Chemtrail Science?

eiger.mae.wvu.edu...

Results of large-eddy simulations of the development of young persistent ice contrails are presented, concentrating on the interactions between the aircraft wake dynamics and the ice cloud evolution over ages from a few seconds to ;30 min. The 3D unsteady evolution of the dispersing engine exhausts, trailing vortex pair interaction and breakup, and subsequent Brunt–Va¨isa¨la¨ oscillations of the older wake plume are modeled in detail in high-resolution simulations, coupled with a bulk microphysics model for the contrail ice development. The simulations confirm that the early wake dynamics can have a strong influence on the properties of persistent contrails even at late times. The vortex dynamics are the primary determinant of the vertical extent of the contrail (until precipitation becomes significant); and this together with the local wind shear largely determines the horizontal extent. The ice density, ice crystal number density, and a conserved exhaust tracer all develop and disperse in different fashions from each other. The total ice crystal number can be significantly reduced due to adiabatic compression resulting from the downward motion of the vortex system, even for ambient conditions that are substantially supersaturated with respect to ice. The fraction of the initial ice crystals surviving, their spatial distribution, and the ice mass distribution are all sensitive to the aircraft type, ambient humidity, assumed initial ice crystal number, and ambient turbulence conditions. There is a significant range of conditions for which a smaller transport such as a B737 produces as significant a persistent contrail as a larger transport such as a B747, even though the latter consumes almost five times as much fuel. The difficulties involved in trying to minimize persistent contrail production are discussed.

[edit on 14-11-2006 by HowardRoark]

www.agu.org...

Jet- and vortex-regime evolution of contrails behind cruising aircraft is investigated by focusing on the role of aircraft type. Cross-section measurements by ground-based lidar and observational analysis are combined with numerical simulations of fluid dynamics and microphysics in the wake of a two-engine aircraft. Depending on ambient humidity levels, contrail evolution behind short-/medium-range twin-turbofan airliners is classified into two scenarios, which is in contrast to the three scenarios observed for a wide-body four-turbofan aircraft. In the case of ice-subsaturated ambient air, a short visible contrail is formed behind a two-engine aircraft that disappears before the ice is fully entrained into the wingtip vortices (in most cases ≈4 s behind aircraft). The early evaporation of the ice is mainly due to the fast initial jet expansion, mixing the exhaust with the ambient air. Contrails behind a wide-body four-engine aircraft always survive at least until vortex breakdown (i.e., typically 2 min behind aircraft). This is simply due to the larger ice mass in the contrail because of the higher fuel flow rate. Generally, in the case of ice supersaturation, a diffuse secondary wake evolves above the primary vortex wake. For a two-engine aircraft, always the whole contrail persists, while for a four-engine aircraft, the ice inside the primary wake disappears in most cases after vortex breakdown, when the relative humidity is only slightly above ice saturation. In the more rare cases of higher ice-supersaturation the ice in the primary wake survives vortex breakdown and becomes part of the persistent contrail. © 2001 American Geophysical Union

source

Abstract
A system of multiple continuous-flow condensation nuclei counters (CNC) was assembled, calibrated, and demonstrated on a NASA T-39 Sabreliner jet aircraft. The mission was to penetrate the exhaust plumes and/or contrails of other subsonic jet aircraft and determine the concentrations of submicrometer diameter aerosol particles. Mission criteria required rapid response measurements ( 1 s) at aircraft cruise altitudes (9–12 km). The CNC sampling system was optimized to operate at 160 Torr. Aerosol samples were acquired through an externally mounted probe. Installed downstream of the probe was a critical flow orifice that provided sample to the CNC system. The orifice not only controlled volumetric flow rate, but also dampened probe pressure/flow oscillations encountered in the turbulent aircraft-wake vortex environment. Laboratory calibrations with NaCl particles under representative conditions are reported that indicate small amounts of particle loss and a maximum measurement efficiency of 75% for particles with diameters ranging from 0.01− 0.18 μm Data from exhaust/contrail samplings of a NASA B757 and DC-8 at cruise altitude are discussed. Data include exhaust/contrail measurements made during periods in which the B757 port jet engine burned low-sulfur fuel while the starboard engine simultaneously burned specially prepared high-sulfur fuel. The data discussed highlight the CNC systems performance, and introduce new observations pertinent to the behavior of sulfur in aircraft exhaust aerosol chemistry.

