Beware of the Chemtrail minefield

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by TreehouseIndustries

 

.....I cannot find any flight paths that would take flights directly over Christchurch with an west east heading at high altitude without landing. specifically I am referring to the 23rd of December in Christchurch, where i witnessed multiple flights the aforementioned heading (west to east)

Have you considered international flights from Australia to South America?

More likely would be flights routing over Chch then proceeding to Wellington - I am not sure why they do this, but it does happen.

And personally I think the original account is insufficient - the poster says it is true, but cannot support the assertion.

If he is actually interested then he should send an official information act request to Airways New Zealand to provide him with the information.

The fact that he does not bother to do so, but comes on here to repeat the claim, without evidence, makes me suspect he doesn't really have faith in his own assertion.

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by jackmac

 

If you will follow me on a train of thought for a while.

I'm not being facile, I genuinely wonder. You see, as I understand it, the thicker, more visible trail is made up of water vapour. There are obviously pollutants as well from the burning of the fuel, but these are invisible and present whether there is a visible trail or not.

Is it because they mask off the sun? Well, clouds do that too and yes, aircraft induced cirrus adds to that, no argument from me.

However, on the other side of the coin, the use of bypass air, in the ratio of about 7:1 on average, to augment the thrust produced means a smaller core burning less fuel than would otherwise be required to achieve the same level of thrust from a turbojet, yes? So if we are trading more than 85% of the potential exhaust gasses from such a huge engine for a visible trail of moisture caused by the compression of fresh air, is it not more desirable?

Could that be a conclusion the engineers reached? Plus of course the airlines massively reduced fuel bill.

edit on 17-1-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)

Ok.

'You see, as I understand it, the thicker, more visible trail is made up of water vapour. There are obviously pollutants as well from the burning of the fuel, but...'
Ok, actually it's the water vapour turning to ice during approx a one second frame of change from vapour to liquid to frozen; in short, it's the ice that's visible, not the vapour. But anyway, what role if any, as you understand it, might the particles emitted from the jet have in relation to contrail persistence and visual density? Your understanding is not complete on this.

'Is it because they mask off the sun? Well, clouds do that too and yes, aircraft induced cirrus adds to that, no argument from me.'
Let's get one thing right - clouds and contrails are not the same thing - they require different processes to come about. Maybe that's the point? What's the name to use here? 'Induced cirrus', persistent contrails', 'cirrus aviaticus'? How about a new nomenclature? Talking in simplistic terms like 'is it because they mask off the sun?' - Yes - that's exactly why. How much more fundamental do you need it to be? We need all the sunshine we can get. Plants like to grow in it; that kind of thing.

'trading more than 85% of the potential exhaust gasses from such a huge engine for a visible trail of moisture caused by the compression of fresh air'
Oh yeah? It's great that it's just 'visible moisture' and 'fresh air' - except it's not the whole story. You sound a bit like an ad for 'aircraft induced/artificial/man made/cirrus aviaticus/persistent contrails'. It's so fresh and moist.....desirable it ain't.

You illustrate well the possible reasons with this: 'Could that be a conclusion the engineers reached? Plus of course the airlines massively reduced fuel bill.'

No. A good engineer would not come to that conclusion, they would continue to look for mitigation until they found it, it is the nature of an engineer - you answered your own question: the money people would make that decision, and they're not engineers.

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by jackmac

 

No, you are severely mistaken. I thought you were interested in having a discussion, but now the misrepresentation and sly digs have begun (after you started on proudbird in the previous post) it is clear you are only trying to "win".

For example, despite your vociferous objection above, you DID quite clearly write this;

The reason for their formation is very often and very obviously attributable to aircraft jet emissions, and to that alone.

As you ask, it is line six and seven of your reply to me higher up this very page and does not say "trigger" at all.

You have similarly tried to twist my own words as well as cast aspertions on my level of comprehension and so further discourse with you would clearly be waste of time, as you are reduced to nit-picking as the wider points raised get ignored

Well done, you win. Whoopee.

edit on 18-1-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)

No. You clearly do not understand the necessary elements of the argument you started by creating this thread. That has been demonstrated by your own description of what contrails are; not by 'nit-picking', but by fact. Your ad hominem is weak, as are all. 'Winning' has nothing to do with it; 'exposing dogma' is more apposite.

