Vindog's Contrail Questions [Contrails Near Boston]

Vindog

Member
So, you'd assert that, according to your memory, there were no persistent contrails within 50 miles (being conservative here, you can actually see contrails up to 100 miles away) of Braintree (which is ten miles south of Boston)?
Yes.
 

Vindog

Member
While he doesn't have to admit to anything I think that if someone is presented or pointed toward evidence and still chooses to ignore it then we have no place to go. What's the point of being here? What's our motivation to even begin another sub topic?
Yet, you have failed to provide ANY evidence that my memory is wrong.
 

Peter

Active Member
Stop! We must not start a new sub topic until we rationalize the current one! A big issue here is whether we and vindog can get past this. I suggest that if he can not admit that he has a perception problem then we must not continue to discuss the main topic.
OK Capt ;)
You cannot just write off my question though. As I do understand that contrails can persist, it does not explain the difference from the 90's to now. That is a central part to this problem. To leave it out would do no justice. And Im wondering, IF im wrong, and that is a big, giant, impossible, IF, why has this subject only come to light now? why werent there people 20-30 years ago trying to claim conspiracy theories?

I understand what you are all trying to say about scienctific approach and this that and the other thing. But clearly if this was happening years and years ago, you would have seen more pictures of it and more talk about it.

The chemicals that could be in them have been discussed in movies that this site CLAIMS to have debunked. Alluminum, barium, i cant remember them all...

Part of the reason I have chosen this question is because I seem to be getting conflicting responses. I have received responses acknowledging that there has been a change, with reasons given to me like more air traffic, and cleaner engines etc, but now I am getting responses that are saying Fallible memory....I just need to get one clear answer on this before I can move on....

Well it's seems pretty obvious that air traffic all over the world has increased considerably. Here's a picture of 1989 vs 2004 over Europe:



I have no idea why there wouldn't have been any traffic creating contrails over your area. There are several possible reasons I can think of. Maybe there was indeed little traffic there, but it seems more likely that you simply can't remember it well.

The subject comes to light now because the chemtrail theory finds fertile ground in the great distrust many people have in anything government related (9/11, moonhoax, UFO's, etc) combined with the limited (being generous here) knowledge people have of meteorology, the scientific method/science and aviation.

Anyway.. you acknowledge that under some circumstances a contrail may persist.. so I wonder.. what circumstances are those according to you? What percentage of contrails do you suspect are chemtrails? And how do we distinguish them?
 

Peter

Active Member
Yet, you have failed to provide ANY evidence that my memory is wrong.
Well it seem to me that you'd have to provide evidence that your memory is right, considering the mountain of evidence that there's a gazillion pictures from everywhere showing persistent contrails... except your area?
 

captfitch

Senior Member.
Yet, you have failed to provide ANY evidence that my memory is wrong.

I'm too lazy to post the link but there are about three topics on contrailscience that specifically address perception and one specifically provides numerous pictures of contrails through history. Now, obviously there is no topic that proves there were persistent contrails over the boston area prior to 1990 but that would be impossible.
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
It seems like you are trying to use a argument from ignorance, or appeal to ignorance type of argument. Such as, I cant produce any pictures of clear skies or non persistent contrails, therefor my memory, and the memory of countless other "chemtrail" researchers should not be considered.

I can also see how you could say the same for me I suppose.

Its not an argument from ignorance. Im not saying that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence. What Im trying to say is that in order to really be able to sink your teeth into something, you need something testable. Memory isnt testable in an unbiased state. If it were, we wouldnt need the scientific method. A scientist could say "Hey.. I found this thing that explains how gravity works and that light doesnt bend..." and everyone would go "SWEET!" But they dont... they CANT because memory isnt independently verifiable or testable. A test must be repeatable, and memories are as unique as fingerprints, they cant be replicated.

