|
|
Duncan Kunz
Joined: 19 Oct 2000
Posts: 582
|
 Sun Apr 14, 2002 12:30 am
|
 |
|
Wisequakker, I do not understand your excitement at my post. I said that I consider the ‘rings on a snake’ type of contrail are explained just fine by the concept of interaction of vortices. Different trails are going to look different, and I am sorry I could not find one that you consider close enough to be convincing. With different parameters, such as speed, density, makeup of exhaust gases/particles, configuration of winglets, etc., etc. you will probably get all different-looking kinds of exhausts. I just believe that, as a group, the patterns that you showed as well as the patterns that the simulation showed, and the different patterns that are discussed in the Mechanical Engineering article referenced at that site (http://www.vortex.mae.cornell.edu/long_top.html )
can all be explained by interaction of vortices. If you don’t think so, of course, you are free to do so.
Now let me ask you a few questions. You say, “For cryin’ out loud, Mr. Kunz — Have you people no shame in misrepresenting other people’s scientific research...???”
What is THAT supposed to mean? ”You people”? You mean Boeing employees? High school graduates? You’re a Boeing employee, too, aren’t you? A high school graduate? Or do you mean “You [African-American] people” or “You [conservative] people” ? Is there a point, racist or otherwise, for this sort of generalization?
And while we’re at it, teammate, what is this “misrepresenting other peoples’ research”? I merely said that I thought the interaction of vortices explains the donuts and snakes in contrails. That is not misrepresenting other peoples’ research. I may be lacking in looks, personality , and sense of humor, but I do not misrepresent other peoples’ research. Perhaps you have me confused with Therese Aigner, who, when it comes to misrepresenting other peoples’ research, is the foldout-of-the-year for Fraud Magazine.
Now people may disagree on whether or not a particular algorithm will explain different phenomena. I have always been up front in saying that my skills in fluid dynamics and partial differentials, fast fouriers, etc., are not the best. Perhaps your education and training give you some insights that I lack. If so, then it wouldn’t be the first time.
I would suggest that, if you disagree with Jay’s interpretation, or the research of those people at Cornell, you contact them. Meanwhile, you might want to share with us what your interpretation of these atypical contrails are, rather than just saying “Seriously... What’s wrong in these pictures...??? Or what’s right...???”
And cool it with the generalizations. You people are all the same way about generalizations, you know.
------------------
Duncan Kunz / duncankunz@cox.net
Mesa AZ / 480-891-2525 |
| |
|
|
Chem11
Joined: 21 Apr 2001
Posts: 1386
|
|
Sun Apr 14, 2002 3:04 am
|
|
|
quote:
Or do you mean “You [African-American] people” or “You [conservative] people” ? Is there a point, racist or otherwise, for this sort of generalization?
Yes, I'm quite sure that's what Wisequakker meant. When it comes to the internet version of dancing under the limbo pole, you'd have to be a fool to bet against Duncan Kunz.
Might not be a bad idea to start compiling a sampling of photographs that illustrate what I will henceforth refer to as the 'Magic Contrail' phenomena; the formation of trails without the required seperation from the beginning of the contrail and the engine.
Or it might be an utter waste of time... too easy for the Imposter to ignore the evidence and fill the vacuum with mental smegma.
|
| |
|
|
WiseQuakker
Joined: 21 Aug 2000
Posts: 141
Location: Wherever I happen to be at the time |
|
Sun Apr 14, 2002 9:51 am
|
|
|
Thanks, Dan. The self-proclaimed “voices of science and reason” have a long history of outright deception, should their “massaging” of the data not work in their favors.
And because Reynolds’ “debunking” has once again been debunked as false advertisement — “Analyze This - Analyzed” — he is settling back into old behavior patterns. He knows that his well is dry, if not tainted, and that is why he must resort to name-calling and basking in the glory of his past “victories” that simply don’t exist. One is left to wonder if somebody hasn’t changed the formula on his medication.
It is pathetic to witness him struggle in his latest installment of “regarding periodic wake effects seen in contrails”, over at the debunkatorium. More than anything else, the post is self-promotion, born out of his own delusions of grandeur.
I am also a little more curious and adventuresome than the chemmies and when I see something I don't understand, I do the research to learn about it. More self-deception on his part, all Reynolds handed Mr. Kunz for presentation here, was his own spin on a study where he believed he could get away with “stretching” the data. A little bit of research, which he claims is something unique to his persuasion, clearly reveals that he is full of whatever happens to lie at the bottom of his own dry well.
He freely admits that conditions in the free atmosphere are quite different from those in the laboratory, as I pointed out in my previous post, above. If he wants to believe that he has “thoroughly” debunked the photo leading off this thread, fine. It doesn’t take a real marine engineer, who specializes in fluid dynamics, to see that he hasn’t delivered the goods.
