Chemtrails on private jets?

a reply to: ChristianSupremacist

I treat people how I'm treated. Your first response to me told me to "do my research", instead of trying to be more civil and having an open minded discussion. I have yet to encounter someone talking about chemtrails that is willing to be open minded and admit that they might be wrong. All they do is attack everyone that doesn't agree with them.

originally posted by: Creep Thumper

originally posted by: ChristianSupremacist

originally posted by: Creep Thumper

originally posted by: ChristianSupremacist

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: kittywrangler

Yeah, this site should be an echo chamber, and anyone that doesn't agree should be shouted down and run off. God forbid people have different opinions or do their own research, or have their own knowledge base.

You just accused someone of what you're doing yourself. And you're not the only only one. Every thread on this board gets jumped on by "fact checkers" and posters pushing the official narratives and state propaganda.

Sorry, but you're paranoid and not making any sense.

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not after me (and you).

You're arguing with a Forum Subject Matter Expert.

I'm the expert www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: kittywrangler


Wow, skytrolls? Seriously?

yep, the first few Google results in the 00's were all about sky-trolls and fairies. i know this because i had my dad look into the chemtrail subject and he showed me, then i searched myself with the same results

a reply to: ChristianSupremacist

And I have spent basically my entire life in aviation. I know quite a bit about how aircraft operate, and what they're capable of.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: kittywrangler

I explained it to you. In the 80s they were using low and medium bypass turbofans. So the amount of contrails and persistent contrails were lower. As engines got more efficient, contrails became more common, and more persistent trails started showing up.

are you saying that condensed water vapor persists in today's atmosphere, where it did not in the 80's?

*ATTN*

Be Civil... Discuss the topic and not each other.

Thank you.

a reply to: kittywrangler

No. I'm saying that jet engines pump out more cool moist air than they did in the 80s, which mixes with the water vapor in the air, and combines with soot particles, and creates more contrails than they did in the 80s. Contrails have persisted all the way back to 1914, when the first persistent contrail was identified. They persisted in the 80s, just not as much as they do now, because of the engine technology.

originally posted by: Zaphod58

Ok, I appreciate you letting me have my say here. I'll be back soon.

a reply to: Zaphod58
So what do you say about GeoEngineering, is that not a thing either?

Thailand's Royal Rainmaking Project
en.wikipedia.org...

Chemtrails = GeoEngineering

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: kittywrangler

No. I'm saying that jet engines pump out more cool moist air than they did in the 80s, which mixes with the water vapor in the air, and combines with soot particles, and creates more contrails than they did in the 80s. Contrails have persisted all the way back to 1914, when the first persistent contrail was identified. They persisted in the 80s, just not as much as they do now, because of the engine technology.

i apologize that i cannot reply quicker than my 4 month old is allowing atm...but what i'm failing to understand is how any of the things you discuss would cause condensation to persist, rather than dissipate. even on a very sunny day

a reply to: ChristianSupremacist

Cloud seeding isn't chemtrails though. Cloud seeding requires clouds to exist already, and potentially be about to rain. "Chemtrails" aren't rain clouds, and will never drop rain, as they're cirrus clouds, which don't rain.

There are several GeoEngineering proposals, but there isn't any proof that any of them are taking place using existing aircraft, to spray anything. Most planned on taking place higher than aircraft normally operate.

a reply to: kittywrangler

A sunny day on the ground doesn't mean there isn't a lot of humidity at 36,000 feet, or whatever altitude contrails are forming at.

Low bypass turbofans, which were the engines of the 1980s, take in air, which goes through the fan section at the front of the engine, is compressed by the fan, and goes through the engine where it's mixed with the fuel and burned. The hot air from the combustion chamber is then pumped out the back of the engine. If the air outside the engine has enough humidity in it, then a contrail forms. If it's not past that critical point of humidity, no contrail forms. If it's close to that critical point, but just over it, no persistent contrail forms. If it's above a certain point, you get a persistent contrail.

A high bypass turbofan, which is in use now, take air in the front of the engine, where it goes through the fan, and is compressed, exactly the same way, but in this case, as much as 90% of the air that is taken in, goes around the engine where it cools the engine. Meaning you now have compressed, cool air, that's absorbing heat from the engine, and gaining moisture as it goes around the engine. It then mixes with the hot air from the compressor of the engine, and cooler moist air is pushed out the back. In this case, the air around the engine doesn't have to be beyond that critical point of humidity levels. It can be below that point, but the air from the engine pushes it beyond that critical point, and a contrail forms. You still need a certain amount of humidity for a persistent contrail to form, but the engine is providing some of that humidity with the bypass air, so you get more persistent contrails, when conditions are close to what is required.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: kittywrangler

A sunny day on the ground doesn't mean there isn't a lot of humidity at 36,000 feet, or whatever altitude contrails are forming at.

Low bypass turbofans, which were the engines of the 1980s, take in air, which goes through the fan section at the front of the engine, is compressed by the fan, and goes through the engine where it's mixed with the fuel and burned. The hot air from the combustion chamber is then pumped out the back of the engine. If the air outside the engine has enough humidity in it, then a contrail forms. If it's not past that critical point of humidity, no contrail forms. If it's close to that critical point, but just over it, no persistent contrail forms. If it's above a certain point, you get a persistent contrail.

A high bypass turbofan, which is in use now, take air in the front of the engine, where it goes through the fan, and is compressed, exactly the same way, but in this case, as much as 90% of the air that is taken in, goes around the engine where it cools the engine. Meaning you now have compressed, cool air, that's absorbing heat from the engine, and gaining moisture as it goes around the engine. It then mixes with the hot air from the compressor of the engine, and cooler moist air is pushed out the back. In this case, the air around the engine doesn't have to be beyond that critical point of humidity levels. It can be below that point, but the air from the engine pushes it beyond that critical point, and a contrail forms. You still need a certain amount of humidity for a persistent contrail to form, but the engine is providing some of that humidity with the bypass air, so you get more persistent contrails, when conditions are close to what is required.

am i incorrect in believing that if there's excess humidity at 36,000ft there will be more clouds, less sun?

why did all aircraft at high altitude produce a quickly dissipating contrail in the 80's, regardless of atmospheric weather conditions?

at what temperature (or under what conditions) would the exhaust of a high bypass turbofan engine not dissipate into the surrounding air?