Contrails

[Paul Domingue]

An interesting article on contrails and wing tip vortices in this morning's WP. I was wrong on how I thought they were formed. The article also debunks some misconceptions. Hope you enjoy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...trails-not-chemtrails/?utm_term=.938ac9c21310

 

[edphipps]

Uh, they completely left out water created as a by-product of the combustion process and forming a vapor when it cools in the air behind the plane.

 

[Paul Domingue]

Uh, they completely left out water created as a by-product of the combustion process and forming a vapor when it cools in the air behind the plane.

I don't believe combustion of petro chemicals produces H2O, that requires H in the process. I'm no chemist but that is my best answer.

 

[ErickC]

The combustion of petroleum products produces water and carbon dioxide (in a perfect world, of course). Remember that they're called hydrocarbons for a reason...

 

[Paul Domingue]

The combustion of petroleum products produces water and carbon dioxide (in a perfect world, of course). Remember that they're called hydrocarbons for a reason...

You are most correct sir.

 

[hairyspin]

Combustion of most things produces water vapour, together with the rest of the fumes.

 

[Heretic]

Little do the sheeple know that the chemtrail discussion is just a decoy to keep them busy. The actual use of aircraft is as relays for mind control microwaves and flying amplifiers to ensure 24/7 communication between our hidden rulers and their alien overlords. The passengers are also not transported from city to city, but brainwashed to believe that they were!

More later, someone's at the do-...HEY, WHO LET YOU I-

 

[=rk=]

The article is not about wing tip vortices, the article is about chemtrails and debunking them. As such, it contains inanities apparently attempting to lull the reader into a sense of complacency with meaningless statements like:
"jet fuel is composed mainly of kerosene, which is also a common lighting fluid for household heating systems."
Common in the 1880's, or if you live in Bangladesh where your lighting system and your heating system are one in the same - but I am sure he knows what he is talking about referring to some sort of secret clandestine government operation using the same language used to review last night's episode of The Good Doctor. So the author didn't author the science, he copied and pasted it from somewhere.
"Some have pointed at what they consider to be “unusual behavior” associated with contrails, making disjointed attempts to link them to weather modification or toxic releases, but they are not supported by the mainstream scientific community and peer-reviewed studies." The article is also not supported by the mainstream community by the exact same measure, because the author has not linked his references on how complex things like airplanes actually work. Here is the Washington Post contributor, Matthew E. Cappucci as a 2015 scholarship recipient. Perhaps he is also an engineer.

Matthew even outright lies to support the "nothing to worry about" agenda. If you take the time to fact check the statement: "Some claim contrails are the primary instigator of climate change. This is not supported," you will see that the linked website claims, "Geoengineering is the Primary Cause of Global Climate Change, Not CO2." Huh, not even going to go into that argument, but if you follow the links, it is some fascinating stuff.

Uh, they completely left out water created as a by-product of the combustion process and forming a vapor when it cools in the air behind the plane.

Actually they did not at all.
"Commercial jetliners fly higher than the peak of Mount Everest, which towers to a whopping 29,035 feet. Their exhaust can spit out aerosols, sulfates, soot, minute amounts of metal, carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons and a few other ingredients.

Trillions of cloud droplets, about a hundredth of a millimeter across, are formed in a stream behind the airplane. Just like that, a contrail is born."

Here is one formula:
Kerosene is a mixture of alkanes, so it has no exact chemical formula You can approximate and say the kerosene could be represented by the formula C12H26 up to C15H32.
The chemistry would look like this:
2 C12H26 + 37 O2 = 24 CO2 + 26 H2O
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080904045908AAoKRQ6
This particular formula includes only carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. You can see that over half of the combustion product is water. However, the actual fact is that the visible water that results as a consequence of converting energy is insignificant against the sheer volume of atmosphere being condensed due to the passage of the plane. Reread the "hundredth of a millimeter across" part. Even if the sky were completely moisture free, any water that didn't immediately evaporate into that desiccated environment would not be vapor, (or crystallized vapor) as in the case with contrails, but completely gaseous and therefore almost always still invisible. If you think about it, here are very few phases of flight where the visible effects created by motion are less visible than the visible effects created by propulsion and this is as it should be because it represents the efficient use of energy.