Yeah, but i have came to conclusion its about peoples feelings, than it is science. Someone seens a contrail and they feel it is something sinister. They dont have any evidence it actually is. Not a single chemtrail believer here has even tried to explain their feeling contrails can not persist, because well I guess its not about a logical thought, its about their feelings about contrails.

They feel the airlines are spraying them, or that it is orbs flown by reptilians, or for some reason they hate the USAF and think that the tanker fleet is dedicated to trying to kill them. Or they feel they can point resin filled copper pipes at the sky and it makes them feel better

True. That observation could go for most of the other threads on this site as well.


On the other hand, there is always the odd person who initially falls for the hoax then gradually realizes it. that is who I am aiming at.

Thats true, I can think of several people on message boards who used to be "chemmies" until they actually did some research into it, instead of just talking to other chemmies.

From the following thread after a few requests by that author...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by PisTonZOR
I Don't have any pictures of lingering Contrails after a B-17 has left. However, I have shown you a picture of very long Contrails, which look like what you call Chemtrails. If they wern't fine.

I do not have a problem with contrails very rarely lasting 'many minutes' as they seemed to have in the photos you presented as that's what is expected. As in my responses to imperium the author investigating actually used the relatively unique nature of persistent contrails to determine at what date a certain event took place. I did not see anything in those pictures that looked to me like what we are seeing these days.

Them pictures I linked you to obviously had lasted for much longer than 30 seconds.

That is the norm but under the right rare conditions they might last five or even more minutes.

Many aircraft also fly the same route, this can produce layers and layers and layers of lingering contrails which may appear to be strange. Wind can blow these 10 minute old contrails sideways. Then a new jet will pass over the same route as the old jet. This pattern of events produces these:

Which is one again not unexpected but should be far rarer than we observe it to be. Why would so many thousands of people send emails or letters to their representatives about this phenomenon?

Federal bureaucracies have gotten thousands of phone calls, e-mails and letters in recent years from people demanding to know what is being sprayed and why. Some of the missives are threatening.

It's impossible to tell how many supporters these ideas have attracted, but the people who believe them say they're tired of getting the brush-off from officials. And they're tired of health problems they blame on "spraying."

www.usatoday.com...

Now i don't believe these materials are meant to do harm but where is the investigation to see what happened? When someone breaks out with unknown systems and screams 'virus' i reckon there would be some investigation at least?

Why did all of this start happening just years after Edward Teller proposed that the US government started spraying electrically-conductive materials to help reduce global warming? Coincidence?

Based on my knowledge that the plane wasn't built with Chemspraying equipment and that 777 hasn't gone through any C or D checks which would be required to install something large, such as Chemspraying equipment.

Who said that the equipment have to be installed or that it is large? Who suggested this operation uses commercial planes at all? I know you want to debunk the whole thing as fast as possible but try stick to theories at least proposed? As i understand it these materials would just be mixed with the fuel itself if the operation were to be carried out by commercial planes but the trails lasting hours in the chemtrail report i linked to earlier were left by planes that did not appear on flight explorer...

A and B checks are overnight, far to short to add a bunch of tanks to an aircraft then test them.

Which would be a silly way to go about installing equipment you do not want people to know about? Do 'debunkers' like yourself choose the most illogical way to keep a secret operation mostly secret by chance or do you do it out of shear spite? If you do not understand the notion of conspiracy do some research and discover what types of massive conspiracies are possible and have been perpetrated in relative broad daylight.

I don't know who told me about it, but someone did. I beleive it was in another thread when someone showed me that picture of the KLM 777. They suggested that there must be holes in the wings which spray chemicals.

I think i posted some pictures of that commercial airliner earlier but i remember using question marks and not at all indicating that i thought i knew what was going on or that it might be a norm.
Making holes, in strange places, in planes that are subject to daily routine inspection all over the world is probably not the best way to go about things till the situation gets rather desperate.

No. But it does mean that Boeing has thousands of people who have an acute understanding of jets.

And one assumes that the people involved in keeping tabs on social funding and spending in the US government all had accounting backgrounds thus making the savings and loans ( possible the biggest financial crime in mainstream history) quite impossible? Why do you assume that intelligence and understanding of one's field leads logically to you telling others whenever something strange is happening? Why can almost all the scientist in a specific field be so frequently be so completely wrong? Why assume that they are not involved and actively trying to keep the details secret?

The few thousand people who work at KPAE and KBFI would most likely know.

