I want to be a CHEMTRAIL DEBUNKER

page: 4
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by NeoVain
 




The density of the topmost layer(ionosphere) is about 10% of your value.

False. By a long shot. Your premise is off to a bad start.
www.engineeringtoolbox.com...
edit on 3/3/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Correct, i meant to say the Tropopause (Lower part of the atmosphere)
Thanks for the correction.
edit on 3-3-2013 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





Do you know the conditions under which persistent contrails form? It has little or nothing to do with absorption of water.


Yes I do. Appleman Chart

Do you know the conditions under which chemtrails form?

It has everything to do with absorption.

edit on 3-3-2013 by MagicWand67 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by MagicWand67
 


It has everything to do with absorption.


But how does that affect persistence?

Contrails (persistent and otherwise) are composed of ice crystals. In order to persist the air must be supersaturated which prevents the ice crystals from sublimating. I don't see how absorption would have any effect on this.

If there is sufficient water vapor present contrails will form and persist. If there isn't, they won't. That's how I understand it from the reading I've done. I have not come across any thing that indicates that the number or type of condensation nuclei have anything to do with persistence. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction.

edit on 3/3/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by NeoVain
 




The density of the topmost layer(ionosphere) is about 10% of your value.

False. By a long shot. Your premise is off to a bad start.
www.engineeringtoolbox.com...


if I read that correctly the .18mg/cm^3 exists at about 30,000m altitude - say 100,000 feet - where the density is given as 0.1841 kg/m3


Correct. The area is also known as the Stratosphere,30.000m would be the lower portion of it, just above the Tropopause. This is where the Aerographite would linger, increasing stratosphere density and pressure over time to become similar to the tropopause. The tropopause is the first barrier that protects us from "leaking heat" into space, essentially.
edit on 3-3-2013 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 


Correct, i meant to say the Troposphere (Lower part of the atmosphere)

Topmost...bottommost. What's the difference, right?

But you're wrong again. 100,000 feet is well beyond the troposphere.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 




This is where the Aerographite would linger, increasing stratosphere density and pressure over time to become similar to the tropopause.

It would not affect the density of the stratosphere. That's like saying putting rocks in water increases the density of the water.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by NeoVain
 


Correct, i meant to say the Troposphere (Lower part of the atmosphere)

Topmost...bottommost. What's the difference, right?

But you're wrong again. 100,000 feet is well beyond the troposphere.



This time you are incorrect, you are using the 0.18 value, which was not the value i was referring to in his post as "his value". He stated the value of air density of ground level. This was the value i was referring to. And as we can see from your chart, the density for air at ground level is 12.25 (10-1 kg/m3). 10% of this value is 1.2, which is the value at 17000m (top of the troposphere/tropopause)
30000 meters (100,000 feet) if for the 0.18 value, not the 1.2
edit on 3-3-2013 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-3-2013 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I can not provide you a link.

But, I will attempt to describe it for you.

Chemtrails consist of hygroscopic material that absorbs water causing it to increase in volume giving it a similar appearance of contrail ice crystals.

But these hygroscopic CCN do not sublimate or dissipate like contrail ice crystals do because they can continue to attract and absorb moisture from the surrounding area. Allowing them to persist and remain visible longer.

Some chemtrails begin to sag and droop in areas than have absorbed more moisture than other areas of the chemtrail. Those areas become heavier than the rest of the man-made chem cloud. Giving them their characteristic anomalous appearance.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by MagicWand67
 


But these hygroscopic CCN do not sublimate or dissipate like contrail ice crystals do because they can continue to attract and absorb moisture from the surrounding area.
How can they do that? We are talking about temperatures below -40º. Ice forms, not water. Ice covers those particles. How can those particles absorb ice?

How can those particles multiply in order to make the "chemtrail" expand and thicken?



I can not provide you a link.
I thought not.
edit on 3/3/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





I have not come across any thing that indicates that the number or type of condensation nuclei have anything to do with persistence. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction.



en.wikipedia.org...


the oxidation of sulfur dioxide and secondary organic matter formed by the oxidation of VOCs. The ability of these different types of particles to form cloud droplets varies according to their size and also their exact composition, as the hygroscopic properties of these different constituents are very different.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by MagicWand67
 

Water droplets do not form at altitudes of 30,000 feet where temperatures are far, far below freezing.

That quote does not address persistence.
edit on 3/3/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





I thought not.


I can not provide a link that says CHEMTRAIL

Look at my above post for the info you requested on CCN



edit on 3-3-2013 by MagicWand67 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by MagicWand67
 

See my post above.

I want a link saying absorption affects persistence.
edit on 3/3/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



Try using a little common sense for change.


READ THE DAMN LINK I PROVIDED

en.wikipedia.org...


The number and type of CCNs can affect the lifetimes and radiative properties of clouds as well as the amount and hence have an influence on climate change [1] [2]; details are not well understood but are the subject of research. There is also speculation that solar variation may affect cloud properties via CCNs, and hence affect climate.
edit on 3-3-2013 by MagicWand67 because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-3-2013 by MagicWand67 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by NeoVain
 




This is where the Aerographite would linger, increasing stratosphere density and pressure over time to become similar to the tropopause.

It would not affect the density of the stratosphere. That's like saying putting rocks in water increases the density of the water.


You seem to have the same problem as Aloysius in understanding what i am saying. I am not saying the air increases in density, but the LAYER!

To use your example of putting rocks in water, ponder this; If you have a layer of PURE water void of minerals(like rocks are) it will not conduct electricity. However, add rocks(minerals, pollutants), and it becomes conductive.

Still don´t get it?
edit on 3-3-2013 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MagicWand67
 

I usually do.
You aren't providing any.
Absorption is irrelevant to persistence.

Want to give the spreading aspect a shot? Do those condensation nuclei just keep increasing in number?



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by MagicWand67
 


Lies you say?

Please list the lies that you speak of.

I shall list some of the lies so called "truthers" have created to further the chemtrail myth...

Düppel is german for chemtrails LIE
Contrails only last for a short time LIE
Senator Kucinich introduced a bill to ban chemtrails LIE
Public Law 105-85 gives the military permission to experiment with chemical and biological weapons on humans, without their consent LIE
Barium Chemtrails on KSLA LIE



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I highlighted the important part for you.

Since you seem to be stuck on the word absorption.


en.wikipedia.org...

The number and type of CCNs can affect the lifetimes and radiative properties of clouds





The ability of these different types of particles to form cloud droplets varies according to their size and also their exact composition, as the hygroscopic properties of these different constituents are very different.

edit on 3-3-2013 by MagicWand67 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 




If you are intelligent enough to deserve the answer


Don't try and be smart.

You thought charged particles hitting a satellite was an alien invasion.




posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:37 PM
link   
i will let this rest a bit because I am starting to fade. all this talk about and around is makin my head hurt. state what ever it is and lets get on. I feel an impasse coming with he said I said she said. I will be back and hope some point are made. thank you all for your participation,................... Painfulhead





new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join