I want to be a CHEMTRAIL DEBUNKER

reply to post by bluestorm

i doubt they would design this plane to leave a persistent contrail and nothing in that video showed a persistent contrail.

A plane cannot be designed to leave a persistent contrails because it is the conditions through which a plane flies which determines whether or not a persistent contrail will form. But you did miss the point of the posting the video entirely. That can be a problem when one has a strong confirmation bias.

Originally posted by bluestorm
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

"If it flew at a constant height under the right temperature/humidity guess what it would leave a persistent trail !!!"
really? is that your opinion or a fact? i doubt they would design this plane to leave a persistent contrail and nothing in that video showed a persistent contrail.. not a good example

That don't design a plane to leave a persistent contrail - it's just a fact of physics. In the same way you do not design a car to produce exhaust. Or a baby to poop. They are trying to design aircraft engines that do not leave contrails, but (officially at least) have not yet suceeded

reply to post by waynos


i just am stating my opinion, when i watch them intelligently fly in circles and grids seemingly for no other reason then to blanket my sky with their persistent contrails I have been left to seek out reasons why what etc, one of the things that makes sense is geo engineering and the use of reflective aerosols to keep our planet cooler by reflecting the suns energy, whether they are just water vapor or aluminum nano particles, i really have no idea or the means to test, but like you i too "have concerns that there is a danger in this and the side effects may be more than we bargained for"

reply to post by Phage


conditions plus plane design, they dont fly in my neck of the woods unless they know they will succeed, in that video I see a contrail un-persistent, nothing new .. are you stating that we could not design a plane to leave a MORE persistent contrail? or just that we would not do that?

reply to post by bluestorm

are you stating that we could not design a plane to leave a MORE persistent contrail?

Yes.
Persistence is determined by the atmospheric conditions, specifically, humidity. More specifically, in order for contrails to persist the air must be supersaturated with respect to ice.

reply to post by Phage


if i said phage can you design me a plane engine that would leave the a more lasting persistent contrail then what i would expect could you do it? if you couldnt do you think someone else could? my answer is yes, its very possible and its probably already patented

reply to post by bluestorm

if you couldnt do you think someone could? my answer is yes, its very possible and its probably already patented

Your answer is wrong and your ignorance about contrails is the reason. Contrail persistence has nothing to do with the engine which produces the contrail. It depends entirely upon the atmospheric conditions.

Your refusal to learn absolutely anything about contrails is very frustrating. Your assumptions based on ignorance are useless.

ir.library.oregonstate.edu...

Originally posted by bluestorm
reply to post by waynos

 

i just am stating my opinion...I have been left to seek out reasons why what etc...I really have no idea or the means to test...

Now you are getting somewhere.
What, outside of your own opinion, have you sought out to find out why planes sometimes have white trails behind them and what that trail is made of?
If you had no idea and no means to test, on what specifically did you base your conclusion that they are somehow something that enflames your suspicions?

Originally posted by bluestorm
they dont fly in my neck of the woods unless they know they will succeed, in that video I see a contrail un-persistent, nothing new .

Well we have no idea where your neck of the woods is (I guess it's a secret?) but presumably not anywhere in Europe of the USA or southern parts of Canada? That's where the heaviest commerical air traffic is. And oddly enought, 99% of 'chemtrails' are seen in such areas of heavy commercial air traffic. Though obviously it extends elsewhere and you can be 1,000 miles from the nearest airport but still under a heavily used flight path.

btw I live in central England. Under the right conditions I can see dozens of commerical aircraft at any one time flying overhead. And sometimes their contrails cover the whole sky. And sometimes they don't. In much the same way that sometimes it rains, and sometimes it does not.

reply to post by Phage


lets say i have a billion dollar to spend on this, phage can you design me a engine for a plane that would leave a bigger contrail than expected when its flow in the conditions where contrails persist? i want a long lasting and extra persisting contrail , thats what i want and I have a billion dollars, can you design this for me or do you think someone could? maybe its as simple as adding extra water vapor, do you think this is possible? i know conditions etc, that is a reason they dont fly these planes everyday up here

reply to post by bluestorm

Why do you keep asking the same question?
If conditions are conducive to persistence the contrail will persist. If conditions are not conducive to persistence it won't. It doesn't matter what plane is producing the contrail. It doesn't matter what engine.

Your insistent persistence in remaining ignorant is amazing.

reply to post by bluestorm


In theory I guess it's possible

So are you suggesting someone has deliberately designed jet engines that create more contrails when atmospheric conditions are right, in order to cause increased global warming? Or to annoy astronomers? Or to increase the incidence of sundogs?

