See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: Inside the typical commercial jet engine, the fuel burns in the combustion chamber at up to 2000 degrees Celsius.
Source:
stanford
URL Source: http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/ ... rojects/jet-airplanes/how.html
Published: Jan 7, 2012
Author: standford.edu
Post Date: 2012-01-07 23:14:01 by lead.and.lag
Keywords: None
Views: 1176
Comments: 85
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: lead.and.lag (#0)
It probably helps to have an oxygen supply feeding it at 500 miles an hour.
the temperatures inside a jet engine would eliminate the possibility of "chemtrail" bugs surviving combustion and reaching the atmosphere. so "chemtrail" bugs would not be put into jet fuel.
And your point? What requires that they be added to the fuel? They use misters/aerosolizers on the trailing edge of the wings or control surfaces.
..................... If a man has nothing that he is willing to die for, then he has nothing worth living for.
so you're saying those big white plumes coming from the engines are not "chemtrails"... good enough
At 1.2 tons of air sucked in each second, that could be a vaporized unicorn that is seen coming out of the exhaust. They are white you know.
It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere. Voltaire An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination. Voltaire
Evergreen Aviation Admits to Chemtrail Contracts with USAF -video www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/videos/meteorology evergreen-aviation-admits-tochemtrail-contracts-with-usaf.html how many supertankers does evergreen have? do they have enough of them to account for all the "chemtrails" observed? is there any evidence that evergreen has operated a supertanker on a weather modification contract?
It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere. Voltaire An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination. Voltaire
And why is a supertanker required. You are attempting to assert a premise and have me accept it. I was born at night but it wasn't yesterday. Evergreen has long been associated with the government - and appears to have CIA linkages. So, why don't you ask them about the contract? I'm sure they'd be more than forthcoming. Don't you think they would be if they had a classified above ridiculous contract? you are incapable of giving a straight answer to a straight question. please post a link to the evergreen press release, especially including the "question and answer" portion of the press release, most especially including the part where evergreen admits it can control weather, and create hurricanes and earthquakes. please.
wow that is a good video.
As Gary Lloyd said, "When the government’s boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence."
Evergreen Link Happy reading.
actually wudidiz posted it on an earlier thread. I though I would share it again so the unicorn herder could look at it.
It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere. Voltaire An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination. Voltaire
probably why i didn't see it. As Gary Lloyd said, "When the government’s boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence."
http://www.rense.com/general53/chemsd.htm
It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere. Voltaire An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination. Voltaire
please post a link to the evergreen press release, especially including the "question and answer" portion of the press release, most especially including the part where evergreen admits it can control weather, and create hurricanes and earthquakes, as per the article from "forbidden knowledge" that you attemped to post a link to.
meanwhile, where do the "chemtrails" come from? they're clearly coming from the engines, despite what Give Me Liberty said.... i guess it could be, if the bugs are coming from the trailing edges of the wings and control surfaces, that what we're seeing coming from the engines are not "chemtrails" at all.
must be fairy dust
It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere. Voltaire An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination. Voltaire
if "chemtrail" enthusiasts are so dead certain that they can tell the difference between a "chemtrail" and a contrail, but they're looking at the stuff coming out of the engines while the "chemtrail" stuff is coming from the wings and control surfaces, we seem to be in a bind.
meanwhile, if a ton of air is going into the engine every second, that means a ton of something or other is coming out of the engine every second... at least a ton of something, because we add fuel to the air as it goes through the engine.
maybe it's time to ask ourselves how many cubic feet a ton of exhaust gases occupy at, say, 35,000 feet.
they're clearly coming from the engines, despite what Give Me Liberty said.... i guess it could be, if the bugs are coming from the trailing edges of the wings and control surfaces, that what we're seeing coming from the engines are not chemtrails at all. Go, ahead feel free to continue to promote your assigned cover story. Of course it never occurred to you that there might be multiple delivery systems - some routed through the engine exhaust and other elements routed through the fuel venting system and/or the attached to the plane's sewage system as has been reported by a couple of mechanics. Of the other tactic you are following is to try make it all so complex sounding that people conclude that it is not understandable. The basics are really simple: Contrails form only at 33,000 feet and above under specific temperature and humidity conditions. Chemtrails are observed emanating from planes as low as ten thousand feet - too low for contrails as the air is too warm at that level. There are multiple photos and comparisons available online contrasting chemtrails and contrails. Contrails generally fade after about 20 minutes and often less. Chemtrails are persistent i.e., they persist for hours forming cloud cover and eventually if the spraying is heavy enough they haze over the entire sky. The phenomena has been looked at pretty thoroughly by a lot of independent and amateur researchers all of which have concluded that there is some there, there. However, you are not interested in people providing information which you could easily search for and find yourself. You are interested in attacking and denigrating anyone who relies on anything other than the official spin. Yawn. What a ridiculous demand. We both know that CIA connected companies don't give press releases about top secret compartmentalized programs. The admission was inadvertent, and is documented online. Do your own research. it is pretty simple... a ton of fuel and air go into the engine every second, and a ton of comubustion gases are expelled into the atmosphere every second. what are those combustion gases composed of?
Burned fuel exiting at high speed. Any other obvious questions intended to throw up smoke? you cant post evergreen's assertion that they can cause hurricanes and earthquakes, because that assertion was added by the writer on the doofus site you posted as a reference. all we got to decide now is whether you are a fool for being sucked in, or you're deliberately trying to fuck people's minds up.
for those who didnt take chemistry, the basic components of combustion products are co2 and water vapor. in fact, jet fuel produces a gallon of water for every gallon of fuel burned. in another fact, fuel consumption is about a gallon per second for many of these airliners.
