See other Miscellaneous Articles
Title: Video Shot by Pilot Flying Along side several Chemtrail Planes
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 13, 2010
Author: kevin604bc
Post Date: 2010-03-13 16:18:34 by wudidiz
Keywords: None
Views: 16103
Comments: 715
.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 253.
#2. To: wudidiz (#0)
There is nothing in the volume or color of the visible gases that is unusual in these trails. I've seen them many times aloft and from the ground. At one point the trails flair out dramatically, but if you look closely, you can see that this is because the aircraft is descending. If there a sinister forces involved in this at all, it may be to the extent that the chemtrail story is aimed at exciting fear at the most primitive level. It may be part of a psyop to keep the population off-balance. Have a Camel. Relax.
I really don't know how to argue with that, except that it's not condensation. I've seen them many times too in the last 10+ years.
How do you know that?
My Dad was a fighter pilot. He went on to be an airline pilot. I went to many airshows and he told me a lot about airplanes. I had a habit of always watching the sky as airplanes went by and knew my planes quite well. That's not to say I'm an expert by any means. But I knew what a contrail was from an early age. They would follow the airliners across the sky only a few lengths behind. They are condensation from engine exhaust. Therefore the name 'con-trails'. They would always dissipate quickly as contrails do. There's simply not enough condensation from the exhaust for them to remain visible for long. Beginning in the mid to late 90s these chemtrails started appearing. They increased in number much after 9/11. There's not a chance in hell that those long trails we see left in the sky by some airliners now are condensation. Simply physically impossible. I don't know how I can explain it any better really. If you honestly want to know about this with an open mind, I suggest you research it on the Internet. There's no shortage of information about chemtrails. Not all of it true of course.
I don't know how I can explain it any better really. If you honestly want to know about this with an open mind, I suggest you research it on the Internet. There's no shortage of information about chemtrails. Not all of it true of course. I was interested in planes and aeronautics from the time I was in diapers, and as well my father was pilot. Because of that I used to look at the contrails when I was a kid 30-40 years ago and was always disappointed when they were not visible. You see the air conditions have to be just right and the plane at the right altitude for them to form. A standard contrail forming from natural physical processes has only a short persistence - maybe 20 minutes - 30 tops. The Chemtrails we see today, which first began in the late 80's to early 90's are qualitatively different from a standard contrail. A standard contrail is formed from water vapor and temperature and as such quickly dissipates with temperature and time. A Chemtrail by contrast has the characteristic of persistence i.e., they will persist well beyond the 20 to 30 minutes of a standard contrail and will spread to create a thin haze. When they are really busy at it I have seen them horizon to horizon counting a minimum of 13 Chemtrails. For an uncommon phenomenon, contrails, that is rather phenomenal. Here is a website where the phenomena is thoroughly documented and explored: Clifford Carnicom
how do you tell a persistent contrail or contrail cirrus clouds from "chemtrails"?
A standard contrail looks more vaporous to begin with and as you watch the plane move across the sky you will see the trail disappearing before it makes the full circuit horizon to horizon. Only very rarely will a contrail aid in the formation of a clouds of any kind - generally they just rapidly fade. I would suggest that the "Contrail Cirrus" is a term inserted into the debate as disinformation to attempt to discredit the observers who have been blowing the whistle on Chemtrails. You will find very little if anything about "Contrail Cirrus" prior to the advent of people noticing the existence of Chemtrails.
Another point not mentioned in the quote is that Chemtrails are often laid at altitudes well below the altitude required to produce the freezing temperatures needed to form a standard contrail (temperature decreases with altitude as the atmosphere is thinner and does not hold heat). Chemtrails are often laid down at the 10,000 foot level which is well below the 33,000 foot level which the Airforce states as the minimum formation altititude.
oh. have you been up there to make first-hand observations, or are you merely quoting some loony-tunes "chemtrail" site?
I think it should be, at this point, apparent to a neutral observer that it is your intent to argue the disinformation line rather than to review the data and see what conclusion the actual observations lead to. Whenever I see some attempt to argue by use of Loaded Words such as "loony-tunes" to characterize something without examining the evidence or providing any logical justification I immediatelly call Bullshit. BULLSHIT! Examples:
in other words, you cant defend your logic, so you have to veer off into a discussion of semantics. not good
No, it is called L-O-G-I-C or otherwise known as sound reasoning. If one applies the Scientific Method then one forms a conclusion based upon evidence. Photographs are evidence. Known physical properties of contrails is evidence. Characterizations i.e., "loaded words" is NOT evidence. Therefore your argument founders on the unsoundness of the attempts to divert from the issues, avoidance of the evidence, and the use of negative language as a tool to persuade by applying a negative label. All of the foregoing methods you have used are known, and categorized, under a term in use for well over 100 years i.e., Logical Fallacies and the newer term invented to describe government, and PR Agency, tactics of seeding knowingly false data and false arguments i.e., disinformation.
...of contrails... unless "chemtrails" have been photoshopped into the picture. you've been unable to refute logical explanations of how supposed "chemtrail" patterns can occur as the result of normal air traffic. you've been unable to explain how a 747 loaded to the gills is unable to produce a "chemtrail" of retardant that's longer than five miles. you're unable to point to "chemtrail" support infrastructure that would be necessary to mount your "chemtrail" operation.