 

[edphipps]

If you read all four paragraphs starting with the paragraph above the second picture and the three paragraphs below it it's my opinion that the writer is making the case that particles coming out of the back end of the engine are causing "nucleation" of the super cooled water vapor in the atmosphere and thus the contrail is made up of the resulting ice crystals.

 

[hairyspin]

Didn't think I'd find a use for this so soon:–

The prevailing attitude of the speakers was one of heavy disagreement with a number of things which the writer had not said.​

 

[=rk=]

If you read all four paragraphs starting with the paragraph above the second picture and the three paragraphs below it it's my opinion that the writer is making the case that particles coming out of the back end of the engine are causing "nucleation" of the super cooled water vapor in the atmosphere and thus the contrail is made up of the resulting ice crystals.

I agree with that conclusion and mistakenly related the particles dispersed to the products of combustion and this next article I link demonstrates good reasons for referencing anything that is not considered opinion. This article from the FAA.gov website does not seem to make so strong a case for particle nucleation, although it mentions it:

"Aircraft engines emit water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), small amounts of nitrogen oxides (NOx), hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, sulfur gases, and soot and metal particles formed by the high-temperature combustion of jet fuel during flight. Of these emittants, only water vapor is necessary for contrail formation."

Combustion generated water appears to be a major factor in the formation of contrails, according to this source.

"Contrails would not form behind aircraft engines without the water vapor by-product present in exhaust."

However, the article does support my assertion that combustion product water comprises a small percentage of the composition of contrails and this is probably why it was not described, as such, as a significant contributor to contrails in an article about the nonexistence of chemtrails. I get the distinct impression

"Jet engine exhaust provides only a small portion of the water that forms ice in persistent contrails."

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/envir_policy/media/contrails.pdf

I have to observe for all you fanaticists, that the coined term "persistent contrails" thoroughly covers all aspects of what chemtrails might be into a euphemistic soundbyte on a government website.

 

[Paul Domingue]

and soot and metal particles formed by the high-temperature combustion of jet fuel during flight.

Oh, thank goodness. I would hate to think, while seated cramped up in coach, that the fine metal particulates were coming from turbine blades, bearings, and other critical components of the engine.

 

[edphipps]

Oh, thank goodness. I would hate to think, while seated cramped up in coach, that the fine metal particulates were coming from turbine blades, bearings, and other critical components of the engine.

This is why I pack a parachute in my carry on bag.

 

[=rk=]

Oh, thank goodness. I would hate to think, while seated cramped up in coach, that the fine metal particulates were coming from turbine blades, bearings, and other critical components of the engine.

You do realize you are satirizing a quotation from an FAA publication? Where do you think the fine metal particles come from, Exxon? Chemtrail additives? If airplane engines are subject to entropy and therefore do indeed wear out, where do you propose they dispose of the the little bits and pieces?

This is why I pack a parachute in my carry on bag.

Preeety sure that only works on planes like the 727, thanks DB Cooper, so you might want to consider reallocating your very finite useable space.

Now that we all know how to make really wicked contrails, does anyone know what is actually required to create a chemtrail? I mean Matthew never really proved that they don't exist, just that they aren't supported in the science fiction community. I mean, if nobody has the formula and they can't be made, doesn't that prove they don't exist?

 

[Paul Domingue]

Rick, I spent most of my working life fiddling with high performance engines, the post was meant to be facetious. It was the expulsion of metallic particles that kept me employed.

 

[=rk=]

Got it! So perhaps we could fashion the turbine blades and bearing surfaces out of depleted uranium, or arsenic, or something noxious if we wanted to make chemtrails. So it is possible..

Wait what?

That's no conspiracy, unless they are starting the fires in order to put them out...

but technically speaking, that is a chemtrail right? So what's the problem then..?