I thought you said a 'two way discussion is a wonderful thing'?

I think you could find the word trigger where I used it, if you wanted.....or shalI I?

reply to post by jackmac


I refer you to my previous reply, which applies here too. There are actually points raised in this post that I am tempted to reply to, but your previous obnoxious reponse dissuades me.

PS, I only left out the bit about contrails being ice crystals from my reply to keep things simple. Given that you do know this, it it interesting that you seem to think that natural cirrus clouds are different. If they too are not ice crystals, what are they?

Or are you going to pretend I read that wrong too?

The pattern is predictable already even though you've only been here a few days, either you are right, or the other person didn't understand you. I'm not playing that game.

When you can discuss matters sensibly and without personal sniping, I maybe tempted back to answer you. Let's see how it goes.

reply to post by jackmac


I can address both of these notions.....the first, is pertinent to topic.....the second, an allusion that is not only disingenuous and inflammatory, but is a type of fallacious analogy:

How about, design a system that could by-pass a pilot...what might that involve?

That ^ ^ ^ is first to be addressed:

There is no system on an airplane that a pilot is trained, current and qualified on that s/he does not know about and understand and know how to operate.

Now, what kind of imaginary "system" are we talking about, here? Something to "spray" in some way?

Such a set-up would entail a holding tank for the supply to be "sprayed". It would need pumps and valves, and those would have to be supplied with a power source (electrical) to operate them. Every item that is electrically powered must have wiring, and of course, circuit breakers to protect against electrical fires from shorts.

There would have to be the associated plumbing lines to carry the "stuff" to "spray". There would also have to be a nozzle or some other orifice where the "stuff" would exit the airplane.

Do you know what a "walk-around" is? It's just another way to describe what many others will call a "pre-flight". A pre-flight is conducted every time, before every flight, by at least one pilot. In commercial airline operations, there is almost always a mechanic too, who also conducts his/her own walk-around checks.

ANYthing unusual is being looked for, as well as checking the certain items that are part of whatever requirements are set for every airplane type. Furthermore, in the case of maintenance personnel, they are eventually going to be crawling all over and inside the airplane, at various points in the life of the airframe.

In addition, even the regular other people who work around and service the airplane, load bags, etc, are trained to know what should and should not be installed on each airplane type. There are many, many eyes at work there.

Not to mention, thousands of more eyes who scrutinize airplanes.....these are aviation hobbyists and enthusiasts, and most of them are photographers too.


Now, the second bit: (Slightly off-topic, but necessary to properly inform and instruct):

'You CANNOT bypass the pilot'
Well. The 9/11 hi-jackers managed to 'bypass' quite a few pilots, apparently. Midgets with box cutters....

"Midgets"???

This is where we reach "disingenuous" and "fallacious".......the 9/11 hijackers were of average stature.

The scenarios is this --- at least two men intent on the cockpit intrusion, they watch carefully for their opportunity. It is when the cockpit door is opened, most probably by the Flight Attendant, to serve the pilots a beverage or a meal. (In fact, prior to 9/11, this was so routine it could have been anticipated merely by "casing" other previous flights, and watching for this pattern. It was 99% the case that some point about 15-20 minutes after takeoff, before the cabin service got into full swing, the F/As would bring something "up front"....then, they could "forget" about the cockpit for an hour or two, while they focused on their service in the back).

Now.....two pilots, backs to the entry door, seated and seat belts fastened. Unsuspecting. The distance from the doorway, to just behind each seat, in a position where a standing man can slit the throat of a man who is seated? No more than two quick strides. And, the aggressors, with all the element of surprise, and savagery.



^ ^ ^ Photo of an American Airlines Boeing 767 cockpit, taken from the cockpit door threshold. You can see the door open, it swings inward on that model jet, to the left. On the right, is a jumpseat. Has the Aircraft Logbook laying on it. There was no one on any of the jumpseats on any of the four hijacked airplanes on 9/11.