First off, you provide no link that backs your assertion. However, it doesn't take a lot of brains to understand the difference between dumping loads of dry flame retardant powder and an aerosol or fog sprayed out at a MUCH MUCH lower flow rate.
First off, you provide no link that backs your assertion. evergreen propaganda isnt good enough for you, huh?
Ok, but we're not talking about powder being dumped out of the plane to put out fires, we're talking about an aerosol or fog being released at a MUCH lower flow rate. Do you understand the difference between dumping huge amounts of powder and spraying a fine mist or fog that consists of minute liquid particles?
so such a miniscule amount of spray would create such a massive trail that it would be visible from 40,000 feet.
Oh and BTW, do you admit that crop dusters DO leave visible trails of
pesticide? Hmmm, that plane sure looks like it's a tad bit smaller
than a 747, doesn't it?
in the picture of the duster, above. please tell us what the guy is dispensing, what it weighs, and how long the swath will be from a fully loaded duster. please tell us how much water vapor is produced in one hour from the fuel burned by a 747.
Please go read up on the subject, and learn that various chemicals such as barium have been found in dust found on vehicles shortly after a day of chemtrail activity. Look up the various KNOWN and ACCEPTED info on weather modification, especially in reference to barium. Then give me some calcuations as to why you think this is impossible. I want some calculus and actual physics, not some BS about fire fighting craft dumping dry chemicals on fires.
Now, now. You're asking a shill to actually produce evidence? And calculations requiring higher math? From someone who probably can't do much more than simple Algebra? How cruel. Valid though.
you're unable to post the combustion products of jet fuel or kerosene. you're unable to explain why, if this were such a crisis, no one has gone up to sample "chemtrails" directly. it only costs a couple thousand dollars an hour to rent a lear, their climb rate is something like !0,000 feet per minute, you could be up and back in half an hour. why has no one bothered to do that?
Ok, I'll concede the fact that kerosene combustion products DO include water, but the fact is, the ACTUAL water content of the exhaust is DEPENDENT on the amount of water vapor in the air, the density of the air, and various other factors. That the combustion DOES produce water does not relate to the ACTUAL amount of water in jet exhaust. AND, water could just as easily be carried in tanks and heated, resulting in a similar amount of water concentration. Have you ever seen fog machines at concerts?
there are laws of chemistry, and chemical reactions proceed according to those laws. combustion is a chemical reaction, it conforms to laws of chemistry. please fill in the blank. a gallon of jet fuel produces _____ water upon combustion. please fill in another blank... the amount of water above, in blank one, will produce _____ cubic feet of water vapor in the atmospheric pressure found at 40,000' on a standard day.
a gallon of jet fuel produces _____ water upon combustion. please fill in another blank... the amount of water above, in blank one, will produce _____ cubic feet of water vapor in the atmospheric pressure found at 40,000 on a standard day. Just non-sequitors, since we don't even know if the chemtrails contain water in the first place. But since you appear to have the answers, why don't you go ahead and post them.
...but we for sure know that contrails, as combustion products, contain a certain amount of water. if you dont know how much water is produced by burning jet fuel, you're not qualified to discuss contrails or "chemtrails".
hmmm, that's interesting. Water is produced from burning jet fuel? So all that jet fuel that burned at the WTC towers when the planes struck them also produced water? I am asking because I don't know, seems kind of nuts to me though.
is your google broke? combustion produces water vapor, and unless it's cold enough, the water vapor doesnt condense to form water.
Really? Produces water vapor? I really wish I could still google. Maybe I will try scroogle.
OK, scroogle works. H2O is indeed produced from the combustion of hydrocarbons it appears. Learn something new everyday. :)
yup, but dont let that out... it's a secret. not only that, but a gallon of kerosene produces a gallon of water, as water vapor, when it burns. not only that, but a gallon of water, when it's vaporized, occupies thousands of cubic feet... but dont tell anyone.
But wait a minute, didn't you say it would take a 747 with tons of it to cause a 5 mile trail? Doesn't seem to be the case now does it...
Review your physics, man! In space, there is volume w-l-h. It is three dimensional in scope.
Did or did not groundresonance state the following? a gallon of water, when it's vaporized, occupies thousands of cubic feet... Now if you look at a trail, whether it's a regular contrail or a chemtrail, it is 3 dimensional, is it not? Cubic feet is a measure of volume (ie. 3 dimensional space) buck, in case you didn't know. The thing is, the LENGTH is MUCH greater than the circular cross section, where the circular cross section of a regular contrail might be say 30 feet in diameter. Since area of a circle is Pi * (radius)Squared, or Pi * (diameter/2)Squared, then 3.14 * (15)Squared is 706.5 square feet. So every 10 feet of length gives you 7065 cubic feet of water vapor, from what he claims, in the area of what he claims as "thousands of cubic feet per gallon". SO, if this were true, and since there are 5280 feet in a mile, then there would have to be 528 gallons of water per mile, or 2640 gallons in five miles. If the water comes from the jet fuel, and even IF there was a 100% conversion of jet fuel to water (which of course there isn't), then the jet would burn 2650 gallons of fuel every 5 miles. In order to fly 500 miles, it'd have to burn 265,000 gallons of fuel. Jets can fly THOUSANDS of miles, yet a 747 only holds 48,445 gallons of fuel, and only consumes about 5 gallons per mile, not 528 or more. See where this is going?
