Chemtrail additives in Jet fuel: a mathematical analysis

[Efftup]

just some food for thought for anyone who thinks they are adding chemicals to jet fuel to create chemtrails.

Here is a picture of a plane making a trail:
as you can see, it is a Virgin Atlantic 747. not only that, but because I picked a decent quality photo we can see the plane's registration, G-VBIG
so here it is again:
as well as being written on the plane, Virgin Atlantic's own website tells us that this plane is a 747-400 called Tinker Bell.

now various sources, including planespotters .net say it has 4x GE CF6-80C2B1F engines.

Right, so FIRST let us try and work out how big that trail is.
putting that first pic up on my screen and measuring with a ruler tells me the trail is twice the diameter of the engine housing.
sadly, I don't have a figure for the size of the housing, but according to wikipedia: that engine has a FAN that is 2.36 m so I will use that.
so the trail has twice the diameter of the engine, so it has a RADIUS of 2.36m. Therefore it's cross sectional area is (pi r squared)2.36 x 2.36 x 3.14159=17.497m2. But there are 4 engines so the TOTAL cross sectional area of the chemtrail is 17.497 x 4 =69.99m2.

SO, every metre of this chemtrail has a volume of 69.99m3. We will return to this later.

How much fuel does the plane use? good question.

Here's a handy link to Boeing's website: where they tell us this.
a Boeing 747-400 with CF6-80C2B1F engines, over a 6000nm journey burns 298.2 kg per seat, based on a 416 seat aircraft.
1 nm = 1.85 km so 6000nm is 11,100km.
total fuel burned over this distance is 298.2 x 416=124,051kg

Therefore the plane burns 124,051/11,100 = 11.18kg/km
a quick cross check sum confirms this to be about 0.2mpg which is the sort of figure bandied around other websites too.

so 11.18kg/km is the same as 11.18g/m.

now as our volume is 69.99m3, then we have a concentration of 11.18/69.99 = 0.16g/m3.

now this does not sound like a very high concentration, particularly as this trail is going to spread out across the sky and then spread out more as it falls through more than 8,000 more metres of sky to reach the ground.

not only that, but seeing as how we are told we can see the obvious from looking up is it REALLY feasible that when we look up through 5 miles of sky at a plane we can barely see, can we really see a trail made up of 0.16g/m3 with the naked eye?

it seems obvious to ME, that no such trail is made of chemicals in the plane's fuel.

but hang on, crumpled raincoat zinger alert,
slaps hand on forehead, turns around

there's just one more thing.

Did you notice that that calculation used the ENTIRE WEIGHT OF FUEL?
This assumes that, like its namesake, Tinker Belle has magic fairy powers and does not actually need fuel to fly.

so that 0.16g/m3 is a totally unrealistic figure but is the absolute maximum you can possibly have, based on the available info.

If the additive is 1%, that figure becomes 0.0016g/m3.

Admittedly, this site is talking about diesel and not Jet A1, and is talking about additives to improve the fuel but it does say:

The overall concentration of additives is generally below 0.1%, so that the physical properties of the fuel, such as density, viscosity, and volatility are not changed.

Content from External Source

So how much chemtrail material can you realistically add to jet fuel before the fuel is no good to burn in the engines (we are completely ignoring any damage it would do to the engine itself at this point)?

at a concentration of 0.1% additive in the fuel we are talking about a concentration of 0.16mg/m3

 

[WeedWhacker]

There CANNOT be "additives" in jet fuel for one very simple reason:

Fuel in modern airliners is MEASURED by weight. If any "addition" were there, then ALL of the methods for calculating that "weight" would be thrown off. There are many, many more technical explanations to add to this.

ALSO....."any" contamination that might be "added" to jet fuel would (A) be filtered out, since there are MANY filters in the Fuel System, prior to the combustion chamber, and (B)....even "IF" foreign material made it past those filters? The engine would be destroyed, and stop operating, VERY rapidly!

THIS is why contamination of Jet Fuel is taken VERY seriously!!!