Note that the First Officer's seat (right) is not in position for flight...see shape of the track? (Neither is the Captain's, but you can see the seat tracks for the right seat easily. Also, I see that the airplane is powered, but the Inertial Reference System platforms are off, and not aligned. Not only because the three switches on the overhead panel are in the "Off" position, but the electronic instrument displays told me this first. I can tell a lot, from a photo like this***). The 'J'-shape allows seats to move aft, then sideways, for easier egress/ingress. Once forward, in normal flying position, there is minimal legroom either side, and little room for maneuvering your body or legs.

And, that is how simple it was to commit the initial crime and murder or critically wound the pilots, in just seconds.

One more side note, whilst having the above photo handy --- will recall one hijacker (AAL 11) mistakenly made what he thought were PA announcements to the cabin, but transmitted, and was recorded, on the ATC frequencies. This is because, unlike a professional who knows every aspect of his/her airplane, the hijackers focused only to the task and minimum they needed, such as how to program and operate the autoflight systems (barely) and navigations computers.

If you look to the right, there is a hand-mic there. Same on the left side, not in view. They mistook that for a PA mic, since other Boeing models use that system. The PA is normally made from the phone handset, hanging on the center console. (Looks like a "Princess phone").


[***] To add another detail I spot....often a photo like this is taken by an airplane buff, who is a passenger....either before, or after his/her flight. But, I see that the Emergency Exit Lights switch is in the "Off" position....and that the airplane is on Ground Power, not using the APU (since it is in the "Off" position, though this angle is hard to tell). The Emergency Exit lights switch must always be in the "Armed" position, with the protective switch cap in place, whenever passengers on on board. SO, this photo was likely taken by an airline employee.....one authorized to be on board. The airplane is configured for a typical in-between flights situation, when the cockpit is unattended.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by TreehouseIndustries

 

.....I cannot find any flight paths that would take flights directly over Christchurch with an west east heading at high altitude without landing. specifically I am referring to the 23rd of December in Christchurch, where i witnessed multiple flights the aforementioned heading (west to east)

Have you considered international flights from Australia to South America?

More likely would be flights routing over Chch then proceeding to Wellington - I am not sure why they do this, but it does happen.

And personally I think the original account is insufficient - the poster says it is true, but cannot support the assertion.

If he is actually interested then he should send an official information act request to Airways New Zealand to provide him with the information.

The fact that he does not bother to do so, but comes on here to repeat the claim, without evidence, makes me suspect he doesn't really have faith in his own assertion.

wow.... what an assumption to make. you may suspect all you wish sir but that doesn't make it so. I have been civil and respectful up to this point and frankly your response reeks of slander and nothing more.

firstly, thank you for talking about me as if i'm not here.

Why am have I not support my claim? because I have chosen not to (was hoping we could discuss things as rational human beings without resorting to the "pics or it didn't happen" mentality)

why have I not filed an information request to airways NZ? because I have been trying to narrow down anything it could be before going through the process (I'm sure you'll see this as proof of my lack of faith but we'll probably never agree on that)

just out of curiosity did you read my last posting in reply to Proudbird? or chose to ignore it as it had cogent information listing exact times and locations of the flights in question.

reply to post by ProudBird


Thank you for an excellent explanation. That is so much more than I could have supplied, and convinces me even more of the naivety of jackmacs supposition.

Originally posted by jackmac

Originally posted by waynos
Wow, so many questions. I will try my best to address them for you

Originally posted by jackmac



A two sided debate, if conducted honestly is a great thing.

The reason for their formation is very often and very obviously attributable to aircraft jet emissions, and to that alone. Yes, we know there is a prerequisite in the amount of available moisture in the atmosphere (and other factors), but without the aircraft passing, the trigger to form the cloud...

Originally posted by jackmacYou illustrate well the possible reasons with this: 'Could that be a conclusion the engineers reached? Plus of course the airlines massively reduced fuel bill.'

No. A good engineer would not come to that conclusion, they would continue to look for mitigation until they found it, it is the nature of an engineer - you answered your own question: the money people would make that decision, and they're not engineers.

And how would they mitigate the production of a contrail? If the design brief is to produce a newer more efficient engine with more thrust than previous models, and you achieve this, job done. Engineering is about practical solutions within realistic design constraints, not exactly what everyone wants.