If there were holes to see and if these people would know about them why assume they would tell us? Why assume that they would think they were doing the wrong thing and thus possibly want to disclose some details about this activity? I think i am assuming quite a bit less than you are.

Maybe. But the GE-90 is civilian and has no link to defence industries. Also what about RR and PW?

As i said i don't consider this a civilian operation even if some pictures of civil airliners are quite suspect.... Corporations are after all corporations and if the defense secretary of my country came to my airline and made me a deal i could not refuse ( great rewards for going along and only mostly disagreeable options otherwise) 'in the interest of national survival and or security i wonder if i would have endangered by position in the corporate ladder by acting 'against the interest of my country'. I don't think you understand , or for that matter want to, the forces at work in government and the world and then it's not surprising that you refuse to accept that such large scale operations can be carried out in such relative secrecy. History is replete with examples ( such relatively small acknowledged conspiracies such as Iran-contra, bombing of Laos, Savings and loans) if one is willing to first read the main stream accounts of history followed by the accounts that are mostly far harder to lay your hands on...

Boeing is far from bankruptcy. There revenue went up $54.845 billion USD last year. This year and last year are both amazing years for Boeing.

Boeing earned $492 million in 2002 and $2.57 billion in 2005; why talk about revenue? Boeing and Airbus have been in very close competition for a few years now and Boeing regained it's market leader position in 2005 it's only due to the fact that it lost it in 2003. The last few years can probably be called amazing but then only in reference to the middle and late 90's and i suspect much of the recovery is due to the industrial sabotage being perpetrated against Airbus.

Maybe because the FAA is heavily involved in the certification process of all Commercial Airliners.

"Federal" sums up everything you should know so don't lecture me on what they might know and what they are allowed to disclose to you and me.

hey know EVERYTHING about jets and in certification they test ALL parts. They also know what airlines do to maintain them, and what, if any, modifications have taken place

They may be required to know all these things but they most certainly do not and that has nothing to do with what they are allowed to disclose publicly.

Because KLM 777s land at public airports. MX (maintenance) also aren't just working conformist ants.

I find that people working in fields they love are actually more easily bound by secrecy as they are even more unlikely to risk their jobs. Once again you focus entirely on the civilian aspect as if that is the main thrust of my argument; why?

Most are heavily interested in jets, and if they discovered strange tanks on jets the whole world would know about it.

Unless they like their jobs assuming that they are not bound by secrecy clauses. I think people would be surprised to find how prevalent such clauses are in the corporate world to say nothing of how people will protect their jobs by not saying anything too damaging. I once again have to ask why you think anyone would attempt to keep such a civilian operation secret after installing large tanks under the wings? Are you deliberately trying to come up with the most ludicrous and easily dismisses ideas or is this just how your mind works?

How am I deluded? I have never said anything disrespectful here. If I have, point me to it and I will not do it again.

The assumption that my interest and belief in strange long lasting contrails stems from looking at a few pictures leads me to believe that you consider my absolutely foolish and probably stupid. It's just not respectful to assume that the 'other guy' rests his beliefs on less detail than you would. Since you profess to know so much about the topic there is no reason to attack in such a vapid way considering the wealth of information you should have.All i have seen so far is you appealing to convention and generally suggesting that since you can not imagine a conspiracy there can't be one while going about attacking claims i never made or even supported.

Continued below

[edit on 9-12-2006 by StellarX]

I am not denying what others think is real. I am saying Chemtrails aren't true in reality, not what they beleive in isn't true.

Maybe you should read that again and see if it makes as much sense now as it seemed to then as i can not discover much. You seem to be telling people that what they did not think they saw before 1997 they in fact did and thus telling them they they are all wrong? Do you think someone needs to be a aviation expert to realise that contrails that rarely lasted more than a few dozen seconds should not suddenly a few years later last many hours or even days? It's one thing to tell people that they are not seeing pink floating elephants but to tell them they can not tell the difference between what they used to see for decades and what they are seeing now?

Also what lengths am I going to? Sorry, but you're accusing me being deluded and disrespectful. That's a far greater lengths than doing what I'm doing (Proving a bunch of points wrong).

At least i have been rather specific in calling only one person deluded and disrespectful while you have used a far broader brush for hundreds of thousands of Americans. One letter to a government official is after all normally considered representative of the feelings of five hundred or so citizens.

I will explain them. Give me a moment, we are having blackouts so I will just click post so this won''t be lost.

