A Challenge to Chemtrail Believers - Explain this 1969 Issue of Popular Science:

page: 35
63
<< 32  33  34    36 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 

Yes -- And the greater use of high-bypass engines of the years makes a HUGE difference in contrail production.

In years past, the more commonly used lower-bypass engines had 60 to 65% of the ambient air sucked into the engine bypass the engine core (bypass the combustion chamber).

The more common engine used today is a high-bypass engine. In a high-bypass engine, a full 85% of the ambient air sucked into the front of the engine bypasses the combustion chamber, but is still compressed and exhausted out the back of the engine. That means there is a greater amount of cooler & wetter compressed air (because it never went through the combustion chamber) being exhausted out the back of a high-bypass engine as opposed to a lower-bypass engine.

This cooler and wetter air is more likely to form a contrail. So it isn't just the greater quantity of planes in the sky, but the greater percentage of high-bypass engines being used -- engines that are more likely to produce contrails.




edit on 8/8/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: sppellling




posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by banishedfromthisarea
 


The nacelles of the Trent engines on the A380 are about as wide as the fuselage of a 737. That's a lot more air getting the moisture squeezed out it.



Here's a couple more images emphasising just how freakin' massive those Trent's are -





posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Yes -- And the greater use of high-bypass engines of the years makes a HUGE difference in contrail production.


I wouldn't say its huge. The recorded difference in tests is effectively to expand the contrailing altitude by a few hundred feet.

I don't think the air coming out is any "wetter" either. Just cooler. It shifts the initial point on the mixing curve, but not because of the humidity. Since modern engines are a lot more efficient, they actually create less moisture per work done.
edit on 8-8-2012 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


I would think it would be wetter because more of it is not going through the combustion chamber. I'm not saying wetter than it was going in, but since a greater percentage is bypassing the combustion chamber, the overall air coming out is wetter than it would be with a lower-bypass.

The ambient humidity in the air being sucked into the front of the engine is more likely to stay intact as humidity, because only 15% (as opposed to 35-40% for lower-bypass) is going through the combustion chamber, which is more likely to dry that air out. Instead, a larger percentage of the air with ambient humidity is bypassing combustion, only to be compressed, uncombusted (and that "cool" compression is also more likely to condense more of the ambient humidity out of the air).

edit on 8/8/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


I think that is probably exactly the opposite though - most of hte moistuer in the exhaust comes from the burned hydrocarbon - if less of the air is burned then there is less fuel beign burned hence less moisture.

Of course the engines themselves are larger, so burn more fuel than the earlier LBPR types.........but in terms of increasing the moisture content of the total air mass being moved by the engine I'd think they do less.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


I think that is probably exactly the opposite though - most of the moisture in the exhaust comes from the burned hydrocarbon - if less of the air is burned then there is less fuel being burned hence less moisture.


Maybe. But it just seems to me that given the fact that 85% of the air taken in by the engine is not being used in combustion, but rather is being compressed and re-introduced into the cold airstream makes me think that air will be wetter due to that "cool" compression -- a compression that condenses the humidity out of it and turns it into moisture.

There is still plenty of "O" (oxygen) in the 15% going through the combustion chamber to completely burn the fuel. There is still enough "O" to latch on to the "H"s in the hydrocarbons to create the H2O that gets exhausted out the back of the engine (along with the 85% of the compressed, but unburnt, air).

My point is this:
If you compress humid air, you get wet air. That's because the ambient water vapor in the air condenses into water droplets when that air is compressed.

High-bypass engines compress more air than lower-bypass engines.

edit on 8/8/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


If you compress humid air, you get wet air.
The water vapor content of the air does not change (unless there is an external source of more vapor). Compressed (denser) air actually has a higher capacity for water vapor so the relative humidity in the compressed air would actually decrease.

If you reduce pressure enough on humid air you get condensation. That's part of the reason for the formation of convective and orographic clouds.
edit on 8/8/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 04:11 AM
link   
But wouldn't the sudden decompression of this vast quantity of bypassed air (in conjunction with the water content of the exhaust gases) be the reason we see such thick and highly visible trails by comparison with previous generations? This is how I have understood the difference in trail density, as opposed to quantity?



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Thank you all for your clarifications/education on this.


edit on 8/9/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
But wouldn't the sudden decompression of this vast quantity of bypassed air (in conjunction with the water content of the exhaust gases) be the reason we see such thick and highly visible trails by comparison with previous generations? This is how I have understood the difference in trail density, as opposed to quantity?