Unless you can rewrite the laws of thermodynamics and chemistry, combustion will still produce water, and that water will still sublimate to form a cloud when conditions are conducive to forming a cloud. You can't change that, unless you don't produce the water in the first place. And that requires a considerable redesign of the aircraft from the base up, as you'd need a more exotic form of power.

reply to post by jackmac


Right, I see you are fixated on this point. What you wrote in the second sentence, does not change the meaning of the first, self contained, sentence. It may expand upon it or qualify it to some extent, but that first sentence is clear and unambiguous. To then flat out deny that you said it is dishonest, pure and simple.

I'm sure I will return to answer your points, but I am currently finding your approach rather juvenile, which is why I said I will leave it for now.

That ok with you?

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by jackmac

 

Right, I see you are fixated on this point. What you wrote in the second sentence, does not change the meaning of the first, self contained, sentence. It may expand upon it or qualify it to some extent, but that first sentence is clear and unambiguous. To then flat out deny that you said it is dishonest, pure and simple.

I'm sure I will return to answer your points, but I am currently finding your approach rather juvenile, which is why I said I will leave it for now.

That ok with you?

edit on 18-1-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)

Yes, that first sentence is clear and unambiguous, and I stand by that statement 100%. I have never tried to deny it. I merely pointed out that you said clearly and unambiguously that the word 'trigger' was never used. And, as it turns out, it was used in the very next sentence. Is that your cognitive bias? What is juvenile about challenging your position? I have backed up every point and stand by every point I've made. If you have something specific to complain about, I address it - as shown above. You are resorting to ad hominem argument, stick to the point - you brought it up.

Originally posted by TreehouseIndustries

wow.... what an assumption to make. you may suspect all you wish sir but that doesn't make it so.

Which is why I said I suspect it, and did not state it as fact.

I have been civil and respectful up to this point and frankly your response reeks of slander and nothing more.

You seem happy to slander thousands of people by stating your opinions based on your observations - I think you have a gall (sic) to object when I form an opinion based on mine.

Why am have I not support my claim? because I have chosen not to (was hoping we could discuss things as rational human beings without resorting to the "pics or it didn't happen" mentality)

why have I not filed an information request to airways NZ? because I have been trying to narrow down anything it could be before going through the process (I'm sure you'll see this as proof of my lack of faith but we'll probably never agree on that)

finding the information from Airways would be the most direct, accurate and accurate means of "narrowing down" the information would it not?

just out of curiosity did you read my last posting in reply to Proudbird? or chose to ignore it as it had cogent information listing exact times and locations of the flights in question.

Yes - it was irrelevant to my point. It did not identify the nature of the flights, the aircraft concerned, or any other information that might be relevant - and you have admitted you have not tried to do so.

If you are serious about identifying the aircraft then you need to make a serious effort to do so - coming onto ATS is not the most serious means you could use - and you freely admit you have not even tried the most serious means you could use.

In fact had you posted this information a couple of weeks earlier, then perhaps people here could have checked FlightRadar, but AFAIK it's history only goes back 2 weeks - so you have actually managed to ensure that no-one on ATS can provide any information to you at all!

Originally posted by apex

Originally posted by jackmacYou illustrate well the possible reasons with this: 'Could that be a conclusion the engineers reached? Plus of course the airlines massively reduced fuel bill.'

No. A good engineer would not come to that conclusion, they would continue to look for mitigation until they found it, it is the nature of an engineer - you answered your own question: the money people would make that decision, and they're not engineers.

And how would they mitigate the production of a contrail? If the design brief is to produce a newer more efficient engine with more thrust than previous models, and you achieve this, job done. Engineering is about practical solutions within realistic design constraints, not exactly what everyone wants.

Unless you can rewrite the laws of thermodynamics and chemistry, combustion will still produce water, and that water will still sublimate to form a cloud when conditions are conducive to forming a cloud. You can't change that, unless you don't produce the water in the first place. And that requires a considerable redesign of the aircraft from the base up, as you'd need a more exotic form of power.

Yes. Lots of good points, and agree on the whole - but....you knew there'd be one...I was really making the point about the nature of an engineer...(that they are constrained by money etc. put aside for a moment), it would be a natural goal to mitigate such a problem. But you're right, and I said it too, there are financial constraints, realistic aspirations - all that.