 

[Efftup]

Yes, I am aware of all that.
I was just showing that by simply doing the maths, it shows it is impossible for that trail you see to be made by additives in the fuel. Even using the entire weight of fuel in a magic plane that doesn't really burn any, which would negate all your concerns, the concentration is still ridiculously low. and would not be visible with the naked eye.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Yes, I am aware of all that.
I was just showing that by simply doing the maths, it shows it is impossible for that trail you see to be made by additives in the fuel. Even using the entire weight of fuel in a magic plane that doesn't really burn any, which would negate all your concerns, the concentration is still ridiculously low. and would not be visible with the naked eye.

Yes...agreed. (apologies to Mick West, but this video is CLEAR and on-topic):

 

[MikeC]

Some math I did a year or more ago on ATS - same idea as you, but calculating the "weight" of "contrail induced cirrus":

this site that has some figures for how much water is actually in clouds.

For cirrus clouds, which are those that are sometimes caused by contrails and often indicate conditions are right for contrails, the figures given are 0.11 and 0.02 g/m^3 depending on ice crystal size and temperature.

So how much water is actually in a cirrus cloud of any given size?

The wiki page on cirrus clouds says they can be anywhere from 100-8000m thick, with an average of 1,500m. And it is pretty easy to see they often cover a wide area of sky.

So for the purpose of this calculation I am going to use a "contrail induced cirrus" that is 100m thick, 1km wide and 100km long - not an unusual size for a persistent contrails - that means it is 100*1000*100,000m = 10,000,000,000 cubic metres (10 Billion cubic meters).

At the lower figure from the 1st link of 0.02 grams per cubic metre that is 10 Billion x 0.02 grams, and then divided by 1000 to get Kg, and 1000 again to get tonnes - a "mere" 200 tons of water - for a 100km "Chemtrail"!

Your 124,000kg of gas is only enough for about 65 km of contrail induced cirrus if it is truly Tinker Bell!!

 

[Efftup]

Plus of course, that will contain more actual water molecules because water only has a molecular weight of 18g/mol whereas elemental Aluminium is 27g/mol and Aluminium oxide is 102g/mol

 

[Trailblazer]

One thing you haven't considered is the actual combustion process; for instance 1kg of jet fuel produces about 1.3kg of water when burned. Not that this makes much difference to the numbers!

Back in 1972, Dr Robert Knollenberg of the University of Chicago conducted an experiment to find the mass of ice in a mature persistent contrail. The aircraft used was a Sabreliner, which is a mid-size business jet:



The results showed a mass of between 20.7kg and 41.2kg of ice per linear metre of contrail. (See the PDF of Knollenberg's paper here).

The same paper calculates the amount of water produced by combustion by the aircraft as 1.73g per metre.

Taking the average of the contrail mass as about 30kg per metre, the proportion of the visible contrail that consists of exhaust product is (1.73 / 30000) x 100 = 0.006%.

In other words, less than one part in 17,000 of the contrail actually comes from the engine exhaust; the rest condenses out of the atmosphere.


This is discussed in more detail on this thread:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/the-ice-budget-argument.819/

 

[Hevach]

To be fair, more and more chemtrail promoters seem to have moved away from the idea that the chemtrail "stuff' is in the fuel and point to separate drains and pipes on the planes. Which actually makes their case worse, since now the "stuff" comes out of cargo capacity only.

The results showed a mass of between 20.7kg and 41.2kg of ice per linear metre of contrail. (See the PDF of Knollenberg's paper here).

The same paper calculates the amount of water produced by combustion by the aircraft as 1.73g per metre.

Taking the average of the contrail mass as about 30kg per metre, the proportion of the visible contrail that consists of exhaust product is (1.73 / 30000) x 100 = 0.006%.

In other words, less than one part in 17,000 of the contrail actually comes from the engine exhaust; the rest condenses out of the atmosphere.

