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

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. :)
Don't you just love that sound? :) And yes, skephu is correct!
 
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.

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/
 
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. :)
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.
 
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.
Expanding the air will reduce its pressure, not increase it.
 
Expanding the air will reduce its pressure, not increase it.
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Actually, for subsonic flight, all intakes have a divergent shape
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.

MaxHBTF.jpg

The current push trying to state that high bypass engines are incapable of producing CONTRAILS is highly irresponsible and is very harmful to the Chemtrail movement. This is wishful thinking with NO basis in fact. The Jet A1 fuel still produces 1.2 kg of water vapour for every 1kg of fuel combusted and the exhaust products are very hot...600C so the products and conditions are still present for contrails to form.... that does not mean that methods to artificially nucleate contrails are not used... but the danger of this disinformation is that trolls and shills can have a field day embarrassing the Chemtrail movement because of this folly.
Content from External Source
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...0428768655396.417477.685100395&type=3&theatre

Ray Von
 
And meanwhile Russ has posted exactly this:

Can we shut Russ and Max in a room with a camera?

Leeds/Bradford is usually sopping wet, but I don't think it's from the jets.

In the air, to make even a short plume 200 feet wide would require tens-of-thousands of gallons of water (and therefore fuel) and would quickly deplete the fuel capacity of the jets themselves.
Content from External Source
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
 
Untitled.png

This comment just floored me. Does he take into account, I don't know, altitude, relative humidity, temperature? Common sense? Wow.
 
In an interesting development, Max Bliss seems to be taking on Dane Wiginton and Russ Tanner's HBTF claims.
And this continues to be an issue with them nearly a year later:
https://www.facebook.com/mrmaxbliss/posts/10155021271245396

Max Bliss
March 17 at 1:29pm ·
Friends ...I do hope that people are not swallowing the incredulous disinformation that "Highbypass" jet engines are supposedly incapable of producing a contrail...? This whimsical story pushed by Russ Tanner of Chemtrail Global Skwatch group is so disappointing and ludicrous, setting up activists for humiliation. The average Boeing 737 with Highbypass engines uses approximately 750 gallons or 3400 litres of kerosene fuel per hour....doe he think the exhaust turns into pixie dust....?
Content from External Source
With some spirited discussion in the comments:
https://www.facebook.com/mrmaxbliss...0155023653710396&comment_tracking={"tn":"R4"}

Shane Calkins Max you are on here spreading absolute bullshit trying to convince everyone there's "contrails" up there. You have other shills on here. And is it is clear as day you're just like Dane and others a scum bag pos sellout shill. MAX BLISS IS A SELLOUT AGENT SPREADING LIES AND DISINFORMATION. You f.cking scum bag, low life terrorist piece of s..t.
Like · March 18 at 6:17am · Edited
Content from External Source
 
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. :confused:
 
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. :confused:
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!
 
Ok, I'm confused, Max is just like Dane, trying to convince everyone there is contrails up there? Has he seen Dane's website?

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.
 
I would not like to appear as a member of the "chemtrail conspiracy community" because it sounds ridiculous.
But if Turbofan produces MORE thrust, with LESS water.
More efficient, it requires EVEN LESS combustion for same equivalent thrust, so EVEN LESS CO2 and H2O.
How can this produce MORE condensation with LESS water ?

I hear the thermal argument, but an argument does not produce water...
 
I would not like to appear as a member of the "chemtrail conspiracy community" because it sounds ridiculous.
But if Turbofan produces MORE thrust, with LESS water.
More efficient, it requires EVEN LESS combustion for same equivalent thrust, so EVEN LESS CO2 and H2O.
How can this produce MORE condensation with LESS water ?

I hear the thermal argument, but an argument does not produce water...

The exhaust gasses are the same, just a bit cooler. The AMOUNT of exhaust gasses is irrelevant, that just affects the size of the contrail. It's the cooler temperature that makes contrails more frequent.
 
