Jet Pilots Fear Attacks by "Chemtrail" Theory Proponents

[Jazzy]

can increase the frequency of persistent contrails within the tropopause

Certainly. The engines are not only larger, they burn more fuel. It is BURNT FUEL (water) that they're adding. More water added at any time is bound to beat more conditions into making trails, so the amount that appears will increase. Or maybe the trails will lengthen. maybe both.

Also the frequency of trails depends on the frequency of flights, which is still, AFAIK, increasing exponentially (although I bet that exponent has recently dwindled some).

Mick, engines that were originally 5000 lb thrust are now 80,000 lb thrust. They aren't 1600% efficient, they are burning more fuel (as well as being significantly more efficient). Whether the air comes out really hot or hotter than that makes no difference once things are down at -40. It is the water added per unit volume air, and the ambient temperature and humidity, that create trails.

I didn't mean to infer that the trails widened proportionately according to their weight. But still they will be denser than trails that start with less material. Trails can fall 22,000 feet and if they start big, and no dry layers intervene to prevent their growth, then they're bound to end up bigger still, certainly if they are shearing as they fall four and a half miles downwards. And I guess be a hundred feet wider...

 

[George B]

Certainly. The engines are not only larger, they burn more fuel. It is BURNT FUEL (water) that they're adding. More water added at any time is bound to beat more conditions into making trails, so the amount that appears will increase. Or maybe the trails will lengthen. maybe both.

Also the frequency of trails depends on the frequency of flights, which is still, AFAIK, increasing exponentially (although I bet that exponent has recently dwindled some).

Mick, engines that were originally 5000 lb thrust are now 80,000 lb thrust. They aren't 1600% efficient, they are burning more fuel (as well as being significantly more efficient). Whether the air comes out really hot or hotter than that makes no difference once things are down at -40. It is the water added per unit volume air, and the ambient temperature and humidity, that create trails.

I didn't mean to infer that the trails widened proportionately according to their weight. But still they will be denser than trails that start with less material. Trails can fall 22,000 feet and if they start big, and no dry layers intervene to prevent their growth, then they're bound to end up bigger still, certainly if they are shearing as they fall four and a half miles downwards. And I guess be a hundred feet wider...

The issue is not that larger engines or that more efficient engines can lead to more persistent contrails or contrail induced cirrus nor the fact there are simply more air craft flying in optimal air (that has been acknowledged) . . . it is has global warming increased the frequency and number of persistent contrails . . ??

 

[Jazzy]

The issue is not that larger engines or that more efficient engines can lead to more persistent contrails or contrail induced cirrus nor the fact there simply more air craft flying in optimal air that has been acknowledged . . . it is has global warming increased frequency and number of persistent contrails . .

You were answered some time back. In that GW exists and the consequences of it will be to increase (by an arguable amount) atmospheric water vapor, and that the 17% given as the saturated proportion of the atmosphere will increase, and be a figure greater than before, and that the greater saturated area will intercept more passenger flights, and thus produce more trail, though NOT necessarily a significantly greater number of them.

Can you still wiggle?

 

[George B]

You were answered some time back. In that GW exists and the consequences of it will be to increase (by an arguable amount) atmospheric water vapor, and that the 17% given as the saturated proportion of the atmosphere will increase, and be a figure greater than before, and that the greater saturated area will intercept more passenger flights, and thus produce more trail, though NOT necessarily a significantly greater number of them.

Can you still wiggle?

And that my friend is what I asked Dr Minnis . . . . and I assumed the answer would be what you just indicated . . . .but that is not what he indicated . . . he indicated rather that the increase in temperature of (I assume) the high troposphere (whatever altitude and latitude one is talking about) via Global Warming would most likely reduce the frequency and number of flights encountering optimal air . . . and thus possibly fewer contrails and contrail induced cirrus clouds . . . so he thinks the temperature distribution of the troposphere is more important than the RH changes via GW . . .

