Debunked: Patents. As Evidence of Chemtrails, Geoengineering, Existence, Operability, or Intent

I saw that Rolls Royce has a recently published patent application for an Aircraft Vapour Trail Control System. The stated objective is
External Quote:
to manage the formation of contrails by aircraft engines in a manner that reduces negative impact on the climate
. The background section has a pretty straight-forward explanation how contrail-cirrus form and the potential impact on climate. This might be useful information to share with a chemtrail believer who argues that today's jets don't create persistent contrails. If so, then why is one of the largest manufacturers of aircraft engines filing for patent protection on engines that can reduce contrail formation? Of course, the committed CT-believer will probably argue back that "they" are doing this only to make it look like today's jets still make persistent contrails...
 
Looking back on some of the older posts on this thread I noticed that a few references/links were made to "patents", when actually they were just patent applications. Anyone can file a patent application which will get published - the publication number begins with the year of publication. If a patent issues, then it will be republished with a patent number (U.S. patents are now issuing with patent numbers in the 9 millions).

I took a look at the status of some of the wacky publications mentioned in the list that included
Hyperspace torque generator
All the ones I looked into, had been abandoned - i.e. no patent ever issued. The status of a U.S. patent application can be found using the patent office's PAIR website.

To be patentable, the patent application is supposed to be directed to a "new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof" (35 USC Sec. 101). The Hyperspace torque generator application was rejected because it didn't satisfy this requirement; the patent office said that the invention "is not deemed to be credible."

The patent application must also "contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains" (35 USC Sec. 112). This was another ground for rejecting the hyperspace application. The patent examiner said "there is insufficient structure and discussion of operability so as to enable one skilled in the electrical arts to make and use the invention."

Patents are supposed to describe an operable invention in order to be valid. But it's pretty clear that a lot of them get through the patent office without a very thorough examination.
 
Marin B said:
I saw that Rolls Royce has a recently published patent application for an Aircraft Vapour Trail Control System. The stated objective is
External Quote:
to manage the formation of contrails by aircraft engines in a manner that reduces negative impact on the climate
. The background section has a pretty straight-forward explanation how contrail-cirrus form and the potential impact on climate. This might be useful information to share with a chemtrail believer who argues that today's jets don't create persistent contrails. If so, then why is one of the largest manufacturers of aircraft engines filing for patent protection on engines that can reduce contrail formation? Of course, the committed CT-believer will probably argue back that "they" are doing this only to make it look like today's jets still make persistent contrails...
Click to expand...

It has a very good high-level explanation of the formation and dissipation of contrails.

The patent idea is that engine efficiancy could be modified so as to, effectively, lower the Contrail Critical Temperature for the engine, thus moving the environment conditions from the "Always contrails" to the "No contrails" region on the Appleman Chart. Think of the Appleman Chart curved lines being movable. Less efficient engines have those lines further to the left (cooler).

The engine controller (pilot) may go for more power to maintain trust, or possibly, the engine parameters may not allow that.

The patent discusses routing soulutions to reduce contrails, and this is then another option.
 
Hama Neggs said:
Typo? I thought that MORE efficient engines had cooler exhaust. One of us has it backward.
Click to expand...

The chart shows the critical temperature. Less efficient engines are hotter, so they have a cooler critical temperature.

i.e. the air needs to be cooler, so the exhaust cools down quicker, allowing it to pass through the zone of water supersaturation. Consider this chart which shows the mixing line.
Contrail_ID_Chart_English_2013_v18_copy_3.pdf_1_page_20140423_102939_20140423_102944__100_Hotter_so_Lower_CT_Factor_RGB8__20140423_104847_20140423_104849.jpg


B is the exhaust of an efficient engine. X is less efficient, the exhaust is hotter. Point A3 is ambient air. If the ambient air is cooler, then the line will pass through the "Cloud" (water supersaturation) region.
 
Ross Marsden said:
It has a very good high-level explanation of the formation and dissipation of contrails.

The patent idea is that engine efficiancy could be modified so as to, effectively, lower the Contrail Critical Temperature for the engine, thus moving the environment conditions from the "Always contrails" to the "No contrails" region on the Appleman Chart. Think of the Appleman Chart curved lines being movable. Less efficient engines have those lines further to the left (cooler).

The engine controller (pilot) may go for more power to maintain trust, or possibly, the engine parameters may not allow that.

