|
|
Dirk Digler
Joined: 16 Mar 2001
Posts: 126
|
The recent pictures...
 Wed Sep 05, 2001 10:29 pm
|
 |
|
just a thought about the recent pictures that we have been discussing (megasprayer 707 and C-130).
i take it from all the talk about relative humidity and such (conditions not right for persisting) that the reason you can see these trails is not because they are freezing vapor but because they are some as yet unidentified chemical. if this is the case, why wouldnt you be able to see the chemical right as it leaves the nozzle? both pictures that we have been discussing show the trail beginning some distance behind the aircraft (i contend that this is where the vapor begins to freeze). why isnt the chemical visible right out of the nozzle?
i know i have seen pictures of trails right off the wings (this is also normal by the way) but the "chemicals" in these pics are invisible until some distance behind the a/c, coincidently, just like regular old contrails :~)
i not sure if i am making sense or not. i'll be the first to admit that i am not a chemist or physicist. maybe my question is completly irrelevant. i'll be the first to admit it if so.
i am sure chemm11 will have some sort of answer for me.
DD
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Dirk Digler on 09-05-2001] |
| |
|
|
Lulu
Joined: 22 Dec 2000
Posts: 2501
Location: right here |
|
Wed Sep 05, 2001 10:38 pm
|
|
|
. if this is the case, why wouldnt you be able to see the chemical right as it leaves the nozzle? Excellent question Dirk, and one that I have asked myself. I assumed it was because of the rate of speed of the plane it would always be somewhat "ahead" of the trail(s)...it is a puzzler! |
| |
|
|
Dirk Digler
Joined: 16 Mar 2001
Posts: 126
|
|
Wed Sep 05, 2001 11:01 pm
|
|
|
maybe there is a scientific explanation, i just dont know what it is
DD |
| |
|
|
3T3L1
Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Posts: 1344
Location: Lubbock, Texas |
|
Wed Sep 05, 2001 11:10 pm
|
|
|
Good question, DD. Now that you mention it, on the fuel dump photos, the fuel shows up right where it leaves the aircraft.
I have always assumed that the "schmutz" (technical term) is sprayed out in a fine mist or powder and then aggregates a short distance behind the plane.
If the schmutz were sprayed into the air surrounding each engine (cydoniaquest's model) it might be in a gaseous form because of the heat, and then condense where the air became cooler.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by 3T3L1 on 09-05-2001] |
| |
|
|
Thermit
Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3136
Location: Texas |
|
Wed Sep 05, 2001 11:22 pm
|
|
|
Dirk,
Whether what is being emitted from a particular jet is a normal contrail or normal contrail + Chemicals, the reason that we see either is because the droplets freeze. Yes, contrails can last quite a while, but a Chemtrail will always last much much longer than a plain contrail, because it has, in addition to the normal contrail from the spray plane, extra liquid being released. Obviously they release the liquid in-line with the engines, so as to not ruin the plausible deniability. My report, showed a correlation between the most persistent trails and unidentified flights. Even the "nice debunker" Mr. Kunz admitted this relationship (given the data presented, which is correct). Why this relationship? Well, if it was fuel or different engine types causing the trails that last for many times the length of normal contrails in a given time period and area, then these military (unidentified) flights would have a contrail that was always many times that of commercial flights, for example. When I did my research, I saw (and photographed, see the report...) unidentified flights that produced contrails that were consistent with commercial jet contrails, however they would suddenly begin leaving a trail that was magnitudes longer in persistence, and just as suddenly stop. I know even normal contrails can be patchy, but the commercial traffic wasn't producing patchy contrails. So what it boils down to, is that both identified and unidentified traffic leave very similar contrails, but the unidentified flights sometimes also produce trails that last for hours, no matter how long or short the contrails might be.
Flight Explorer is a wonderful tool, bless your heart ChickieDeb! |
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Thu Sep 06, 2001 12:03 am
|
|
|
Thermit, I remember in one of the NASA studies..SUCCESS ? a comment about persistence...paraphrasing "that fuel with a higher sulfur content persisted longer than fuel with average sulfur content"...
perhaps jp-8+100 contains a "higher" sulfur content...and that's why military flights contrails are more persistent...
T/S
[Edited 1 times, lastly by theseeker on 09-06-2001] |
| |
|
|
Dirk Digler
Joined: 16 Mar 2001
Posts: 126
|
|
Thu Sep 06, 2001 12:15 am
|
|
|
thanks therm (can i call you therm?)
i thought the CT believers believed the reason that the suspect trails were visible was because they were different than water vapor and didnt require freezing to be visible.
so does this means that if these chemicals were sprayed at low altitude (hypothetically), they wouldnt be visible because they are not frozen? that sounds like what you are saying.
regarding the chemical dispersion being lined up with the jet exhaust; do i guess that means that we can eliminate the photos that we have been discussing the last few days? because they clearly are not doing that(a little sarcasm;~)) this would also present some engineering problems. messing with jet engines is usually not a good thing. you couldnt just strap a nozzle onto one. it would take quite am engineering feat, maybe in a aircraft specially designed for this purpose, but this couldnt be the case because all of the photos show conventional and known aircraft.
this is the problem, thermit. some proponants tout the odd looking trails (megasprayer and such) and others say, no, they spray directly with the jet exhaust. maybe there are two diffent branches who are working seperately and are using different spray techniques (a little more sarcasm)
so to recap, we can (1) eliminate all low altitude sightings because these would be below the freezing level and thus wouldnt be visible and (2) eliminate the megasprayer pics because these are obviously spread over the entire wing area.