 

[Mick West]

Mick, engines that were originally 5000 lb thrust are now 80,000 lb thrust. They aren't 1600% efficient, they are burning more fuel (as well as being significantly more efficient). Whether the air comes out really hot or hotter than that makes no difference once things are down at -40. It is the water added per unit volume air, and the ambient temperature and humidity, that create trails.

The temperature DOES make a significant difference, as it affects the slope of the mixing curve. Lower exhaust temperatures means a wider range of condition where contrails will form, so more contrails. In this classic photo:

The newer plane is leaving contrails primarily because of the lower exhaust temperature (due to higher efficiency), because it's a higher bypass engine.

Look at these charts. With a change in temperature the position of point B moves, hence the mixing line is less likely to go into the "cloud" region that is needed for contrails to form:

So all other things being equal, a hotter exhaust can cause a contrail not to form.

 

[MikeC]

and of course there is the fairly well known study on propulsive efficiency and contrail formation -



On the left an A340 with high bypass ratio engines, on the right a 707 with low bypass ratio ones.

the significance of this in regard to temperature is that high BPR engines have a much larger mass of "cool air" around the hot core that supports combustion compared to low BPR engines.

 

[Billzilla]

and of course there is the fairly well known study on propulsive efficiency and contrail formation -

View attachment 1089

On the left an A340 with high bypass ratio engines, on the right a 707 with low bypass ratio ones.

the significance of this in regard to temperature is that high BPR engines have a much larger mass of "cool air" around the hot core that supports combustion compared to low BPR engines.

It's a very good demonstration of what I meant by modern engines having the core run hotter and so more likely to make contrails.

 

[MikeC]

Can you explain that to me?

While modern engines are able to run hotter due better materials, AFAIK efficiency is gained by extracting as much of that heat energy as possible. So the highest efficiency is gained by having as much of a difference between the combustion temperature and the exhaust temperature - so a cooler exhaust is better since it indicates more energy has been extracted to power the fan - which is where most of the thrust is generated.

 

[Jazzy]

Yes. I understand. The slope of the line from pos B. Latent heats account for the second curve. The ice, once formed, needs energy from somewhere in order to sublime. Good explanation, but a tough one to put across.

 

[Jazzy]

Can you explain that to me? While modern engines are able to run hotter due better materials, AFAIK efficiency is gained by extracting as much of that heat energy as possible. So the highest efficiency is gained by having as much of a difference between the combustion temperature and the exhaust temperature - so a cooler exhaust is better since it indicates more energy has been extracted to power the fan - which is where most of hte thrust is generated.

Bilzilla's right. Maximum combustion efficiency is utterly dependent on pre-combustion pressure. That will inevitably result in the hottest core possible.

It's amazing to me the improvement in axial flow compressors (and the exhaust turbines) which has occurred over the last 45 years. Much of it is due to the confidence that one could force-cool materials WITH AIR well beyond their apparent capabilities, that was learned by the research carried out while I was a lowly apprentice. Much thought and computation has been put to cooling passage dynamics since my slide-rule days.

Now the trick is to use as much of the coolant energy as one can to warm the fanned air while it is confined to a degree*, so that its further expansion results in overall thrust. I'm always surprised that present configuration achieves this. It would seem that cooling air would have to move forward, against the flow, but evidently the airstream itself provides the confinement. But that's bye-the-bye...

* Ideally all that energy extracted in order to keep core and blades cool ought to be made to reappear, evenly-distributed, immediately after the fan. Air could be dispensed with, and the core steam-cooled from the rear, the steam to be discharged and distribute itself as a fan trail, contributing quite dramatically to the thrust...

