posted 09-05-2001 04:29 PM            

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.

posted 09-05-2001 05:10 PM            

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.

posted 09-05-2001 05:22 PM            

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.

posted 09-05-2001 06:03 PM            

perhaps jp-8+100 contains a "higher" sulfur content...and that's why military flights contrails are more persistent...

posted 09-05-2001 06:15 PM            

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.

posted 09-05-2001 06:52 PM            

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?

posted 09-05-2001 07:55 PM            

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?

posted 09-05-2001 11:10 PM            

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"

posted 09-06-2001 01:02 AM            

http://cloud1.arc.nasa.gov/success/daily_summary/Highlights/960427.hil.html

http://cloud1.arc.nasa.gov/success/success.eom.html#tocIIGiii

T-39 Highlights from SUCCESS; Bruce Anderson - LaRC

Observations of aerosol/trace gas emissions and wake/plume dynamics were obtained from the T-39 on 14 separate flights during the SUCCESS mission. On 10 of the flights, data were recorded within the wake of the NASA DC-8 or B757 aircraft at separation distances ranging from < 50 m to > 10 km and at altitudes ranging from the surface to near 13 km. Two of the flights were devoted to sampling the B757 exhaust as it alternately burned fuel of high (~700 ppm) and low (< 20 ppm) sulfur content. Important new information gathered in these flights include:- Modern aircraft engines appear to generate 1-5 x 1015 >20 nm diameter soot particles per Kg fuel burned at cruise altitudes. This emission index (EI) may be slightly pressure/temperature dependent as most altitude profiles suggest values increase a factor of 2 between the surface and 12 km. -Aircraft, when burning nominal sulfur level Jet A fuel, generate an aerosol fraction volatile at < 290ĄC which is 10-20 times more abundant than the soot component. These aerosols typically are < 20 nm in size and exhibit an EI which increases somewhat with decreasing atmospheric pressure/ temperature. They are present within 50 m (plume age of 0.25 seconds) behind the source aircraft engine and appear to grow in size with age and in high humidity/contrail producing situations. Their numbers are significantly reduced in heavy contrail cases and by decreasing the level of fuel sulfur, suggesting they are both soluble and most probably composed of sulfuric acid or sulfate.

ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY

Chemical Ionization Mass Spectrometer; John Ballenthin - Air Force Phillips Lab

On May 3rd and 4th the T-39 participated in an aircraft chase of the B-757 under conditions where the B-757 was burning low sulfur fuel in one engine and high sulfur fuel in the other. The concentrations of the target exhaust products, NO2, HNO2, HNO3, SO2 and H2SO4 were measured within the individual plumes and near field wakes at separation distances ranging from 0.1 km to 10 km. The signature of the exhaust gases in the mass spectrum were clearly discernible with either fuel relative to the ambient concentrations of the measured species. Sampling of the low sulfur exhaust trail indicated a substantial reduction (~x5) in the observable gas phase SO2 and H2SO4 relative to that found in the high sulfur exhaust trail under identical sampling conditions. The concentrations of the NOy species were found to be essentially invariant with respect to fuel sulfur content.

And this is interesting...

Cloudscope; John Hallett - Desert Research Institute

Cloudscope shows the presence of a few particles in contrails which evaporate to leave a soot-like residue.
Shows the presence of particles at low temperatures <-65C which evaporate more slowly as the size becomes smaller suggesting the presence of a component other than ice with a lower vapor pressure.
There is some evidence of particle conversion to a liquid phase as they evaporate suggesting the presence of a soluble component which is reluctant to evaporate.

posted 09-06-2001 07:50 AM            

I found this article interesting. It's a PDF, unfortunately. http://eos913c.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcss_wg2/projects/ARM94/cold_cirrus.pdf

Corona-Producing Ice Clouds: A Case Study of a Cold Midlatitude
Cirrus Layer

The homogeneous freezing of sulfuric acid droplets of stratospheric origin is assumed to be the dominant ice particle nucleation mode acting in corona-producing cirrus clouds. It is speculated that this process results in a previously unrecognized mode of acid-contaminated ice particle growth, and that such small-particle "cold" cirrus clouds are potentially a radiatively distinct type of cloud.

It was only recently established, unambiguously, that cirrus clouds composed of nonspherical ice crystals could generate multiple-ring colored corona displays....It was inferred that these atypical midlatitude cirrus cloud microphysical conditions were the result of the formation of some characteristic type of ice crystal
homogeneously nucleated from stratospheric sulfuric acid droplets

posted 09-06-2001 09:23 PM            

dunno...but seems it is a "target" to reduce sulfur and thus cut down trail production, would that not be a kick if it was "sulfur" that causes these evil trails

but thinking out loud one helluva an easy way to induce worldwide cloud growth..."global warming" scares....the whole green bit...granted if you could persuade refineries to "get in on it"...or get the government to loosen restrictions on S0x emmissions...

man...got too much sun today...

posted 09-07-2001 12:04 AM            

Could you refer me to a photo of this and what kind of camera it is ?

Right now there are over 2000 flights in the air....looks like a bunch of planes just went thru your state...headin' overseas...

posted 09-07-2001 01:09 AM            

As far as the flights over seas: Could you identify what type of jets I posted in the new image database? Are they commercial? they are dated Sept 6 and called Please identify #1,2,3. I am thinking they are military. If they are, would you know if they were included in your over seas plane group?

posted 09-07-2001 02:21 AM            

most digital camera's show a prism or color deformity...I wish some of the pic's I have were film....

are you and the other sure your not seeing pollen or dust ?

Could you identify what type of jets I posted in the new image database? Are they commercial? they are dated Sept 6

that was over an hour ago and there is no archive available, if you would like to schedule a "reading" from F/E in your area...just post a time...evenings are good for me...lol...