Smoke Smog Fog and Chemtrails

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by boomer135
 

To find out, "why all of the hype",
you have to read.
Understanding the ATS chemtrail "debate".




posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by boomer135
 


Hello "boomer".

In a nutshell, there are people like yourself you are experienced, and educated, and understand what contrails are, and how and why they form.

There are others who have been conned into "believing" this sham and myth of "something" being "sprayed"....(even though all that they are seeing, each and every time, are perfectly ordinary contrails).

This is a con-job, originally perpetuated by a few main charlatans and hucksters, and then further kept going by a slew of "useful idiots" (as the phrase goes) who blindly "believe" the snake-oil. Sprinkled amongst the "chemtrail believers" are a few who others who know perfectly well that it is a hoax, but stir up the pot for their own personal reasons....in the old days of the Carnival, these were called 'shills'...to bring in business.


The originations of the "chemtrail" hoax goes back to sometime in the 1990s.....I can think of three major names as initial "players":

  • Will Thomas
  • Art Bell
  • Cliff Carnicorn


    Thomas and Bell seemed to have first "teamed up", using Art Bell's AM radio show to spread the "message" of "chemtrails"...ostensibly, to sell "cures" and "preventions for protection". Now, it is primarily Thomas and Carnicorn who are still active in the business of selling this nonsense.....but, they have many, many copy-cats as well.

    It is truly sad that people can be so damned fool ignorant, sometimes......



  • posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 01:33 AM
    link   
    reply to post by ProudBird
     


    I got ya. On another question, when we dump fuel, what do you think the safe altitude to do this is? Meaning that at what altitude will the fuel evaporate?



    posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 11:37 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by boomer135
    reply to post by ProudBird
     


    I got ya. On another question, when we dump fuel, what do you think the safe altitude to do this is? Meaning that at what altitude will the fuel evaporate?


    www.faa.gov...


    If an aircraft is dumping fuel in IFR conditions, assign an altitude at least 2,000 feet above the highest obstacle within 5 miles of the route or pattern being flown.


    Most fuel dumping will be from a much higher altitude though.

    www.boeing.com...


    The ecological aspects of fuel jettison have been most closely studied by the United States Air Force (USAF). These studies have shown that, in general, fuel jettisoned above 5,000 to 6,000 feet will completely vaporize before reaching the ground. Therefore, Boeing’s general recommendation is to jettison fuel above 5,000 to 6,000 feet whenever possible, although there is no restriction on jettisoning at lower altitudes if considered necessary by the flight crew.

    Fuel jettison studies have indicated that the most significant variables related to fuel vaporization are fuel type and outside air temperature. Some studies found that temperature can have a very significant effect on the altitude needed to completely vaporize fuel. For example, one USAF study found that a 36-degree Fahrenheit (20-degree Celsius) reduction in temperature can change the amount of liquid fuel reaching the ground by as much as a factor of 10. Other factors such as fuel jettison nozzle dispersion characteristics, airplane wake, and other atmospheric conditions can affect the amount of fuel that reaches the ground.

    Even though fuel is vaporized, it is still suspended in the atmosphere. The odor can be pronounced, and the fuel will eventually reach the ground. Boeing is not aware of any ecological interest promoting a prohibition on fuel jettisoning. Because of the relatively small amount of fuel that is jettisoned, the infrequency of use, and the safety issues that may require a fuel jettison, such regulations are not likely to be promulgated.



    posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 12:07 PM
    link   
    reply to post by boomer135
     


    Fuel jettison (if it's not a dire emergency) depends a lot on the altitude that the airplane is at when an operational dump is required, when landing ASAP is not a factor. ATC is involved, and if time and geography permit, it is conducted over unpopulated areas. Over water is preferred, if possible.

    An in-flight medical emergency that necessitates a divert to the nearest suitable airport, for example. An engine failure or in-flight precautionary engine shut-down at higher altitude [**] (i.e., not immediately after take-off). Situations like that where you can plan the dump, depending on location, pick an altitude, etc. I would say as a "rule of thumb" about 5,000 AGL minimum...higher the better, to give the fuel more volume of air to dissipate in, before reaching the ground.

    [**] I've had few of these....latest in a B-757, with no dump capability. Had a bleed air leak, triggered an "Overheat" Master Caution....climbing on departure through about 20,000. The QRH procedure was to pull back to flight idle.....and if the OVHT light did not extinguish, to shut it down. So, we did. Weather at departure was crappy....snow, low visibility (KEWR). So, an overweight landing (no dump on the757) and good weather still in KIAD, we landed there. Hah, didn't tell the passengers we had one engine shut down....only the cabin crew (and us) knew. No sense alarming people unnecessarily.


    Only real dumping I've done is in the simulators.

    Here is a source I found at airliners.net that discusses the rules in Germany (and this likely follows ICAO standards) on planned fuel dumping:



    Air traffic controllers assign the aircraft concerned an airspace in which the fuel can be dumped, if possible above an unpopulated area. The minimum altitude is set at 1,500m above ground, but most dumps are in fact carried out at an altitude of four to eight kilometres. The aircraft is not permitted to fly in closed circles and must be flying at a minimum speed of 500 km/h.

