San Luis Obispo Classified Ad - Weather Modification Intent by County Water Agency

reply to post by Sek82


I did wonder, but then I thought my treating it as sarcastic might then be seen as sarcastic to you, if you catch my drift, lol. So I just answered the post.


I dont think any of us are denying that geo engineering is a real objective or science. There is quite enough proof of that everywhere. I think that it is more small scale because it does not involve the worlds airline fleets as a lot of chemtrailers would have you believe, for that there is no evidence at all. You can cloud seed from a Cessna 180, why would you go to the expense of using fleets of 747's?

reply to post by TrueAmerican


The air coming out of a cars exhaust pipe is just as bad, if not worse...

And we surround ourselves with thousands of them every day.

reply to post by Chadwickus

....but many people think in terms of purpose, not scale.
Scale is the big factor easily ignored, perhaps because it is so easily ignored....or overlooked, because it is all around us, clouding our view of the real issues.
Scale becomes an acceptance, which is unfortunate.

Originally posted by Sek82
reply to post by waynos

 

You're right. My response was meant to poke fun at the chemtrail debunkers, while they often bring facts and valuable knowledge to the table, their quest to prove that chemtrails don't exist is never ending.

Who is that?

I aam not on a quest to prove that chemtrails do not exist.

I am on a quest to find verifiable evidence that they DO exist - because if they DO exist then I want to know about it.

I just happen to resent the smokescreen of poor evidence that is constantly put up as "proof" of chemtails, because it detracts from things that ARE actually important - such as pollution and any REAL evidence!

Weather modification does clearly exist, but they are adamant that it is limited to a small scale.

not really - it can be quite large scale in terms of flight numbers and areas covered - Thailand, for example, takes it very seriously and devotes a lot of effort to it. Various places in Australia & USA also do a lot of it & probably elsewhere too - lots of people make livings from it.

But ultimately it is simply not what chemtrails are supposed to be - something coming from airliners for an unstated/secret nefarious purpose.

Weather modification is almost always done from small aircraft, for well known purposes, in cloudy skies, at relatively low altitude - that is how cloud seeding works, and it is not what is being reported as "chemtrails" - what's the problem with that??

I still view Geo engineering as a very interesting topic that continues to incite debate.

Absolutely

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by Sek82

 

You can cloud seed from a Cessna 180, why would you go to the expense of using fleets of 747's

Well, why would anyone want to do anything on a larger scale? To have a greater effect of course.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
I agree with everything you said. I've usually remained fairly neutral in regards to whether or not chemtrails exist (in the secret nefarious way as you say), but find that these days I lean more towards the 'no, they are all contrails' stance. Though at my new home location, some days, the amount of them that can be seen is stunning. I know there are a few posters here from my area that are going nuts over them lately.

Originally posted by Sek82

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by Sek82

 

You can cloud seed from a Cessna 180, why would you go to the expense of using fleets of 747's

Well, why would anyone want to do anything on a larger scale? To have a greater effect of course.

I'm not sure it would work like that though.

A 747 has massive internal capacity & lifting capacity (tonnage) - it's good for carrying water or fire retardant or cargo or passengers - but that is not where you put cloud seeding candles or burners & they aren't all that heavy!

Cloud seeding gear goes on the back of the wing - you need a part of the trailing edge free from flaps & ailerons - here's a 3 view drawing of a 747-200 & there's only a very small area between the end of the flaps and the start of hte aileron - even given the size of the a/c I think it might only be a couple of metres of traiing edge wingspan available to put candles on.

So you'd be operating an a/c that costs hundreds of times as much to fly, for maybe just a few times more actual capability to do cloudseeding.

That's just me speculating tho.....

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
Fair enough, just one thing. My response to the individual who is not you was a generalized one, where he referenced 747s, I was responding in regards to larger aircraft in general. Why larger aircraft might want to be utilized... Why things are done on a larger scale. To have a greater effect. Considering that cloud seeding can be done from above cloud layers, anything is possible.

Specifically speaking, a 747 might not be the best choice, I'm not interested in debating that.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Cloud seeding gear goes on the back of the wing - you need a part of the trailing edge free from flaps & ailerons

This photo disagrees and says cloud seeding equipment can go anywhere it wants.

My response to you was in complete agreement with your response to me and you still found a way to argue it. Well done.

reply to post by Sek82

This photo disagrees and says cloud seeding equipment can go anywhere it wants.

