I was in Palmdale and the Chem-trail pollution was off the charts

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: turbonium1

The engines did though. The engines currently used are bypassing as much as 90% of the air taken into the inlet. That means a lot more air being compressed and pushed around the engine, resulting in much more cool, moist air being pumped out.

You can try to hand wave it away all you want, but it's been proven that high bypass turbofans leave more contrails, and leave them in conditions where older engines never did.

Unless you're going to claim that they blatantly sprayed a chemtrail for a scientific paper.

The thermodynamic analysis, which is the result of
first-principle arguments, implies that aircraft and engines,
performing with a higher overall propulsion effi-
ciency release a smaller fraction of the combustion heat
during cruise into the exhaust plume, and hence cause
plume conditions which during mixing reach higher relative
humidity for the same ambient temperature and
hence form contrails also at higher ambient temperatures.
Hence aircraft will form contrails more frequently when
using more fuel efficient engines.

A recent case study with two airliners with different
engines, with details reported in a parallel publication
[36], shows that an altitude range exists in which the
aircraft with high overall propulsion efficiency causes
contrails while the aircraft with lower efficiency causes
none, as predicted by the theory.
The analysis of contrail impact on radiative forcing
performed so far [7,18,20] implies that future aircraft
with higher propulsion efficiencies cause more contrails

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu...

You claim "it's been proven that high bypass turbofans leave more contrails, and leave them in conditions where older engines never did."

Then you cite a source that says nothing about being "proven". They say it "implies" twice, though. So are you making false claims about being "proven"? Show me where it mentions being "proven", or retract your false claim..

Here's some information that says just the opposite...

High-bypass turbofan engines do not create condensation trails. The ratio of air-to-exhaust is much too high to facilitate the formation of condensation because the majority of air expelled from the back of the engine is not combusted. It is passed through the "fan" and simply blown out the back without mixing with any fuel at all.

Turbine engines are the power plant for high-bypass turbofans. Turbine engines are used in other applications besides powering jets. They are also used to power helicopters and many prop driven planes, yet we never see trails coming from these types of vehicles, and the reason is simple. Turbine engines virtually never produce condensation trails.

More to read on contrails...

Every Condition is Wrong for Contrail Formation
The formation of condensation trails requires vacuum (reduction in air pressure), cold temperatures, and high humidity, however, the output side of a jet engine contains mostly outside air that has been pushed through the engine by the large ducted fan (The ducted fan is the set of spinning blades that you see when you look at the front of the engine). This high-pressure at the output of the engine is contrary for the formation of condensation trails because pressurized air has the ability to hold much more water in suspension, without producing condensation.


www.geoengineeringwatch.org...


I prefer the truth, because I have no need to try and deceive, or mislead, anything not true.

If you accept the word of governments, and the military, and military-related agencies (ie: NASA) and mega-corporations, banks, and oil companies, who have billions in government/military contracts/funding....then I feel sorry for you

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: turbonium1

The engines did though. The engines currently used are bypassing as much as 90% of the air taken into the inlet. That means a lot more air being compressed and pushed around the engine, resulting in much more cool, moist air being pumped out.

You can try to hand wave it away all you want, but it's been proven that high bypass turbofans leave more contrails, and leave them in conditions where older engines never did.

Unless you're going to claim that they blatantly sprayed a chemtrail for a scientific paper.

The thermodynamic analysis, which is the result of
first-principle arguments, implies that aircraft and engines,
performing with a higher overall propulsion effi-
ciency release a smaller fraction of the combustion heat
during cruise into the exhaust plume, and hence cause
plume conditions which during mixing reach higher relative
humidity for the same ambient temperature and
hence form contrails also at higher ambient temperatures.
Hence aircraft will form contrails more frequently when
using more fuel efficient engines.

A recent case study with two airliners with different
engines, with details reported in a parallel publication
[36], shows that an altitude range exists in which the
aircraft with high overall propulsion efficiency causes
contrails while the aircraft with lower efficiency causes
none, as predicted by the theory.
The analysis of contrail impact on radiative forcing
performed so far [7,18,20] implies that future aircraft
with higher propulsion efficiencies cause more contrails

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu...

You claim "it's been proven that high bypass turbofans leave more contrails, and leave them in conditions where older engines never did."

Then you cite a source that says nothing about being "proven". They say it "implies" twice, though. So are you making false claims about being "proven"? Show me where it mentions being "proven", or retract your false claim..

Here's some information that says just the opposite...

High-bypass turbofan engines do not create condensation trails. The ratio of air-to-exhaust is much too high to facilitate the formation of condensation because the majority of air expelled from the back of the engine is not combusted. It is passed through the "fan" and simply blown out the back without mixing with any fuel at all.

