how much water in that cloud?

page: 1
6

log in

join

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 04:53 PM
link   
while mucking around looking at some sites I found this one that has some figures for how much water is actually in clouds.

It got me thinking -how much water is actually in a persistent contrail, and by association, how much "chemical" of some sort might be required to look similar?

For cirrus clouds, which are those that are sometimes caused by contrails and often indicate conditions are right for contrails, the figures given are 0.11 and 0.2 g/m^3 depending on ice crystal size and temperature.

So how much water is actually in a cirrus cloud of any given size?

The wiki page on cirrus clouds says they can be anywhere from 100-8000m thick, with an average of 1,500m. And it is pretty easy to see they often cover a wide area of sky.

So for the purpose of this calculation I am going to use a "contrail induced cirrus" that is 100m thick, 1km wide and 100km long - not an unsual size for a persitent contrails - that means it is 100*1000*100,000m = 10,000,000,000 cubic metres (10 Trillion cubic metres).

At the lower figure from the 1st link of 0.02 grams per cubic metre that is 10 Trillion x 0.02 grams, and then divided by 1000 to get Kg, and 1000 again to get tonnes - a "mere" 200 tons of water!

You can obviously claculate the amount for any given volume of cloud withotu much bother

If you posit that the "chemical" is lighter than water you can scale that back as much as you like.........but water is a fairly light compound and I'd be interested to see what you think might be enough lighter to supply anything even vaguely resembling 200 tons of water from a single aeroplane all the while looking like a contrail?




posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
while mucking around looking at some sites I found this one that has some figures for how much water is actually in clouds.

It got me thinking -how much water is actually in a persistent contrail, and by association, how much "chemical" of some sort might be required to look similar?

For cirrus clouds, which are those that are sometimes caused by contrails and often indicate conditions are right for contrails, the figures given are 0.11 and 0.2 g/m^3 depending on ice crystal size and temperature.

So how much water is actually in a cirrus cloud of any given size?

The wiki page on cirrus clouds says they can be anywhere from 100-8000m thick, with an average of 1,500m. And it is pretty easy to see they often cover a wide area of sky.

So for the purpose of this calculation I am going to use a "contrail induced cirrus" that is 100m thick, 1km wide and 100km long - not an unsual size for a persitent contrails - that means it is 100*1000*100,000m = 10,000,000,000 cubic metres (10 Trillion cubic metres).

At the lower figure from the 1st link of 0.02 grams per cubic metre that is 10 Trillion x 0.02 grams, and then divided by 1000 to get Kg, and 1000 again to get tonnes - a "mere" 200 tons of water!

You can obviously claculate the amount for any given volume of cloud withotu much bother

If you posit that the "chemical" is lighter than water you can scale that back as much as you like.........but water is a fairly light compound and I'd be interested to see what you think might be enough lighter to supply anything even vaguely resembling 200 tons of water from a single aeroplane all the while looking like a contrail?


That is 400,000 lbs, the Max takeoff weight of a 747-300 is 883,000 lbs, and the Max fuel load is roughly 351,000 lbs.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by anton74
 



When talking about max take of weight, don't forget to also include the planes empty weight. The worlds largest airliner, the A380, has a MTOW of 600 tons, but the empty weight, the aircraft itself, accounts for 300 tons, or 50%. The empty weight of the 737 is typically MORE than half its MTOW, meaning that fuel, crew and whatever else is carried MUST weigh less than 30-40 tons. Make no mistake, 200 tons is a vast amount for any plane to carry.

www.boeing.com...

Edit to add; I seem to have misread the previous post, it says 747. I was sure it said 737 before


Still it allows us to spell out the point I was making. The MTOW of the model cited is a little higher than the 747-400F, a more commonplace version, but one not encumbered with over 400 seats which makes it lighter when empty, which has a figure of 870,000lbs. Of this the empty weight is 360,000lbs approx. and has a maximum disposable load (ie not fuel, crew, structure weight etc) of 238,000lbs, or 119 tons. Still not enough.
edit on 27-3-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


How about I hit you in the head with an ice cube? Then tell me water is relatively light!


