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

Marin B

Active Member
I saw that Rolls Royce has a recently published patent application for an Aircraft Vapour Trail Control System. The stated objective is
. 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...
 

Marin B

Active Member
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.
 

Ross Marsden

Senior Member.
I saw that Rolls Royce has a recently published patent application for an Aircraft Vapour Trail Control System. The stated objective is
. 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...

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.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Typo? I thought that MORE efficient engines had cooler exhaust. One of us has it backward.

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.


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.
 

Dan Page

Senior Member.
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.
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.
 

Marin B

Active Member
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:
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:

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.
 

Mick West

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

More specifically, the purpose is:
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.

The great invention seems to simply be angling the drain mast downwards a bit, so it shoots away from the plane.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
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?
 

Ross Marsden

Senior Member.
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?
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

Active Member
I saw that Rolls Royce has a recently published patent application for an Aircraft Vapour Trail Control System. The stated objective is
. 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...

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

 

hmvmark

New Member
I added it after you mentioned it, thanks!
"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
 

Marin B

Active Member
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.)

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member

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.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Debunked: Strontium as Footprint of Geoengineering Proposals or Patents [There is none] Contrails and Chemtrails 24
Mick West Debunked: "AIDS Cure Patent" (US Patent #5676977) General Discussion 38
Mick West Debunked: Monsanto Patents and Chemtrails (Infowars' GMO-Chemtrail Connection) Contrails and Chemtrails 20
Oystein Debunked: Gibraltar cancels Christmas Coronavirus COVID-19 5
Mythic Suns [Debunked] Viral internet meme indirectly claiming that Greenland has already fully melted. Science and Pseudoscience 6
T AiG Debunked: Fossils Fail to Find Major Transition From Dinosaurs to Birds Science and Pseudoscience 10
Rory Debunked: UK undertaker's claim that Covid vaccine is responsible for spike in deaths Coronavirus COVID-19 7
Marc Powell Debunked: 9/11 truth experts are knowledgeable professionals and their judgments are to be trusted 9/11 195
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosions preparatory to demolition of the WTC North Tower are visible as Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower 9/11 7
Mick West Debunked: Pfizer Developing a Twice-Per-Day COVID Pill, Taken Alongside Vaccines Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition “squib” is visible at top of WTC North Tower before Flight 11 crash 9/11 67
Marc Powell Debunked: Construction worker Philip Morelli experienced an explosion in the sub-basement of the North Tower 9/11 0
Marc Powell Debunked: ABC News correspondent George Stephanopoulos reported an explosion in the subway 9/11 1
Marc Powell Debunked: Debris from twin towers was projected upward by explosives 9/11 13
Marc Powell Debunked: Government officials revealed having foreknowledge of Building 7’s collapse 9/11 58
Marc Powell Debunked: NIST computer simulation of Building 7 collapse is inaccurate 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: FEMA reported finding evidence that steel had melted. 9/11 47
Marc Powell Debunked: VP Dick Cheney ordered a standdown of jet fighters on 9/11 9/11 16
Oystein Debunked: Claim that Bobby McIlvaine's injuries ("lacerations") are best explained as result of glass shards and debris from bombs 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: World Trade Center should not have collapsed due to 9/11 fires 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Firefighter reports of secondary explosions 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Steel was hurled hundreds of feet by explosives 9/11 4
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition Explosion Before Collapse of South Tower 9/11 8
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosion in South Tower Lobby 9/11 7
Marc Powell Debunked: Mysterious Explosion Before the Flight 11 Crash 9/11 48
J.d.K Debunked: Marx: "The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions must give way... They must perish in the revolutionary Holocaust" Quotes Debunked 0
dimebag2 Poll : Which DOD Navy video do you consider debunked ? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 74
Mick West Debunked: Diving Triangle UFO Photos from Reddit [Fake] UFOs and Aliens 37
Theferäl [Debunked] Object Seen From Airplane Above Canberra: 04 Apr 2012 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
TEEJ Debunked: Claim that Joe Biden's hand passes through microphone during White House press gaggle, 16th March 2021 Election 2020 9
bird_up Debunked: "Interdimensional being" caught on CCTV in Neza, Mexico Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
M Debunked: Atmospheric pressure on Mars is 9 PSI, not 0.09 PSI as claimed by NASA Science and Pseudoscience 76
Patrick Gonzalez Debunked: missing cable on Perseverance landing footage proves it is fake. General Discussion 3
TEEJ Debunked: Biden's Oval Office "Coming Apart at the Seams" [It's a Door] Election 2020 19
derrick06 Debunked: UFO over California Highway (TMZ) UFOs and Aliens 1
P Debunked: 7 Alleged photos of aliens UFOs and Aliens 9
Mick West Debunked: Biden signing "Blank" Executive Orders Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Biden in "Fake" Oval Office Election 2020 27
P Debunked: UN hidden camera: the first UFO contact happened [Deep Fake] UFOs and Aliens 3
Mick West Debunked: 94% of Fulton County Ballots Manually Adjudicated [It's a Process all Batches go Through] Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: "Missile Strike" caused Nashville Explosion General Discussion 3
Mick West Debunked: Nashville Explosion was "Across the Street" from the RV General Discussion 0
Mick West Debunked: "Error rate of 68.5% Allowable is .0008%" [Neither is True] Election 2020 4
Mick West Debunked: Claim that the Electoral College Count On Jan 6 will Change the Election Election 2020 136
Rory Debunked: Einstein wrote "blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Quotes Debunked 12
Mick West Debunked: Navid Keshavarz-Nia's Claims of "A Sudden Rise in Slope" as Election Fraud Evidence Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Trump's Claim of "1,126,940 votes created out of thin air" in PA Election 2020 9
Mick West Debunked: Crowder's "Fraud Week" Title Graphic (and Why it Matters) Election 2020 1
JFDee Debunked: Democratic senators complained about 'vote switching' by Dominion voting machines in 2019 Election 2020 2
Mendel Debunked: The Democrats are trying to take away freedom of religion Election 2020 6
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top