Debunked: High Bypass Turbofans do not make Contrails [actually they make more]

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
This "HBTF do not make contrails" bunk meme is quickly being taken on as paradigm. Rather than a rational discussion about ordinary contrails formed by water from combustion turning into ice crystals the bunk promoters are bypassing the whole point and newbies haven't a clue. If we let this continue it will mean thousands of people will buy into something which is totally false. It needs an easily understandable video debunking and infographics.

The focus needs to be on the amount of water produced in combustion.

relevant thread:
https://www.metabunk.org/how-much-water-is-there-in-jet-engine-exhaust.t4018/

The input I used was 1 gram kerosene for simplicity and the product shows that 1.37472 grams of water is produced.
The simplicity here is that 1 gram could be 1 liter, 1 gallon, one pound, one ton, one of anything. The ratio is therefore derived to be 1 : 1.37472, for every 1 part kerosene you get 1.37472 parts water.

I know that this is too technical for many CT's to understand. The best that can be done is for one of our artistic talented members to create a good graphic showing how it works. Maybe more than one at different levels of complexity leading them through. Dane & Co. are right, KISS graphics are the most effective way.

 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
The input I used was 1 gram kerosene for simplicity and the product shows that 1.37472 grams of water is produced.
The simplicity here is that 1 gram could be 1 liter, 1 gallon, one pound, one ton, one of anything. The ratio is therefore derived to be 1 : 1.37472, for every 1 part kerosene you get 1.37472 parts water.
As a nitpick, that ratio relates to weight (mass, strictly). It doesn't work for volume, because water is heavier (denser) than kerosene.

1 litre of water weighs 1 kilogram (almost by definition!), whereas 1 litre of kerosene weighs about 0.82kg.

So 1 litre of kerosene will actually produce 1.37472 x 0.82 = 1.13 litres of water.

Not a huge difference, but worth pointing out.

I think that if we are talking jet fuel we should stick to mass and quote it in tonnes. Planes burn tonnes of fuel so they create tonnes of water. Volume is needlessly complicated, especially as the water is formed as vapour and then freezes into solid!
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The focus needs to be on the amount of water produced in combustion.
It think this is overcomplicating things. The problem here is that were are not dealing with a very coherent argument, so piling science on top of it is probably not going to help.

They say that HBTF engines don't make contrails because they are different to "normal" jet engines. You've seen the infographic:



The second one there is so incredibly wrong in so many different it looks like trolling. But sadly it's being passed around as some kind of evidence. I don't think you can just explain to people that the products of combustion of kerosene include a lot of water, and have them realize that the above two diagrams are wrong.

We've got to keep it really simple.
  • Contrails are made by the water in engine exhaust
  • The engine exhaust in all engines is pretty much the same
  • The fan in a high bypass turbofan does not affect the exhaust, it's just pushing bypass air
or
  • Engine exhaust makes contrails
  • Engine exhaust is about the same in high and low bypass engines
  • Engine exhaust is not affected by the fan
It's a challenge
 

Balance

Senior Member
At my level (keeping it simple). I would counter;
Prop engines do make contrails.
Combustion engines (including turbines) produce the same amount of water per litre of fuel combusted, regardless of which "type" (old jets, new jets, helicopters etc).
In the sense of newer HBTF engines, they are no different regards the amount of water (per fuel) byproducts.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Another "really simple" point you can point out if you ever get the opportunity:

Nearly all jet engines are turbine engines

(It would be simply if they all were, but then you've got ramjets to complicate things)
 

Balance

Senior Member
Also, regarding the perfect theoretical stoichometric combustion figures of water byproduct, to keep it simple. I would use a "rule of thumb" that there will be generally at least the same amount (1:1 ratio) of water per litre of fuel, regardless of combustion engine type.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
Maybe something like "If you attached a bigger fan blade to your car engine, would that stop exhaust coming out of the back?"

A lot of them seem to think that the fan is somehow magically providing the propulsion independently of the engine.
 

deirdre

Senior Member
and have them realize that the above two diagrams are wrong.
i cant even understand what i'm looking at with the first graphic. (so i doubt many others can either).

simple:
A fan alone cannot hold up a commercial airliner, you need an engine.
EVERY engine that burns fuel (ie. "combustion") produces water. End of story.

c.PNG

add: SIMPLE graphic.

Combustion_chamber_(PSF).png
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member
It's mean as an answer to the use of that animation by the chemtrail promoters, specifically Global Skywatch
:) i know its supposed to be an answer. Just saying ive seen it 100 times and it still means nothing to me. Of course their graphics and assertions mean nothing to me either... meaning i cant even figure out what they are saying in the first place. Complicated science is not conducive to viral propanganda (?) no matter which side its coming from. People may cite the chemmie version [add: because it LOOKS impressive], but in truth noone has any idea what they are saying either. just like those radar things.