From his “"Analyze this!"- analyzed” thread at the debunkatorium, Between each ring, ice crystals caught between the oscillations form smaller snake-like vortices which are seen in your photos. The problem with Reynolds’ theory is twofold. If what I photographed was such a classic example of the rarely-seen vortex core, then where are the rings? They are much more prominent than any “snake” that is visible in one of the images I have presented, above. In the actual clinical SUCCESS trial, shown above that, the core is completely undetectable. Furthermore, any trapped ice crystals still form an aggregate — not a conglomerate — and they must obey the same dynamic laws as does the parent vortex. That is, the vortex core will expand with time and distance from the point of its generation. There is no evidence of expansion in either of the photographs that I have submitted.
So, Reynolds has debunked me, thoroughly. Okay. Where’s the beef...???
Need further proof of his false claims? Somehow, Reynolds also credits himself with debunking “his ship-trails hoax”. Unless it’s another one of his claims, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, message board history records that even the great DogBreath was stumped by certain aspects of the three day barrage of activity, which took place in the NE Pacific on June 30, July 1, and July 2. Many of you may recall how it began with the now-infamous “drunken ship captains’ party”.
Most important to note in this image are the 600-mile-long trails sitting off the California coastline, which appeared overnight. Now remember, this was the summer solstice. At best, there were ten hours of darkness. The obvious question to ask is: How fast would a ship have to be traveling in order to cover that distance in that amount of time?
How many ships do you know of that can cruise at freeway speed for ten hours straight?
Here are some easily verifiable facts on ship velocities:
Cruise Ship M.V. Oleanda: 10-11 knots
Passenger Vessel Echo des Mers: 11 knots
Cruise Ship Holiday: 21 knots
Spruance Class Destroyer USS Paul F. Foster: top speed 30+ knots
Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer USS Russell: top speed 31+ knots
Sacramento Class Fast Combat Support USS Sacramento: 30+ knots
Oliver Hazard Perry Class Frigate USS Rentz: 30 knots
Nimitz Class (Nuclear) Aircraft Carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower: 30+ knots
Ticonderoga Class Cruiser USS Ticonderoga: 30+ knots
Get the idea...???
Here’s another problem with the “normal” ship track theory. For those three days, June 30 - July 2, none of the trails dissipated during daylight hours, as one would expect, due to daytime atmospheric instability. In fact, each time, it was overnight that the previous day’s configuration completely disappeared and was replaced by a totally new one by the next morning. The whole drill was a full half day out of phase.
Here’s a brief history lesson for Uncle JayJay. This is how the dialog went between DogBreath and me at Clifford’s original message board, a little over two years ago:
Monday, 24-Jan-2000 16:07:35
WQ: How ’bout someone explaining certain aspects of that “drunken ship captains’ party”? You know --- The one that was thrown in the 10 hours of darkness, before dawn on June 30, 1999?
What shipping lanes do all those tracks represent?
How come so many appeared in just 10 hours? At sunset the day before there was NO sign of tracks of ANY kind.
Who and what made the >600 MILE LONG tracks? Any kind of ship would’ve had to been cruising better than 50 - 60 knots all night to leave THOSE behind.
Tuesday, 25-Jan-2000 00:35:20
DB: Was it clear at sunset?
The curvature in many of the trails is due to the different wind speeds and directions occurring the air mass through which the ship passed. The sudden appearance of the ship tracks in the morning after 8-9 hours of darkness is most likely due to the re-formation of the boundary layer during the night. Anyone familiar with the meteorology over the western Pacific (and similar areas around the globe) would know about the daily cycle of cloud formation and dissipation over the ocean. On average, the cloud cover changes by about 30-40%, dissipating after the sun comes up and re-forming around sunset and through the night. The lower levels cool off radiatively so the relative humidity increases.
Clouds need nuclei to form. Therefore, they will develop preferentially in areas where there are plenty of nuclei (aerosols like sulfates produced from ship stacks) and enhanced water vapor (produced by combustion). If the conditions are marginal in the environment for producing clouds (around 100% humidity), then only the enhanced areas (i.e., ship exhaust trails) will produce clouds.
Now put those two paragraphs together and voila you can obtain suddenly appearing ship tracks in a 9-hour period.
Or you can have a lot of fast ships.
Tuesday, 25-Jan-2000 19:19:52
WQ: Okay, are you saying that ship tracks are visible as condensed water vapor (clouds), collective smoke particles themselves as they hit the boundary layer, or a little bit of both?