and when that fuel is burned, it produces about 50,000 gallons of water. when that water is emitted as water vapor, it occupies much more space than it does when it's in liquid form. It will take about 15,965 cubic feet of air at that temperature and humidity to hold 1 gallon of water.
and when that fuel is burned, it produces about 50,000 gallons of water. when that water is emitted as water vapor, it occupies much more space than it does when it's in liquid form. Again disengenuous and outright dishonest - through omission of key data. Natural contrails are only formed above 33,000 feet and consist of ice crystals i.e., frozen water vapor. They persist only until the ice cystals melt back into unobservable clear water vapor - which abounds in the atmosphere. 50,000 sounds like a big number, and I won't even bother to dispute it because what is relevant is that the water vapor only becomes visible as a contrail when frozen, and the conditions to do so vary with atmospheric density and temperature. A plane below the critical altitude where the water freezes into cystals flies merrily along nonetheless - and should ordinarily leave no visible contrail regardless of the amount of water vapor emitted in the exhaust as it does not freeze into reflective ice crystals. What you are doing is throwing shit against the wall hoping it will stick. Unfortunately for you, and your disinformation line, it is a slippery wall. One thing is apparent though is that you are twisting and turning in every attempt to deny what people have actually observed and photographed.
What he's saying is that you get more water by burning kerosene than the amount of kerosene itself. Like I said, perhaps instead of worrying about where to get water from, Middle Eastern nations should just burn that kerosene and drink all the water it makes.. LOL
how much does a gallon of gasoline weigh? ...say 7 pounds. how much does the co2 weigh as a combustion product of burning 7 pounds of gas? over 19 pounds? ...how can that be? well, it cant be if you're ignorant of chemistry, can it?
So you're saying you can get more water from a gallon of gas than you can from a gallon bottle of water, correct?
apparently you cant read. i said you got 19 pounds of co2, not water, from burning 7 pounds of gasoline. you get just a little less water from burning a gallon of gas than you'd get from a gallon jug of water, assuming your water supplier is honest.
You said you get 50,000 gallons of water from 48,445 gallons of kerosene, don't lie.
kerosene is not gasoline. kerosene produces more water than gasoline when it burns, not much, but some.
So you're saying I can get more water from a glass of kerosene than I can from a glass of water, eh?
yup. if your combustion is complete, and you have a good way to condense the water out of the combustion exhaust, you will get more water from burning a glass of kerosene than you would from the same glass filled with water.
yup. if your combustion is complete, and you have a good way to condense the water out of the combustion exhaust, you will get more water from burning a glass of kerosene than you would from the same glass filled with water. And the formula for that chemical equation is?
C12H26: C12H26(l) + 37/2 O2(g) [4; 12 CO2(g) + 13 H2O(g); g0;HÚ = -7513 kJ
Close but no cigar. The combustion reaction in a Jet Engine (Aviation Fuel) in general terms is: CnH2n+2 + (3n+1)/2 O2 => n CO2 + (n + 1) H2O Which does not account for your claim on the production of water vapor (before crystalization) as being greater than unity. However, this is all a diversion from the main point which is that it does not demonstrate how contrails are formed at altitudes under 33,000 feet since the atmospheric temperature is not cold enough to promote the rapid formation of ice cystals from the water vapor exiting the exhaust.
"unity" has nothing to do with it, seeing as how the chemical reaction is sustained by grabbing oxygen out of the atmosphere.
Still dodging and weaving. Sigh.
but really, the operative thing here is the fact that the water is expelled as water vapor, which spreads out into thousands of cubic feet as it's expelled into the atmosphere, where it condenses and freezes to form "condensation trails", aka "contrails". neat how that works, huh?
neat how that works, huh? Spoken like a true "B" Student in H.S. General Science leaving out the key component provision i.e., at a specified altitude and temperature because ALL of the conditions have to be met for natural contrails to form. Keep trying though I just love the way you wipe the drool off your chin at each misstep. Just try not to get it on the carpet. K'?
dont bother posting any more pictures of "chemtrails" unless you also post the pressure altitude, temperature and relative humidity of the air mass the airplane was flying through.
I'll post whatever I damn well please and allow the objective readers who have an open MIND to judge the available data based on their own observations. Your continually reliance on one absurdity after another is amusing though.
you guys cant post any proof of support infrastructure, you cant explain why none of your "chemtrail" fans are willing to rent a plane and take samples. you refuse to understand the chemistry involved, you cant point to increased mortality rates, you dont know what the "chemtrails" are made of, you cant explain their purpose. you cant estimate how many observed contrails are, in fact, "chemtrails", you cant explain why you cant come up with airtight, irrefutable proof of "chemtrails" existence. all you can do is post pictures of uncertain provenance, pictures completely lacking in pertinent flight data.
