IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Contrails And The High-bypass Turbofan Engine, Exploring opportunities for contrail formation in the HB turbofan

Hsaive
post Aug 25 2014, 12:23 AM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 49
Joined: 25-January 09
From: Gainesville, Fl
Member No.: 4,087



Water vapor contrail formation is a by-product of engine "combustion". (CO2 and water vapor)

The generic High Bypass turbofan design uses only 15 to 20% of air intake for the combustion phase with 80% of thrust developed in the bypass phase with no opportunity to add additional water vapor for contrail formation. Furthermore, the mixing of combustion thrust with bypass thrust at high temperatures, significantly neutralizes or dilutes whatever water vapor is contained in the 20% combustion phase. These two conditions significantly lower the probability of visible contrail formation in the High bypass turbofan.

THE PROBLEM

We can find no convincing explanation as to why the sky can be completely free of contrails for an entire day while measured relative humidity at flight level (30-40k) is no different than the previous day when unusual appearing, persistent contrails are inexplicably seen filling the sky with often, bizarre patterns from horizon to horizon.

This article explores the rarely discussed reasons why the high-bypass turbofan design will only form visible contrails under elevated conditions of relative humidity compared to older, low-bypass and no-bypass jet engines.

http://wp.me/p2FjTj-3GW

Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
airshow
post Aug 25 2014, 02:34 AM
Post #2





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 16
Joined: 13-April 08
From: Vancouver Canada
Member No.: 3,146



I really am not much of a contributor to this site, but am keenly interested in what people have to say about 9/11. I read everything, and appreciate what Rob and others have done for this subject. Having been in aviation for 35 years, I am not a fan of the chemtrail conspiracy. There is nothing to this day, that even has me slightly interested in exploring a point. Nothing. I don't believe it belongs here, buts it's not my site. The article uses very little factual information, except that high speed bypass use less air, and then they speculate why on two identical days, one can be relatively free of contrails and the next, total clutter. High Speed Bypass engines are not used on all aircraft. No two days are alike, I don't care what the meteorologist tells you. I have seen two aircraft in trail, and one emits a contrail, and the other is intermittent. So what? I have seen two aircraft in trail, and they both are intermittent when it comes to contrails. Why are there clouds to a certain point in the sky, and then they stop? Why does cirrus not cover the whole sky. Why the next day does cirrus cover the whole sky, and then dissipate and cover only portions? Why are cumulus puffy and climbing and occupying only a certain amount of sky. Why are Lenticular in one layer, and nothing above or below? Why is the sky blue. These people speculate, but do no research. The replies to the blog are very clear as to who they cater to. One asks if the aircraft are being cloaked? Yes, and as a radar operator I used to run regular traffic up their chuff and get pissed. Cloaking. If aircraft where cloaked, we wouldn't need to spray contaminants in sky. We'd be like the king of wars and President of the world. Rob, my opinion is that chemtrail theorists are not using any scientific process and should stay in YouTube. If people actual investigate, or even sit at an airport for a few days, bring a lunch and a sandwich, they will see aircraft jammed to the floorboards with mail, cargo, people and fuel. To get to some of the destinations it requires the aircraft be a total gross. Crippers, Ive seen new aircraft almost leave wheel marks on the localizer shack, they are that heavy. Tell me Chemists, how will anyone in the industry allow you to install a tank, that feed through the engines, and weighs in the tons? Has anyone seen any wreckage with the tanks obvious. The evidence would be there to easy inspection, if it were so. But its not. Chem conspiracists need to get off of their butts and work for better governments, freedom of the press, the cessation of wars and the reinstatement of Habeas Corpus. Chemtrails, my god like we don't have enough real problems.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulmichael
post Aug 25 2014, 08:24 AM
Post #3





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 365
Joined: 6-July 12
Member No.: 6,923



QUOTE (airshow @ Aug 25 2014, 01:34 AM) *
These people speculate, but do no research.


Let's talk about the scientists who actually do do the research.

Why, there can be so much disagreement amongst the ranks of such scientists that they can be likened to scholarly theologians who, for centuries, have debated the meaning of this Biblical verse and that Biblical verse right down to the shades of meaning of individual words.

Case in point: scientific disagreement about the greenhouse effect and global warming.

While most scientists reportedly have come around to agreeing that there is global warming, there is still considerable dissention among scientists on this point.

I am not a scientist, but I have listened pretty closely to both camps on the topic of chemtrails.

All that I know is that, in the past and per my recollection, visible exhaust in the sky seems to have been limited to sky-writing by commercial advertising aircraft or to military aircraft turning on-and-off their visible exhaust for airshow exhibitions.

So, in my mind, the jury is still out on the issue of chemtrails.

P.M. (P.S. Also, in my mind, I don't know why a person like you would go to such great lengths to put down a notion. What's it to you?)

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
airshow
post Aug 25 2014, 01:28 PM
Post #4





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 16
Joined: 13-April 08
From: Vancouver Canada
Member No.: 3,146



There is no jury out on Chemtrails, there are only those that speculate without bothering to investigate. As for why does it bother me? Because it mocks scientific query and follow up; makes a mockery of thousands of professionals in the aviation world who you (chem conspiracists) either claim are in the know and secretly involved or are dumbo's that haven't a clue what someone is doing with their aircraft; plus, you take up valuable space in a very professional web site that has gone to great lengths to keep the credibility of this site.

The article has glaring errors. What is neutralized water?? Water vapour, in any amount, will freeze at altitude if the conditions are right. Plus the article isn't clear abut which water source it talks about. The vapour already present in the atmosphere, or the water produced from combustion? Both are always present. BOTH. There is always enough vapour to form some sort of contrail if the conditions are right. As for your smoke writers. What you see at the fair, is oil. Oil is sprayed into the hot exhaust manifold and it forms smoke. Not a contrail. NOT A CONTRAIL. Contrails have existed since the Wright brothers. They do not need jet engines or high altitudes. Come to the Canadian Arctic where a piston pounder flying at 1000 feet in the dead of winter, at 35 below zero leaves a contrail. Water is water, below zero is below zero. Please use your designed intelligence to sort through the BS. High Speed Bypass is a red herring. If I told you that a theoretical aircraft without engines were to fly through a cold amount of air that is nearly saturated with super cool led water vapour, that the mere disturbance of the air is enough to freeze the water vapour and become visible. With no high speed bypass or engines or chemtanks. Would you believe that?

As for climate science, yeah, I thought you might also not believe that. Put a hundred equally trained climate scientists in a room and two would be skeptics about it being man made. Put a hundred scientists in a room, and four will be either skeptics of man made result or cyclical climate result. I'll go with the 96.

So what do you want to believe in. What do you want to spend your time fighting to change?

As for climate engineering, it's a huge contradiction of climate change doubters and chemtrail theorists. One, the real small odd chance that chemtrails are real, you are saying that climate change is real and that man is attempting to reverse it's effects. So you admit climate change? Or, you are using it to shift blame of climate change AWAY from technological advancements (auto's, planes, factories, coal fired generators) to man pissing around with the atmosphere (geo engineering) and therefore making the world hotter. Not likely. Scientific evidence proves it's the carbon in the atmosphere.

Look up Occam's razor. His theory states, "that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected." If it looks like a contrail, it is a contrail. Engage me anytime.

This post has been edited by airshow: Aug 25 2014, 01:34 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st September 2019 - 01:30 AM