I understand the basic diurnal formation and dissipation of clouds out there. That’s one of the things that bothers me. Are you saying that, instead of dissipating during daytime mixing on the 29th, all of those sulfate particles and increased water vapor from ships hung around in virtually the same volume along the ships’ routes all during the day? Did all of that stuff just wait for nightfall and the reappearance of a well-defined boundary layer so that it would be available for slamming itself into the layer and forming trails up to 600 miles in length by the next morning?
All right, it’s a given that those bunches of trails did form overnight. You say, and I thought that trails should do so and then disburse once the sun comes up. If you look at the entire sequence of hourly GOES images for the 30th of June, you will notice that, although drifting and following existing wind patterns, the complete collection of tracks remained almost completely intact from sunrise to sunset on that day. In fact, it was only AFTER that sunset, and during the night of the 30th when that whole mass totally disappeared. Oddly enough, by the next sunrise on July 1st, there was a THOROUGHLY new configuration of linear and angular grid patterns as a replacement, and THEY remained clearly visible all that day as well.
What have I missed THIS time, Professor DogBreath? Inquiring minds want to know......
Tuesday, 01-Feb-2000 08:46:41
DB: Hey Hot Shot, send some money and I'll research it for you. No, it's not a given that they formed overnight. You can't determine everything that is going on from a few low-grade visible and infrared images. The nocturnal images are also missing. You want to know what's going on? Then get all of the data including the wind, temperature, and humidity profiles and analyze them.
If you want to think something sinister is going on, go right ahead. It's your paranoia, not mine.
If you want to explain what the ships are doing, then do the analysis. You're the guy with the degree and attitude.
There are some things that can be resolved by cursory analysis and some that can't. Some require more in depth study. And time is money.
Have fun figuring it out.
There you have it.
DogBreath made some good points with his theory regarding the areas of preferential overnight ship track development. However, if conditions were so stagnant, during the day, such that lingering aerosols were forming new clouds (tracks) overnight, why were they not then overlaid with those from the previous day? Certainly, atmospheric circulation strong enough to erase all evidence of the “drunken ship captains’ party”, would have dispersed the fresh supply of condensation nuclei, as well. And yet, there they were. More trails, stretching five to six hundred miles long, by the next morning. There is only so much that a pile of wind, temperature, and humidity profiles can explain covering a million square miles of open ocean.
In any event, there is no evidence of a successful debunking ever having taken place on this subject. At best, it was left inconclusive.
Once again, Reynolds — Where’s the beef...???
From everything that I have presented, we are left with only one logical conclusion. Jay Reynolds is a pathological liar who is on a fast track to self-destruction.
As most of you know, Reynolds has been banned from posting at this message board. On the other hand, I am free to post over at the debunkatorium — if I so choose. I have visited there, from time to time, but I have refused to hang around long enough to submit anything. It’s kinda like walking past a sleazy tavern on the waterfront. You can’t always resist taking a peek inside, but you don’t want to engage any of the riffraff in there because of the high risk of picking up some type of deadly parasite.
I have provided links to a few of Reynolds’ posts at the debunkatorium so that readers of this post can go observe for themselves the kind of person he truly is. I already know about his disease and any further responses from me will bring about diminishing returns. Good night...
[Edited 1 times, lastly by WiseQuakker on 04-14-2002] |
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Sun Apr 14, 2002 11:32 am
|
|
|
On the other hand, I am free to post over at the debunkatorium — if I so choose. I have visited there, from time to time, but I have refused to hang around long enough to submit anything. It’s kinda like walking past a sleazy tavern on the waterfront. You can’t always resist taking a peek inside, but you don’t want to engage any of the riffraff in there because of the high risk of picking up some type of deadly parasite.
I'd agree with that...here's the problem with that board...they debunk everything...that's an abosolute...and I don't go for that...unless your talking God...and they ain't that...clearly....
carry-on wisecrapper, as you were...maybe canex would address your concerns over the *fast ships*....
cheerio..pip..pip...
------------------
T/S |
| |
|
|
3T3L1
Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Posts: 1344
Location: Lubbock, Texas |
|
Sun Apr 14, 2002 3:19 pm
|
|
|
It’s kinda like walking past a sleazy tavern on the waterfront. You can’t always resist taking a peek inside, but you don’t want to engage any of the riffraff in there...
Excellent characterization, WiseQuakker. I've been able to resist going there more and more lately. I've realized that under a veneer of scientific analysis, what you have at the debunkatorium is a bunch of old folks gossiping about people. |
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Mon Apr 29, 2002 6:49 am
|
|
|
quakkster',
this is a fuel dump, on approach seems...and it gives a very *persistent* visual display...that's what you were asking for was it not quak ?
comments ?