Thats why the viral stuff is only pictures of clouds and trails with wording photoshopped on them going "OMG!!!" :)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
:) i know its supposed to be an answer. Just saying ive seen it 100 times and it still means nothing to me. Of course their graphics and assertions mean nothing to me either... meaning i cant even figure out what they are saying in the first place. Complicated science is not conducive to viral propanganda (?) no matter which side its coming from. People may cite the chemmie version [add: because it LOOKS impressive], but in truth noone has any idea what they are saying either. just like those radar things.

Thats why the viral stuff is only pictures of clouds and trails with wording photoshopped on them going "OMG!!!" :)
And that's why it's so hard to debunk. They believe is to be true because of thought processes like "a person I trust posted an image and some they say proves it, therefore it must be true" quickly followed by "I'll repost the image to people who trust me".
 

deirdre

Senior Member
you already did what i was going to do on my 'engine' graphic above (i like that one better as it shows the Fuel spraying into the tank and points to the "combustion chamber"). and you should have the combustion by product molecules IN the grey exhaust area without the plus signs. to show what flies out of the engine.

The main thing is ANYTIME anything is BURNED (kerosene, jet a1, a candle,firewood) the combustion produces water, because the combustion process (the HEAT) ALWAYS breaks up the fuel into its elements, then the elements reattach themselves to each other and things in the atmosphere to form new molecules.

To me thats Dane et al's debunk. There's no reaon to get more complicated than that as far as i can see.

unless they get rid of "fuel" completely, there is going to be water as a by product. Once i learned this aspect (which was easy as there are youtube "combustion for kids" videos), that was it. I know what Dane et al are saying is bunk because its physically IMPOSSIBLE not to have water as a by product from fuel combustion.

I think the more advanced debunking is fine. But the general public isnt going to be able to follow it unless they put in alot of mental processing time, which most opponents wont.

edit.PNG
 

Attachments

deirdre

Senior Member
and the Global skywatch graphic is just silly on the face of it.
1. "Fans" cant hold up a commercial airliner sized airplane.
2. helicopters dont fly at 30,000 feet.
3. We DO see contrails at airports in Alaska etc where its cold enough at ground level.
4. Burning Jet fuel is burning jet fuel. Same by products, whether you think the fuel is being burned to hold up the plane or is being burned to turn a fan that holds up the plane.


20150710-070445-x96fk.jpg
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Maybe something like "If you attached a bigger fan blade to your car engine, would that stop exhaust coming out of the back?"
A lot of them seem to think that the fan is somehow magically providing the propulsion independently of the engine.
Whereas, of course, it is ALWAYS heat expansion of gases, in this case, in addition, that of the partially-compressed bypass air into a cylinder around the exhaust efflux. A dramatic thrust increase, with a reduction in exhaust noise.
 

SR1419

Senior Member
and the Global skywatch graphic is just silly on the face of it.
1. "Fans" cant hold up a commercial airliner sized airplane.
2. helicopters dont fly at 30,000 feet.
3. We DO see contrails at airports in Alaska etc where its cold enough at ground level.
4. Burning Jet fuel is burning jet fuel. Same by products, whether you think the fuel is being burned to hold up the plane or is being burned to turn a fan that holds up the plane.
and propeller drive engines - prop planes- DO produce contrails!



 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
you already did what i was going to do on my 'engine' graphic above (i like that one better as it shows the Fuel spraying into the tank and points to the "combustion chamber"). and you should have the combustion by product molecules IN the grey exhaust area without the plus signs. to show what flies out of the engine.

The main thing is ANYTIME anything is BURNED (kerosene, jet a1, a candle,firewood) the combustion produces water, because the combustion process (the HEAT) ALWAYS breaks up the fuel into its elements, then the elements reattach themselves to each other and things in the atmosphere to form new molecules.

To me thats Dane et al's debunk. There's no reaon to get more complicated than that as far as i can see.

unless they get rid of "fuel" completely, there is going to be water as a by product. Once i learned this aspect (which was easy as there are youtube "combustion for kids" videos), that was it. I know what Dane et al are saying is bunk because its physically IMPOSSIBLE not to have water as a by product from fuel combustion.

I think the more advanced debunking is fine. But the general public isnt going to be able to follow it unless they put in alot of mental processing time, which most opponents wont.
I agree with Dierdre, the bottom line is that a 747 burns 14 tons/hour of fuel and produces a little over 14 tons of water as a result. Just an aside, many people who can't be reached scientifically CAN be reached emotionally. Humor, sarcasm, and perhaps sympathy might work for those who won't/can't understand the details. That is why a visual and OMG work to convince some folks of bunk. That is one reason Bill Nye was successful.