The patent discusses routing soulutions to reduce contrails, and this is then another option.
Click to expand...
After scanning through that patent, I am impressed at how thoroughly Rolls Royce has studied contrail formation, persistence, and it's effect on climate during the day and night. Nightime use would be most beneficial due to decreasing contrail formation and thus allowing the land below to cool, assuming there are no cloud layers below. The one problem I see is that the process involves reducing the efficiency of the engine by aprox 10% for the time period that flight is within the contrail forming area. Airlines operate on very thin margins, and even buy/lease new airplanes to get the most efficient aircraft possible (like the B787), so, unless they are penalized for making contrails, they are not likely to want to install these devices, which would themselves likely be costly if an engine has to be retrofitted.
But this is most definetely a positive step and maybe future engines will have these factory installed and they will operate without any pilot intervention, and reduce contrails significantly.
 
I couldn't find mention of this patent anywhere on this site, so I'm adding it to the list. On the 9/11 Truth Movement FB page there was a discussion about Metabunk and one of the posters said:
External Quote:

If I could. I'm not sure what to think about the whole chemtrail thing BUT.. I would like to ask my West why is there a patent 5,104,069 there. This is a patent by Boeing for a apparatus & method for ejecting materiel from an aircraft - a sprayer. This is NOT crop dusting. It's a sprayer. I do not see to many Boeing Aircraft spraying low over farms.
It doesn't seem like the person even bothered to read the patent, maybe just saw the title and jumped to conclusions:
"Apparatus and method for ejecting matter from an aircraft"

From a quick read, it's pretty clear that the purpose of the invention is to remove leaked oil from the engine:

External Quote:

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Commercial aircraft include various fluid drain masts which eject fluids, such as oil, waste gases and other liquids, from one or more exterior locations on the aircraft. For example, on some jet engines oil from the engine gearbox is allowed to drain out of a mast located at the bottom of the engine nacelle.

A problem associated with conventional fluid drain masts results when the ejected oil or corrosive liquid contacts a downstream portion of the aircraft leaving an unsightly stain on the aircraft...


SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention pertains to a device for ejecting fluid from an aircraft. In the following detailed description the present invention will be described for application in evacuating oil from an aircraft engine nacelle. It should be appreciated, however, that the present invention may be used to evacuate other fluids and gases from an aircraft.
It's common for attorneys who write patent applications to describe an invention more broadly than the original intended purpose, in case the invention is later used for a different purpose. That way the patent may have more value. So here, the title of the patent makes it sound like the invention has a much broader purpose than what the inventors probably contemplated.
 
Marin B said:
From a quick read, it's pretty clear that the purpose of the invention is to remove leaked oil from the engine:
Click to expand...

More specifically, the purpose is:
External Quote:
The present invention pertains to apparatus for ejecting matter, such as gases and fluids, from an aircraft so as to prevent the matter from contacting a downstream portion of the aircraft.
Removing leaked oil, etc., from the engine is already done with drain masts. This patent is simply a modification of that in order to prevent unsightly stains.

External Quote:
A problem associated with conventional fluid drain masts results when the ejected oil or corrosive liquid contacts a downstream portion of the aircraft leaving an unsightly stain on the aircraft.
The great invention seems to simply be angling the drain mast downwards a bit, so it shoots away from the plane.
 
I don't think it's a wind-up. It sounds like cloud seeding by ionisation, which is the mechanism by which cosmic rays are thought to seed cloud formation, isn't it?
 
Trailblazer said:
I don't think it's a wind-up. It sounds like cloud seeding by ionisation, which is the mechanism by which cosmic rays are thought to seed cloud formation, isn't it?
Click to expand...
Yes, that is correct.

However, in the patent description he never mentions that the water vapor must come to saturation before it will condense on the CCN. He implies that water vapor will condense on CCN, regardless of the state of saturation (which he has instruments to measure - the only mention of saturation in the description).

Also, clouds droplets don't commence precipitation upon reaching some "critical size" which is what he states. They have a fall speed that depends on their size. All cloud droplets are falling, the smallest at maybe a few mm/sec; even they are "precipitating".

OK, on second thought maybe it is legit, but it appears to have been written by someone not altogether familiar with some very basic concepts of cloud physics.
 
Marin B said:
I saw that Rolls Royce has a recently published patent application for an Aircraft Vapour Trail Control System. The stated objective is
External Quote:
to manage the formation of contrails by aircraft engines in a manner that reduces negative impact on the climate
. The background section has a pretty straight-forward explanation how contrail-cirrus form and the potential impact on climate. This might be useful information to share with a chemtrail believer who argues that today's jets don't create persistent contrails. If so, then why is one of the largest manufacturers of aircraft engines filing for patent protection on engines that can reduce contrail formation? Of course, the committed CT-believer will probably argue back that "they" are doing this only to make it look like today's jets still make persistent contrails...
Click to expand...