I wouldn't expect to re-write thermodynamics, or do away with water vapour (or CO2 etc come to mention it) as a result of burning hydrocarbons, but shouldn't such technological progression be making these things better, not worse?

Originally posted by jackmac

But anyway, what role if any, as you understand it, might the particles emitted from the jet have in relation to contrail persistence and visual density?

Persistence is determined by the relative humidity of the surrounding air coupled with the temperature at cruising altitude, which is always right for contrails to form, but the RH is not always sufficient for them to persist.

Density is affected by these factors too, coupled with the size of the engine, its power setting and bypass ratio.

What effect do you attribute to the 'particles', and particles of what? If you are referring to the particles of soot etc that is contained in the exhaust acting as the catalyst for cirrus to form and spread out due to the already high RH, then we should not be arguing as we agree.

Your understanding is not complete on this

As an interested amateur, rather than an aviation professional, this may be correct. How about yours? And what am I missing?

Let's get one thing right - clouds and contrails are not the same thing

I have already asked you about this but you have not answered. Given that we are talking about cirrus clouds specifically, if they are not also ice crystals, what are they?

'is it because they mask off the sun?' - Yes - that's exactly why. How much more fundamental do you need it to be? We need all the sunshine we can get. Plants like to grow in it; that kind of thing.

You seem to have taken this out of the context in which it was asked, However, I would be as interested as anyone to see any data that showed that the mere presence of contrails was harmful, regardless of their content and have written as much several times.

Nevertheless, to continue;

Oh yeah? It's great that it's just 'visible moisture' and 'fresh air' - except it's not the whole story. You sound a bit like an ad for 'aircraft induced/artificial/man made/cirrus aviaticus/persistent contrails'. It's so fresh and moist.....desirable it ain't.

Does this response mean that you would be happier for aircraft to have turbojet engines that develop the required 70,000lb of thrust (depending on type), rather than the high bypass turbofans they do have, or did you not actually try to answer the point? Do you disagree that it is just air that goes around the central core of a turbofan? Or do you disagree that sudden and massive depressurisation will cause a vapour trail? What is your position on this?

What would your solution be?

And, just so you dont have to ask again, no, I didn't try to design a system that bypasses the pilots, as you asked, why would I when I'm of the view that it is not possible?

Maybe you could show your own thoughts in this direction?

And what do you think is being sprayed?

I think your editing skills might do with a hone.

Thank you for your observation, unfortunately the edit was dictated by the character count, but you didn't ask before you sniped, did you. Please try to stick to the topic.

Originally posted by waynos
I cannot think of any possibility that cirrus formation would be due to aircraft emissions *alone*. This is not possible.

I think for this topic it's very important to distinguish between the conditions required for cirrus persistence and cirrus formation

All other things being equal, and simplifying a little:

Cirrus formation requires relative humidity with respect to water (RHW) of over 100%
Cirrus persistence requires relative humidity with respect to ice (RHI) of over 100%

or, since RHI is 100% at about 60-70% RHW (Let's say 70%, fo illustration).

Cirrus persistence requires relative humidity with respect to water (RHW) of over 70%

So, contrails and cirrus will form at RHW > 100%, and both will persist at RHW >70%

But contrails can FORM when the atmospheric RHW is

reply to post by DJW001


Great links! Unfortunately the planes I saw in SD this morning are nowhere to be found on there... I think it was a USAF Boeing E-4B from the blue stripe and the 4 engines.

reply to post by SDSkyWatcher


And, once more, I will repeat the link to a Post I made in another so-called "chemtrail" thread, HERE.

The airplanes were making normal, everyday CONTRAILS....combustion of jet fuel, water vapor production (and already present in atmosphere) and extremely cold temperatures @ altitude = CONDENSATION trails...

What I read on this was very interesting, and I have some naive questions to ask. I saw a plane, fairly low flying, and leaving a com/chem trail, when all of a sudden, the trail disappeared for just a short distance, then started up again at the same height. What is the explanation for that? Number two: a plane was descending, leaving no chem/con trail, when all of sudden it started to leave one. What would the explanation be for that?