Debunked: High Bypass Turbofans do not make Contrails [actually they make more]
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
JRBids
Senior Member.
And as anyone who reads Chemtrails Global can attest, any time there's a discussion that contains some truth to it, Russ pops in and posts the graphic. He's like the Wiz saying "ignore the man behind the curtain."
Hama Neggs
Senior Member.
Where is that?
Chemtrails Global SkyWatch is the full name of Tanner's Facebook group.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/globalskywatch/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/globalskywatch/
It's worth pointing out that the group specifically bans "debunkers and debators [sic]".Chemtrails Global SkyWatch is the full name of Tanner's Facebook group.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/globalskywatch/
In other words, "we thrive on bunk and fear debate".
And, going back to the water issue, I have had people say things like "since when do jets run on water?" It seems the distinction between what goes in and what comes out is hard to grasp for some people.
skephu
Senior Member.
Jack Baran's LinkedIn page. He has no educational background, and he works at the "Web" as "self-employed". His skills are in "creative solutions" and "problem solving". I guess he produced the "HBTF engines can't make contrails" video as a creative solution to the problem that "chemtrails" can be explained as contrails.
Hama Neggs
Senior Member.
Whenever I ask any of them "Who told you modern jet engines can't make contrails" I get no answer at all. Ever.
skephu
Senior Member.
Guys, something is wrong here. It wasn't Jack Baran who invented the "high-bypass turbofan engines don't make contrails" idea. His first video about this is from February 2014. But the idea was introduced on the Global Skywatch page by Russ Tanner (I guess he is the admin there) in August 2013:
http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=6859&an=317#Post6859
Jack Baran produced a video on the basis of Russ Tanner's article.
http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=6859&an=317#Post6859
Jack Baran produced a video on the basis of Russ Tanner's article.
Hama Neggs
Senior Member.
Interesting. I had thought it was the other way around.
deirdre
Senior Member.
russ' video link there does say
yea i can totally see Tanner coming up with that, my world makes a bit more sense again.Our sincere *thanks* to YouTube user "categd" for creating and posting this video version of our article (above). Please share this video far and wide
Hama Neggs
Senior Member.
Apparently it was Russ Tanner who invented the idea that HBTF engines can't make contrails. Maybe it is Russ who should be challenged to debate his statements on this page: http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=6859&an=317#Post6859
Dispelling the Disinformation
The United States government is currently spending hundreds of millions of dollars to spread disinformation to confuse the public on a variety of subjects. The most pervasive subject of disinformation today is about geoengineering/chemtrails. Below, we will expose the false claims that they make.
Claim #1: Newer more modern jets are flying higher in the atmosphere enabling them to generate enormous plumes of condensation.
Fact: The vast majority of witnessed trail formation has been witnessed by low-flying jets rendering this claim irrelevant.
Fact: The altitude in which aircraft fly has remained unchanged for over 30 years. This widely-known fact renders this claim irrelevant. The favored altitude for commercial air traffic ranges between 25K to 35K feet, well within the Earth's Troposphere.
The vast majority of early trails (between 1995 and 2005) were witnessed at altitudes so low, the public was easily able to identify the jet type and count the engines.
Between 2005 and 2010, numerous skywatchers witnessed sudden changes. First, they witnessed a majority of the jets changing from low altitudes to high altitudes. Second, they witnessed a majority of the jets changing their trail size from long-persistent trails to short, non-persistent trails. Both of these changes typically took place on the same day in any given location.
It appears that this change was designed to make the trails appear less ominous to the public.
It's important to note that even after this change, some jets still produce persistent trails several days per month, and this is likely necessary to avoid public scrutiny that would occur if all trails suddenly vanished.
Claim #2: Newer jet engines burn fuel more completely turning more of the fuel to water.
Fact: Modern high-bypass turbofans - which are used on virtually all large commercial and military aircraft - burn much less fuel per unit of ejected air; often 25% less fuel. Therefore, they produce much less water vapor than older engines.
You will never witness a high-bypass turbofan ejecting water at an airport. You will only witness a faint, block soot that is the result of burnt jet fuel (kerosene). During take off, these engines produce the maximum amount of water vapor as compared to any other stage of flight because this is the time that the fuel-to-velocity ratio is the highest.