If you repeat a test and the results differ from the original test, then you must assume that either one of the tests had a flaw, OR, that your hypothesis is incorrect. Doesnt mean that you're wrong, just means that the idea you had doesnt fit the facts. So you go back to your notes, make sure the conditions for the test were identical, and repeat the test again.. you obtain a set of data. If your results continue to repeat, then you can assume that your hypothesis is correct, and you pass your findings on to others who then repeat the tests under the EXACT same circumstances.. everything being identical, and wait to see if they get the same results YOU got. If they do, thats MORE proof that your hypothesis is correct.. given a certain amount of lee-way for human error. If they DONT get the same results you get, then you go back and look at your hypothesis.. does it fit the results? If not, then you need to rethink your hypothesis.

This is why Im asking for a common frame of reference.. it isnt an appeal to authority, or an argument from ignorance.. Im trying to find a common ground that is a starting point to begin testing the hypothesis. All we have to go on, at this point, is your memory. As I stated before, you cant conduct an unbiased test on memory.. we need more than that. Does that make more sense?
 

Vindog

Member
Ok, lets move on, because there was a response that I had received about 10 pages ago, and was hoping to get again, and essentially it was this...Newer engines are making more contrails...

How exactly do you purport this to happen?
 

JFDee

Senior Member.
You can't prove a negative.
Even without any concrete reference, it may still be possible that Vindog's memory is correct after all.

If I'm not mistaken, Mick is just now checking for air traffic history.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
yet this is exactly what you are asking of me.

Not really, you've actually presented a well formed scientifically falsifiable claim, which is a good thing. All it takes is some photos of 1999 contrails in Boston.
 

JFDee

Senior Member.
Newer engines are making more contrails...
How exactly do you purport this to happen?

More efficient burning of fuel and cooler exhaust. But more importantly most efficiency achieved at higher altitude levels = flying in colder environment.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Ok, lets move on, because there was a response that I had received about 10 pages ago, and was hoping to get again, and essentially it was this...Newer engines are making more contrails...

How exactly do you purport this to happen?

That's not the answer though. At most it would account for about 5% increase in contrails (the exhaust is cooler, so they form over a wider range of conditions). See discussion here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/engine-efficiency-high-bypass-and-contrail-frequency-how-much.226/

You see more contrails now than in the past because:

  • There is more air traffic
  • RVSM mean planes tend to fly higher as you can now pack more flights into the higher altitudes, which are more desirable for efficiency, so more planes at contrail altitude
  • Regional carriers are now more likely to use jets rather than turboprops, so fly higher, so more planes at contrail altitude
  • There are more routes now, so more regions see contrails from flyover traffic
  • Higher efficiency engines means cooler exhaust, so contrails form in a wider range of temperatures, hence a wider range of altitudes.
  • People pay more attention to contrails, because of the "chemtrail" theory, so just notice them more.
 

Vindog

Member
More efficient burning of fuel and cooler exhaust. But more importantly most efficiency achieved at higher altitude levels = flying in colder environment.
So to be clear...you are saying that the engine is burning cleaner, therefore producing more H20?
 

Vindog

Member
They're bigger.

Passenger jet engines are about ten times bigger than they were at the start of the sixties.

That might account for it, don't you think?
well if i was alive in the 60's to make an observation maybe. But I wasn't. Im only talking about planes in the 90's to now. How much bigger are they from the 90's if at all?
 

captfitch

Senior Member.
And to be clear... If we give you reasons why there are MORE now than before the nineties you will accept that they did exist before then but you did not notice them. It's very important to the process that you accept evidence we present.
 

Vindog

Member
How reliable is the Radar24 site?

This is an oberservation I have made over the last 10 minutes. I will try to watch it continuously over time to see if it changes, but this is what ive found.

When I set the filter to show only planes at 26500ft and up, they are not flying where I am seeing the majority of the chemtrails...

Yet when I set it to 0-26500 i see the planes exactly where I see the majority of chemtrails.

Also, I will have to do this for my current area (NJ) because I dont live in MA anymore to actually be able to look outside and look up and see whats up there.
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
well if i was alive in the 60's to make an observation maybe. But I wasn't. Im only talking about planes in the 90's to now. How much bigger are they from the 90's if at all?