    (1,500m = 4921 ft)


    Since this thread is (tangentially) discussing the so-called "chemtrails".....I think this next bit is VERY interesting. It discusses the hypothetical of jettisoning jet fuel....kerosene.....which, BTW, is pumped out at a pretty fast rate. On the Boeing 767, if all pumps are working (normal electrical power to all pumps) and both "dump" valves open, the rate is about 2,500 pounds per minute (there are cute little "calculations" we can use in our heads, to estimate the time needed, depending on the amount of weight we have to eliminate).

    Anyway, @2,500 ppm, that is about 373 gallons per minute.

    I say that for those who believe in "chemtrails"....just so they can think about it!



    The wake turbulence behind the aircraft makes most of the fuel released through the nozzles vaporise into a fine mist, which remains in the atmosphere until being broken down by the sun's energy into carbon dioxide and water. Only a minimal amount of the dumped kerosene actually reaches the ground. If a fuel dump is made at the minimum altitude of 1,500 m, given a ground temperature of 15°C and assuming that the air is still, then it is calculated that 8% of the total fuel dumped will reach the ground. Assuming the aircraft was flying at the minimum speed of 500 km/h, this results in the ground being affected by 0.02g per square meter, which is the equivalent of a spirit glassful of kerosene spread over an area of 1,000 m2.

    The above assumes total stillness of the air, which is in fact highly unlikely. Even the slightest air movements, which automatically stir the air up, make fuel evaporate almost entirely before it can reach the ground. This explains why even the most sensitive monitoring equipment has not yet succeeded in discovering kerosene-related impurities in plant and soil samples taken after a fuel dump.



    And people think that airplanes are "spraying" them!!


    Here's the source...sorry, it's in German. Google will happily 'translate'.....



    posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 01:55 AM
    link   
    reply to post by ProudBird
     


    Nice post proudbird! I've dumped fuel on a couple occasions in the tanker. With the boom we can dump a lot quicker than airliners (6000 ppm with all four pumps). It's actually kinda cool to see because in non-life threatening situations we lower the boom before the dump. Then you can move it around while the dump is going on to make it look circular coming out. Lol. But I guess it's the little things in life that make it fun. Btw biggest fuel dump we did was 86,000 pounds. Kc135r top takeoff weight is around 322,500 lbs and max
    landing weight is around 200,000 pounds, or about 80,000 pounds of fuel left (plane weighs between 118,000 and 122,000).



    posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 12:09 PM
    link   
    reply to post by boomer135
     


    Yeah, don't know much about the 135, but the logical way to dump would be through the boom!!

    I also am not old enough to have flown the 707 (the 135 platform airframe) of course.....but, can research the dump capabilities of that jet, in the civilian configuration.

    Like I said, not all airliners have the ability to jettison fuel (yeah, we just say "dump" because it's easier to pronounce....LOL).


    Oh and when I mention "all pumps" I mean the submerged, normal fuel pumps in each tank....or, depending on the airplane, and the design, the external from the fuel tank pumps.....either way, those are the same pumps that, in normal civilian airliners, provide the "head pressure" for the fuel to the engines. These are in the range (IIRC) of only about 20 or 30 PSI....if that much.....we actually never have to learn the exact rates....only know that some pumps, such as the ones in the Center tank, have a higher output pressure.....this is a design concept so that the Center tank is assured to empty first.....and ALL pumps are on simultaneously, as a back-up of course.

    But, the Center tank fuel is primary, due to the higher output, and check-valves built into the system design....until the Center tank is emptied, then it is "tank-to-engine" (for twin-jets....more complicated when you have three or four engines, obviously). But the majority of modern airliners are twin-jets, so I can keep it simple.....

    Inside (or associated with) the FCU (Fuel Control Unit) for each engine are other pumps, to supply the engine the fuel at higher PSI, to the combustion chamber. These increase the fuel pressure, to the proper amounts, for injection into combustion.

    I understand for in-flight re-fueling ops that speed is primary.....once the "thirsty" jet hooks up, you want to deliver as quickly as possible....and often others are waiting their turn. Plus, flying formation is a bit taxing.


    edit on Sun 26 February 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



    posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 10:41 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by ProudBird

    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".



    Well, who is to say that its "sprayed"?
    Is "spraying" an economical method of delivery?



    posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 04:20 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by ProudBird
    reply to post by boomer135
     



    I understand for in-flight re-fueling ops that speed is primary.....once the "thirsty" jet hooks up, you want to deliver as quickly as possible....and often others are waiting their turn. Plus, flying formation is a bit taxing.


    edit on Sun 26 February 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)


    That's true. With our jet we have four air refueling pumps and all ten fuel tanks on the jet are connected somehow. Each pump shoots out about 1500 pounds per minute. With all four its 6000 pounds. But only "heavy" aircraft (C-5, C-17, C-130, B-52, etc) can refuel with four pumps. Most fighter jets are limited to one pump on at a time during refueling because of pressure issues



    posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 10:33 PM
    link   
    Just wondered if any of you had spent the time to watch this?

    www.youtube.com...

    I found it highly interesting, whether you believe or not, makes some very interesting points.





    top topics
     
    6
    << 2  3  4   >>

    log in

    join