Smoke Smog Fog and Chemtrails

Originally posted by dplum517

Then maybe we should consider looking at inventions that are owned by defense contractors. Like the one that's been linked a hundred times on this site. #5003186

That's a good example of what we are talking about, as there's no embodiment of that patent that could produce a trail that looked anything like a persistent spreading contrail. Spraying powder in the sky for 100 miles, even from a full payload, would result in a nearly invisible trail of powder that would quickly dissipate.

So that patent clearly can't be behind what people are pointing to and calling "chemtrails".

In fact, the ONLY thing those "chemtrails" could be is persistent contrails, long clouds of ice, mostly (99.99%) comprised of water that was already in the atmosphere.

reply to post by Uncinus

Spraying powder in the sky for 100 miles, even from a full payload, would result in a nearly invisible trail of powder that would quickly dissipate.

huh? You just pull that out of your ass? That is laughable.

You have ZERO proof fort that.

you're trying to justify your denial by trying to play down something that proves you wrong

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by Uncinus

 

Spraying powder in the sky for 100 miles, even from a full payload, would result in a nearly invisible trail of powder that would quickly dissipate.

huh? You just pull that out of your ass? That is laughable.

You have ZERO proof fort that.

you're trying to justify your denial by trying to play down something that proves you wrong

edit on 16-2-2012 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)

Do the math.

A KC-135 tanker has a payload of 83,000 pounds. If that were sprayed over 100 miles, that 830 pounds per mile. Let's say that spreads out to "cover the sky", 10 miles wide to be conservative. So that's 830 pounds of powder to cover an area of 10 square miles. 10 square miles is 278,784,000 square feet. That's approximately 0.000003 pounds of powder per square foot (2.97721*10^-6 to be precise), or in more manageable terms, 0.00135 grams, or 1.3 milligrams of powder per square foot.

In terms you can actually see, that's about the mass of a four grains of salt. Per square foot.

Invisible.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
I have a question for the aviation experts here.

To my understanding fuel, oxygen and air density/temperature are important components of the efficiency of combustion engines.

When the the air is cold it is more dense and when it is hot it is less dense.
At high altitudes there is less oxygen and at lower altitudes there is more oxygen.

What, if any, are the mechanisms in a Jet that help adjust the fuel/air ratio to achieve maximum efficiency? Is there anything similar to a choke on an automobile carburetor? What are the actual mechanics?

Basically no - there is nothing that is the equivalent of a carburettor.

Fuel is controlled by a Fuel Control Unit (FCU) - either mechanically or electronically.

But because there is essentially no real "resistance" to the jet exhaust the engine will run just as fast as the amount of fuel pumped into it allows. By resistance I mean the equivalent of the resistance of the road at the tyres - a piston engine in a car is limited to how fast it will run (rpm) by how fast the car is going because hte mechanical linkage between tyres and the engine is fixed - eg if the engine runs 1000 rpm per 10mph in top gear then it will be running at 5000rpm at 50mph.

However a jet engine can run at any speed with the aircraft stationary just like a car engine can run at any speed with the clutch in.

That's a bit simplistic - internal resistance puts a maximum speed on them both - but many engines will self destruct before that actually stops them!

When a plane is at low altitudes the air is hotter and oxygen rich.
When a plane is at high altitudes the air is colder and oxygen deficient.

Do jets get their oxygen from the external air for use in combustion of the fuel?
Do jets have an internal supply of oxygen for use in combustion at higher altitudes?

AFAIK, jets get there oxygen from the outside air so how do they compensate for the lack of oxygen at higher altitudes?

They do not - their power drops off considerably - I recall being old that a 747 engine with 45,000lbs thrust at takeoff might only generate 8000 lbs thrust at cruise precisely because of that.

However with decreasing density also comes decreasing drag on the aircraft, so the reduced thrust remains enough to propel the aircraft

And that's just a 2D analysis. It gets even more improbably if you think about it in terms of 3D, of volumes.

When you look up in the sky, your view is partly obscured by the aerosols in the air - dust, smoke, clouds, that kind of thing. The more air you look though, the more aerosols you have to look through.

Now most planes you see will be at least 10 miles away from you (apart from the very few that pass DIRECTLY overhead). So that's ten miles of air you have to look through to see the plane, and hence the trail it leaves behind.

In order for the trail to be visible, than it has to contain significantly more mass of particles than the volume of air through which you have to look to see it. For the one foot section of trail, that's 52,000 cubic feet of air between you and the section of trail that contains four specks of salt. Or 26,000 really, as it's a cone of air, with your eye at the apex. 736 cubic meters.

Even if we take the incredibly clean air standard of 1 mg/m^3 that's still 736 mg of atmospheric dust directly obscuring the 1.3 mg of powder.

