought it was pretty common knowledge that the planes are fact equipped with external sprayers, the tanks for which are actually inside the plane. My sister and brother-in-law have been close enough to one of these planes to see the sprayers under the wings. Believe me, or not. It makes no difference to me!

reply to post by jeramie


Flap fairings(I believe that is the correct term) are not sprayers, but the general public often mistakes them for such (that's why people believe tankerenemy, even though we know his videos are lies).

Not that it will change your mind. Your family is infallible, they couldn't have possibly been mistaken

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by FreeSpeaker

 

That's from a cold start in cold weather (-100C, really cold!), which is why all those hydrocarbons are present (fuel wasn't properly burned, they are products of incomplete combustion). Regular exhaust from aircraft (not during engine startup or run up procedures) should be pretty clean, just water CO2 and some CO? Maybe a little soot too.

I know, but they did test different exposure conditions. The info is all in the pdf. I got a little busy at work this morning and couldn't post more but there's more to come. I'm hoping maybe one of you guys knows just how clean that fuel burns when the plane is up to speed and cruising because exposure during start up isn't very nice.

Originally posted by adeclerk
ETA: freespeaker, I totally did not expect you to fulfill my prophecy.

edit on 8/10/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)

I may be guilty of baiting you with that one.

Sorry, didn't think you would mind and I couldn't resist.

Originally posted by Pervius
Because the DC-10's engine on it's tail doesn't have to run until they are ready to release chemicals into it's exhaust.


The DC-10 can fly with just it's wing engines.


747's can leave their APU's off at the airport, taxi and fly with no APU. Then when you get to 30,000 feet....kick on the APU and spit out the chemicals with that engine.


You CAN NOT release chemicals via wing mounted engines. Bleed air from those engines are used for air in the cabin and cockpit, to pressurize the aircraft.

WHAT??? Do you really think loaded DC-10s are taking off on just two engines. Care to tell us what that does to its performance charts.

Just because it can maintain level flight in an emergency, do you actually think they will take off and climb out that way?

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by kro32

 

In my honest opinion, these "chemtrails" are just jet exhaust that has more water vapour in it than before as a result of emissions reducing mechanisms on the engines that were recently mandated (anyone who knows the specifics should help me out here as I have forgotten them) These supposed chemtrails are just one more thing to make you look left so you don't see what's going on over to the right, if you catch my drift.

Well you are somewhat right, and somewhat wrong. There are not emissions reducing devices on the engines. However, efficiency is of the utmost importance, and so the more efficient the engine is, the lower the emissions are from it.

The more complete that the fuel is combusted, the more water is produced from the combustion.

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by FreeSpeaker

 

That's from a cold start in cold weather (-100C, really cold!), which is why all those hydrocarbons are present (fuel wasn't properly burned, they are products of incomplete combustion).

Ooops, my copy and paste skills were off yesterday.

Typical exhaust plume from an engine run-up procedure for a KC-135 aircraft in a cold climate (-100C). During aircraft warm up, the exhaust contains unburnt and partially burnt JP-8, exposing crew chiefs and other ground per-sonnel to JP-8. During multiple-aircraft starts, a low-hanging exhaust cloud may form over the whole tarmac area.

The -100c is an error. Should have read -10c. My bad.

reply to post by FreeSpeaker


Hypothetical situation...

What if a plane had a engine running below average efficiency while cruising at high altitude, producing contrails. Could the amounts of unburned fuel cause the trail to be discolored? I've heard of rusty colored contrails and wonder if this could be the cause.

reply to post by FreeSpeaker


Rusty colored contrails have the same cause as rusty colored clouds - the sun and Mie scattering.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/89fb2c1b8501.jpg[/atsimg]

If a plane was actually pumping out visible exhaust smoke at altitude, then it's got a failing engine, and would probably be on it's way for an emergency landing at the nearest airport.

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by FreeSpeaker

 

Rusty colored contrails have the same cause as rusty colored clouds - the sun and Mie scattering.


If a plane was actually pumping out visible exhaust smoke at altitude, then it's got a failing engine, and would probably be on it's way for an emergency landing at the nearest airport.

edit on 11-8-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)

I was thinking more along the lines of a rusty contrail in a nice clear blue sky. Nice photo.

Does the engine have to be failing to be emmitting unburned fuel? Do the engines really burn up 100% of the fuel when fully up to speed?

reply to post by FreeSpeaker


Well, a few video's have shown me leaked fuel from a civilian aircraft appears white and not rusty, but that was a actual leak and not a under performing jet engine.

Poof goes my theory.