Well you should have said you 'will attempt' but this that statement was as revealing as anything more specfic.

Originally posted by PisTonZOR
Pilots are constantly monitoring the plane, or scanning for other aircraft.

Those would not be very smart pilots as they would have to assume that their flight plans are wrong. What about their cockpit would they be monitoring that would not have a sound or light cue to indicate noticeable deviation from the set norm? I am no expert but what i have described above seems to be norm in the books and material i have read....

Also, when on dense airroutes you really have to watch yourself to make sure you aren't on a collision course with another plane.

And you will do this by staring out the cockpit window in your opinion? This is most certainly not the impression i got from what i have read...

Although I don't fly Boeing 747's. I have taken control and flown light aircraft into huge airshows. Light aircraft don't usually have TCAS, so you REALLY need to watch where you are.

And light aircraft are also very unlikely to fly at the altitudes normally associated with contrail formation....

Watch this: www.flightlevel350.com...

Now all you need is another 747 to be on a collision course, then it's possible for another Uberlingen to happen. Around 50 school gifted children died in that accident. To not scan for other plane sis just plain stupid.

The Uberlingen crash was Europe's third fatal accident in three years caused by errors in air traffic control. It followed collisions on the ground at Paris's Charles de Gaulle airport in 2000 and Milan's Linate airfield in 2001. The sequence ended a 16-year run without any deaths.

Eurocontrol admits it is concerned about the trend. Mr Aguado said: "It worries us a lot when we see two accidents on runways in successive years and a mid-air collision - which is something which Europe has not experienced for many years."

It is working on a new system which will give controllers an 18-minute warning of any potential collision, rather than the present two to three minutes.

At present, one in 10m flights ends with an accident caused by air traffic control. But in the constant congestion at 30,000ft predicted by 2020, that rate could mean two disasters in Europe's skies a year.

www.guardian.co.uk...

How do you think staring out the cockpit window during night time would have prevented this accident? Why this sudden spate of 'accidents' anyways and why are they all being attributed to air traffic control and not to pilots failing to spot trouble by desperately peering out of little windows?

Stellar



[edit on 9-12-2006 by StellarX]

[edit on 9-12-2006 by StellarX]

That is the norm but under the right rare conditions they might last five or even more minutes.

According to someone else they last 30 seconds

Oh, and theres no reason why contrails can't persist. None.

Which is one again not unexpected but should be far rarer than we observe it to be.

Well it isn't.

Why would so many thousands of people send emails or letters to their representatives about this phenomenon?

Because they're idiots?

Joke I honestly don't know.

Who said that the equipment have to be installed

Me, because they're definately not installing it at factories.

or that it is large?

Because you're going to need a large tank to hold the chemicals.

Who suggested this operation uses commercial planes at all?

The person who said a KLM 777 was chemspraying

This guy

And mechanic email. The page has since been deleted.

I know you want to debunk the whole thing as fast as possible but try stick to theories at least proposed?

There is about 50 chemtrail theories, all containing diferant things.

As i understand it these materials would just be mixed with the fuel itself if the operation were to be carried out by commercial planes

What materials are in chemtrails again?

Which would be a silly way to go about installing equipment you do not want people to know about?

How do you think they installed them then?

Do 'debunkers' like yourself choose the most illogical way to keep a secret operation mostly secret by chance or do you do it out of shear spite? If you do not understand the notion of conspiracy do some research and discover what types of massive conspiracies are possible and have been perpetrated in relative broad daylight.

Lay off the insults, whether they were meant to be or not.

If there were holes to see and if these people would know about them why assume they would tell us?

Because they're people, and they will do that. If you see spraying equipment and you didn't know what it was, would you tell someone? Probably.

I've also had various people breach NDAs just so I could have a go of some alpha software. With a few thousand people with something as serious as chemspraying equipment / holes in aircraft there WOULD be leak.

"Federal" sums up everything you should know so don't lecture me on what they might know and what they are allowed to disclose to you and me.

So what? Huge amount of civialians work for the FAA.

but they most certainly do not and that has nothing to do with what they are allowed to disclose publicly.

Once again you focus entirely on the civilian aspect as if that is the main thrust of my argument; why?

Because it's the worst claim I've seen in my entire life, and the amount of ignorance involved in the civilian aspect is amazing, which makes it very annoying.