And of course that not even everything. The atmosphere itself scatters light. Notice often you can't even see the planes. There's simply no way that 1.3 mg of dust per square foot is going to be visible.

The ONLY thing that can create a visible spreading trail like that is water. Ice. Mostly from the atmosphere.

Here's a great explanation of how a modern high-bypass engine works. Its probably not really like most people imagine it.

reply to post by EyeDontKnow


Thank you. I'm sorry for calling you a tosser.

I jump into threads and often canny see the wood for the trees. It dawned on me today that the contrail subject gets people's hackles up, even worse than UFO threads. I never paid attention.

I don't really have an opinion on chemtrails.

But contrails, yes they're annoying. Very.

reply to post by Uncinus


You are silly man. All you did was use math to try and justify your view point.

That being ....that it's "invisible"

Sorry but no, it's not. You calculated that according to 10 square miles when it spreads out.

When the aerosol is being released it does not immediately spread out. It comes out as a white plume and then spreads out. Sure..... it becomes "invisbile" after a few hours.

But the immediate effect after it's released in the atmosphere is a visible white plume.

Just like when you spray an aerosol can of something straight up in the air.

It's not invisible the second it comes out because of how it's being released through compression.


So ...you saying it's invisible the second it comes out of the plane .....is just WRONG.

...not to mention the word "visible" is repeated several times in the patent.

reply to post by Uncinus


Thank you for that video.

I never realized that a full 85% of the air never goes through the combustion chamber. I've heard people before saying that the new high-bypass engines produced a "cooler and wetter" exhaust, but I never really knew why.

Now I do.

Originally posted by dplum517
So ...you saying it's invisible the second it comes out of the plane .....is just WRONG.

...not to mention the word "visible" is repeated several times in the patent.

I was not saying it would be invisible when it came out of the plane. It (sprayed powder) would be visible as it exited the plane, as a narrow white stream.

But as it spread out, it clearly would very rapidly fade away to invisibility, simply because there is not a lot of it.

The thing is - people say that "chemtrails" spread out to cover the sky. A powder trail clearly cannot. Only a growing ice trail can, because it gets 99.99% of it's mass from the atmosphere.

The word "visible" is only in the patent in relation to wavelengths of light. All dust in atmosphere reflects and diffuses visible light.

This patent would result in something entirely unlike what people are calling chemtrails.

You can do the math.

reply to post by dplum517


I don't think you understand the science, NOR the math.....what Uncinus wrote is correct. Secondly, there is NO proof (whatsoever) that the patent you keep referring to (the so-called "Welsbach Patent") is even being utilized in any way.


Look at Unicnus' math again, and consider that each CONTRAIL that grabs people's (ignorant) attention, where they infer it to be a "chemtrail", will be dozens of miles long. Hundred, even. Most people have no sense of size or scale, when looking up at the sky.

So again.....even only 50 miles in length. (A jet travels at 6 to 8 miles per MINUTE....so, that 50-mile contrail can be made in just under TEN minutes....as you watch the jet fly over. THINK about that!)

Do the math yourself, it only takes a hand-held calculator (theres' an App for that!!).

50 miles long, and then YOU decide how wide, and how thick it will be (in order to see it clearly, from 35,000 feet below it). Compare to the wingspan of the airliner, for reference.

NOW.....your Android or iPhone App calculator can tell the the cubic feet of volume. DO the math yourself! Adjust to various dimensions.

Then, determine WHAT the possible payload sizes can be. Divide that into the volume of air that you calculated, above. This gives you the density of whatever "material" has been "sprayed". Simple. Math.


Oh, and regarding the "patent"? You wrote:

...not to mention the word "visible" is repeated several times in the patent.

Here is where I don't think you are understanding the science. Read this line from the patent itself:

Such materials include Welsbach materials and the oxides of metals which have high emissivity (and thus low reflectivities) in the visible and 8-12 micron infrared wavelength regions.

LOOK at the words I highlighted. (AND note the reference to "infrared".....that is also important).


So, what is "high emissivity"?? And what does it mean, "...and thus, low reflectivity."??

(Is something easier to see when it has low reflectivity?? Or, more difficult?? Hint: "High Emissivity" materials are usually dark, dull materials....)

Here:

Emissivity in Layman's terms

Or, just search more on the terms.....Wiki has entries, too.


Finally, back to the maths. I suggested a 50-mile long contrails. That's 50 x 5280 = 264,000 feet.

Say, just for fun, 100 feet wide, and 50 feet thick? So, 264,000 x 100 x 50 = 1,320,000,000 CUBIC FEET!!

That is 1 (with a 'B') Billion, 320 Million CUBIC feet. Now, what sort of payload can be "sprayed"? How much material? What density, then of material would you need to fill that volume of air, and make it thick enough ot look like a white, fluffy contrail?? (**)

(**) I realize that this will likely be ignored by the person being replied to, but hopefully others will read, and then understand.....the answer (ONE answer) to the question, is a lot more than can be carried.