(pic courtesty of "wild bill inc. enemy of freedom")
------------------
T/S
[Edited 2 times, lastly by theseeker on 04-28-2002] |
| |
|
|
WiseQuakker
Joined: 21 Aug 2000
Posts: 141
Location: Wherever I happen to be at the time |
|
Mon Apr 29, 2002 11:07 am
|
|
|
Keep tryin’, you may come up with something eventually. For one thing, I think you’ve submitted this image to the wrong thread, but I’ll go with it anyway.
It would be nice if that NW 747 wasn’t in the way and blocking the view of what actually may have become of the fuel dump. To be perfectly honest, a telephoto shot like this one, makes it difficult to tell how far behind the plane that the spray is trailing. Nevertheless, what is visible appears to be descending and evaporating. It is possible, however, that a density inversion along the top of the 747’s fuselage is masking what would normally be visible.
To clarify things, what would really be helpful is a wide-angle side view image of a fuel dump that shows not only the aircraft, but the volume of space extending a thousand feet behind it, at least.
Next slide, please...
_____________________________
“When walking amongst predators, never lose awareness of your surroundings. By itself, science tells us what should be. Only tempered with clinical observation and common sense, does it tell us what really is......”
[Edited 1 times, lastly by WiseQuakker on 04-29-2002] |
| |
|
|
Deborah
Joined: 30 Jul 2000
Posts: 731
Location: East Coast |
|
Mon Apr 29, 2002 5:54 pm
|
|
|
 |
| |
|
|
3T3L1
Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Posts: 1344
Location: Lubbock, Texas |
|
Mon Apr 29, 2002 7:31 pm
|
|
|
WiseQuakker,
You know quite a bit about planes. Can you make an estimate of how far away the fuel-dumping plane is from the 747? Presumably it's dumping fuel over a populated area? |
| |
|
|
Duncan Kunz
Joined: 19 Oct 2000
Posts: 582
|
|
Mon Apr 29, 2002 8:38 pm
|
|
|
Dear 3T3L1:
I don't think there's any way you can tell from a photograph, unless you know what the focal length of the camera's lens was.
If you have a bunch of objects in the foreground of a telephoto shot, you can tell somewhat, because all the items will be 'squashed together'. But with only one foreground object (the Northwest aircraft, in this instance) I don' t think of any way you could be even estimate within a factor of three of the actual distance.
Regards,
------------------
Duncan Kunz / duncankunz@cox.net
Mesa AZ / 480-891-2525 |
| |
|
|
3T3L1
Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Posts: 1344
Location: Lubbock, Texas |
|
Mon Apr 29, 2002 9:58 pm
|
|
|
A factor of three is fine. |
| |
|
|
Duncan Kunz
Joined: 19 Oct 2000
Posts: 582
|
|
Tue Apr 30, 2002 12:14 am
|
|
|
Then I'd say a mile from the camera, at most. |
| |
|
|
3T3L1
Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Posts: 1344
Location: Lubbock, Texas |
|
Tue Apr 30, 2002 12:18 am
|
|
|
Thanks, Dunk. So, possibly under the 5000 foot altitude requirement, and definitely over a populated area. But it all evaporates, so what am I worrying about? |
| |
|
|
WiseQuakker
Joined: 21 Aug 2000
Posts: 141
Location: Wherever I happen to be at the time |
|
Fri May 03, 2002 4:32 am
|
|
|
Below is the companion photo from the web site Unusual Aviation Pictures.
http://www.aviationpics.de/inflight/727fueldump1.jpg
As for the one above, being critiqued, I’ll add a few more things. First, you have the relative sizes of the two planes and they are both in good focus. Based also on the edge definition quality and detail of the two available objects on the print, I would estimate that not much more than a 300 mm lens was used to capture the scene. The web page author does not have the photographer’s identification, so I think it is safe to assume that it taken by an “amateur” with a “decent” camera.
Now, if we were to know how much of the original frame was cropped for posting on the Internet, we could make quite a reasonable guess at its distance. Nevertheless, drawing on my own experience with how conventional film records such things, I’m gonna say that the 727 is more likely three to four miles away.
Then again, what do I know? I’m not a professional photographer with any kind of advanced degree in the field...
_____________________________
“When walking amongst predators, never lose awareness of your surroundings. By itself, science tells us what should be. Only tempered with clinical observation and common sense, does it tell us what really is......”
|
| |
|
|
3T3L1
Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Posts: 1344
Location: Lubbock, Texas |
|
Fri May 03, 2002 5:16 am
|
|
|
Thanks, Quak. I know zip-zero-nada about photography, so I appreciate hearing your analysis, too. |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3
All times are GMT. The time now is Mon May 21, 2012 6:38 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
