As Mick said, the angle hides the gap. But it also foreshortens the view, so to makes the trails look denser and more impressive, as in this image which is often used by chemtrail theorists: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Emirates/Boeing-777-21H/0718260/
Hmmm... it is a complicated business this thing going on in the fan. Although you correctly point it has to create a low pressure zone in front of the fan (or the air wouldn't get into the engine ) the design of the intake expands the air before reaching the fan, increasing its pressure. Why? Because the fan works better with slow, high pressure air for subsonic flight. The purpose of the intake (or inlet) is to try to recover the free stream pressure as much as possible, inside the intake.
That's why I said it is a complicated business. The shape of the intake makes the fast moving air increase its volume before reaching the fan. As the fast moving air increases its volume, it slows down and increases its static pressure.
I think here it's more the fan sucking in the air that reduces the pressure. The shape of the intake in front of the fan is not going to make the air expand - quite the opposite from most cross-sections I've looked at, which show a slight narrowing. And when the plane is moving, things will be different again, the engine will be scooping up air at 500mph - which is very different to sucking in air when the plane is not moving at all.
Actually, for subsonic flight, all intakes have a divergent shape: http://soliton.ae.gatech.edu/people/jseitzma/classes/ae4451/subsonic_inlet_sizing2.pdf
And you can see the internal pressure map showing increasing pressure within the divergence - during normal cruise. At takeoff, with increased engine power, this lowers the pressure (and thus the local temperature) sufficiently to induce condensation - if the air is sufficiently humid. Happy New Year.
In an interesting development, Max Bliss seems to be taking on Dane Wiginton and Russ Tanner's HBTF claims. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...0428768655396.417477.685100395&type=3&theatre Ray Von
Leeds/Bradford is usually sopping wet, but I don't think it's from the jets. Putting aside that he's clearly clueless about how combustion produces water, doesn't he realise he basically just "debunked" chemtrails? Similar to Ian Simpson / Look-up.org previously. Ray Von
I see that he is also claiming the following in regards to helicopter engines. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153773100529608&set=gm.10156932547680302&type=3&theater
This comment just floored me. Does he take into account, I don't know, altitude, relative humidity, temperature? Common sense? Wow.
And this continues to be an issue with them nearly a year later: https://www.facebook.com/mrmaxbliss/posts/10155021271245396 With some spirited discussion in the comments: https://www.facebook.com/mrmaxbliss...0155023653710396&comment_tracking={"tn":"R4"}
Ok, I'm confused, Max is just like Dane, trying to convince everyone there is contrails up there? Has he seen Dane's website? Certainly Dane is spreading lies and disinformation which is what we the rational and non-chemtrail believers are saying. And isn't Dane the "God" of chemtrails and geoengineering? Seems like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
I'm confused by that part too. Dane features the "High-bypass turbofans cannot create contrails" idea right on the front page of his website. Although, in the past, Dane has gone on record as how to tell the difference between contrails and chemtrails. Consistency isn't a big thing with the chemtrail theory!
There's a segment of the chemtrail conspiracy community that think Dane is a "shill" because he think's global warming from CO2 emissions is real.