  • Engine thrust has grown from 43,500 pounds per engine on the early 747s to as much as 747-8 GENx-B2 engines are rated @ 66,500 pounds per engine.
  • The engine fan diameter of the 747-8 GENx is nearly the fuselage diameter of a B-29 bomber fuselage.
  • One 747-8 GEnx-2B engine has approximately the same take-off thrust as all (8) engines together on the original B-52 bomber (PW YJ57-3).
Content from External Source
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/747family/pf/pf_facts.page


General characteristics
  • Type: axial flow, twin-shaft, bypass turbofan engine
  • Length: 287 in (7,290 mm)[19]
  • Diameter: overall: 134 in (3,404 mm);[19] fan: 123 in (3,124 mm)
  • Dry weight: 16,644 lb[19] (7,550 kg)
Content from External Source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_GE90 <--- Engines used on the 777

Found that info in about 30s via Google and Boeing.
 

Vindog

Member
And to be clear... If we give you reasons why there are MORE now than before the nineties you will accept that they did exist before then but you did not notice them. It's very important to the process that you accept evidence we present.
I will accept it to further the discussion. But in my head i really dont. Fair enough?
 

Vindog

Member

  • Engine thrust has grown from 43,500 pounds per engine on the early 747s to as much as 747-8 GENx-B2 engines are rated @ 66,500 pounds per engine.
  • The engine fan diameter of the 747-8 GENx is nearly the fuselage diameter of a B-29 bomber fuselage.
  • One 747-8 GEnx-2B engine has approximately the same take-off thrust as all (8) engines together on the original B-52 bomber (PW YJ57-3).
Content from External Source
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/747family/pf/pf_facts.page


General characteristics
  • Type: axial flow, twin-shaft, bypass turbofan engine
  • Length: 287 in (7,290 mm)[19]
  • Diameter: overall: 134 in (3,404 mm);[19] fan: 123 in (3,124 mm)
  • Dry weight: 16,644 lb[19] (7,550 kg)
Content from External Source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_GE90 <--- Engines used on the 777

Found that info in about 30s via Google and Boeing.
So correct me if I am wrong, but that information still seems to be showing changes from the 60's...whats changed from the 90's?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member

Vindog

Member

Peter

Active Member
How reliable is the Radar24 site?

This is an oberservation I have made over the last 10 minutes. I will try to watch it continuously over time to see if it changes, but this is what ive found.

When I set the filter to show only planes at 26500ft and up, they are not flying where I am seeing the majority of the chemtrails...

Yet when I set it to 0-26500 i see the planes exactly where I see the majority of chemtrails.

Also, I will have to do this for my current area (NJ) because I dont live in MA anymore to actually be able to look outside and look up and see whats up there.

There's a United Airlines (dal72) jet heading in your direction at contrail alt (35.000 ft) right now. You may want to check whether you can see it and whether it leaves a contrail
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
When I first flew the 767 in 1989 it had engines rated to 63000 lbs and they were the largest in the world at the time.

The A330 I now fly has engines rated to 75000 lbs thrust and are considered a mid size engine. The 777 has engines rated to 110,000 lbs and development on them continues to improve on this as big twin engined airliners are now the profit generators for most international airlines.

The 767 had a cruise fuel flow of 4.5 tonnes/hr. The 777-300 is closer to 8 tonnes per hour. More, bigger engines on the same routes means more water to increase the RH.

RVSM procedures in themselves have the potential to double the number of aircraft in a particular air route as compared to the 90s.
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
Going off topic for JUST a sec here Cobra, so I apologize up front.. I know that RVSM means "Reduced vertical Separation Minimums.." but I dont -exactly- understand what they mean. Is that referring to the reduction of altitude between aircraft while flying in the lane or does that refer more to the way the lanes are flown?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Going off topic for JUST a sec here Cobra, so I apologize up front.. I know that RVSM means "Reduced vertical Separation Minimums.." but I dont -exactly- understand what they mean. Is that referring to the reduction of altitude between aircraft while flying in the lane or does that refer more to the way the lanes are flown?