Or to wind up conspiracy geeks?

reply to post by AndyMayhew

In theory I guess it's possible

No. It isn't.
You can make a contrail that forms a bit sooner (or later). You can make a contrail that is a bit more (or less) dense. You may be able to produce a nonpersitent contrail with one engine and none with another if conditions are very marginal for contrail production.

Persistence, however, is determined by atmospheric conditions. The rate of sublimation is determined by the relative humidity with respect to ice. Just as the rate of evaporation of water depends on the relative humidity with respect to water.

reply to post by bluestorm


< sigh>
That you ask this shows you have no idea that the atmosphere is both too chaotic and too dynamic to make such a thing possible. It's the conditions. The only way to reach the goal you seem to be reaching for is to control the atmospheric conditions.
Despite your suspicions can you not see that the atmosphere is a bit too large to control?

< shakes head sadly, rolls eyes, and goes offline to knit..>

thank you for you continued response as you are the first person that has engaged with me on this quest to understand

Originally posted by bluestorm
reply to post by waynos

 

i just am stating my opinion, when i watch them intelligently fly in circles and grids seemingly for no other reason then to blanket my sky with their persistent contrails I have been left to seek out reasons why what etc,

That's fair enough, I can accept that. I can explain the grids and circles in quite mundane terms but have no wish to get into an argument with you, suffice to say that being as nerdy about planes as I am, and for so long, these things are no more mysterious to me than the reason trains run on rails. Thats not belittling you, it just happens to be my area of particular interest so I'm bound to pick up knowledge on it, stands to reason.

one of the things that makes sense is geo engineering and the use of reflective aerosols to keep our planet cooler by reflecting the suns energy, whether they are just water vapor or aluminum nano particles, i really have no idea or the means to test, but like you i too "have concerns that there is a danger in this and the side effects may be more than we bargained for"

But in what way does it make sense? It looks to me like a leap, which is what my question was about.

For an example of my query, I believe that to think something is so, there has to be a reason to think it. Not unreasonable, surely? For instance, I don't say "there was a lot of visible vapour in my car exhaust this morning, it makes sense to me that tptb are using me to spray pedestrians with mind altering drugs ", there would be no reason for me to think that just off the bat, something else would have to have planted that seed. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Originally posted by bluestorm
reply to post by Phage

 

.. are you stating that we could not design a plane to leave a MORE persistent contrail? or just that we would not do that?

edit on 6-3-2013 by bluestorm because: (no reason given)

If I may, the answer is 'could not'.

The only deliberate trails (current debate aside) are left by display aircraft at air shows. These are not contrails, but the result of injecting oil into the jet exhaust. There is no ice formation and they occur at low level so they can be seen and they never persist as they simply dissipate.

The persistence of contrails is determined by the atmospheric saturation level that prevents the ice in the trail from sublimating, it is nothing to do with the aircrafts design, there is no aircraft design that can make ice stay frozen for longer.

reply to post by Phage


your ignoring my question, I tried but you have dodged it twice now, you know it possible to retrofit a plane to make a more persisting contrail, this thread goes no where but circles and it just seems to be a bunch of apologizers who have rationalized these atrocities, i gotta go outside before my sky is gone today , it really doesnt take long




ps i be back later tonight to reply to some of you..

reply to post by bluestorm

your ignoring my question, I tried but you have dodged it twice now, you know it possible to retrofit a plane to make a more persisting contrail,

I have not ignored your question. I have answered you every time you asked it. You have ignored me each time I answered it.

You have a very severe case of confirmation bias and those are nice pictures of contrails as well as natural cirrus. The two are often seen together.

reply to post by Phage


never mind you answered it- thats all i wanted to know..
" You can make a contrail that is a bit more (or less) dense."

reply to post by bluestorm

never mind you answered it- thats all i wanted to know..

I answered you each time.


Here is what you asked:

are you stating that we could not design a plane to leave a MORE persistent contrail?

if i said phage can you design me a plane engine that would leave the a more lasting persistent contrail then what i would expect could you do it?

i want a long lasting and extra persisting contrail

I answered you the same way each time.

Here is what I said in the post from which you took that out of context portion.

Persistence, however, is determined by atmospheric conditions.

Yet another, and dramatic, example of confirmation bias on your part. And I suppose you will now go around misquoting me and taking it out of context as you have done to support your bias.

To make it clear. No. Neither I, nor anyone else can design an plane or engine which will produce a persistent contrail. Contrail persistence is determined by atmospheric conditions, not aircraft or engine design.