Turbine engines are the power plant for high-bypass turbofans. Turbine engines are used in other applications besides powering jets. They are also used to power helicopters and many prop driven planes, yet we never see trails coming from these types of vehicles, and the reason is simple. Turbine engines virtually never produce condensation trails.

More to read on contrails...

Every Condition is Wrong for Contrail Formation
The formation of condensation trails requires vacuum (reduction in air pressure), cold temperatures, and high humidity, however, the output side of a jet engine contains mostly outside air that has been pushed through the engine by the large ducted fan (The ducted fan is the set of spinning blades that you see when you look at the front of the engine). This high-pressure at the output of the engine is contrary for the formation of condensation trails because pressurized air has the ability to hold much more water in suspension, without producing condensation.


www.geoengineeringwatch.org...


I prefer the truth, because I have no need to try and deceive, or mislead, anything not true.

If you accept the word of governments, and the military, and military-related agencies (ie: NASA) and mega-corporations, banks, and oil companies, who have billions in government/military contracts/funding....then I feel sorry for you

a reply to: turbonium1

I'd say that it's pretty proven based on the fact that the post you quoted shows that there is a high bypass turbofan flying at the same altitude as a low bypass turbofan, and one is leaving a contrail where the other isn't. What do you call that? One deliberately spraying a chemtrail right in front of a group doing a study?

Yeah, you should try other sources if you think that's the truth. Geoengineeringwatch has no idea how contrails are formed. The air doesn't have to go through the engine for it to form a contrail. The hot air from the exhaust is mixing with the cooler air around it. It doesn't matter if it's bypass air, or if it's air that is already there. The fan in the high bypass turbofan compresses the air that passes through the engine, both bypass, and through the combustion chamber, which adds more moisture to the air that's compressed as it's bypassed. When the warm air mixes with it, it creates a contrail.

I can't think of a single helicopter, off the top of my head, that has a normal operating range high enough to leave contrails as they fly. The two most common transport helicopters used by the US military have service ceilings of less than 20,000 feet. Contrails form above that altitude.

As for prop driven aircraft never leaving contrails, try again.

C-130s:





A C-130 is a turoprop aircraft, using a turbine as the powerplant. Those two certainly look like they're leaving contrails to me.

Q400:



Piaggio P180:



All turboprops, with turbine engines, all leaving contrails.

Maybe you should find another source for your "truth".

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: turbonium1

The engines did though. The engines currently used are bypassing as much as 90% of the air taken into the inlet. That means a lot more air being compressed and pushed around the engine, resulting in much more cool, moist air being pumped out.

You can try to hand wave it away all you want, but it's been proven that high bypass turbofans leave more contrails, and leave them in conditions where older engines never did.

Unless you're going to claim that they blatantly sprayed a chemtrail for a scientific paper.

The thermodynamic analysis, which is the result of
first-principle arguments, implies that aircraft and engines,
performing with a higher overall propulsion effi-
ciency release a smaller fraction of the combustion heat
during cruise into the exhaust plume, and hence cause
plume conditions which during mixing reach higher relative
humidity for the same ambient temperature and
hence form contrails also at higher ambient temperatures.
Hence aircraft will form contrails more frequently when
using more fuel efficient engines.

A recent case study with two airliners with different
engines, with details reported in a parallel publication
[36], shows that an altitude range exists in which the
aircraft with high overall propulsion efficiency causes
contrails while the aircraft with lower efficiency causes
none, as predicted by the theory.
The analysis of contrail impact on radiative forcing
performed so far [7,18,20] implies that future aircraft
with higher propulsion efficiencies cause more contrails

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu...

You claim "it's been proven that high bypass turbofans leave more contrails, and leave them in conditions where older engines never did."

Then you cite a source that says nothing about being "proven". They say it "implies" twice, though. So are you making false claims about being "proven"? Show me where it mentions being "proven", or retract your false claim..

Here's some information that says just the opposite...

High-bypass turbofan engines do not create condensation trails. The ratio of air-to-exhaust is much too high to facilitate the formation of condensation because the majority of air expelled from the back of the engine is not combusted. It is passed through the "fan" and simply blown out the back without mixing with any fuel at all.

Turbine engines are the power plant for high-bypass turbofans. Turbine engines are used in other applications besides powering jets. They are also used to power helicopters and many prop driven planes, yet we never see trails coming from these types of vehicles, and the reason is simple. Turbine engines virtually never produce condensation trails.

More to read on contrails...

Every Condition is Wrong for Contrail Formation
The formation of condensation trails requires vacuum (reduction in air pressure), cold temperatures, and high humidity, however, the output side of a jet engine contains mostly outside air that has been pushed through the engine by the large ducted fan (The ducted fan is the set of spinning blades that you see when you look at the front of the engine). This high-pressure at the output of the engine is contrary for the formation of condensation trails because pressurized air has the ability to hold much more water in suspension, without producing condensation.


www.geoengineeringwatch.org...