...but more dramatically to the trail, of course. George would love it.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Peter Kusznir went on to perpetrate another incident in 2017:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...St-Melbourne-Peter-Kusznir-Natalie-Hakin.html
As of 2022, ten years later, he was still focused on blaming Quantas for the contrails he was seeing.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wJa3VqY-oo

 

[Scaramanga]

Peter Kusznir went on to perpetrate another incident in 2017:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...St-Melbourne-Peter-Kusznir-Natalie-Hakin.html
As of 2022, ten years later, he was still focused on blaming Quantas for the contrails he was seeing.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wJa3VqY-oo

No chemtrail advocate has ever explained to me how the pilots, those who load the chemicals, and indeed the evil conspirators themselves, escape the effects of the chemicals allegedly being sprayed. Who'd spray harmful chemicals knowing they were going to affect themselves, their partner, their kids, their friends, etc ? Nothing about chemtrails makes any sense.

 

[FatPhil]

No chemtrail advocate has ever explained to me how the pilots, those who load the chemicals, and indeed the evil conspirators themselves, escape the effects of the chemicals allegedly being sprayed. Who'd spray harmful chemicals knowing they were going to affect themselves, their partner, their kids, their friends, etc ? Nothing about chemtrails makes any sense.

This makes me wonder why no brewers have been dissolved in lye. People work with dangerous chemicals all the time.

 

[jarlrmai]

This makes me wonder why no brewers have been dissolved in lye. People work with dangerous chemicals all the time.

Not sure I follow?

 

[TEEJ]

This makes me wonder why no brewers have been dissolved in lye. People work with dangerous chemicals all the time.

 

[JMartJr]

No chemtrail advocate has ever explained to me how the pilots, those who load the chemicals, and indeed the evil conspirators themselves, escape the effects of the chemicals allegedly being sprayed. Who'd spray harmful chemicals knowing they were going to affect themselves, their partner, their kids, their friends, etc ? Nothing about chemtrails makes any sense.

Yeah. Though the idea that the baddies are spraying something to make us controllable (nano-brain-infiltrating-robots or just docile juice) is not as prominent now as the idea that they are trying to kill us all, this image is still a nice encapsulation of the silliness of the chemtrail conspiracy theory:

Spraying me and my family with bad stuff so that my enemies or people I don't care about will also get sprayed is just a bad strategy.

Edit to add: ...and stupidly inefficient, if they've been spraying for decades yet here we all still are.

 

[FatPhil]

Not sure I follow?

Brewers work with lye, for sanitation. Lye dissolves flesh. Yet magically you don't hear of many brewers dissolving in lye. It's almost as if there can be procedures for handling dangerous chemicals safely.

 

[Ann K]

Brewers work with lye, for sanitation. Lye dissolves flesh. Yet magically you don't hear of many brewers dissolving in lye. It's almost as if there can be procedures for handling dangerous chemicals safely.

A good many nasty chemicals are managed quite well if you just follow rule number 1: "Don't lick the spoon".

I cannot imagine anybody in a civilian setting except crop dusters following directions to "Just pull the red handle when you're over Sarasota, and don't ask any questions". Nobody seems to have a firm grasp of who "they" are, nor why "they" should do this, nor why none of "them" has written a tell-all book explaining what the stuff is. If the number of conspirators required to pull off a chemtrails plot is greater than one, keeping it secret would be a greater challenge than actually doing it.

 

[RTM]

View attachment 77627

Even the chemtrails are made from dihydrogen monoxide which is known to kill thousands every year.

 

[Scaramanga]

This makes me wonder why no brewers have been dissolved in lye. People work with dangerous chemicals all the time.

Except I've never heard of a brewer spraying lye over his wife, relatives, kids, friends, employers, etc....from a Jumbo jet at 30,000 feet.

 

[Scaramanga]

Yet magically you don't hear of many brewers dissolving in lye.

How would anyone know if they had ?

 

[RTM]

Except I've never heard of a brewer spraying lye over his wife, relatives, kids, friends, employers, etc....from a Jumbo jet at 30,000 feet.

Depends on the keg party.

 

[elvenwear]

Chemtrail youtubers typically show a photo of a white trail, which tells us nothing about the composition of the trail. Surely spectral analysis should be trivial. I wonder why this is never presented as the conclusive evidence of barium or whatever else is supposedly in the chemtrails.