why doesnt my con-trail last long in winter behind my car??--chem-trails are real

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Let's expand on this, because some numbers may help people to understand, and compare:

1/ The volume of air passing through your cars engine is miniscule compared to the amount a jet uses, and so is the amount of fuel.

Using USA units of measurement, since it is what I'm used to. Round about number for one modern, typical turbofan engine is a fuel burn rate (up at cruise altitude, where most contrails are formed) of ~3,000 pounds per hour. The amount of air it uses, in the combustion process, is substantial, and is not measured directly (that I know of) but, I'm sure the engineers who designed the engine know the ratios the engine needs.

OK....Jet-A is average 6.7 to 6.8 pounds per gallon. Using the 6.75 middle of that, divided by 3,000 pounds per hour, we get gallons used, per hour = 444.4. Let's just call it, 445 gallons per hour.

Now, folks.....how much gasoline (petrol) does your car burn, per hour? Any guesses? I can write out the math....

Presume a 20-gallon tank, and 20 miles per gallon (MPG) at 60 miles per hour (MPH). You find that your car will run the tank dry after you've travelled 400 miles. (400 miles, divided by 20 gallons = 20 MPG...yes?)

(Just to use very easy numbers, you can almost do this in your head....but, I wrote it out, just in case).

60 MPH for 400 miles? Time driving = 6.7 hours. This means, that per hour, you are burning only 2.99 gallons.


Jet engine, per hour = ~445 gallons

Car engine, per hour = ~3 gallons

Any questions???

Thanks for the math!!

Further - the mass airflow in a large modern engine is massive - I found the figure of 3000 pounds per SECOND for a GE90 at max thrust!! www.turbokart.com...

now that's not all being burned - the bypass ratio is 9:1, so only 10% is actually passing through the core of the engine, and not even all that is being used for combustion - some is being used to cool and direct the air that IS being used for combustion.

But still - 300 pounds of air passing through the core per second......

Fuel Burn at takeoff: 3,750 gallons/hr (same site), so that is a little more than 1 gallon per second. IIRC the ideal fuel/air mixture is about 14.7:1, and with 1 US Gallon being about 6.7-6.8 lbs that means that "only" about 100 lbs of air is being used in combustion EACH SECOND.

Pfffttt....almost nothing!!

reply to post by weedwhacker


Explanation: Yes lets expand on that...

Airplanes and Globalization [theglobalist.com]

The world’s commercial jet fleet is expected to more than double by 2025 — to 36,000 aircraft.

(Boeing)

What is the environmental impact of the world’s airplanes?

Aviation’s share of global carbon dioxide emissions is expected to rise from 2% today to 3% by 2050 — a 50% gain — amid steady economic growth and increasing demand for air travel.

Total Nuber of all aircraft worldwide [answers.google.com]

Below you will find the estimated number of aircraft and helicopters worldwide.


312,000 Active General Aviation Aircraft
17,770 Passenger Aircraft
89,129 Military Aircraft
26,500 Civil Helicopters
29,700 Military Helicopters.

According to the General Aviation Manufacturers Association there are
approximately 312,000 active general aviation aircraft worldwide.

How many cars are there in the world? [wiki.answers.com]

Answer
When Karl Benz built the first vechicle to use a internal combustion engine in 1885 there were less than 1000 petrol-driven cars

In 2000 there were more than 400million cars.

There are over 750 million motor vehicles in the world today.
If present trends continue, the number of cars on Earth will double in the next 30 years.

How many cars are there in the world currently? [worldometers.info]

It is estimated that over 600,000,000 passenger cars travel the streets and roads of the world today.

In the United States alone, 247,421,120 "highway" registered vehicles were counted in 2005, of which 136,568,083 passenger cars. (Bureau of Transportation Statistics U.S. Department of Transportation)

Automobile [wiki]

There are approximately 600 million passenger cars worldwide (roughly one car per eleven people).[3][4] Around the world, there were about 806 million cars and light trucks on the road in 2007; they burn over a billion cubic meters (260 billion US gallons) of petrol/gasoline and diesel fuel yearly. The numbers are increasing rapidly, especially in China and India.

So 17,700 Commercial aircraft burning 445 gallons per hr VERSUS 600,000,000 passenger cars burning 3 gallons per hr =

7,876,500 gallons for the commercial aircraft.

1,800,000,000 gallons for the passenger cars.

Now there are 8760hrs in a year... shall I continue?

