Facts of contrails

reply to post by onecraftydude


I cant think of an argument against it as such. As a concept it is something thats been looked at for a very long time

Here is a diagram from Lockheed from 1981 (a time when they were still building Tristars and expected to continue as a commercial aircraft supplier) that illustrates the problem you mentioned of storing LH. Tanks this size, apart from being a chemtrail believers worst nightmare, also require a much bigger and heavier airframe and in aviation weight is the enemy. I suppose there is a point where the benefits are not deemed (by whoever) to outweigh the negatives.



The Flight online archive has this image within a report about fuels I remember reading as a teenager, you can click through the pages if you want to read it. Of course technology moves on, but the problems remain the same.

www.flightglobal.com...

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE


I have taken pictures exactly like that, the wider trails aren't lower, well they could be lower, or higher, but thats not the reason they look bigger, they have simply spread out.

Re previous post.

Boeing has already tested a Hydrogen fuelled aircraft, but this is obviously very small scale compare to jet transports.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Originally posted by Rudy2shoes
Any idiot knows a harmless contrail that is created from a hydrogen fuel is harmless.
Any petroleum product used for air travel has chemicals in it.
Fact!

Of course, If a clean exhaust, hydrogen powered airliner were possible to be built and put into service, it wouldn't placate the chemtrail crowd once all that water it produces froze and sat in the sky. How would they be able to tell?

Originally posted by waynos
...Of course, If a clean exhaust, hydrogen powered airliner were possible to be built and put into service, it wouldn't placate the chemtrail crowd once all that water it produces froze and sat in the sky. How would they be able to tell?

Yes!

A plane engine that burns hydrogen as fuel (even as part of a fuel cell) would have water as its exhaust gas -- considering that the combustion of hydrogen creates water -- which could create persistent contrails.

Even if they figure out how to efficiently burn hydrogen directly in a jet engine's combustion chamber, the exhaust gas would again be all water -- and big puffy contrails could certainly be created.

Originally posted by MagicWand67

The technique described is only one of many. They have suggested using a combination of different techniques as well.

More soot = more CCN
More CCN = more potential ice crystals
More ice crystals = larger visible trails

Actually if you increase the CCN past a certain point then you will get LESS visible trails, as the ice crystals will be sub-visible in size. There are several patents for contrail suppression using this technique, including some that create more soot. See:

Contrail Avoidance and Mitigation Techniques

reply to post by Uncinus


Ah right, so the burning of richer fuel putting out more soot into the atmosphere is what the likes of our good freinds Luxor and Rudycricket want to happen, or isnt it?

Thanks for that snippet anyway uncinus, I hadn't thought of that before

reply to post by Uncinus

Actually if you increase the CCN past a certain point then you will get LESS visible trails, as the ice crystals will be sub-visible in size. There are several patents for contrail suppression using this technique, including some that create more soot.

That certain tipping point would be far greater than the amounts described in the link I posted.

How about providing an actual quote from a source other than your own website to support your statement.

Originally posted by MagicWand67
reply to post by Uncinus

 

Actually if you increase the CCN past a certain point then you will get LESS visible trails, as the ice crystals will be sub-visible in size. There are several patents for contrail suppression using this technique, including some that create more soot.

That certain tipping point would be far greater than the amounts described in the link I posted.

How about providing an actual quote from a source other than your own website to support your statement.

Here's the patent for hiding contrails by adding carbon:
www.google.com...=onepage&q&f=false

Here's the figures. The part labeled 34 is where fuel is burned to produce the extra carbon. In Fig 1 is in an additional combustion chamber. In Fig 2 it's just direct in the exhaust stream.

reply to post by MagicWand67

Try reading it this time.

You did read it all didn't you?

Did you read the closing remarks about the use of these options?

Any attempt to use the jet plane option today given the uncertainties as to impacts good, bad and ineffective would have to be considered “flying blind.” But as we grow closer to a point of no return, this is a trip we may have to take anyway.

Earlier you posted this..

No, the theories behind chemtrails are based on documented evidence and on-going research in geoengineering.

So now I have to ask where is this documented evidence of chemtrails, because it isn't in your link?

reply to post by Uncinus


Size and distribution of the CCN produces different results.

The amount of carbon output in the contrail mitigation system is more than double the amount from the proposed technique I posted earlier.

It's a completely different technique. Like trying to compare apples and oranges.

The link I provided clearly states that MORE cirrus clouds would be the likely result.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h

So now I have to ask where is this documented evidence of chemtrails, because it isn't in your link?

You obviously have a problem with reading comprehension.

Please show me where I said, "documented evidence of chemtrails".

What I said was the THEORIES behind chemtrails are BASED on documented evidence.

reply to post by MagicWand67

What I said was the THEORIES behind chemtrails are BASED on documented evidence.

