It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chemtrails - an evil swiss army knife??

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Gmoneycricket
 


That is a case of the airplane engine and systems themselves being responsible for the air contamination.

It is explained in the article in a way even laypersons can understand it. This is a mechanical defect that can occur occasionally.

Air for the passenger cabin is tapped off from the engine compressor section ('bleed air" it is called). Depending on the set-up (airplane type, engine type) the point of the bleed air (the "compressor stage") where it is tapped will vary.

The air at this point is generally "clean", as it is simply ambient air that is compressed.....it also gets hot, when compressed. Typically there are two points in the compression cycle where air is tapped.....a Low Pressure point, ans then farther back (prior to combustion) a High Pressure point. There are various uses for those two sources of bleed air.....but, for the purposes of pressurization, the Low Pressure bleed is used.

This air goes through an air-to-air heat exchanger, then is routed to a turbine that is part of the Air Cycle Machine (ACM) or commonly called a "pack". The ACM handles this air through an expansion turbine, where it is chilled down to just above 32° F. Warmer air is routed to modulate this temperature, and also used to mix into a manifold for distribution into the air conditioning duct work. These two supplies -- very cold, and moderately warm (about 140° F, typically) are mixed to provide the desired temperature for introduction into the cabin.

Once in the cabin, there are additional fans on mot modern jets that recirculate a portion of this air tat has been introduced, to further "blend" the temperatures to a comfortable level.

Depending on the jet, the entire volume of cabin air is replenished every several minutes. Since air is constantly being pumped in (again, this is just ambient outside air), the internal pressure has to be regulated by a valve (or valves) that modulate the outflow....they are called, thus....Outflow Valves. This is how the cabin air is replenished every few minutes.


Now.....the cases when lubricants or other fluids are "leaked" into the compressor section air supply are due to leaking seals that allow tiny amounts to bypass normal channels, and enter the air supply. Remember it is hot air, and so these lubricants (and rarely, even hydraulic fluid) will have an effect, due to the heating...even in small quantities. But again, these contaminants are coming from the airplane's own systems, and again are very rare occurrences.

Proper maintenance procedures will result in it not happening at all....bht, machines are machines of course, and can have failures now and then.




posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   
So I just came up with a second collection point to test for chemtrails
collect the water that drips off the evaporator to dry the air before entering cabin.
I get frustrated with the we can't collect samples,
when me the dumbest, dumb person can,
using simplest forms of physics of whats going on
during flight.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Gmoneycricket
 


The air at this point is generally "clean", as it is simply ambient air that is compressed.....


This is my point PB if air is not clean, what did it fly threw?
I came to conclusion if it was not clean from chemtrails
it would make passenger sick.
I only have seen mechanical failures making people sick.
I just went off, I see both sides mocking each other.
Hell I have even gone off on you.
Filters, evap condensation collected, would be 2 simple ways to prove no barium, sulfur, etc.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   
I just can't believe that NASA has never tested filters, or evaporator condensation.
They should want to extend filter life, they would want to know want is being collect and released
with the water on evaporators drying the air with the Air Conditioning to extend evaporator/condenser life.
In cars and homes they study it, who wants mold and foul odors while in your car plane or home.
but I did not find anything like that on this page.

They don't even address can planes fly threw another contrail on this page.

science-edu.larc.nasa.gov...



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Gmoneycricket
 

NASA would have no reason to check cabin filters on commercial aircraft. If anyone had jurisdiction over such things it would be the FAA (or maybe the NTSB). The filters are probably just changed as part of a regular housekeeping schedule.

In situ testing of contrails has been done.
www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net...



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


When I search the document for cabin or filter I came up with 0 results for the word.
So it does not apply to my question if contrails in cabins has ever been researched.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Gmoneycricket
 


you will not get contrails in the cabin , because the cabin temp is generally above 20c



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Gmoneycricket
 

So what? The plane flew in contrails and sampled them. What difference does it make that the air inside the plane (or the filters) were not tested.

Why are you so hung up on this?



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


See you gave me something new to look up
WW2
Contrail/humidity and how did it affect the aircraft electronics/mechanical.
What is the fuel air ratio in these conditions and how to compensate.
And your right
if NASA was going to other planets
why would they need to understand
how atmospheres work.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Gmoneycricket
 

So what? The plane flew in contrails and sampled them. What difference does it make that the air inside the plane (or the filters) were not tested.

Why are you so hung up on this?

For one if we were smart
we could just collect the water off of evaporators
and flush toilets and such.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 

I know they dry it on the evaporator
and dump it back into the air.
But does that clean the air enough?
We have had 3 so far tell us
it should be clean air.
And I am not making fun of them it is my point.
If they were spraying they would have to filter the air before intake in the plane to pressure the cabin and supply passengers with air.

They are in a sense using water filtration threw the evaporator to clean the air.
edit on 28-2-2012 by Gmoneycricket because: They are in a sense using water filtration threw the evaporator to clean the air.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Gmoneycricket
 

NASA would have no reason to check cabin filters on commercial aircraft. If anyone had jurisdiction over such things it would be the FAA (or maybe the NTSB). The filters are probably just changed as part of a regular housekeeping schedule.

In situ testing of contrails has been done.
www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net...


12 flights in Europe is not enough evidence for your agrument.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Honestly. Until there's a lot more data across the globe from samples taken from contrails/chemtrails(whatever your OPINION is on the subject), then this debate is at a stalemate and really not even worth debating.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Unless this magazine provides proof of it's claims ( which it likes to go on in detail about ) then it's still more of the same nonsense in my opinion..

There's plenty of theory, there's plenty of people spouting off what they believe it is.. because they perhaps heard someone talk about it or they read something somewhere online explaining this or that, but when you trace it back you get no factual substance about chemtrails .. you're left with many theories that have no evidence to support them..

Contrails can and do last for hours or days given the right weather conditions so that's not proof of a "chemtrail" .. neither is a contrail that expands and puffs out over time.. those are all traits of normal contrails under varying atmospheric conditions..

I wish someone could just offer up some actual evidence.. some chemical analysis, air samples.. legitimate documentation, a credible pilot testimony .. aaaaanything.. given how long this conspiracy theory has existed, if it were real, you'd expect something of more substance by now.. heck, there's more "evidence" that aliens are here than there is for the actual existance of chemtrails as defined by conspiracy theorists.. I'd even go so far as to say there's more evidence of ghosts and big foot so far.. Seeing a trail behind a plane in the sky is not evidence of a single thing given the varying nature of perfectly normal contrails... sorry, it will never be accepted as such by any scientist or any rational thinking person.. only those who have a pre-conceived belief in it will follow that as solid proof.
edit on 2/28/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join