Personal Disclosure: Way to go trying to down play this!

reply to post by OmegaLogos


You've just managed to prove that ground-based transportation vehicles are much, much, much, much worse than airplanes, by far.

SO....what was the point?

[and, in all those numbers, did you only include autos?? Not everything else??]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Explanation: Yes I did! Both are polluters! Your post seemed to down play 1 car versus a huge plane which carries far more people! I just wanted to show that CARS are heavy hitters as well!

That infomation in noway debunks the existence of contrails/chemtrails/exhaust plumes! It reinforces it!

Did you miss this bit???

Aviation’s share of global carbon dioxide emissions is expected to rise from 2% today to 3% by 2050 — a 50% gain — amid steady economic growth and increasing demand for air travel.

Personal Disclosure:

reply to post by OmegaLogos


So you're not actually talking about the chemtrail conspiracy theory. You are just talking about normal pollution.

reply to post by Uncinus


Explanation: Nope! I was bringing attention back to cars and their exhaust plumes!

Personal Disclosure: I'm quite sure the title of this thread is "why doesnt my con-trail last long in winter behind my car??--chem-trails are real"

[Note: all bolds and underlines are my edits for emphasis ok!]

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

That infomation in noway debunks the existence of contrails/chemtrails/exhaust plumes! It reinforces it!

No - the information reinforces contrails, debunks chemtrails, and reinforces exhaust plumes.

you seem to be under the mitaken impression that the 3 are the same when they are not.

Even contrails & exhaust plumes are not the same - since exhaust plumes exist whether contrails are visible or not.

Did you miss this bit???

Aviation’s share of global carbon dioxide emissions is expected to rise from 2% today to 3% by 2050 — a 50% gain — amid steady economic growth and increasing demand for air travel.

I dot' recall anyone else pointing it out - but I've certainly seen it, and yes aviation pollution is something that IS a much studied situation.

In fact the IPCC has a rather long and involved paper discussing it that HAS been often mentioned on this site - www.ipcc.ch...

reply to post by OmegaLogos


Yes, your correct about the title. Congrats. The title is a direct result of complete high school level scientific ignorance, and unfortunately, because folks tend to cling to their cherished conspiracy as if it were their religion, nothing will change the title maker's mind. Yet I see many here wasting their time trying to do so, and getting countered by the common sense of the ignorant.

Still though, even if your ignorant enough to believe in a SYSTEMATIC and DIRECTED PROGRAM of CONTINUOUS spraying of chemicals (or whatever you ignorantly want to believe in) the folks that make threads like this just make you look more foolish than you can possible imagine, and aren't helping your religion...ah, sorry I mean cause, very much.. Not being able to figure out why you friggin' car doesn't make a persistent contrail on the ground even in severe environments is symptomatic of complete ignorance than can easy be fixed through BASIC SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING. And looking for the answer on a conspiracy website is not being truthful. The OP simply wants to bait. That is how ignorance works.

If I were ignorant enough to believe in "chemtrails" threads like this would really ruin my day. But then again, since they are imaginary, I kinda like threads like this, because, like most threads do, they paint chemtrail believers to be completely ignorant of reality, science, reason, common sense and anything else I can think of.

"Oh, I feel bad today. Allergies are killing me....must be those darn chemtrails" ROTFLMAO.

The mere fact that there is a forum dedicated to this nonsense help diminish the serious content of this website. If anything ever really gets "exposed" on this website, nonsense like this can EASILY be used to dilute it's importance. Those that don't understand that are what I (and tptb) call "useful idiots".

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by Uncinus

 

Explanation: Nope! I was bringing attention back to cars and their exhaust plumes!

Personal Disclosure: I'm quite sure the title of this thread is "why doesnt my con-trail last long in winter behind my car??--chem-trails are real"

[Note: all bolds and underlines are my edits for emphasis ok!]

Howdy.

Just to clarify "why doesnt my con-trail last long in winter behind my car??--chem-trails are real" Is discussing two incoherently connected things.

Pollution is real, we all know that, and it is a very separate issue from "chemtrails"

The OP is trying to use an instance of a cars exhaust not persisting as evidence that planes are spraying "chemtrails" which is an illogical leap by any standard if you think about it.

I understand you are concerned with pollution in general, and that's not a bad thing at all. However if we are going to redefine "chemtrails" as any chemical being sprayed, we needn't stop until we outlaw having a sprinkler in your yard. See where I'm going with this? No one is advocating pollution here.