To apply the OP's "how would that work" math to these numbers, the Antonov An-225 Mriya, a cargo airplane so grotesquely large that only one was ever built and it holds basically all of the cargo lift world records, could only produce a chemtrail about 1,207 meters long (assuming the tanks and spraying apparatus add zero weight and the entire cargo capacity can be used for spraying agents).

EDIT: Missed a zero, 12,070 meters long. Still pretty much useless, as you'd need dozens of them to accomplish what a single airliner with a tiny fraction of the lift capacity gets blamed for.


It's... actually kind of disappointing just how unfeasible chemtrails are. There are so many things, both great and terrible, that could be done with them if only the world really did have the fleet of hundreds of thousands of megaplanes we would need to even begin to halfass the job.

 

[Efftup]

talking of the Mriya, here's some more fun maths:
20.7kg per metre is 20,700kg per kilometre.

The MAXIMUM TAKE OFF WEIGHT of the Mriya, the biggest plane ever made is 640,000kg.

So even if somehow the entire plane, including the fuselage and seats etc, were somehow converted as it flew into chemtrail material, it would STILL only make a trail 30km long., which is shorter than the trail I saw this afternoon when Ryan Air flight 9428 from Dublin to Milan cruised over Bristol at 37,000ft and 474 knots. (yes I do have a new smartphone with FR24 installed )

 

[Trailblazer]

I've quoted these numbers at people and they just make vague claims that the chemical agent is some kind of catalyst for clouds to form.

Most recently the claim has been that even if it is water, then "water is still a pollutant in the wrong place"! Even though at least 99.99% of that water was already there...

 

[MikeC]

I've quoted these numbers at people and they just make vague claims that the chemical agent is some kind of catalyst for clouds to form.

well they're right then, aren't they!!

 

[WeedWhacker]

well they're right then, aren't they!!

To clarify (I think) what your point here is? The chemical make-up of kerosene (Jet fuel, basically) includes the element 'H' (hydrogen). The element 'O' (oxygen) is of course, present in the atmosphere (troposphere, tropopause and stratosphere), and these elements are combined during the very high heat of jet fuel combustion into the proportion of two 'H' to one 'O' (voila!) makes water.

 

[Mick West]

To clarify (I think) what your point here is? The chemical make-up of kerosene (Jet fuel, basically) includes the element 'H' (hydrogen). The element 'O' (oxygen) is of course, present in the atmosphere (troposphere, tropopause and stratosphere), and these elements are combined during the very high heat of jet fuel combustion into the proportion of two 'H' to one 'O' (voila!) makes water.

Water is a catalyst (in the loose sense of the word) for a cloud to form.

 

[MikeC]

To clarify (I think) what your point here is? The chemical make-up of kerosene (Jet fuel, basically) includes the element 'H' (hydrogen). The element 'O' (oxygen) is of course, present in the atmosphere (troposphere, tropopause and stratosphere), and these elements are combined during the very high heat of jet fuel combustion into the proportion of two 'H' to one 'O' (voila!) makes water.

Exactly - and water is a catalyst for contrails

sorry - it's a statement of the bleedin' obvious, and even chemtrail believers can have a stopped clock moment!

 

[WeedWhacker]

Water is a catalyst (in the loose sense of the word) for a cloud to form.

Yes, this is a fact that is sometimes not understood, especially by "chem"trail believers. I don't know if this is scientifically (correct), but I try to tell people it is like a "bootstrap effect". This, in response to those who wonder why artificially-produced (by airplanes) contrails can cause MORE cirrus clouds to form.

It is as you said, a "catalyst"...or "trigger" is another way to describe.

 

[Efftup]

at the end of the day though, it;s still water. SO how does this translate to supposed spraying of barium and aluminium. If sprayed out the back of a plane, could these particles form nuclei for the cloud to form? or would it HAVE to be other water droplets?

 

[WeedWhacker]

it;s still water. SO how does this translate to supposed spraying of barium and aluminium. If sprayed out the back of a plane, could these particles form nuclei for the cloud to form? or would it HAVE to be other water droplets?