For instance, the 50-mile long contrail example? Just in case no one bothers to do more math, here I did it:

The figure in cubic feet, divided by a reasonable payload of 80,000 pounds means that for every ONE pound of material, it has to fill 16,500 cubic feet of air (on average).

16,500 cubic feet, for one perspective to visualize, would be a room with a TEN foot ceiling, and about 41 feet on each side. Or, a 15 foot ceiling, and about 33 feet square.

Et Cetera.....

ONE pound of a material, spread out into that volume? What on Earth could do that, and still be visible?

(Maybe a pound of feathers?? "Welsbach Feathers"....I like it!! Now, if we can just figure out how to atomize the feathers, for "spraying" purposes......Ooops, then they wouldn't be feathers, anymore. Drat!!)

I don't think you understand the science, NOR the math

Ahh .... I see ....now you know how smart I am.

I will just leave it up to you to tell me what I can and can't understand.

Your wall of words is a waste of space. You are attempting to use the tactic of intimidation through the use of "simple math" as you put it.

It's as if you're trying to say to people ...... don't attempt to understand the trails in the sky .....you're too dumb.

I don't think so buddy..... I understand enough just fine.

The amount of Chemistry and other sciences involved is a lot of variables.

You guys attempting to "debunk" it with a few lines of math is FAIL. And will be FAIL every time coming from you.

So now, chemtrails have become a religion.
You must believe in it; must have faith in its existance.
And those that doubt are the ignorant... the deniers?

Originally posted by dplum517
The amount of Chemistry and other sciences involved is a lot of variables.

You guys attempting to "debunk" it with a few lines of math is FAIL. And will be FAIL every time coming from you.

The good thing about math is that you can easily check it, and point out errors.

There's nothing wring the math though. The amount of ice in a contrail is so incredibly large that there's simply no way you could get something looking similar by spraying stuff from a plane. And certainly not 100 miles long, and ten miles wide. It's physically impossible.

Many people in the chemtrail community are starting to realize this. And now there's a new trend about "invisible chemtrails".

reply to post by antirepressant


Not at all.

Try a doing some of these:

-Being observant (to the sky)
-Be Skeptical to all information
-Research all related inventions (doesn't matter if you think they are in use or not)
-Research the initiatives being put forth on Geo-Engineering
-Research what top scientists in that field say
-Avoid prejudice and bias sites like .....contrailscience ...since its sole purpose is for "debunking"

If you don't want to do any of those ....I could care less and hold no opinions against you

But if you don't wanna do those....then don't go around saying chemtrails don't exist.

reply to post by dplum517


Contrails have been proven to exist. That issue itself doesn't appear to be debatable.

Chemtrails have been proven in so much as there are patents describing dispersing particulates in the atmosphere utilizing aircraft to do so. Yet, there is no proof that spraying said chemicals leaves trails in the sky which persist longer than condensation trails.

The burden of "proof", for the existance of persistant "chemtrails" lies squarely on the believers since EVERY airborne "trail" can be explained by atmospheric conditions, how jet engines operate and the condensation trails they leave.

Until you can show me two identical aircraft in the same atmospheric conditions where one leaves a trail and the other does not, I'm permitted to not buy in to the chemtrail religion.

reply to post by antirepressant


Ahhh ...I see...so you are not willing to do those things. Oh well.

EVERY airborne "trail" can be explained by atmospheric conditions

That statement shows ignorance. You think in black and white. It's either every trail or no trail. ...not good logic

Until you can show me two identical aircraft in the same atmospheric conditions where one leaves a trail and the other does not, I'm permitted to not buy in to the chemtrail religion.

Dude....did you even read my post. My first suggestion is to OBSERVE. Coincidentally ...that's the first step in science. To observe.

I have seen with my own two eyes what you just said. And the planes were hundreds of feet apart not thousands. So its up to YOU to look and observe. No ones going to spoon feed you.

I could care less what you buy into. Your opinion is worthless because people like you can't even start your own knowledge base on the subject.

NOte: My observation will probably be taken out of context .....but I don't assume or even think it's probable that people have seen the same things as me in different geographical regions. I have seen things that indicate they were doing "research" or "tests" which obviously wouldn't be seen everywhere.

Wigit, I agree contrails can plague the sky. Just the fact that planes leave the (urban) sky quiet-less, is itself annoying......even when I escape the city I hear them.
I use planes for work. My family uses planes to visit each other.
It's a necessary evil if we want the world as it is....and as it is going.

There are far more significant pollution sources that affect our lives...not above, but below.....nearer to our lungs and bodies.
Contrails are an interesting evil, though not the most toxic one.