The HBTF thing is indeed a "Big Lie", and yes as they repeat it this becomes gospel to the church since it comes from the High Priests. It is a great vulnerability to them as well because it is such a "Big Lie" that exposing it properly will lower the credibility of those who have been repeating it. You could call them "Contrail Deniers" or whatever but for people who realize what is going on this could make a great difference. They will come to know that they have been bullshitted on and told something completely untrue.

It doesn't take much for some people to lose faith in a person they once trusted. Sometimes it is a real "ah-ha!" moment, an epiphany which throws everything upside down, changes it forever.
 
Last edited:

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
Maybe something like "If you attached a bigger fan blade to your car engine, would that stop exhaust coming out of the back?"

A lot of them seem to think that the fan is somehow magically providing the propulsion independently of the engine.
No, they think the bypass air is somehow diluting the combustion process. :rolleyes: Or something...
 

deirdre

Senior Member
Maybe Dane doesnt understand where the ENERGY actually comes from. It isnt possible any combustion engine would not produce water as a by product, unless he thinks the 'energy that flies the plane' comes from the molecules themselves. ie that the molecules are all 'burned into energy' in the combustion process.

But that's not where the actual energy comes from. The energy comes from the chemical reaction of splitting the molecules... I'm having flashbacks of Mythbusters saying that bombs work the same way.

http://sciencenetlinks.com/student-teacher-sheets/combustion-fossil-fuels-teacher-sheet/
 

skephu

Senior Member
http://sciencenetlinks.com/student-teacher-sheets/combustion-fossil-fuels-teacher-sheet/
That's not correct though. You need energy to break those bonds. But more energy is released when the atoms form new bonds, forming carbon dioxide and water.
 

deirdre

Senior Member
That's not correct though. You need energy to break those bonds. But more energy is released when the atoms form new bonds, forming carbon dioxide and water.
yea the chart following that sentence in my link shows that.
 

skephu

Senior Member
Maybe Dane doesnt understand where the ENERGY actually comes from.
Actually I don't think he understands what he's saying. He's using the exact same words as the original video by that guy (whose name I don't recall) who introduced the idea that HBTFs don't make contrails. Dane just parrots that guy's phrases and sentences, which I think shows that he basically doesn't understand how these engines work at all. He thinks he's repeating some textbook text. Gosh, he even calls this "science"!
 

deirdre

Senior Member
He's using the exact same words as the original video by that guy (whose name I don't recall) who introduced the idea that HBTFs don't make contrails. Dane just parrots that guy's phrases and sentences
lol. oh.

see i TOLD you even the bunk believers dont understand what the bunk is even saying :)
 

TEEJ

Senior Member
Actually I don't think he understands what he's saying. He's using the exact same words as the original video by that guy (whose name I don't recall) who introduced the idea that HBTFs don't make contrails. Dane just parrots that guy's phrases and sentences, which I think shows that he basically doesn't understand how these engines work at all. He thinks he's repeating some textbook text. Gosh, he even calls this "science"!
Canadian Jack Baran was the guy that produced the original video. Some background.

https://www.facebook.com/jack.baran.376?pnref=story

https://www.youtube.com/user/catagd/videos

http://www.executivereasoning.com/turbofan/
 

skephu

Senior Member
Canadian Jack Baran was the guy that produced the original video.
Yes, yes, I should have just read the previous page of this thread. Interesting how a single video made by a misguided layperson has become one of the pillars of the chemtrail/geoengineering mythology. And all it took was a guy making a claim repeatedly in a serious-sounding voice, making the impression that he is some kind of an expert.
 

TEEJ

Senior Member
He, or someone with access to the account, is removing comments. I had mine removed.
 

skephu

Senior Member
Unfortunately it's impossible to make dissenting comments on any of the pages Dane administers, including his youtube channel. He deletes those comments immediately. I think he sits in front of his computer all day and plays whack-a-mole with the dissenting comments.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
Unfortunately it's impossible to make dissenting comments on any of the pages Dane administers, including his youtube channel. He deletes those comments immediately. I think he sits in front of his computer all day and plays whack-a-mole with the dissenting comments.
It must be such hard work for these guys. Do they really think there are armies of paid shills spreading lies against them, or what?
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
(Although I haven't yet heard the claim that WWII bombers only had contrails because they had water injection systems.)
That's been going around for quite a while. When you point out that they maybe had 3 minutes of water, total, the claimants just fade away.

I stopped trying to post on Dane's vids some time ago. All dissenting opinions quickly disappear.
 

JFDee

Senior Member
a 747 burns 14 tons/hour of fuel and produces a little over 14 tons of water
Isn't it more like 18 tons of water?

Pointing to that 1.3 factor will probably evoke incredulity, but it can be an opening to explain the whole chemical reaction thingy where the mass of stuff going in equals the mass of stuff coming out.
 
Top