People used to ridicule early scientists who tried to inform the world that many diseases were caused by germs, since nobody could see them, and nobody could show motality studies of what those germs caused, since people didn't believe they existed in the first place. Try again.
you guys dont seem to have any idea of the scale of this supposed "chemtrail" operation. if the operation had any scale to it at all, wouldnt there be paper trails, too? wouldnt there be ground support equipment? wouldnt there be mechanics who installed the machinery on the airplanes? wouldnt there be lab workers who fabricated whatever it is that's supposedly being sprayed? wouldnt there be people who, out of a sense of self-preservation, would blow a whistle? and what about the people making money on this "chemtrail" industry? wouldnt they be well-served to hire a jet to take conclusive samples, witnessed by people of unimpeachable character?
These are fairly sensible questions although you might try approaching the issue with an open mind since you seem relatively new to it and uninformed about it. “There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance – that principle is contempt prior to investigation” (most popularly attributed to Herbert Spencer) you guys dont seem to have any idea of the scale of this supposed "chemtrail" operation. It's huge. if the operation had any scale to it at all, wouldnt there be paper trails, too? There are. wouldnt there be ground support equipment? There must be. wouldnt there be mechanics who installed the machinery on the airplanes? Of course. wouldnt there be lab workers who fabricated whatever it is that's supposedly being sprayed? Probably at least some. wouldnt there be people who, out of a sense of self-preservation, would blow a whistle? Not necessarily, although some have. and what about the people making money on this "chemtrail" industry? The military industrial complex, oil industry and aluminum manufacturers (who make money off fluoride being put in water and toothpaste?) wouldnt they be well-served to hire a jet to take conclusive samples, witnessed by people of unimpeachable character? People have done that if I remember right.
seems to me you'd have real evidence of such a "huge" operation, other than photographs that give people no clue as to the altitude of the airplane, or the temperature and humidity of the air mass at that altitude. please post documentary evidence of "chemtrail" spray operations, other than normal agricultural or fire suppression operations. please post evidence of support machinery used in "chemtrail" operations, other than normal agricultural or fire suppression operations. please post verifiable testimony from mechanics who are involved in installing and/or maintaining "chemtrail" equipment on airplanes or ground support machinery, other than that used in normal agricultural or fire suppression operations. please tell us what chemicals are being sprayed, and why they're being sprayed, please post evidence of chemical fabrication labs, please post testimony from chemists involved in fabricating the chemicals used in "chemtrail" operations. please explain why people involved in the "huge" "chemtrail" industry are so unconcerned about their own well-being that they are not blowing whistles, left, right and center. the people making money of the supposed "chemtrail" operation are, in the absence of any evidence of "chemtrails" existence, people selling patent medicines to cure "chemtrail" hypochondfiacs, and people who sell website ads to people who prey on gullible "chemtrail" believers. please post evidence obtained by a "chemtrail" profiteer hiring a jet, taking samples of "chemtrails" while scrupulously following rules of evidence, and submitting those samples to a reputable lab.
Why should I?
...to prove you can? *shrug*
And what if I don't?
then i guess we'll have to assume you're full of horse pucky when it comes to "chemtrails"... *shrug*
Assume all you like.
okay
adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978STIN...8011299F
are we to assume that you have no idea whether or not any of these patents ever got off the drawing board? are we to assume that you have no idea whether or not any of these experiments ever came into common practice?
STFU and Look Down - Nothing to see here! Here are a shitload other patents that relate to weather manipulation. Who knows what chemicals they are spraying on us to get these ones going. Go here http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm and search for any of these patent numbers Patent # / Date / Description 2409201 – October 15, 1946 – Smoke Producing Mixture 2688069 – August 31, 1954 – Steam Generator – Referenced in 3990987 3127107 – March 31, 1964 – Generation of Ice-Nucleating Crystals 3429507 – February 25, 1969 – Rainmaker 3587966 – June 28, 1971 – Freezing Nucleation 3677840 – July 18, 1972 – Pyrotechnics Comprising Oxide of Silver For Weather Modification Use 3835293 – September 10, 1974 – Electrical Heating Aparatus For Generating Super Heated Vapors – Referenced in 3990987 3992628 – November 16, 1976 – Countermeasure system for laser radiation 4347284 – August 31, 1982 – White cover sheet material capable of reflecting ultraviolet rays 4643355 – February 17, 1987 – Method and apparatus for modification of climatic conditions 4836086 – June 6, 1989 – Apparatus and method for the mixing and diffusion of warm and cold air for dissolving fog 5041834 – August 20, 1991 – Artificial ionospheric mirror composed of a plasma layer which can be tilted 5286979 – February 15, 1994 – Process for absorbing ultraviolet radiation using dispersed melanin 5486900 – January 23, 1996 – Measuring device for amount of charge of toner and image forming apparatus having the measuring device 5984239 – November 16, 1999 – Weather modification by artificial satellite 6315213 – November 13, 2001 – Method of modifying weather
how many of those patents got off the drawing board? you have no evidence of anything other than patents? ...is that what we're supposed to believe?
There are no replies to Comment # 253. End Trace Mode for Comment # 253.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#4. To: randge (#2)
There is nothing in the volume or color of the visible gases that is unusual in these trails. I've seen them many times aloft and from the ground.