Technically it's altitude separation. Planes used to have to be 2,000 feet (or more) apart vertically if within a certain distance. Now it's just 1,000 feet. From this arises specific altitudes for specific directions. The US alternate odd and even thousand feet for east and west

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org.../ato/service_units/air_traffic_services/rvsm/

So for planes flying at in both directions along a busy route (and route intersections), then you can pack more into the FL290 to FL410 range (normal cruising range for commercial jets)
http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/aim0406.html#aim0406.html.1
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
Technically it's altitude separation. Planes used to have to be 2,000 feet (or more) apart vertically if within a certain distance. Now it's just 1,000 feet. From this arises specific altitudes for specific directions. The US alternate odd and even thousand feet for east and west

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org.../ato/service_units/air_traffic_services/rvsm/

So for planes flying at in both directions along a busy route (and route intersections), then you can pack more into the FL290 to FL410 range (normal cruising range for commercial jets)
http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/aim0406.html#aim0406.html.1

Ok gotcha.. and since there's a reduction in the vertical spacing, that means you can put more aircraft in the lane, which would result in more aircraft flying over head, which results in a higher chance of contrails forming because there's more traffic closer together and finding those pockets of moist air where they may not have done so before.. OKOK.. NOW I get it.. that makes sense. Thanks guys.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Ok gotcha.. and since there's a reduction in the vertical spacing, that means you can put more aircraft in the lane, which would result in more aircraft flying over head, which results in a higher chance of contrails forming because there's more traffic closer together and finding those pockets of moist air where they may not have done so before.. OKOK.. NOW I get it.. that makes sense. Thanks guys.

And there's a bit more to it, as the ideal altitude for fuel economy tend to be more likely contrail altitudes for more of the year. So now you can pack more planes into the higher altitudes above 35,000, where it's colder. Previously you could have the same number of planes flying the route, just some of them would be lower.
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
And there's a bit more to it, as the ideal altitude for fuel economy tend to be more likely contrail altitudes for more of the year. So now you can pack more planes into the higher altitudes above 35,000, where it's colder. Previously you could have the same number of planes flying the route, just some of them would be lower.

AH.. didnt realize that there was a ceiling as well.. though I guess that would make sense if the engines werent efficient enough to fly that high.. Im not sure if its a viable option or not, but is there a way to accurately calculate the increase in aircraft or are there too many variables? I know that one is the RVSM itself, but is there a place to go to actually look at the total increase of air traffic over the last 20/30+ years? Im usually pretty good at finding sites on Google, but I dont think Im providing the right search information to narrow it down logically.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
AH.. didnt realize that there was a ceiling as well.. though I guess that would make sense if the engines werent efficient enough to fly that high.. Im not sure if its a viable option or not, but is there a way to accurately calculate the increase in aircraft or are there too many variables? I know that one is the RVSM itself, but is there a place to go to actually look at the total increase of air traffic over the last 20/30+ years? Im usually pretty good at finding sites on Google, but I dont think Im providing the right search information to narrow it down logically.

There's a bunch of variables. Have a look here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/growth-in-world-air-traffic-1970-present.2572/
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Going off topic for JUST a sec here Cobra, so I apologize up front.. I know that RVSM means "Reduced vertical Separation Minimums.." but I dont -exactly- understand what they mean. Is that referring to the reduction of altitude between aircraft while flying in the lane or does that refer more to the way the lanes are flown?

Edit: Mick already explained.

The first one. Previously the standard 1,000 feet vertically was the 'norm' until above FL 290 (29,000 feet) where it became 2,000 feet vertically...hence, FL 310, FL 330, FL 350 etc. FL 310 was "westbound", FL 350 "eastbound", and they alternated.

RVSM standards (improvements in the pitot/static systems and altimeter accuracy) allows for the 1,000 feet minimum now up to (IIRC, FL 430...I never operated a passenger jet that had that high a Service Ceiling). Now, as is the standard at lower levels, even numbered altitudes are "westbound", odd are "eastbound" (westbound/eastbound refers to the actual course of travel, relative to magnetic north...looking at the compass, going clockwise...360° (or, 000°..same thing, but "360" is used by ATC) to 179° is "east", and 180° to 359° is "west").

