|
Author
|
|
Topic: Why Do some Planes Leave Contrails... | Topic page views:
|
|
Lulu
ice behaving badly
right here
2553 posts, Dec 2000
|
posted 07-04-2001 01:22 PM
   
quote:
Why Do Some Planes Leave Contrails In The Sky But Not Others
This is the kind of thing a child will sometimes ask. What we always do is crouch down so we're
on the same level as the child and then explain in clear, simple sentences that the white stuff in
the sky is the smoke blowing from fires ranging aboard the plane. Kids love it!
You may want to try a different, more accurate approach:
The white stuff is ice. It's condensed water vapor at high altitudes, eight miles
up or so, where the air is really cold, way below freezing. As you know, a jet's
turbine engine sucks in air through a large opening on the front, then spews out the exhaust
through a small opening on the back side. As water vapor gets squeezed through the engine it
gets denser. As it emerges into the cold air behind the plane, it goes through a transition called
sublimation, in which it changes directly from vapor to ice without ever being a liquid. How
very sublime! A plane at a low altitude can have a liquid water trail behind the engine, but it's
not a contrail because it dissipates too quickly. A real, proper contrail stretches across the sky.
Multiple factors are in play: temperature, humidity, wind. The type of jet engine doesn't matter,
we're told by Boeing.
Of course, you won't remember any of this next time a child asks you about it. Go with smoke.
From "Why Things Are & Why Things Aren't (Joel Achenbach). Article contributed by Rtn. Mani
(BOLD is mine)
Funny, I thought a real contrail disipated quickly, not stretched across the sky?!? This and other contrail questions kids ask... First start here at the link I found while doing a Contrails and Cirrus search http://www.seaportbeach.nl/contrails.htm just above the list with Jay Reynolds name in it you'll see Holger Pederson's site URL on contrails which has all the goods, including satellite evidence of chemtrails, as well as a section called "Contrails for Kids" ~ http://www.astro.ku.dk/~holger/IDA/notes.html
I seriously recommend checking out this site for chemtrail evidence.
[Edited 6 times, lastly by Lulu on 07-04-2001]
|
Thermit
Tech
Houston, TX
2733 posts, Jul 2000
|
posted 07-06-2001 09:33 AM
Funny, I thought a real contrail disipated quickly, not stretched across the sky?!?
Lulu,
As I found when I did my Flight Explorer research, real contrails don't always dissipate quickly. I saw contrails that lasted about half an hour, which definately stretched across the sky. If conditions had been better, I don't see any reason why the contrails couldn't have lasted longer.
|
Lulu
ice behaving badly
right here
2553 posts, Dec 2000
|
posted 07-06-2001 09:41 AM
True enough Thermit, but my point is "a real proper contrail stretches across the sky" is not true! Some may, under right conditions, but most don't, they quickly dissipate. How many contrails do you recall as a child that stretched across the sky??? I remember zero!It is my assumption that by telling kids "a real proper contrail stretches across the sky" when the kids look up and see all the chemtrails stretched across the sky they will think they're "real proper" contrails.Brainwashing as fas as I'm concerned!
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Lulu on 07-06-2001]
|
Lulu
ice behaving badly
right here
2553 posts, Dec 2000
|
posted 07-06-2001 10:20 AM
Thermit, on an average, if you had 100 contrails up there on any given day across the country, how many of these 100 would stretch across the sky? How many would quickly dissipate?
|
Thermit
Tech
Houston, TX
2733 posts, Jul 2000
|
posted 07-09-2001 09:57 AM
Lulu,An interesting question, but really too hard to say. It all depends on the weather conditions in each area. And even more specifically it depends on the conditions (temp/moisture) at the level of the plane producing the contrail. I've seen two passenger jets (FE verified) that were at different but relatively close altitudes that left contrails with very different persistence. One being 10 minute'ish and the other just a few seconds.
|
chemtrailsorg
Chemtrails.org Admin
Austin,TX,US
122 posts, May 2001
|
posted 07-09-2001 12:12 PM
I am still working on the evidence to prove it but I still think that hygroscopic partculate concentration is the cause of persistence in contrails more then anything.It makes simple sence K.I.S.S. Here is a copy of another unanswered email I sent to a NASA scientist that should have the info I need but will not respond for some reason.
To: Andrew S. Ackerman of the NASA Ames Research Center,
From: Michael K. McDonnough of the Chemtrails Research Center,
Andrew,
Of all the people I have seen online you seem to be the most qualified to answer this few questions reguarding the chemistry of persistent contrails.
You mention in your paper on http://hyperion.gsfc.nasa.gov/AEAP/98jensen1pos.html
about the evolution of persistent contrails that supersaturation (125% humidity) must be the cause of the highly persistent contrails but in another paper you mention homogeneously nucleated sulfate aerosols http://hyperion.gsfc.nasa.gov/AEAP/98brownabs.html
My question is have the variations in chemical make-up of the highly persistent contrails being spotted everywhere been determined? If so could you point me to the studies and the data that should explain this?
Homogeneously nucleated sulfate aerosols are more hygroscopic then other particulate from what I gather from your writing and from other info I have gathered.
Is this the primary cause?
Thanks for your time in considering my questions.
Sincerely,
Michael McDonnough
|
Lulu
ice behaving badly
right here
2553 posts, Dec 2000
|
posted 07-15-2001 03:20 PM
Excellent questions you ask NASA chemtrailsorg. Let us know if Andrew S. Ackerman of the NASA Ames Research Center ever contacts you back with the answers.
| |
Chemtrail Central Forum
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