#5. To: wudidiz (#4)
#6. To: randge (#5)
#13. To: wudidiz, randge (#6)
My Dad was a fighter pilot. He went on to be an airline pilot. I went to many airshows and he told me a lot about airplanes. I had a habit of always watching the sky as airplanes went by and knew my planes quite well. That's not to say I'm an expert by any means. But I knew what a contrail was from an early age. They would follow the airliners across the sky only a few lengths behind. They are condensation from engine exhaust. Therefore the name 'con-trails'. They would always dissipate quickly as contrails do. There's simply not enough condensation from the exhaust for them to remain visible for long. Beginning in the mid to late 90s these chemtrails started appearing. They increased in number much after 9/11. There's not a chance in hell that those long trails we see left in the sky by some airliners now are condensation. Simply physically impossible.
#14. To: Original_Intent (#13)
The Chemtrails we see today, which first began in the late 80's to early 90's are qualitatively different from a standard contrail.
#17. To: groundresonance, wudidiz, randge (#14)
What's the difference between a jet contrail and a chemtrail? Link to Source - "Your Life As A Human Test Subject"
According to the U.S. Air Force, jet contrails form above 33,000 feet when hot engine exhaust momentarily condenses ice crystals into pencil-thin vapor trails that quickly vanish like the wake behind a boat.
Chemtrails (CTs) look like contrails initially, but are much thicker, extend across the sky and are often laid down in varying patterns of Xs, tick-tack-toe grids, cross-hatched and parallel lines. Instead of quickly dissipating, chemtrails expand and drip feathers and mare s tails. In 30 minutes or less, they open into wispy formations which join together, forming a thin white veil or a "fake cirrus-type cloud" that persists for hours.
In August 2000, chemtrail watchers began to report "more normal" appearing or nearly invisible jet sprays. However, these reports go on to include cloud formations dripping the feathers and mare s tails just as the chemtrails do. It s our belief that the operation has adjusted the chemtrail mix as word about the phenomenon is spreading and as more and more people are looking up. Observant chemtrail watchers continue to see the "fake cirrus-type clouds" on top of and surrounding real cumulus clouds.
#19. To: All (#17)
#21. To: Original_Intent (#19)
Chemtrails are often laid at altitudes well below the altitude required to produce the freezing temperatures needed to form a standard contrail
#25. To: groundresonance, FormerLurker, wudidiz (#21)
(From "The Logical Fallacies entry on Loaded Words): Exposition:
A word or phrase is "loaded" when it has a secondary, evaluative meaning in addition to its primary, descriptive meaning. When language is "loaded", it is loaded with its evaluative meaning. A loaded word is like a loaded gun, and its evaluative meaning is the bullet.
Unloaded Loaded
Plant Weed
Animal Beast While few words have no evaluative overtones, "plant" is a primarily descriptive term. "Weed", in contrast, has essentially the same descriptive meaning as "plant", but a negative evaluative meaning, as well. A weed is a plant of which we disapprove.
Loaded language is not inherently fallacious, otherwise most poetry would commit this fallacy. However, it is often a logical boobytrap, which may cause one to leap to an unwarranted evaluative conclusion. The fallacy is committed either when an arguer attempts to use loaded words in place of an argument, or when an arguee makes an evaluation based on the colorful language in which an argument is clothed, rather than on the merits of the argument itself.
Loaded language is a subfallacy of Begging the Question, because to use loaded language fallaciously is to assume an evaluation that has not been proved, thereby failing to fulfill the burden of proof. For this reason, Jeremy Bentham dubbed this fallacy "Question-Begging Epithets". ...
#27. To: Original_Intent (#25)
BULLSHIT!
#28. To: groundresonance, wudidiz, randge, FormerLurker (#27)
#32. To: Original_Intent (#28)
(Edited)
Photographs are evidence.
#46. To: groundresonance, Original_Intent (#32)
you've been unable to explain how a 747 loaded to the gills is unable to produce a "chemtrail" of retardant that's longer than five miles.
#50. To: FormerLurker (#46)
(Edited)
you've been unable to explain how a 747 loaded to the gills is unable to produce a "chemtrail" of retardant that's longer than five miles.
#55. To: groundresonance (#50)
#58. To: FormerLurker (#55)
an aerosol or fog being released at a MUCH lower flow rate.
#64. To: groundresonance (#58)
#66. To: FormerLurker (#64)
#72. To: groundresonance (#66)
please tell us how much water vapor is produced in one hour from the fuel burned by a 747.
#79. To: FormerLurker, groundresonance (#72)
I want some calculus and actual physics, not some BS about fire fighting craft dumping dry chemicals on fires.
#84. To: Original_Intent (#79)
And calculations requiring higher math?
#94. To: groundresonance (#84)
#101. To: FormerLurker (#94)
(Edited)
That the combustion DOES produce water does not relate to the ACTUAL amount of water in jet exhaust.
#103. To: groundresonance (#101)
please fill in the blank.
#106. To: FormerLurker (#103)
we don't even know if the chemtrails contain water in the first place.