After a few seconds. we got to remember here that air is about 78% nitrogen, which is an inert gas, which means it is not burned, which means it is not a "combustion product". it's still nitrogen as it's expelled out the exhaust.
No, I encourage people to think for themselves and not accept anything unexamined. I have no burning compulsion that requires that people agree with me. However you're still doing a great job of conforming to: Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation So far on this thread you have compiled an impressive list: You began with a Strawman: 4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues. Then you have proceeded through several others: 3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact. 5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues. 8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources. 9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect. 12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues. 13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact. 18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.' 19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance. Please feel free to let me know if you think I've missed any. After a few seconds. I was being generous. Authentic Contrails, on rare occasions, have persisted that long, but you are right it is rare and they are usually gone within about 1 to 3 minutes. so we got a ton of stuff being shot out the tailpipe of a jet every second... 78% nitrogen... how much combustion product? ...how much water and how much co2?
the basic question is this: how much space does a gallon of water occupy if it's turned into water vapor at 35,000 feet? what happens if the outside air temperature and humidity are right, and the water vapor freezes?
you got to assume that the water vapor, when it's uniformly mixed with a ton of nitrogen and co2, is gonna occupy a lot of space at 35,000 feet. and you ought to remember that a ton of this stuff is being expelled every second.
I know you can't see the vid, but I watched it and the contrail is going past some power lines so it's apparent that the contrail dissipates after 3 or 4 seconds. I timed it with "1 one thousand, 2, one thousand... so it's not precise. Sorry for interrupting your argument with the troll. Not a problem. He's getting boring anyway. Same tactics over and over - no imagination - strictly by the talking points manual. Actually I have seen that video - I did take the time to watch it when it was posted by someone else about a year ago or so. While the ones in there do disperse very quickly I have seen them around here - parallel to chemtrails where they would last for several minutes - but they inevitably fade out, and seeing the two side by side really does underscore the difference. yes, indeed. and the pilots were reporting their altitude to you, along with the air temperature and humidity... they were both at the same altitude, the temperature and humidity were the same,so there can be no mistake at all.
they were flying identical airplanes, with idenentical loads... identical power settings and airspeeds to go along witht he identical altitude, temperature and humidity.
yes, indeed. and the pilots were reporting their altitude to you, along with the air temperature and humidity... Why yes, we were in telepathic communication the entire time. Wonderful view up there. Which is of course no more ridiculous than your trollish attempt to once again confuse the issues. One does not have to have precise technical specifics to observe what is going on over one's head. Your childish attempt at sarcasm, compounded with the fact that at no time have you ever presented anything beyond your own personal opinions and insults of others, carries such great weight that I am just stricken. Oh, Boo Hoo. Boo hoo hoo. Woe is me. you are saying that you knew, for certain, that those aircraft had the same engines, they were at the same altitudes, in the same humidity, same temperature, with the same power settings. or are you saying that those factors dont matter when it comes to contrails forming?
Comments (42 - 85) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: All (#0)
#3. To: lead.and.lag, intotheabyss, FormerLurker, All (#2)
so "chemtrail" bugs would not be put into jet fuel.
#4. To: lead.and.lag (#2)
(Edited)
#5. To: Give Me Liberty (#4)
They use misters/aerosolizers on the trailing edge of the wings or control surfaces.
#6. To: lead.and.lag (#5)
#7. To: lead.and.lag, Give Me Liberty, intotheabyss (#5)
#8. To: Original_Intent (#7)
(Edited)
Evergreen Aviation Admits to Chemtrail Contracts with USAF
#9. To: lead.and.lag (#8)
#10. To: lead.and.lag (#8)
#11. To: Original_Intent (#10)
(Edited)
You are attempting
#12. To: intotheabyss (#9)
#13. To: lead.and.lag (#11)
#14. To: farmfriend (#12)
#15. To: intotheabyss (#14)
actually wudidiz posted it on an earlier thread.
#16. To: lead.and.lag (#11)
#17. To: Original_Intent (#13)
Evergreen Link
#18. To: All (#17)
(Edited)
#19. To: lead.and.lag (#18)
#20. To: All (#18)
(Edited)
#21. To: All (#20)
#22. To: All (#21)
#23. To: lead.and.lag, intotheabyss, FormerLurker, farmfriend, All (#18)
meanwhile, where do the "chemtrails" come from?
#24. To: lead.and.lag (#17)
please post a link to the evergreen press release,
#25. To: All (#22)
#26. To: lead.and.lag (#25)
what are those combustion gases composed of?
#27. To: Original_Intent (#24)
What a ridiculous demand.
#28. To: All (#27)
(Edited)
#29. To: Original_Intent (#23)
Contrails generally fade after about 20 minutes and often less.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.” ~ Patrick Henry
#30. To: All (#28)
#31. To: lead.and.lag (#27)
#32. To: wudidiz (#29)
Contrails generally fade after about 20 minutes and often less.
#33. To: All (#30)
#34. To: All (#33)
#35. To: All (#34)
(Edited)
#36. To: Original_Intent (#32)
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.” ~ Patrick Henry
#37. To: wudidiz (#36)
Sorry for interrupting your argument with the troll.
I know you can't see the vid, but I watched it and the contrail is going past some power lines so it's apparent that the contrail dissipates after 3 or 4 seconds. I timed it with "1 one thousand, 2, one thousand... so it's not precise.
#38. To: Original_Intent (#37)
seeing the two side by side really does underscore the difference.
#39. To: Original_Intent (#37)
#40. To: lead.and.lag (#38)
seeing the two side by side really does underscore the difference.
#41. To: Original_Intent (#40)
.
.
.