In other words, if an engine was to produce visible water vapor, it would be most likely witnessed during takeoff. However, these engines are incapable of producing vapor trails even during their most inefficient operating condition: Takeoff.
Claim #3: The sudden appearance of trails in the past 10 years is caused by an increase in air traffic.
Fact: Air traffic increases less than 1% per year. This amounts to a total increase of about 9% in the past 10 years.
What we have seen in the skies has been a dramatic - often sudden - increase in the total number of jets with virtually all of these new jets emitting trails while existing commercial jets did not. Furthermore, all of these new jets were unmarked, non-commercial jets flying at very low altitudes. In the past few years, we have witnessed these unmarked jets suddenly flying at higher altitudes andemitting short, non-persistent trails after emitting long trails for years. Probably an attempt to make the trails less noticeable to the public.
Chemical particulate spraying was used in Vietnam and is believed to have been used in early testing in the United States in the 1980s. During this time, there were extremely few visible trails in the sky, and since high-bypass turbofans are virtually incapable of producing trails, these early trails were likely early geoengineering tests. Developing a program of this size would require many years of testing and development and there is much documentation that this testing has been conducted on the public for decades.
It's worth mentioning that a few water-injection Spey turbofans are still in service, so it's likely that a few people witnessed them in the 80's and beyond. Today, about 50 BAC One-Eleven's are in service. This aircraft is one of the few that use water injection, but most of these aircraft are not within the U.S.
Claim #4: The government worked on developing contrail-suppression technology because of the trails produced by commercial jets.
Fact: The patents showing contrail-suppression technology were developed for low-bypass turbofans and turbojets, neither of which are used on commercial or large military aircraft. This technology was designed to suppress contrail formation on the types of engines - low-bypass turbofan and turbojets - used specifically on military jet fighters to make them harder to see over enemy territory.
Government disinformation contractors use these patents to convince the public that the large jets we see in the sky are producing contrails, but all large military and commercial jets use very efficient high-bypass turbofans which are virtually incapable of producing condensation trails. Even the fleet of aging Boeing 707s produced from the 50s to the 70s which originally used low-bypass turbofans have now been retrofitted with highly-efficient high-bypass turbofans to dramatically cut operating costs.
Claim #5: The photos floating around on the internet showing contrails from military jets in the 50's proves that jet engines produce contrails.
Fact: The handful of photos from the 50s showing military jets and prop planes used water injection or internal combustion piston engines or turbojets, not high-bypass turbofans. High-bypass turbofans - the type of engines that are on the jets producing the massive plumes today - are virtually incapable of generating condensation trails.
Claim #6: High levels of aluminum in rainwater is normal.
Fact: There are a few atmospheric studies that show unusually high levels of aluminum in rainwater. These studies are often presented by disinformation contractors as "evidence", however these studies are in the vast minority and they are conducted near the ocean, downwind of industry, or other contaminating factors.
There are countless studies and water monitoring programs that show historically that aluminum should not occur in rainwater, but studies selected by disinformation contractors are carefully selected to convince the public that contaminated rain water is "normal".
Claim #7: Condensation from burnt kerosene freezes and produces ice trails at high altitudes.
Fact: The vast majority of trails witnessed are at lower or medium altitudes making this claim irrelevant.
Fact: At high altitudes, the air is colder and thinner rendering it less capable of holding moisture. This dry air further incapacitates high-bypass turbofans from producing contrails. Remember that most of the air coming out of a high-bypass turbofan is simply pushed through the big round duct by a fan blade (called "the fan") and does not get combusted at all.
Hama Neggs
Senior Member.
Tanner features this vid as part of his "proof".
Hama Neggs
Senior Member.
Yes. Seems like Tanner is Dane's source of "science".
skephu
Senior Member.
I'd say extreme unscientific. His article even contradicts itself:
vs.the burning of fossil fuels produces black carbon soot, not water
Modern high-bypass turbofans - which are used on virtually all large commercial and military aircraft - burn much less fuel per unit of ejected air; often 25% less fuel. Therefore, they produce much less water vapor than older engines.
Not to mention the claim that you should be able to see the water vapour on takeoff. You can't see water vapour.
Actually that's one of the main mistakes that I see in articles trying to explain contrails: describing them as being made of water vapour. That just adds to the confusion.