#108. To: groundresonance (#106)
#110. To: RickyJ (#108)
(Edited)
seems kind of nuts to me though
#123. To: groundresonance (#110)
combustion produces water vapor, and unless it's cold enough, the water vapor doesnt condense to form water.
#133. To: All (#123)
#135. To: RickyJ (#133)
H2O is indeed produced from the combustion of hydrocarbons
#140. To: groundresonance, RickyJ, burckeroo (#135)
not only that, but a gallon of water, when it's vaporized, occupies thousands of cubic feet...
#145. To: FormerLurker (#140)
a 5 mile trail?
#151. To: buckeroo (#145)
Review your physics, man! In space, there is volume w-l-h. It is three dimensional in scope.
#154. To: FormerLurker (#151)
a 747 only holds 48,445 gallons of fuel
How Much Water In Gallons Per Cubic Foot Of Air At 74 Degrees F And 40% Relative Humidity?
#163. To: groundresonance (#154)
a 747 only holds 48,445 gallons of fuel
#166. To: Original_Intent (#163)
50,000 sounds like a big number, and I won't even bother to dispute
#170. To: FormerLurker (#166)
(Edited)
#172. To: groundresonance (#170)
how much does a gallon of gasoline weigh? ...say 7 pounds.
#176. To: FormerLurker (#172)
(Edited)
you're saying you can get more water from a gallon of gas
#177. To: groundresonance (#176)
i said you got 19 pounds of co2, not water, from burning 7 pounds of gasoline.
#178. To: FormerLurker (#177)
You said you get 50,000 gallons of water from 48,445 gallons of kerosene, don't lie.
#181. To: groundresonance (#178)
kerosene produces more water than gasoline when it burns, not much, but some.
#183. To: FormerLurker (#181)
So you're saying I can get more water from a glass of kerosene than I can from a glass of water, eh?
#185. To: groundresonance, FormerLurker, wudidiz (#183)
So you're saying I can get more water from a glass of kerosene than I can from a glass of water, eh?
#187. To: Original_Intent (#185)
(Edited)
And the formula for that chemical equation is?
#194. To: groundresonance (#187)
(Edited)
C12H26(l) + 37/2 O2(g) [4; 12 CO2(g) + 13 H2O(g); g0;HÚ = -7513 kJ
#195. To: Original_Intent (#194)
(Edited)
being greater than unity.
#197. To: groundresonance (#195)
#199. To: Original_Intent (#197)
(Edited)
#214. To: groundresonance (#199)
but really, the operative thing here is the fact that the water is expelled as water vapor, which spreads out into thousands of cubic feet as it's expelled into the atmosphere, where it condenses and freezes to form "condensation trails", aka "contrails".
#217. To: Original_Intent (#214)
a specified altitude and temperature
#218. To: groundresonance (#217)
#224. To: Original_Intent (#218)
(Edited)
#226. To: groundresonance (#224)
you refuse to understand the chemistry involved, you cant point to increased mortality rates, you dont know what the "chemtrails" are made of, you cant explain their purpose.
#231. To: FormerLurker (#226)
#233. To: groundresonance, FormerLurker, Original_Intent, randge, Lod, Artisan, buckeroo, all (#231)
(Edited)
#235. To: wudidiz (#233)
(Edited)
#236. To: groundresonance (#235)
#237. To: wudidiz (#236)
Why should I?
#238. To: groundresonance (#237)
#239. To: wudidiz (#238)
what if I don't?
#240. To: groundresonance (#239)
#241. To: wudidiz (#240)
#246. To: groundresonance (#241)
#249. To: wudidiz (#246)
#251. To: groundresonance (#249)
If you find one that isn’t classified let me know.
1338343 – April 27, 1920 – Process And Apparatus For The Production of Intense Artificial Clouds, Fogs, or Mists
1619183 – March 1, 1927 – Process of Producing Smoke Clouds From Moving Aircraft
1631753 – June 7, 1927 – Electric Heater – Referenced in 3990987
1665267 – April 10, 1928 – Process of Producing Artificial Fogs
1892132 – December 27, 1932 – Atomizing Attachment For Airplane Engine Exhausts
1928963 – October 3, 1933 – Electrical System And Method
1957075 – May 1, 1934 – Airplane Spray Equipment
2097581 – November 2, 1937 – Electric Stream Generator – Referenced in 3990987
2476171 – July 18, 1945 – Smoke Screen Generator
2480967 – September 6, 1949 – Aerial Discharge Device
2550324 – April 24, 1951 – Process For Controlling Weather
2510867 – October 9, 1951 – Method of Crystal Formation and Precipitation
2582678 – June 15, 1952 – Material Disseminating Apparatus For Airplanes
2591988 – April 8, 1952 – Production of TiO2 Pigments – Referenced in 3899144
2614083 – October 14, 1952 – Metal Chloride Screening Smoke Mixture
2633455 – March 31, 1953 – Smoke Generator
2721495 – October 25, 1955 – Method And Apparatus For Detecting Minute Crystal Forming Particles Suspended in a Gaseous Atmosphere
2730402 – January 10, 1956 – Controllable Dispersal Device
2801322 – July 30, 1957 – Decomposition Chamber for Monopropellant Fuel – Referenced in 3990987
2881335 – April 7, 1959 – Generation of Electrical Fields
2908442 – October 13, 1959 – Method For Dispersing Natural Atmospheric Fogs And Clouds
2986360 – May 30, 1962 – Aerial Insecticide Dusting Device
2963975 – December 13, 1960 – Cloud Seeding Carbon Dioxide Bullet