I prefer the truth, because I have no need to try and deceive, or mislead, anything not true.

How can anyone just accept whatever claim is made by governments, and the military, and military-related agencies (ie: NASA), and mega-corporations, banks, and oil companies, who have billions in government/military contracts/funding....is just baffling.

On top of all that, we have a mass media - which is saying the exact same thing, in every newspaper, on local, state, national, and international news reports, seen on every TV set, in every city, around the nation. And that makes everyone think 'GEE, I GUESS THIS MUST BE WHAT REALLY HAPPENED, SINCE EVERY MEDIA REPORT SAYS IT IS!!'

Nobody clues in to the fact that they are all run by the same people, who say the exact same thing (which is commonly a complete falsehood, or is twisted around into something else).

When did the mass media report that JFK's limo was completely dismantled, cleaned, and re-assembled, after the assassination? They didn't report it. Independent reports came out later, which mentioned it.
No matter who you think killed JFK, it was THE GOVERNMENT that was covering it up when they illegally removed/destroyed evidence of his murder, by cleaning the limo.

The government destroyed evidence at Ground Zero, as well. Did the mass media report THAT?
No. It was independent reports that mentioned it.

Yet many people (somehow) still believe that these same liars, and criminals, are telling the truth, again and again? How someone can be so stupid, after what they know, is just unbelievable.

Since apparently we're just going to repeat posts.....

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: turbonium1

I'd say that it's pretty proven based on the fact that the post you quoted shows that there is a high bypass turbofan flying at the same altitude as a low bypass turbofan, and one is leaving a contrail where the other isn't. What do you call that? One deliberately spraying a chemtrail right in front of a group doing a study?

Yeah, you should try other sources if you think that's the truth. Geoengineeringwatch has no idea how contrails are formed. The air doesn't have to go through the engine for it to form a contrail. The hot air from the exhaust is mixing with the cooler air around it. It doesn't matter if it's bypass air, or if it's air that is already there. The fan in the high bypass turbofan compresses the air that passes through the engine, both bypass, and through the combustion chamber, which adds more moisture to the air that's compressed as it's bypassed. When the warm air mixes with it, it creates a contrail.

I can't think of a single helicopter, off the top of my head, that has a normal operating range high enough to leave contrails as they fly. The two most common transport helicopters used by the US military have service ceilings of less than 20,000 feet. Contrails form above that altitude.

As for prop driven aircraft never leaving contrails, try again.

C-130s:

A C-130 is a turoprop aircraft, using a turbine as the powerplant. Those two certainly look like they're leaving contrails to me.

Q400:

Piaggio P180:

All turboprops, with turbine engines, all leaving contrails.

Maybe you should find another source for your "truth".

I believe the science, not the source. Whether it comes from NASA, or from a guy running experiments with a plane, the science doesn't change because of where it comes from. Along with actual, honest to god experience with aircraft. Not what someone that doesn't even know how contrails form says on the internet. Some of us in this debate have actually been out crawling around the guts of aircraft, and have spent years studying aviation, and getting first hand experience on the subject. We don't need some guy on the internet to explain how an engine works, or that helicopters not leaving contrails proves that jet engines can't produce them.

I don't know where you live, but I see chemtrails almost daily above me.

They are seen throughout the year, in heat, and cold, without fail.

So you think it's all these contrails being left, daily, no matter what the atmospheric conditions are, even though we know contrails can only form in specific atmospheric conditions?

The normal atmospheric conditions are not normal, anymore, since contrails are left daily, then the specific conditions required for the atmosphere is normal, right?

Within your bizarro-world, anyway...

a reply to: turbonium1

I drove all over the country every day and saw contrails constantly. Yes, they were contrails. Contrails are far more common, especially with high bypass turbofans, than you realize. Unless you're going to claim that every single commercial flight is taking up precious cargo and passenger space putting chemicals on board, and spraying them.

originally posted by: turbonium1
I don't know where you live, but I see chemtrails almost daily above me.

They are seen throughout the year, in heat, and cold, without fail.

So you think it's all these contrails being left, daily, no matter what the atmospheric conditions are, even though we know contrails can only form in specific atmospheric conditions?

The normal atmospheric conditions are not normal, anymore, since contrails are left daily, then the specific conditions required for the atmosphere is normal, right?

Within your bizarro-world, anyway...