My understanding is that the colder bypass air slows the hotter "combustion air" - and that is why the engines are a lot quieter - the mixing of high velocity (noisy) core air with low velocity (bypass) air.

My intuituve thinking about this is that it means the core combustion air is therefore cooled faster, and so the condensation of its moisture happens faster and it has less time to mix with ambient, so more of the moisture is forced to condense.

By contrast, a turbo jet emits a high velocity exhaust stream with no slower fan air around it. This jet of air takes longer to cool and mix, and so the condensation of its moisture occurs over a longer distance, and it has more ambient air to interact with.

Low bypass ratios are somewhere in between.

But that's just me rationalising it - I have no knowledge of studies to say that is what is happening (except for the noise bit)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by DregHunter
 


You posted the exact same statement word for word on another thread today. Did you even read the OP? I doubt it. What is the point of that? Are you incapable of critical thinking? Reading through your post, I would have to say you're just another feeder with their head buried to the gills at AJ's trough. What does that manure taste like?



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Well here's the thing you have to understand....

They'll put Floride in your water, and they'll make GMO crop. They'll poison people via pharmaciuticals, and food additives that are basically poison like silicon and other very harmful crap.

So they'll poison you in those ways....

But there's one way they'd never in a million years do, and that is chem trials. This is completely fake! Just because they poison you in a million other ways you'd be a total fool to actually think they'd do chem trails. Like lets get serious here people! (pun intended)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246
Well here's the thing you have to understand....

They'll put Floride in your water, and they'll make GMO crop. They'll poison people via pharmaciuticals, and food additives that are basically poison like silicon and other very harmful crap.

So they'll poison you in those ways....

But there's one way they'd never in a million years do, and that is chem trials. This is completely fake! Just because they poison you in a million other ways you'd be a total fool to actually think they'd do chem trails. Like lets get serious here people! (pun intended)



Some of us like to see hard and solid evidence before we take a theory like the chemtrail conspiracy seriously. If you are so easily persuaded that's your problem mate. If you want to post some irrefutable or even strong evidence that supports the existence of chemtrails then go ahead. But I think you're just a 'believer'.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


Yeah but...hey now you ca...but if that were...It doesn't make any...but...but...ARRRGGGHHH!!!!...OBAMA"S THE DEVIL!!!



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246
Well here's the thing you have to understand....

They'll put Floride in your water, and they'll make GMO crop. They'll poison people via pharmaciuticals, and food additives that are basically poison like silicon and other very harmful crap.

So they'll poison you in those ways....

But there's one way they'd never in a million years do, and that is chem trials. This is completely fake! Just because they poison you in a million other ways you'd be a total fool to actually think they'd do chem trails. Like lets get serious here people! (pun intended)


So, for you the existence of known and proven activities is also proof of anything at all you want to believe in. OK. It doesn't work like that for me.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua

Originally posted by r2d246
Well here's the thing you have to understand....

They'll put Floride in your water, and they'll make GMO crop. They'll poison people via pharmaciuticals, and food additives that are basically poison like silicon and other very harmful crap.

So they'll poison you in those ways....

But there's one way they'd never in a million years do, and that is chem trials. This is completely fake! Just because they poison you in a million other ways you'd be a total fool to actually think they'd do chem trails. Like lets get serious here people! (pun intended)



Some of us like to see hard and solid evidence before we take a theory like the chemtrail conspiracy seriously. If you are so easily persuaded that's your problem mate. If you want to post some irrefutable or even strong evidence that supports the existence of chemtrails then go ahead. But I think you're just a 'believer'.


What are your thoughts on these? Are they BS or do they know what they're talking about? I haven't actually watched them. But I heard these 2 flicks provide the most evidence. I have no clue in all honesty. But in life you do have to make a lot of assumptions via inference. Especially when there's a lot similar evidence to back that.



this is sort of part 2 of the movies:



I'll watch them and get back to yall



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 03:18 AM
link   
Sorry I don't want to impose but I think this is relevant. What do these look like to you? I took this photo over my city in Alberta Canada. I'm rethinking this now. I think my assumption was right that these are chem trails. I've lived in the city for almost 40 years and I've NEVER seen such as sight as this.....which is also why I took this photo.



edit on 25-9-2012 by r2d246 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Dr. Walter Orr Roberts, director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
TIMETRAVELING DISINFORMATION ARTIST



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by lastword
Dr. Walter Orr Roberts, director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
TIMETRAVELING DISINFORMATION ARTIST

How do you know hese a time traveler?





new topics
top topics
 
63
<< 32  33  34    36 >>

log in

join