RVSM does allow a significant increase in the ability of ATC to handle more airplanes at the altitudes where (coincidentally) contrails are most likely to form, when (of course) conditions are suitable. (**)

.....also (if '@vindog' is reading .....This (**) issue of "suitability" refers to the conditions aloft, in terms of water saturation, temperature.

I had noticed 'vindog' mentioned that contrails (incorrectly calling them "chem"trails, BTW) sometimes do not appear in his local area. This is why they are not seen every day!
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
Edit: Mick already explained.

The first one. Previously the standard 1,000 feet vertically was the 'norm' until above FL 290 (29,000 feet) where it became 2,000 feet vertically...hence, FL 310, FL 330, FL 350 etc. FL 310 was "westbound", FL 350 "eastbound", and they alternated.

RVSM standards (improvements in the pitot/static systems and altimeter accuracy) allows for the 1,000 feet minimum now up to (IIRC, FL 430...I never operated a passenger jet that had that high a Service Ceiling). Now, as is the standard at lower levels, even numbered altitudes are "westbound", odd are "eastbound" (westbound/eastbound refers to the actual course of travel, relative to magnetic north...001° to 180° is "east", and 181° to 359° is "west").

RVSM does allow a significant increase in the ability of ATC to handle more airplanes at the altitudes where (coincidentally) contrails are most likely to form, when (of course) conditions are suitable. (**)

.....also (if '@vindog' is reading .....This (**) issue of "suitability" refers to the conditions aloft, in terms of water saturation, temperature.

I had noticed 'vindog' mentioned that contrails (incorrectly calling them "chem"trails, BTW) sometimes do not appear in his local area. This is why they are not seen every day!

Cool.. thanks gents.. Imma go do some digging around and see if I can find a way to actually calculate this mess and I'll get back to ya.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
The fact that this website is even here to "debunk" chemtrails is my source.... I am not the only one to make this observation, and in fact it is the fact that so many people have confirmed this observation that there is the "conspiracy theory"

Actually, that is a false association. This is also a rather typical Human reaction by people who are firmly convinced that they are "right", despite A) -All evidence to the contrary, and B) -No actual factual evidence on their side. (See the long-running Moon landing "hoax" conspiracy, has been around much longer than so-called "chem"trails as an Urban Legend, despite mountains of science and evidence that refute that "conspiracy").

Once such legends and myths get a "bite" into the public's psyche, they are difficult to dislodge, because they take on an almost "religious faith" aspect. ('Bigfoot', 'Loch Ness Monster'...to name two others. 'Ghosts' too).

The fringe (at first) beliefs of so-called "chem"trails was harmless, at first....but nowadays, it's taken on an ominous tone:
"Advocating violence against "Chemtrail" planes, pilots, scientists and debunkers" is a prime example.

It is high time ( see what I did there? ;) ) to attempt to bring a scientific explanation and learning experience to those who are (unfortunately) wrapped up in this myth.
 

JFDee

Senior Member.
How reliable is the Radar24 site?
[...]
When I set the filter to show only planes at 26500ft and up, they are not flying where I am seeing the majority of the chemtrails...

Yet when I set it to 0-26500 i see the planes exactly where I see the majority of chemtrails.

Two things worth noting:

1. Once you determine a trail to be persistent, it must obviously have been hanging around quite a while.
Consequentially, the plane that had created it may have been gone already.

2. The main source of data for the visualizations of FR24 is the ADS-B signal transmitted by planes directly. There may be planes around that don't send out such a signal, the transmitting device is not mandatory yet (but will be).

The reason why I recommended that flight tracking site is that you can easily double check its data and avoid possible manipulation - you can get a USB stick that receives the signal from the planes in your area and show it directly on your local computer.

http://www.flightradar24.com/how-it-works
 
Top