What do clouds have to do with contrails or chemtrails for that matter?



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
The problem here is that clouds and contrails are water vapor, not water. You have to accumulate alot of water vapor to get very little liquid water.

Any harmful chemical that they are "spraying" will be heavier than water and fall back down to earth, leaving just the water vapor. If a harmful chemical just stayed in the sky, it would be pointless and wouldn't be able to harm very many people.

So, spraying chemicals or not, you're always only seeing the condensation trail (contrail) which is water vapor, which is what clouds are. There are no harmful chemicals being sprayed that are just going to sit in the sky, spread out, and evaporate.

This is why the "chemtrail" myth is so ridiculous. A contrail is water vapor, which is a cloud, which will sit up in the sky, spread out and evaporate. Chemicals that are heavier than water will not. Hence, every time one sees a trail in the sky, it will always be water vapor no matter what kind of chemicals one thinks are being sprayed.

Which ultimately means, that not one single trail will ever be a "chemtrail", it will always be a contrail no matter what.




edit on 27-3-2013 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by seeker1963
 





What do clouds have to do with contrails or chemtrails for that matter?


Just curious, you seem like an informed individual regarding aviation and meteorology (at least according to your avatar which is what my statement is based off of), could you explain what contrails and chemtrails DONT have to do with clouds?

Serious question



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Pro-chemmie behaviour in a nutshell (cue Harry Hill
)

Anton74 posts an unsourced and incorrect claim ( a genuine error i am sure) that appears to show that chemtrails can actually laid by aircraft using Gauls own calculations and gathers 3 stars in 5 minutes. Not that the stars matter at all, of course, but it does illustrate how willing some people are to just "believe" anything that props up their faith
edit on 27-3-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by seeker1963
 


The point is that what people call chemtrails look like contrails so the question is what weight of chemical would you have to spray to create the same effect.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


How about I hit you in the head with an ice cube? Then tell me water is relatively light!


which is heavier - a tonne of water or a tonne of lead?



What do clouds have to do with contrails or chemtrails for that matter?


Err....contrails are ice crystals, jssut like cirrus clouds, and as I mentioned, contrails can "induce" cirrus plus the presence of cirrus is indicative of conditiosn that are likely to allow for persistent contrails, and of course the supposed chemtrails look exactly like persistent contrails ....I think that's a fairly clear set of connections.

edit on 27-3-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Facts, logic, science, and math all rolled into one thread?
What are you trying to do confuse people?
I made a YT video on a similar topic, after being told by many people that a "chemtrail" was 100% sprayed material. People didn't believe me. I was a shill, obviously.
To "chemtrail" believers:

If you do not believe the math and logic provided, please show us where the figuring is wrong.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

So they were exposing humans to poisoned chemical compounds, yet you found yourself to calculate how much water is in the clouds?

And I need to take this thread seriously?



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by anton74
That is 400,000 lbs, the Max takeoff weight of a 747-300 is 883,000 lbs, and the Max fuel load is roughly 351,000 lbs.


Carrying 200 tons is not a massive problem - carrying it for thousands of kilometers while also carrying the fuel that needs to be burned and the passngers and freight that are still being carried is a bit more problematic....

and that 200 tonnes is only for 100 km of flight - the a/c still has to take off and do the other 100's and 1000's of km of flight it does.......

If that a/c carries 351,000 lbs of "chem" - what does it burn for fuel??


If the "chem" is "in the fuel" then it can only be a small part of the fuel or it will massively affect the burning characteristics, power, maybe the life of the engines.

and of course it would be detectable by chemical analysis - which no-one has ever managed to do.
edit on 27-3-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: spelling



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by zilebeliveunknown
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

So they were exposing humans to poisoned chemical compounds, yet you found yourself to calculate how much water is in the clouds?

And I need to take this thread seriously?


no-one is forcing you to take anything seriously - not this thread, and certainly not the chemtrail hoax.

But if you are interested in chemtrails then why wouldn't you want to know how much material - water - it takes to form clouds as part of a good general knowledge of atmospherics?