Like I have said before, if there was any evidence that showed that this "chemtrails" conspiracy is true in the slightest sense, we would be the believer's best friends, and the first to raise hell in the public eye about it.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Explanation: You may have missed this post of mine...

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by OmegaLogos

 

Explanation: This is my point! Chemtrails exist in many forms!

Personal Disclosure: I'd like the conversation to move away from the exist or they don't becuase as I have shown they clearly do... on the ground...in the air.... I have also provided enough information to show that sometimes these EXHAUST PLUMES ..are good...sometimes bad! Can we focus on the bad exhaust plumes please!

edit on 23-5-2011 by OmegaLogos because: Edited to fix spelling.

I prefer to use the term Exhaust Plumes as is like you say...

Even contrails & exhaust plumes are not the same - since exhaust plumes exist whether contrails are visible or not.

... A catch all term!

So ... All contrails and chemtrails are exhaust plumes from either engines or spray mechanisms!

I have shown that the arguement between contrails and chemtrails is one of semantics only!

Personal Disclosure: I use the term Exhuast Plumes! I have to play this silly semantics game each time there is a tread on this and I choose to participate!

reply to post by MainLineThis



Explanation: Here are the FACTS of what I have brought to this thread!

Water can be lethal ... even in aerosol form!

Chemtrails exist in many forms! I am not claiming that the are gassing us! I'm showing they exist regardless!

Contrails are Chemtrails! I'm not claiming that they are bad for us...but they could be! Lets look at that closely!

Cars are huge exhuast plume polluting emitters! So are commercial passanger jets etc. just to a lesser extent!

Personal Disclosure: I am not the OP and this my total position on this as quoted from the front page of this thread....

Face it... fossil fuel vehicals are POLLUTERS! Chem trails... exhuast plumes ..whats the difference... we all end up breathing it!

reply to post by GringoViejo


Explanation: I have yet to address the OP's concerns specifically! I have had to set the record straight on these issues 1st!

Are there chemtrails at all? Yes!

Are contrails chemtrails? Yes!

Can chemtrails hurt us!? Yes, Some can!

Do cars emit contrails / chemtrails? Yes, Both types!

Is water [the basis of contrails] deadly and or destructive! Yes , it can be!

Do car emissions far out way airplane emissions! Yes!

Personal Disclosure: When I find the time to actually address the OP's specific concerns I will probably link this post that has ALREADY answered it in full!

www.abovetopsecret.com... (by Aloysius the Gaul)

1/ The volume of air passing through your cars engine is miniscule compared to the amount a jet uses, and so is the amount of fuel. So it only generates a very small contrail. This contrail is easily dispersed by surface level wind.

P.S. I agree that the link the OP made was extremly tenuous! But regardless it has turned out that much valuable information is now contained within this thread! I think that is a great outcome fro ATS!

Are contrails chemtrails? Yes!

Perhaps by your personal definition. But don't you think it's better to use the common meaning of words, rather than your own definition?

Contrail - streamer of frozen water vapor left by planes, as a by-product of engine exhaust.
Chemtrail - a similar looking trail that has something deliberately added to it.

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Explanation: You may have missed this post of mine...

no - I saw those posts, however I believe you are trying to spark up a discussion by using your own terminology instead of the commonly accepted definitions.

discussions about pollution and the effects of contrails are perfectly reasonable and there is a lot of sceince around them.

Chemtrails are a a completely different matter and IMO trying to conflate them all together is a serious mistake on your part.

reply to post by itsawild1


Is this a serious thread?!

reply to post by Uncinus


And...

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Explanation: Uhmmmm?

Contrail [wiki]

Condensation from engine exhaustThe main byproducts of hydrocarbon fuel combustion are carbon dioxide and water vapor. At high altitudes this water vapour emerges into a cold environment, and the local increase in water vapor can push the water content of the air past saturation point.

Note that it doesn't mention the non main byproducts at all!

Risk factors of jet fuel combustion products. (by Irene Tesseraux Available online 25 January 2004) [sciencedirect.com]

Abstract
Air travel is increasing and airports are being newly built or enlarged. Concern is rising about the exposure to toxic combustion products in the population living in the vicinity of large airports.

Jet fuels are well characterized regarding their physical and chemical properties. Health effects of fuel vapors and liquid fuel are described after occupational exposure and in animal studies. Rather less is known about combustion products of jet fuels and exposure to those.