THAT is a Cessna 340. It is a light-twin, built mostly for people who are fairly wealthy individuals, or can also be used (not often) in Air Taxi operations. It is sometimes the choice for some corporate applications, when they cannot afford a business jet.

It seats at most, 6 people. Its only advantage over the Cessna "180" mentioned previously, is it is pressurized and has better performance (more horsepower) so can go to higher altitudes. The Cessna 180, btw, is a single-engine tail-dragger. Neither of these particular models are built anymore, by the Cessna company....the 180 model is very old, pre-dated the tricycle-gear model 182. They (Cessna) no longer build any twin piston-powered airplanes. All that currently still fly are those that have remained active for many years. Cessna actually fell on hard times, as did all General Aviation manufacturers, back in the late 1980s to early 1990s. They were also hit badly in the late 2000s. Cessna is now a subsidiary of the Textron company...since 1992.

Textron businesses they now own

Cessna website: www.cessna.com...

The Cessna 340 and its specifications.

How do I know so much? Because I first learned to fly in 1970. Since then, have had a long career, culminating in lastly at a major airline. Over 20,000 hours total time, in all those years.

The Cessna 340 is a nice airplane, guy I know in Scottsdale had one, let me fly it a few times. I've also flown all of the Cessna piston twins, the 414 is my favorite in twin Cessnas....the 421 is nice too, but it has finicky engines, overly complex with the gearing between the crankshaft and the propeller.

Although possibly a much better (if you have the money) very nice light twin is a Beechcraft (now Raytheon) Baron model 58. Although, it is not pressurized (except the 58P model)..... The newer 414, with the different wing -- no tip-tanks -- is a contender, in my mind. The entry doors, and locations, are a personal choice too....and, the 414 can go higher, if needed to top bad weather.

[The pressurized Baron 58P, there were very few built, so if that is what you want? Hard to find).


But in any case.....no, "cloud seeding" is not as "simple" as just slapping on the devices. The FAA n the USA) or any other national aviation governing authority are very specific, and every device and airplane combination requires its own STC in order to be allowed, certified and approved.

'STC' is the Supplemental Type Certificate, the documentation and procedure for the FAA in the USA. Other countries have similar procedures, and their own terminologies for the same concepts.

A Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) is a document issued by the Federal Aviation Administration approving a product (aircraft, engine, or propeller) modification. The STC defines the product design change, states how the modification affects the existing type design, and lists serial number effectivity. It also identifies the certification basis listing specific regulatory compliance for the design change....

edit: oops, right post, wrong topic

Originally posted by Sek82

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by Sek82

 

You can cloud seed from a Cessna 180, why would you go to the expense of using fleets of 747's

Well, why would anyone want to do anything on a larger scale? To have a greater effect of course.

That would only be a valid reason if you were somehow creating the clouds and needed the volume. With cloud seeding though, its not done like that and never has been, instead,whatever moisture is already in the cloud is what will determine all the rain you are going to get out of it, all you need to do is turn the tap on, so to speak. A Cessna will do that just fine. A large transport (whether it's a 747 or a 737) is just a massively more expensive way of turning the same tap on, you don't get a greater effect to any degree that could not have been achieved from a smaller aircraft anyway. That's why Thailand has a fleet of small coud seeding aircraft and not a few very large ones.

Originally posted by Sek82
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Cloud seeding gear goes on the back of the wing - you need a part of the trailing edge free from flaps & ailerons

This photo disagrees and says cloud seeding equipment can go anywhere it wants.

True - those burners can be put under wings - probably outboard of flaps is all that is required. I'm not sure what their exact function is & they dont' seem to be all that common - perhaps someone can help out with that?

My response to you was in complete agreement with your response to me and you still found a way to argue it. Well done.

I didn't think i was arguing anything - you seemed unsure so I chucked such info & thoughts I had your way thinking you might find them helpful.

not everything is an argument!

reply to post by ProudBird
Very interesting reading there. 20k hours, huh? I have a wee bit less than that under my belt! And limited to Piper PA-28/Cessna 152 Aerobat/182 at that.

It sounds like you'd be the perfect person to add some content to the Aircraft Projects Discussion Forum. I'd love to read any interesting stories you might have from your days of flying. Ever experience any engine-outs/emergency landings, etc?

Anyhoo, thanks for the info. Though my FAR/AIM is up to date, it could use some dusting off. Cheers