3126155 – March 24, 1964 – Silver Iodide Cloud Seeding Generator – Referenced in 3990987
3131131 – April 28, 1964 – Electrostatic Mixing in Microbial Conversions
3174150 – March 16, 1965 – Self-Focusing Antenna System
3234357 – February 8, 1966 – Electrically Heated Smoke Producing Device
3274035 – September 20, 1966 – Metallic Composition For Production of Hydroscopic Smoke
3300721 – January 24, 1967 – Means For Communication Through a Layer of Ionized Gases
3313487 – April 11, 1967 – Cloud Seeding Apparatus
3338476 – August 29, 1967 – Heating Device For Use With Aerosol Containers – Referenced in 3990987
3410489 – November 12, 1968 – Automatically Adjustable Airfoil Spray System With Pump
3432208 – November 7, 1967 – Fluidized Particle Dispenser
3441214 – April 29, 1969 – Method And Apparatus For Seeding Clouds
3445844 – May 20, 1969 – Trapped Electromagnetic Radiation Communications System
3456880 – July 22, 1969 – Method Of Producing Precipitation From The Atmosphere
3518670 June 30, 1970 – Artificial Ion Cloud
3534906 – October 20, 1970 – Control of Atmospheric Particles
3545677 – December 8, 1970 – Method of Cloud Seeding
3564253 – February 16, 1971 – System And Method For Irradiation Of Planet Surface Areas
3601312 – August 24, 1971 – Methods of Increasing The Likelihood oF Precipatation By The Artificial Introduction Of Sea Water Vapor Into The Atmosphere Winward Of An Air Lift Region
3608810 – September 28, 1971 – Methods of Treating Atmospheric Conditions
3608820 – September 20, 1971 – Treatment of Atmospheric Conditions by Intermittent Dispensing of Materials Therein
3613992 – October 19, 1971 – Weather Modification Method
3630950 – December 28, 1971 – Combustible Compositions For Generating Aerosols, Particularly Suitable For Cloud Modification And Weather Control And Aerosolization Process
USRE29142 – This patent is a reissue of patent US3630950 – Combustible compositions for generating aerosols, particularly suitable for cloud modification and weather control and aerosolization process
3659785 – December 8, 1971 – Weather Modification Utilizing Microencapsulated Material
3666176 – March 3, 1972 – Solar Temperature Inversion Device
3722183 – March 27, 1973 – Device For Clearing Impurities From The Atmosphere
3769107 – October 30, 1973 – Pyrotechnic Composition For Generating Lead Based Smoke
3784099 – January 8, 1974 – Air Pollution Control Method
3785557 – January 15, 1974 – Cloud Seeding System
3795626 – March 5, 1974 – Weather Modification Process
3808595 – April 30, 1974 – Chaff Dispensing System
3813875 – June 4, 1974 – Rocket Having Barium Release System to Create Ion Clouds In The Upper Atmopsphere
3835059 – September 10, 1974 – Methods of Generating Ice Nuclei Smoke Particles For Weather Modification And Apparatus Therefore
3877642 – April 15, 1975 – Freezing Nucleant
3882393 – May 6, 1975 – Communications System Utilizing Modulation of The Characteristic Polarization of The Ionosphere
3896993 – July 29, 1975 – Process For Local Modification of Fog And Clouds For Triggering Their Precipitation And For Hindering The Development of Hail Producing Clouds
3899129 – August 12, 1975 – Apparatus for generating ice nuclei smoke particles for weather modification
3899144 – August 12, 1975 – Powder contrail generation
3940059 – February 24, 1976 – Method For Fog Dispersion
3940060 – February 24, 1976 – Vortex Ring Generator
3990987 – November 9, 1976 – Smoke generator
3994437 – November 30, 1976 – Broadcast dissemination of trace quantities of biologically active chemicals
4042196 – August 16, 1977 – Method and apparatus for triggering a substantial change in earth characteristics and measuring earth changes
RE29,142 – February 22, 1977 – Reissue of: 03630950 – Combustible compositions for generating aerosols, particularly suitable for cloud modification and weather control and aerosolization process
4035726 – July 12, 1977 – Method of controlling and/or improving high-latitude and other communications or radio wave surveillance systems by partial control of radio wave et al
4096005 – June 20, 1978 – Pyrotechnic Cloud Seeding Composition
4129252 – December 12, 1978 – Method and apparatus for production of seeding materials
4141274 – February 27, 1979 – Weather modification automatic cartridge dispenser
4167008 – September 4, 1979 – Fluid bed chaff dispenser
4362271 – December 7, 1982 – Procedure for the artificial modification of atmospheric precipitation as well as compounds with a dimethyl sulfoxide base for use in carrying out said procedure
4402480 – September 6, 1983 – Atmosphere modification satellite
4412654 – November 1, 1983 – Laminar microjet atomizer and method of aerial spraying of liquids
4415265 – November 15, 1983 – Method and apparatus for aerosol particle absorption spectroscopy
4470544 – September 11, 1984 – Method of and Means for weather modification
4475927 – October 9, 1984 – Bipolar Fog Abatement System
4600147 – July 15, 1986 – Liquid propane generator for cloud seeding apparatus