But if Turbofan produces MORE thrust, with LESS water.
A turbofan does not create less water in relation to the amount of fuel it uses. It burns (converts) the fuel more completely so it may even create a little more vapor than a legacy jet engine - always in relation to the fuel intake.

The thermal argument is central. The required time for the vapor to cool is shorter so saturation can happen earlier. Thus condensation is more likely to happen before the vapor is 'diluted' with outside air too thinly.
 
I would not like to appear as a member of the "chemtrail conspiracy community" because it sounds ridiculous.
But if Turbofan produces MORE thrust, with LESS water.
More efficient, it requires EVEN LESS combustion for same equivalent thrust, so EVEN LESS CO2 and H2O.
How can this produce MORE condensation with LESS water ?

I hear the thermal argument, but an argument does not produce water...
In perfect combustion of a hydrocarbon all that would be produced is CO2 and H2O, the more efficient the combustion process of an engine the closer it gets to complete combustion and the more water (and CO2) it will produce.

Secondly I think there's a habit, and not just amongst the "chemtrail" crowd, to mistakenly equate "efficiency" only with an engine doing the same amount of work for less fuel burned, probably because most of us are conditioned to think in terms like MPG.

For applications like a plane, train or truck an engine that can do more work for the same amount of fuel is more desirable than one that can do the same work for less fuel. Both engines are "more efficient" than their predecessor, but the former would bring efficiencies beyond fuel consumption (like being able to carry a 50t load instead of 40t, or 450 passengers instead of 350).

Basically, more efficient combustion means more water, and "more efficient" doesn't necessarily mean less fuel burned (or water generated).

Ray Von
 
I would not like to appear as a member of the "chemtrail conspiracy community" because it sounds ridiculous.
But if Turbofan produces MORE thrust, with LESS water.
More efficient, it requires EVEN LESS combustion for same equivalent thrust, so EVEN LESS CO2 and H2O.
How can this produce MORE condensation with LESS water ?

I hear the thermal argument, but an argument does not produce water...

the amount of water produced is directly proportional to the amount of fuel burned

The high bypass fans use less fuel per unit of thrust - but they produce a LOT more thrust, so use more fuel in total.

Hence they produce more water.
 
Also it might be useful to remember that the thousands of tons of water in a horizon spanning contrail mostly came from the atmosphere itself , not the plane, and the idea that the stuff in a contrail was something carried onboard the plane is a misconception that even debunkers seem to fall into.
From Knollenberg's papers on ice budget , for a persistent contrail more than 99% of the water making up the trail was already in the sky and didn't come from the plane.

So the difference in the amount of water created in exhaust between high or low bypass engines is a discrepancy or quibble over less than 1% of the total water in the trail. What's more important as Mick explains earlier is the greater likelihood of the trail being triggered in the first place by the high bypass engine
 
2 High Bypass Turbofan Jet Engines !

2 high Bypass Turbofan Jet engines + aerodynamic contrails.


Aerodynamic contrails form when air flows across the wings of subsonic aircraft in cruise. During a short
adiabatic expansion phase, high supersaturations trigger burstlike homogeneous ice formation on ambient
liquid aerosol particles
within a wing depth. Small particles freeze first because they equilibrate most rapidly.
Content from External Source
 

Attachments

  • atsc-2008jas2768.1.pdf
    1.6 MB · Views: 17
Last edited:
I just wanted to add to this that there are planes that leave contrails that can not be explained by
the vapor theory !

2 High Bypass Turbofan Jet Engines !

f.e. !
It's over the UK, a very humid place in general, so a contrail from atmospheric moisture is expected. And I really, REALLY hope that "f.e." Is not trying to tell us you're a "flat earther".
 
@Ann K

I think in this case "f.e." are just Flat Erik's initials. Easy mistake to make though.
I hope he's not hinting that he's really a sock puppet account (Flat Eric was a puppet after all) Either way, HIgh Bypass Turbofans can still make contrails. And the other trails are clarely aerodynamic contrails, as already mentioned
 
Back
Top