DD |
| |
|
|
3T3L1
Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Posts: 1344
Location: Lubbock, Texas |
|
Thu Sep 06, 2001 12:35 am
|
|
|
Ah. Once again I get to post cydoniaquest's putative spray setup. As long as the spray is fairly thermally stable, it should make a convincing and effective trail, in line with the engines.
I think trail persistence has more to do with the evaporation rate, DD. Droplets or crystals of water will evaporate fairly rapidly if the relative humidity is low enough. Droplets or crystals of other compounds (unburned kerosene, for example) take much longer to evaporate.
[Edited 2 times, lastly by 3T3L1 on 09-05-2001] |
| |
|
|
Thermit
Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3136
Location: Texas |
|
Thu Sep 06, 2001 12:52 am
|
|
|
seeker, I already explained why the fuel differentiator doesn't work for me...
quote:
Well, if it was fuel or different engine types causing the trails that last for many times the length of normal contrails in a given time period and area, then these military (unidentified) flights would have a contrail that was always many times that of commercial flights,
What I'm saying is with your theory we would logically see:
commercial jets = normal baseline contrail persistence
unidentified (military) = normal baseline contrail persistence * X
where X represents an overall increase in persistence.
However this is not what I've observed:
commercial jets = normal baseline contrail persistence
unidentified (military) = normal baseline contrail persistence + sometimes magnitudes more persistent trails
...if that makes any sense. 
dirk, regarding the low-level spraying. Altitudes are incredibly deceiving, especially to someone with no practice at guesstimating, which, IMO, is the reason for low-level spraying reports. Although, just because I haven't seen it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist...right?
|
| |
|
|
toxdoc
Joined: 17 Jan 2001
Posts: 23
Location: Williamstown, KY,USA |
|
Thu Sep 06, 2001 1:12 am
|
|
|
Miss 3,
Kerosene based jet fuels have very low sulfur content compared to other fuels. Always less than 1% by weight and usually in the range of 0.04-0.06%. They are made from the upper 10% fraction of low sulfur crude to start with and then more is removed during the hydrogenation process. As far as H2O produced the average jet engine efficiency gives you 1.15 kg H2O/kg fuel. So, at crusing altitude a 747 produces about 28 kg H2O/km or 44.8 kg/mile. That's quite a bit of water, especially considering it's rapidly expanding, too. That's why the megasprayer picture shows the hazy clear space behind the wing (hot, hot compressed vapor) and then the spreading and freezing makes the contrail. And you guys are right. A fuel dump or a liquid spray should be visible the second it's released. The Blue Angels/Thunderbirds (and other jet flying demo teams) have little injectors right on the edge of the afterburner portion of their engines. They spray tiny amounts of light oil or fuel in the post combustion stream and make tons of smoke that way. But, the actual amount used in a 30 min show is very small, just a few liters. |
| |
|
|
3T3L1
Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Posts: 1344
Location: Lubbock, Texas |
|
Thu Sep 06, 2001 1:55 am
|
|
|
Thanks for the sulfur content information, toxdoc! I had been wondering about that.
So, are you saying that by definition, the trails made by the KC-135 in this picture, by definition, can't be a spray because there is a space between the trail and the aircraft?
 |
| |
|
|
toxdoc
Joined: 17 Jan 2001
Posts: 23
Location: Williamstown, KY,USA |
|
Thu Sep 06, 2001 2:43 am
|
|
|
Miss 3,
definitively, no I can't say that. But, that's assuming that it would be sprayed in the stream of hot, water vapor and thus was vaporised too. But, it would most likely be a stream from vents along the wing and that would be visible (at least based on low level crop planes/helicopters I've seen and been around). This picture is of F-9 Panthers dumping fuel at speed (just not really high altitude) as you can see it pretty much is a solid stream that spreads.
|
| |
|
|
Stephen Schillinger
Joined: 16 Aug 2001
Posts: 9
Location: Enfield, Connecticut, USA |
|
Thu Sep 06, 2001 3:00 am
|
|
|
A couple of things come to mind when i read this ; What if what THEY are spraying is inert until it contacts a certain amount of moisture? because I have seen trails apear behind the jet even after it has already passed for sometime. One other thing I`ve been wondering is what if what THEY are spraying is is inert until THEY add a catalist to it. kinda like bondo wont harden til ya add a little drop of hardener to it. Then BAMM!! hard like stone THATS A BAD THING
------------------
Sky Watcher |
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Thu Sep 06, 2001 5:10 am
|
|
|
With all due respect Thermit,
then these military (unidentified) flights would have a contrail that was always many times that of commercial flights
I dis-agree *always* and *many times* ?, the contrail would depend on atmospheric conditions to form, and the Higher sulfur trail would only persist slightly more under the same existing conditions.
just got me the new version 2.0 of "hair-splitting 2000" 
T/S
[Edited 1 times, lastly by theseeker on 09-06-2001] |
| |
|
|
Chem11
Joined: 21 Apr 2001
Posts: 1386
|
|
Thu Sep 06, 2001 5:21 am
|
|
|
You make a good point, Stephen. It's rare but I've witnessed these same 'magic chemtrails' perhaps four or five times. The usual suspect will be zipping overhead, usually pretty quickly, and maybe 30 seconds later a trail will appear... long after he's left the scene of the crime... |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page
1, 2 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 5:19 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