Here's another patent from the airline industry, this time Boeing, that might be useful in refuting the chemtrail conspiracy myth that modern day jets don't create persistent contrails.

US 9311539 - Aircraft contrail detection

External Quote:

BACKGROUND

Condensation trails (contrails) are visible trails of water vapor that are created from aircraft engine exhaust. Contrails are often visible as white cloudy streaks across the sky, indicating a path recently traveled by an aircraft. The visibility of contrails, including the duration of time in which contrails remain visible before dissipating, is dependent upon various atmospheric conditions surrounding the aircraft, including among others, air temperature, barometric pressure, and humidity.

Because aircraft contrails form directly behind an aircraft and may be visible from anywhere from seconds to hours, contrails create a visual reference that points directly to the aircraft that creates them. Anyone that sees a contrail only has to follow the contrail to the end to see the aircraft that is the source of the contrail. For commercial and private aviation, this phenomenon is not a problem. However, for aircraft that are designed to avoid detection, a contrail can be a significant problem.
 
Mick West said:
I added it after you mentioned it, thanks!
Click to expand...
"It may be worth adding how much a patent costs. A couple of hundred pounds in the UK. http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-applying/p-cost.htm"
If you'd have read the page you cited:-
The application process is:
complicated - only 1 in 20 applicants get a patent without professional help, expensive - with professional help, applications typically cost £4,000, long - it usually takes 5 years
If you get a patent, you'll also have to pay to renew it each year and the costs of legal action if you need to defend it.
Americanscan'tread.co.uk
 
Another Rolls Royce patent application regarding mitigating contrail formation published last week.
It's not yet available on Google/patents, but when it is, presumably the link will be www.google.com/patents/US20180178920
When I had a conversation with a self-proclaimed chemtrail activist at a party earlier this year who brought up patents as evidence for chemtrailing, I regret not countering her argument with my knowledge of the Rolls Royce patents. Maybe next time...

Title & Abstract (I bolded the key sentence.)

External Quote:

United States Patent Application 20180178920
Kind Code A1
SWANN; Peter ; et al. June 28, 2018
Aircraft Electrically-Assisted Propulsion Control System

Abstract
This invention concerns an aircraft propulsion system in which an engine has an engine core comprising a compressor, a combustor and a turbine driven by a flow of combustion products of the combustor. At least one propulsive fan generates a mass flow of air to propel the aircraft. An electrical energy store is provided on board the aircraft. At least one electric motor is arranged to drive the propulsive fan and the engine core compressor. A controller controls the at least one electric motor to mitigate the creation of a contrail caused by the engine combustion products by altering the ratio of the mass flow of air by the propulsive fan to the flow of combustion products of the combustor. The at least one electric motor is controlled so as to selectively drive both the propulsive fan and engine core compressor.
 
Marin B said:
External Quote:

Aircraft Electrically-Assisted Propulsion Control System

Abstract
This invention concerns an aircraft propulsion system in which an engine has an engine core comprising a compressor, a combustor and a turbine driven by a flow of combustion products of the combustor. At least one propulsive fan generates a mass flow of air to propel the aircraft. An electrical energy store is provided on board the aircraft. At least one electric motor is arranged to drive the propulsive fan and the engine core compressor. A controller controls the at least one electric motor to mitigate the creation of a contrail caused by the engine combustion products by altering the ratio of the mass flow of air by the propulsive fan to the flow of combustion products of the combustor. The at least one electric motor is controlled so as to selectively drive both the propulsive fan and engine core compressor.
Click to expand...

That appears to be a hybrid electric/kerosene engine. You'd think that contrail suppression would be more a side benefit. I guess though that they could selectively kick in the electric motor when in Ice Supersaturated Regions, then recharge the batteries when not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JFDee
Comprehensive Article about Geo-Engineering (The Atlantic)
Replies
2
Views
314
Ann K
Ann K
David Fraser
UK Geoengineering research public opinion
Replies
6
Views
1K
Jay Reynolds
Jay Reynolds
Chief Gleeby
Scale, Viability, and Cost of 'The Conspiracy/Coverup'
Replies
28
Views
1K
John J.
John J.
J
Flock of birds or something else?
Replies
4
Views
654
Smythe Bacchus
Smythe Bacchus
P
The Westall School Incident
2
Replies
50
Views
2K
Charlie Wiser
Charlie Wiser

Latest posts

Trending content

Back
Top