You may see contrails "in heat and cold" but you're talking about the temperature where you are standing. I guarantee that if you go up ro 39,000 feet or so, it's cold. For instance, on a trip I flew today from New York to Aruba, I flew over Miami. The temperature on the ground was 82 degrees F. At 39,000 feet, it was minus 67F, according to my OAT probe. And that's a fairly common temp at that altitude, regardless of surface temperature. In Chicago, the temp at FL390 is only 16 degrees colder. The atmosphere at jet flight levels is pretty homogenous. And you don't need humidity to make a contrail. It helps, but you don't need it. We carry the makings for plenty of water. Our 747s carry right at 425,000 pounds of fuel. Since jet fuel (C12H26) is roughly 15% hydrogen by weight, we are carrying about 64,000 pounds of hydrogen, which combines with 8 times that weight of atmospheric oxygen to produce 576000 pounds of water. That's about 72,000 gallons, which when converted to water vapor and spread out makes a pretty long contrail. And the aerosolized carbon black which is emitted provides condensation nucleii for ambient moisture. Boeing makes a pretty good cloud maker.

originally posted by: turbonium1
I don't know where you live, but I see chemtrails almost daily above me.

They are seen throughout the year, in heat, and cold, without fail.

So you think it's all these contrails being left, daily, no matter what the atmospheric conditions are, even though we know contrails can only form in specific atmospheric conditions?

The normal atmospheric conditions are not normal, anymore, since contrails are left daily, then the specific conditions required for the atmosphere is normal, right?

Within your bizarro-world, anyway...

I will guarantee you that whenever you see trails. the conditions for creating contrails are just right at the altitude the trails exist. Guarantee. Like take it to the bank, cash the check guarantee.

Do the contrails affect our weather systems?

a reply to: D8Tee

No. They are affected by weather systems. Without conducive conditions, contrails, persistent or otherwise, do not form.

a reply to: D8Tee

They don't know exactly how much, but the three days after 9/11, when no planes were flying, they did detect a larger swing in diurnal temperatures, so it appears that they do. They can't really ground planes long enough to get good solid data though to find out exactly what the effects of contrails are on the environment.

a reply to: Zaphod58

That study, while interesting, is highly problematic. Among other things, there was no actual quantification of contrail coverage. It simply made the assumption that since planes were grounded for three days there were a lot fewer contrails than there would have otherwise been. That, of course, would depend on the weather conditions over those three days.

But whether that supposed change influences weather, that would be a further assumption.

a reply to: Phage

It simply made the assumption that since planes were grounded for three days there were a lot fewer contrails than there would have otherwise been.

Of course there would have been a lot less contrails, how could it be otherwise?

a reply to: D8Tee

A lack of moisture at altitude, for example. You know, the primary cause of contrails. Persistent or otherwise.

a reply to: Phage

It's doubtful it would affect the weather, but they do appear to have an affect on the environment. There's no real way to quantify contrail coverage, so they have to make some assumptions.

There's a damn good chance that at least one contrail would have formed on that day, so it's pretty safe to assume that there were fewer contrails.

a reply to: Phage
Seems some research shows that contrails do have an effect on weather.
I can't see how they would not, clouds affect the weather, contrails are artificial clouds.

Bernhardt and Carleton looked at temperature observations made at weather station sites in two areas of the U.S., one in the South in January and the other in the Midwest in April. They paired daily temperature data at each contrail site with a non-contrail site that broadly matched in land use-land cover, soil moisture and air mass conditions. The contrail data, derived from satellite imagery, were of persisting contrail outbreaks. The researchers reported their results in a recent issue of the International Journal of Climatology.

They found that contrails depress the difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures, typically decreasing the maximum temperature and raising the minimum temperature. In this respect, the contrail clouds mimic the effect of ordinary clouds.

The researchers report that the "diurnal temperature range was statistically significantly reduced at outbreak stations versus non-outbreak stations." In the South, this amounted to about a 6 degree Fahrenheit reduction in daily temperature range, while in the Midwest, there was about a 5 degree Fahrenheit reduction. Temperatures the days before and after the outbreaks did not show this effect, indicating that the lower temperatures were due to the contrail outbreaks.

"Weather forecasting of daytime highs and lows do not include contrails," said Carleton. "If they were included in areas of contrail outbreaks, they would improve the temperature forecasts."

The National Science Foundation supported this work.

a reply to: Zaphod58

There's a damn good chance that at least one contrail would have formed on that day, so it's pretty safe to assume that there were fewer contrails.

Yeah, well. You got me there. But wait! I happen to know that there were planes flying. I saw NAG Eagles in the air. If conditions were right, they would produce a contrail or two.

The physics say that contrails should have an effect. Studies other than the 911 study indicate it's pretty hard to figure out what the actual effect is but, if anything, it is a slight warming effect (with night time contrails producing a bit more warming than day time contrails produce cooling).

But as far as affecting weather patterns, not really. Contrails are determined by weather patterns, without conducive conditions, no contrails.

a reply to: D8Tee

You asked about weather patterns, not localized conditions. Right?

Without conducive weather patterns, those "contrail days" don't happen.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Would you know the sulfur content of jet fuel?