4633714 – January 6, 1987 – Aerosol particle charge and size analyzer
4653690 – March 31, 1987 – Method of producing cumulus clouds
4684063 – August 4, 1987 – Particulates generation and removal
4686605 – August 11, 1987 – Method and apparatus for altering a region in the earth’s atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or magnetosphere
4704942 – November 10, 1987 – Charged Aerosol
4712155 – December 8, 1987 – Method and apparatus for creating an artificial electron cyclotron heating region of plasma
4744919 – May 17, 1988 – Method of dispersing particulate aerosol tracer
4766725 – August 30, 1988 – Method of suppressing formation of contrails and solution therefor
4829838 – May 16, 1989 – Method and apparatus for the measurement of the size of particles entrained in a gas
4873928 – October 17, 1989 – Nuclear-sized explosions without radiation
4948257 – August 14, 1990 – Laser optical measuring device and method for stabilizing fringe pattern spacing
4948050 – August 14, 1990 – Liquid atomizing apparatus for aerial spraying
4999637 – March 12, 1991 – Creation of artificial ionization clouds above the earth
5003186 – March 26, 1991 – Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming
5005355 – April 9, 1991 – Method of suppressing formation of contrails and solution therefor
5038664 – August 13, 1991 – Method for producing a shell of relativistic particles at an altitude above the earths surface
5041760 – August 20, 1991 – Method and apparatus for generating and utilizing a compound plasma configuration
5056357 – October 15, 1991- Acoustic method for measuring properties of a mobile medium
5059909 – October 22, 1991 – Determination of particle size and electrical charge
5104069 – April 14, 1992 – Apparatus and method for ejecting matter from an aircraft
5110502 – May 5, 1992 – Method of suppressing formation of contrails and solution therefor
5156802 – October 20, 1992 – Inspection of fuel particles with acoustics
5174498 – December 29, 1992 – Cloud Seeding
5148173 – September 15, 1992 – Millimeter wave screening cloud and method
5245290 – September 14, 1993 – Device for determining the size and charge of colloidal particles by measuring electroacoustic effect
5296910 – March 22, 1994 – Method and apparatus for particle analysis
5327222 – July 5, 1994 – Displacement information detecting apparatus
5357865 – October 25, 1994 – Method of cloud seeding
5360162 – November 1, 1994 – Method and composition for precipitation of atmospheric water
5383024 – January 17, 1995 – Optical wet steam monitor
5425413 – June 20, 1995 – Method to hinder the formation and to break-up overhead atmospheric inversions, enhance ground level air circulation and improve urban air quality
5434667 – July 18, 1995 – Characterization of particles by modulated dynamic light scattering
5441200 – August 15, 1995 – Tropical cyclone disruption
5556029 – September 17, 1996 – Method of hydrometeor dissipation (clouds)
5628455 – May 13, 1997 – Method and apparatus for modification of supercooled fog
5631414 – May 20, 1997 – Method and device for remote diagnostics of ocean-atmosphere system state
5639441 – June 17, 1997 – Methods for fine particle formation
5762298 – June 9, 1998 – Use of artificial satellites in earth orbits adaptively to modify the effect that solar radiation would otherwise have on earth’s weather
5912396 – June 15, 1999 – System and method for remediation of selected atmospheric conditions
5922976 – July 13, 1999 – Method of measuring aerosol particles using automated mobility-classified aerosol detector
5949001 – September 7, 1999 – Method for aerodynamic particle size analysis
6025402 – February 15, 2000 – Chemical composition for effectuating a reduction of visibility obscuration, and a detoxifixation of fumes and chemical fogs in spaces of fire origin
6030506 – February 29, 2000 – Preparation of independently generated highly reactive chemical species
6034073 – March 7, 2000 – Solvent detergent emulsions having antiviral activity
6045089 – April 4, 2000 – Solar-powered airplane
6056203 – May 2, 2000 – Method and apparatus for modifying supercooled clouds
6110590 – August 29, 2000 – Synthetically spun silk nanofibers and a process for making the same
6263744 – July 24, 2001 – Automated mobility-classified-aerosol detector
6281972 – August 28, 2001 – Method and apparatus for measuring particle-size distribution
6382526 – May 7, 2002 – Process and apparatus for the production of nanofibers
6408704 – June 25, 2002 – Aerodynamic particle size analysis method and apparatus
6412416 – July 2, 2002 – Propellant-based aerosol generation devices and method
6520425 – February 18, 2003 – Process and apparatus for the production of nanofibers
6539812 – April 1, 2003 – System for measuring the flow-rate of a gas by means of ultrasound
6553849 – April 29, 2003 – Electrodynamic particle size analyzer
6569393 – May 27, 2003 – Method and device for cleaning the atmosphere
#253. To: wudidiz (#251)
Replies to Comment # 253.