|
|
plutobeach
Joined: 04 May 2001
Posts: 17
Location: South FL |
 Wed Oct 23, 2002 3:59 am
|
 |
|
ummmm ok,
FL330 13600 Lbs/Hour
464 Knots TAS
FL310 13650 Lbs/Hour
452 Knots TAS
Most any newer generation jet is only going to cruise at 31000 and 33000 because traffic won't permit a higher altitude (not "sprayers"). Most 777 flights can skip right up to 35000 and above. Most of the thicker contrail action I've seen happens above 35000. 31000 is only good when westbound, 33000 is only good when eastbound. This further limits available altitudes and the studies conclusions. |
| |
|
|
Chem11
Joined: 21 Apr 2001
Posts: 1386
|
|
Wed Oct 23, 2002 5:00 am
|
|
|
So, weather permitting, a Boeing 777 that would trail at 33,000 ft. could be dropped to a crystal clear 31,000 ft. with only a 0.0003663 decrease in fuel efficiency per hour (and a 0.0215517 assumed reduction in speed).
Interesting that most of the 'thicker' contrails Pluto Beach has observed formed at 35,000 ft. Thermit's Trail Research report may shed some additional light on real-world observations of trail formation at varying altitudes....
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Chem11 on 10-22-2002] |
| |
|
|
Chem11
Joined: 21 Apr 2001
Posts: 1386
|
|
Wed Oct 23, 2002 5:21 am
|
|
|
Well, Thermit's research tends to confirm Pluto Beach's observations. Trails left by identified commercial craft occured primarily at 35,000 ft. and above... and nothing below 30,000 ft.
Given the same atmospheric conditions as this real-world study, there would be no need to cap at anything lower than 30,000 ft (or exceed the 0.0003663 decrease in fuel efficiency for a Boeing 777), other than the congestion of air corridors at higher altitudes.
Apparently the Imperial College study takes this into account and provides the much higher 4% increase in CO2 emmissions.
Near as I can tell, if we can put a man on the moon, we can eliminate contrails and stay within the 4% increase in CO2 emissions cited by the study.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Chem11 on 10-22-2002] |
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Wed Oct 23, 2002 8:46 am
|
|
|
first of all let me say this is an incredibly productive discussion going on here, and thanks to the participants and this board for making it happen.
I would in 50 words or less like to address this one statment of chem's regarding deborah :
Deborah was absolutely right. It doesn't matter whether you call them chem or con. It doesn't matter what scientfic references you cite. You start taking any positive steps towards resolving the problem and you get exactly the same response.
in a very important way yes it does matter to me as a father, as I have written before the fear factor of willy thomas and carnicom and the "spraying" "sickness" "culling" element of chemtrails is very scary to the layman...joe six-pack if you will...and mainly why I joined the ranks over 3 years ago to find out why and if need be to fight against the dregs of society that would perform this on it's own citizens....
originally the implication had me thinking very negative things at the time, due to my extreme distrust of bill clinton, and known past government experiments and negligence thereof, I had been very suspicious of to begin with, so I swallowed the spraying idea in whole, to the point where on days of persistent contrail coverage I would keep my kids indoors and I would do the same, to do this type of scare tactic to negatively force involvement of people in an issue is past the stage of morally wrong it's criminal in nature...
and certainly why chem or con it does matter...
after about 6 months I knew better on the sickness aspect...and after 3 plus years know better altogether...using fear to mislead and involve people in what is an environmental issue is way wrong...
so chem or con does matter...
barring isolated tests for national defense using new tools and advances in science for weather modification...that go on I don't care what anyone says...this clearly (chemtrails) is an environmental issue...of which I'm most definately on the side of doing something about, contrails are everywhere...you cannot move away from them...I've tried !
if there is a idea on the table to surpress contrails and not hinder normal commerce and travel to the point of absurdity and not choke the economy that affects people's job's and lives, then I would be more than happy to sign on...
in that respect chem or con matters very much so....
again thanks for the informative conversation chem, pacer, pluto....
------------------
T/S |
| |
|
|
PacerLJ35
Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 456
Location: Millbrook, AL, USA |
|
Wed Oct 23, 2002 3:04 pm
|
|
|
I'd agree, seeker. Reducing contrails is a goal we should eventually work towards, but currently the US air traffic system is too far behind to start squeezing everyone below FL300.
It's possible that additives could quell contrails, but it would seem ironic that people who have spent the better part of the last several years fighting something called "chemtrails" would champion a chemical additive to prohibit condensation trails.
Another solution is the proposed "free flight" system currently being studied by the FAA. This along with several new approach capabilities would greatly improve traffic throughout the US. The current system of radio navigation aids and radar vectors to channel aircraft into specified departure and arrival corridors is limited.
But free flight is still a ways off in the future. As it stands now, I'm not convinced that capping cruising altitudes in the very near future is a safe solution, nor one that would result in any positive tradeoffs.
No matter how you like it Chem, there are alot more older turbofan powered airliners that are much less efficient than the 777, along with the thousands of other biz jets up there emitting combustion products. For the moment, improving fuel efficiency is our best tool to mitigate pollution. |
| |
|
|
PHANTOM911
Joined: 31 Oct 2001
Posts: 341
|
|
Wed Oct 23, 2002 3:13 pm
|
|
|
Yeah all that and blah blah blah. Meanwhile their program above continues with the true agenda unknown to us all. Pawns we is I'se tells ya! PAWNS! |
| |
|
|
Chem11
Joined: 21 Apr 2001
Posts: 1386
|
|
Thu Oct 24, 2002 1:11 am
|
|
|
I think you're missing the point, Phantom911 (in fact, I'm positive). I can understand how some of this information might sail over some folks heads (and it's signifigance lost), but I assure you, I'm not bouncing this off anyone that cares to respond for dicussion's sake alone.
I dislike repeating myself, so let me break this down in simple terms so that I don't have to do so again.
After three years of concentrated efforts to force disclosure or come to an exact understanding of what the hell is going on above our aheads, we are no closer to resolving the problem. This, to me, is unacceptable.
By pursuing a course of action that will eliminate (not reduce) contrails (which alone have proven themselves to be an environmental scourge) there will be zero possibility of anyone telling you that the insane conditions you are probably witnessing on an almost daily basis are 'just contrails'.
An end to plausible deniability. Absolutely nowhere to run and nowhere to hide for anyone interested in blanketing civilian poulation centers with artificial 'clouds'... for whatever reason.
That being said, again, I appreciate your knee-jerk reaction if for no other reason than I think that it's important to judge even knee-jerks at this stage of the game.
Believe me, if theseeker is willing to support the elimination of contrails (and Pacer at least grudingly so), then I expect that prying the average american citizen away from Jerry Springer long enough to look up (without getting into an epoch-long debate about in situ sampling, relative humidty with respect to ice and encyclopedias worth of documentation of US sponsored weather warfare and covert biowarfare-related spraying) will be at least as possible.
If you want to reduce C02 emissions, Pacer, let me suggest looking into a Segway (or the 'plasma envelope' technology discussions that are floating around at Carnicom, CTC, Mega and CTTUSA).
Sorry to jack your thread, Julian Penrod. You obviously spent a long time on your post. Any thoughts?
[Edited 4 times, lastly by Chem11 on 10-23-2002] |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2
All times are GMT. The time now is Fri May 25, 2012 5:33 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