Aircraft emissions vary with the engine type, the engine load and the fuel. Among jet aircrafts there are differences between civil and military jet engines and their fuels. Combustion of jet fuel results in CO2, H2O, CO, C, NOx, particles and a great number of organic compounds. Among the emitted hydrocarbons (HCs), no compound (indicator) characteristic for jet engines could be detected so far. Jet engines do not seem to be a source of halogenated compounds or heavy metals. They contain, however, various toxicologically relevant compounds including carcinogenic substances. A comparison between organic compounds in the emissions of jet engines and diesel vehicle engines revealed no major differences in the composition. Risk factors of jet engine fuel exhaust can only be named in context of exposure data. Using available monitoring data, the possibilities and limitations for a risk assessment approach for the population living around large airports are presented. The analysis of such data shows that there is an impact on the air quality of the adjacent communities, but this impact does not result in levels higher than those in a typical urban environment.

Personal Disclosure: Contrails are NOT just water vapor and Carbon Dioxide! The word is used to con-fuse!

If it walks like a freaking duck, looks like a duck and its quacks like a duck! Its a duck!

Call a spade a spade! I do!

reply to post by OmegaLogos


Just don't call it a chemtrail. You are just talking about pollution in engine exhaust. The common usage of the word "chemtrail" does not mean this.

Originally posted by itsawild1

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
reply to post by OzWeatherman

 

Do you get alerted when a chemtrail thread is posted ??

How do you know how a contrail is formed, care to provide us with some samples ??

I saw a "trail" 3 days ago that came from one plane, and covered a full half of the sky, it was "amazing".

One single plane changed the weather from sunny to haze for over 3 hours, really hard to get any sun.

And yet every other plane failed to make any trails at all, wow that plane hit the "perfect conditions".

dont worry oz-these guys are quick, but when their children get barrium and aluminum poisoning from breathing for extended years, they will cry like babies--WE DIDNT KNOW!!

Yes, and remember, the folks who are behind generating chemtrails are utter fools. They poison not only the public at large but themselves, their loved ones, the business ventures that make them rich, food/water supplies... Basically everything gets tainted. They are either total fools or...


Chemtrails are contrails and pose no greater threat than car exhaust. Which is more likely? LOL!!!!

reply to post by OmegaLogos


You aren't helping, you are not being coherent, and you aren't understanding:

Personal Disclosure: Contrails are NOT just water vapor and Carbon Dioxide!

The components of jet turbine engine exhaust DO include more than just H2O, of course. NO one ever says otherwise. PAY ATTENTION to the silly claims of the ones who call them full of "something else" that is intentionally added....everything from red blood cells have been claimed, to the equally ridiculous barium, and aluminum.

By the way....those SAME exhaust gases spew out the rear of a jet engine, regardless whether or not there is a contrail. How hard is this to understand?? And, every contrail when formed, also does NOT contain every last particle of jet turbine exhaust gases, either.

Capisce?

Now....keep spamming silly nonsense, and I suggest that people may decide, in that case, to stop replying to it. The repetition is more harmful than breathing out a tube inserted into your car's tailpipe in the garage....

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by Uncinus

 

Contrail [wiki]

Condensation from engine exhaustThe main byproducts of hydrocarbon fuel combustion are carbon dioxide and water vapor. At high altitudes this water vapour emerges into a cold environment, and the local increase in water vapor can push the water content of the air past saturation point.

Note that it doesn't mention the non main byproducts at all!

Why would it?

The article is about contrails - contrails are the VISIBLE part of the exhaust that condenses out, so the "non-main byproducts" are irrelvant to CONTRAILS.

It is not an article about the pollution caused by burning hydrocarbon fuels.

Personal Disclosure: Contrails are NOT just water vapor and Carbon Dioxide!

actually they aren't carbon dioxide at all - any more than clouds are. Contrails are water.

The word is used to con-fuse!

the word has been well understood since it was coined, and what it refers to was known even before then.

clearly YOU are confused.....but that seems to be a deliberate choice on your part since you refuse to use the well known meaning of contrail, and the generally accepted meaning of chemtrail.

Shrug - if you choose to remain confused then there's a predictable outcome to all this.....

Call a spade a spade! I do!

So why can't you call a contrail a contrail and a chemtail a chemtrail??

You really can't work that out? Do some research! better still, use your head and do some research.