Isn't "look up" a chemtrail believer meme? Why wouldn't you want to have some actual facts about what it is you see when you "look up"?
edit on 27-3-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: spelling



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
The problem here is that clouds and contrails are water vapor, not water. You have to accumulate alot of water vapor to get very little liquid water.








edit on 27-3-2013 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)


Wrong on a couple of counts. First, cirrus clouds and contrails are water, in the form of ice crystals. And if you have 1 ton of water vapor, that makes 1 ton of water upon full condensation.
Not all the weight of a contrail is carried in the fuel, only the hydrogen part of H2O. The oxygen is already there comprising about 18% of the atmosphere. I am type rated in the Boeing 747. The dash 400 ER can carry 48,445 US gallons of jet fuel. That weighs 323,123 pounds. Since jet fuel is dudocane, with a chemical formula of C12H26, it has a molecular weight of 170, 26 of which is hydrogen. So about 50,000 pounds is available to make water. In a perfectly stoichiometric reaction it could combine with 8 times as much oxygen mass to make about 450,000 pounds of water.
In normal cruise flight at 35,000 feet or so at standard temp, a 747 at standard temp and pressure burns about 3,600 gallons/hour, depending on how fast you want to go. So in that hour you're going to burn about 24,000 pounds of fuel, or roughly 4,000 pounds of hydrogen, making up to 36,000 pounds of water. That is spread over 500 miles, depending on wind components.
For you purists out there, the figures I'm quoting for burn are for the Pratt PW 4056. I don't have my CF-6 or RB211 books handy.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

Thank you, I appreciate it.
What was strange to me is that you were in disagreement with that thread title not the fact that that woman exposed unethical military testing on citizens.
If this thread is about physics, so be it, carry on.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by zilebeliveunknown
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

Thank you, I appreciate it.
What was strange to me is that you were in disagreement with that thread title not the fact that that woman exposed unethical military testing on citizens.
If this thread is about physics, so be it, carry on.


I assume you are talking about www.abovetopsecret.com... - which is an entirely different topic - if I have anything further to say about it I will make those comments on that thread.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Pro-chemmie behaviour in a nutshell (cue Harry Hill
)

Anton74 posts an unsourced and incorrect claim ( a genuine error i am sure) that appears to show that chemtrails can actually laid by aircraft using Gauls own calculations and gathers 3 stars in 5 minutes. Not that the stars matter at all, of course, but it does illustrate how willing some people are to just "believe" anything that props up their faith
edit on 27-3-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)


Nope, I just pointed out the weight of a 747.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Yet another "chemtrail" thread killed by facts.
It seems that the use of math has once again stymied the believers. It seems much easier for them to discuss the possibilities, based on assumption and suspicion than deal with hard figures, verifiable with a bit of research.
I found this out three years ago as well. I figured that a single cumulus cloud would require the entire payload of 7 Evergreen Supertankers (which were a big topic at the time) to produce. Not one person negated anything I said, they all attacked the messenger.
Sounds vaguely familiar, huh?



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
The problem here is that clouds and contrails are water vapor, not water.


no - water vapour is an invisible gas - it is in the air all around us all eth time and we cannot see it - it is what is measured as humidity.

It condenses out of air to form clouds of water in either liquid or solid (ice) form - cirrus clouds being ice, others being water droplets.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
The problem here is that clouds and contrails are water vapor, not water.


no - water vapour is an invisible gas - it is in the air all around us all eth time and we cannot see it - it is what is measured as humidity.

It condenses out of air to form clouds of water in either liquid or solid (ice) form - cirrus clouds being ice, others being water droplets.


So, we could look at how much of a particular agent could be dissolved in a gallon of water/fuel and then calculate how much could possibly be present in a contrail(taking into account how much would be there due to regular fuel consumption)? That might alllow us to calculate how much would have to be sprayed to raise ground samples above what would be normal for a particular area. Nope, science and facts have no place in this arguement. You just have to believe.





top topics
 
6

log in

join