Dunno. Since it is not happening then that is a sort of 'hypothetical' that is, after all, moot.

I have yet to see ANY viable and scientifically unassailable claim of "spraying" (whether 'barium' or 'aluminium', or whatever happens to be mentioned) with:

(A) A delivery method;

(B) Proof of this "material" being loaded onto airplanes (or, for the purposes of this thread's topic, "added" to the fuel. Equally absurd, for reasons defined in posts above);

(C) An accounting of just "how" such a 'nefarious plot' could be conducted under the noses of the HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of airline employees world-wide...many of whom are not paid that well, and would "chomp-at-the-bit" to 'expose' this....but of course, since "it" is not happening, there are no "whistle-blowers"..........

 

[Jason]

at the end of the day though, it;s still water. SO how does this translate to supposed spraying of barium and aluminium.

At the end of the day its still H2O to those of us who understand the science behind contrails.

 

[Efftup]

Yes, I was just asking the question. Partly to play devil;s advocate but also it;s the question a chemtrail believer would ask.
If the answer is yes, it is theoretically possible, this still gives them a chance (at least in their eyes)
If the answer is a categorical NO, backed up by sound science, then it bangs in yet another nail to a coffin that as weedwhacker is pointing out, is already pretty firmly shut anyway.

The proposed delivery method would have to take very careful consideration of CoG.
I was reading about a how a plane was made far too nose heavy because a party of schoolchildren were inadvertently classed as adults in the weight accounting.

 

[WeedWhacker]

I was reading about a how a plane was made far too nose heavy because a party of schoolchildren were inadvertently classed as adults in the weight accounting.

I apologize for high-lighting this, and potentially veering off-topic. BUT, I am well aware of this story. I have commented on it. It is a bit "over-stated" (to use a polite phrase).

Hang on a moment....a linky:

http://flightaware.com/squawks/view/1/1_year/new/43872/Schoolkids tip balance of Qantas plane

(P.S. Guess which comments are from "me". Hint...initials 'TD')


NOW, on edit....to the topic. The claim of "additives" in jet fuel.

There is another aspect that makes this claim not feasible...(besides my post, #2). The fuel density. Modern airliners use density capacitance "probes" in the fuel tanks to determine fuel quantity. (It's not like your typical car, where there is just a float and a potentiometer).

There are multiple probes in each tank, and their measurements are combined to calculate the total quantity. The exact specifications vary, by airplane design.

So, this means that if "any" foreign material were to be added to the jet fuel, it would alter its density. THIS would cause all sorts of problems....and be immediately obvious.

 

[Efftup]

I think I addressed that in the OP, with the quote about diesel additives. They comment no more than 0.1% additive to avoid changing the density, viscosity or volatility.

 

[WeedWhacker]

They comment no more than 0.1% additive to avoid changing the density, viscosity or volatility.

Ok...allright. but "what" could be 'added' in such a tiny volume (and, are you sure it's 0.1%? Because, that is basically 10%).

10% of (say) a fuel load of 100,000 pounds is rather significant (using American units here...other nations and pilots use 'tonnes' or 'kg' as common units of measure...it is what one is "used to" using).

 

[Efftup]

um, how is 0.1% 10%? it;s 100 times less than 10%.
0.1 of something IS 10% but 0.1% is 10% of 1%.

I am confusing myself now.

But that was also mentioned in the OP. the FULL fuel load was only 0.16 g/m3. If it's 0.1%, that is 0.16mg/m3.
that's while concentrated and before spread out across the sky and falling from 6 miles up.

It's such a pathetic concentration and a very expensive and wasteful way of doing the job anyway.
If I was the evil NWO/Build-a-burger/Knights Templar/ I would stick something in the water instead.

As all us super rich Elite drink bottled water, we would be safe from all the toxins as well.

I am really NOT trying to encourage the fluoride nuts out, but seriously, it would work far better than spraying from a ridiculous height.

 

[WeedWhacker]

um, how is 0.1% 10%?

0.1 = 10%

0.01% = 1/100 of one percent.