I find that people working in fields they love are actually more easily bound by secrecy as they are even more unlikely to risk their jobs.

Yep, I'm talking about the civilian aspect here. Mechanics involved with jets don't have to sign any NDA, same with pilots.

The assumption that my interest and belief in strange long lasting contrails stems from looking at a few pictures leads me to believe that you consider my absolutely foolish and probably stupid.

Not sure if I get this, but I don't think you're foolish or stupid.

All i have seen so far is you appealing to convention and generally suggesting that since you can not imagine a conspiracy there can't be one while going about attacking claims i never made or even supported.

Laymans terms please?

Do you think someone needs to be a aviation expert to realise that contrails that rarely lasted more than a few dozen seconds should not suddenly a few years later last many hours or even days?

Contrails usually last for over a few dosen seconds, and theres no reason why contrails cannot last for hours. None.

At least i have been rather specific in calling only one person deluded and disrespectful while you have used a far broader brush for hundreds of thousands of Americans.

What about Americans?

Well you should have said you 'will attempt' but this that statement was as revealing as anything more specfic.

I typed the entire thing up twice, each time the power went off. So I did attempt it.

Those would not be very smart pilots as they would have to assume that their flight plans are wrong. What about their cockpit would they be monitoring that would not have a sound or light cue to indicate noticeable deviation from the set norm? I am no expert but what i have described above seems to be norm in the books and material i have read....

Yes, Pilot are constantly monitoring the cockpit, the aircraft, and aircraft around it. When at the gate the pilot(s) use the CDU to enter in the route. And no, in planes I am familiar with there is no alarm that signals if you're off course, though, a plane being off course never happens unless the pilot does something stupid.

TTCAS does however, have aural warnings.

And you will do this by staring out the cockpit window in your opinion? This is most certainly not the impression i got from what i have read...

ATC, TCAS and the pilots eyes all assist in looking out for traffic.

And light aircraft are also very unlikely to fly at the altitudes normally associated with contrail formation....

But it does demonstrate that pilots NEED to be situationally aware 100% of the time, and in doing so they may occasionally see UFO's, and would most definately pick up on commonly seeing KC-135 tankers flying around with contrails that were longer than anything they've ever seen before (which dosn't happen).


[edit on 9-12-2006 by PisTonZOR]

How do you think staring out the cockpit window during night time would have prevented this accident? Why this sudden spate of 'accidents' anyways and why are they all being attributed to air traffic control and not to pilots failing to spot trouble by desperately peering out of little windows?

Stellar

A: It's hard to see at night
B: Pilots, particularly Russian pilots were taught to obey ATC rather than instruments.
C: They most likely were looking out the window, but again, conflicting recources led to the disaster.

Oh, and what is stopping Contrails from persisting?

[edit on 9-12-2006 by PisTonZOR]

Originally posted by selfless
magnito i think that some of the things you are saying is not healthy.
If you take time to think about not touching your face in public then that will be what causes you a disease.

How so?

Don't be paranoid about anything and simply don't think about it or else you will develope a disease called paranoya.

The reason people are not more paranoid is simply because they are too damn arrogant ( especially western people with their relatively good standards of living) to believe that they could be had in such elaborate and blatantly evil ways; pride will be our undoing.

Are you suggesting that people should be more paranoid? wow that would be much worst then it already is...

Actually people would be very well served by being more paranoid about a wide variety of issues not including their weight, financial position, employment record, relationship with their 'god'. The thing is not that people are too paranoid but that they spend their paranoia on distractions created specifically for that purpose.

Paranoya is not a healthy thing...

That depends entirely on how wealthy you and your family is as those with nothing can afford to make few mistakes....

Im not trying to argue with you, i just don't agree with you on paranoya.

Agreed.

if you worry too much about something then it will happen in your mind.

One's perception of reality only changes reality in your own mind ( try wish a speeding train away while sitting on the tracks) and you can no more wish aliens into existence than you can wish them away when their floating you to the 'mother ship'. That being said being worried and paranoid about things completely beyond your control can make you physically sick if you do not deal with such worries in the correct fashion. Our bodies respond to the way we think about the world and a negative defeatist attitude will most certainly impact your health negatively and do so even in the very short term so it is extremely important not to worry about things that you are not actively addressing in constructive ways by planning or by physical action.

In my opinion there are two types of people, the paranoid and the ignorant ;'they' really are out to get 'us' if not individually then by virtue of being part of humanity.

Stellar