Again the question is where is this documented evidence that chemtrail theories are based on, and according to some those theories are to them fact.

So then can you answer this question instead?

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


I'm going to assume you're really not this dumb and are just pretending to be.

There are hundreds of published papers on SRM geoengineering research.

I already provided a few of them. Try reading them and if you're still not satisfied.

Look it up on Google or any other search engine.

Originally posted by MagicWand67
reply to post by tsurfer2000h

 

I'm going to assume you're really not this dumb and are just pretending to be.

There are hundreds of published papers on SRM geoengineering research.

I already provided a few of them. Try reading them and if you're still not satisfied.

Look it up on Google or any other search engine.

There are indeed many paper on SRM - all of them talking about possibly doing it in the future.

Do you think there's any evidence thought that the long white trails people call "chemtrails" are some kind of covert SRM, and not just normal persistent contrails?

reply to post by Uncinus


I think there is enough circumstantial evidence to warrant suspicion.

The fact that most if not all of the papers recommend that field studies need to be conducted.

Along with the fact that the conditions for persistent contrails to form are not consistent with the locations where they have been sighted.

Persistent contrails are now being sighted in areas where they rarely, if ever, occurred before and at an alarming rate.

I do indeed think that covert testing of SRM is being conducted in our skies.

Originally posted by MagicWand67
Persistent contrails are now being sighted in areas where they rarely, if ever, occurred before and at an alarming rate.

Really? Like where? And since when?

I'm not doubting you, just interested in where and when these increase have been reported. There are a variety of things that could account for an increase in contrails - new routes being one of them.

Do any of the proposed SRM schemes actually describe an increase in contrails as a side-effect?

reply to post by MagicWand67

Persistent contrails are now being sighted in areas where they rarely, if ever, occurred before and at an alarming rate.

I take it these areas didn't see many days with clouds either?

I'm always hesitant to enter discussions on "chemtrails", as often times the same players are involved in trying to "debunk" what I see as strong evidence to suggest some form of geo-engineering" is taking place. I am entering this thread to share a direct observation I made in Central CA last week while house and dog sitting for my sister's family.

It was early morning, a little after 7am, beautiful day, sun was coming out, the sky was a beautiful clear blue, with just a few normal "puffy" clouds in the sky. I'm sitting on the patio, enjoying the view, and letting the dogs play, one is blind, so have to watch her more closely.

Anyways, I start to notice the planes going back and forth creating these persistant "chemtrails", within about an hour the sky had at least 10 of them at varing stages, and was literally turning the sky a milky white right before my eyes...I'm a very observant person when it comes to nature and the sky, and there was no doubt something was VERY strange about this.

I can only give you my word that I witnessed this, in my 40+ years of life have never seen this until recent years...and yes, it is becoming more frequent IMO and based on my direct observations...this particular day I just happened to watch how drastically a clear blue sky could be turned into a milky "over cast" sky by these trails...and it was disturbing and I don't believe normal contrails.

We don't live near any major airports, which sucks when you need to fly....and the patterns of the placement of these trails seemed to purposely blanket the area.......why?

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
I'm always hesitant to enter discussions on "chemtrails", as often times the same players are involved in trying to "debunk" what I see as strong evidence to suggest some form of geo-engineering" is taking place. I am entering this thread to share a direct observation I made in Central CA last week while house and dog sitting for my sister's family.

It was early morning, a little after 7am, beautiful day, sun was coming out, the sky was a beautiful clear blue, with just a few normal "puffy" clouds in the sky. I'm sitting on the patio, enjoying the view, and letting the dogs play, one is blind, so have to watch her more closely.

Anyways, I start to notice the planes going back and forth creating these persistant "chemtrails", within about an hour the sky had at least 10 of them at varing stages, and was literally turning the sky a milky white right before my eyes...I'm a very observant person when it comes to nature and the sky, and there was no doubt something was VERY strange about this.

I can only give you my word that I witnessed this, in my 40+ years of life have never seen this until recent years...and yes, it is becoming more frequent IMO and based on my direct observations...this particular day I just happened to watch how drastically a clear blue sky could be turned into a milky "over cast" sky by these trails...and it was disturbing and I don't believe normal contrails.

We don't live near any major airports, which sucks when you need to fly....and the patterns of the placement of these trails seemed to purposely blanket the area.......why?

Living near an airport doesnt mean you'd be more likely to see them. Planes coming into the airport are flying far below the area that you would normally see a contrail forming (30k feet-ish).

Give us the city you live in and we'll tell you what kind of air traffic you're going to expect to see in that area, down to the time of day that you'd see it. If what you are saying is true, it's likely that you just live in the area of a frequented corridor for air travel.

reply to post by MountainLaurel


Zoom in on your area to see just how many planes pass overhead in a single day.

You'll be surprised by the amount, I'm sure.

contrailscience.com...