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
Also interesting that Dane is using graphics from Friends of Science.
Jack Baran is no stranger to flying. He has filmed several videos on international flights.
He also is listed as owning a house in Port Charlotte, Florida, so for whatever reason he is hooked on promoting a hoax I don't exactly know.
Jack Baran is no stranger to flying. He has filmed several videos on international flights.
He also is listed as owning a house in Port Charlotte, Florida, so for whatever reason he is hooked on promoting a hoax I don't exactly know.
TWCobra
Senior Member.
Yes, the same organisation that boldly proclaims that they believe that "the Sun is responsible for all climate change?"
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=1
Surely that is a basic conflict of belief?
Spectrar Ghost
Senior Member.
Not if the Sun is behind the NWO. Onwards toward a brighter future!
Spectrar Ghost
Senior Member.
That's... Quite intentionally misleading.From the Mass Action Demand page. https://www.facebook.com/groups/ChemtrailHypernetwork/permalink/1037165706294259/ (https://archive.is/IAtgF)
Implying that all modern jets are actually harmless propellers? Really?
Hama Neggs
Senior Member.
From the Mass Action Demand page. https://www.facebook.com/groups/ChemtrailHypernetwork/permalink/1037165706294259/ (https://archive.is/IAtgF)
That's like I thought. The claims are about the water, not the temps.
Is half an hour rather long, though? I'm a bit daunted at the prospect and I am "on side"!
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Well theirs are usually much longer. What can you say? Possibly one could produce a edited down version which could reference the longer one.
JRBids
Senior Member.
Yeah but they don't watch them they just read the titles.
Marin B
Active Member
Very good video. Easy to follow and makes logical sense (much more so than other Youtube videos I've seen on high-bypass turbofan jet engines I've had forwarded to me..). A point that is explained very well in that video, that I've never seen addressed by a Chemtrail promotion video is why there is a gap between the engine and the beginning of the contrail formation. Has Dane Wigington or Russel Tanner addressed this anywhere? Or do they just ignore this little inconvenient fact? Surely if reflective materials were being sprayed from airplanes they would be immediately visible as it come out of the jet, probably even more so as the material would be the most concentrated at the release point
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
Good point!
M Bornong
Senior Member.
Dane has said this:
Full video, here.
I'm not sure how he would justify the growing number of identified planes that use the high bypass turbo fans, and show the gap, throughout the metabunk threads.
Marin B
Active Member
Thanks - that's interesting, so he does acknowledge that there is a gap with actual contrails, and that there is even such a thing as "normal condensation trails" (I thought he lectured that contrails are extremely rare - but maybe I'm recalling that from another source). At 1:29 of the full video he shows a photo of a front view of a jet leaving behind large plumes, which he suggests are being immediately emitted from the back of the aircraft and thus aren't normal condensation trails. Maybe I'm getting a bit OT, but what is a logical explanation for that image? Is it the angle (front view, so you can't see if there is a gap)? Or is it fuel dumping? It seems that many of the more impressive images of so-called chemtrails are a front view of the aircraft.
It's a regular set of contrails. See: https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-l...-geoengineeringwatch-video-perspective.t4370/
Yeah it is rather long. I watched it at 2x. Still interesting though. I liked the wide view of mixing curve, as most diagram only show the extreme bottom left portion of this.
A lot of people will just glaze over and click away. But some people will watch, and understand a bit.
Marin B
Active Member
It's a regular set of contrails. See: https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-l...-geoengineeringwatch-video-perspective.t4370/
Thanks! I should have figured that this would have already been addressed somewhere on this website. I have a follow-up comment on the original thread on this topic.
Graham2001
Active Member
I just found a video showing condensation forming inside the GE90 engines of a Boeing 777 on takeoff. Which gives some idea of just how much air these engines can move, more to the point it also shows that heat is not the only cause of condensation.
skephu
Senior Member.
In his "smoking gun" videos, he usually shows aerodynamic contrails. And those have no gap, unfortunately.
skephu
Senior Member.
Interesting. I think the strong suction creates a low-pressure zone in front of the fan, which causes condensation.
Heat never causes condensation though. Cold causes it.
skephu
Senior Member.
Indeed, it's quite watchable at 2x playback speed. Of course that is only recommended to people who are already experts at the topic
Similar threads
