Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
monolith
climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2010 - 11:05pm PT
|
Tony, you can apply some more logic to the situation to come up with some answers. WW2 pilots obviously don't want contrails forming so if they can do something to stop them, they would. Since contrails do form, they don't have the ability to stop them, other than giving up the mission.
You did see that the contrails stopped completely. So you can assume that the planes entered an area where conditions were not right for them forming.
As in a lot of fluid dynamics problems, there are boundary anomalies. So towards the edge of these areas, there will be clumps of areas that do form contrails and those that do not. That's where the sputtering happens, followed by complete dissapearance.
|
|
Shack
Big Wall climber
Reno NV
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2010 - 11:49pm PT
|
especially if they're caused by such a limited amount of extra vapor, what dribbles off an engine exhaust.
I'm not much of a hand holder, but I'll try...
First,
Your assumption that exhaust only contains a small amount of water vapor, is incorrect.
The 2 main byproducts of hydrocarbon fuel combustion are carbon dioxide and water vapor.
I guess I have to explain why that is?
You car intakes AIR* and combines it with fuel, then in the cylinder it gets COMPRESSED and then ignighted, then EXHAUSTED.
Even your car puts out enough water vapor in it's exhaust to make a giant cloud on a cold winter morning, and probably even drips water from the tailpipe sometimes, right? And that's with a small internal combustion engine.
Second, compared to internal combustion engines like on prop planes etc..,
a jet engine consumes a massive ammount of air.
Jet engines are by design, one giant compressor!
You see where I'm going with this?
They consume and compress thousands of cubic feet of air a second.
One engine from a new 767-400ER, at takeoff power, could inflate the goodyear blimp in 7 seconds,
according to a Boeing employee.
Once this compressed air meets the freezing temps outside at 39,000 feet...
instant ice crystals. How long they persist depends on a bunch of variables.
Tony, these "pockets" of air with different conditions you seem so skeptical of, are something that can be seen in clouds, but also you already knew about them, if you have ever been in an airliner.
Those "bumps"...the turbulance you felt, as you would know, are caused by different wind speeds, temperature, humidity etc.
Nothing mystical about it.
*AIR contains water vapor. How much depends on relative humidity, temp, etc.
|
|
nature
climber
Tuscon Again! India! India! Hawaii! LA?!?!
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2010 - 11:54pm PT
|
888
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 12:02am PT
|
I see you haven't plotted 250 from Long Beach. Can't light up the north side of a 'missile' track when the sun is south of it.
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 12:11am PT
|
yes, i feel bumps on flights. your explanations make as much sense as any. i could accept them, except that i have no memory of these outrageously expansive trails in the places i've lived until about 15-20 years ago. what i do remember are skies with natural clouds, beautiful clouds. now, in southern california, as often as not, the skies are full of obviously straight-laid, airplane-created clouds, and none of them lead down to LAX. and these clouds just expand and expand, weaving into each other and filling the skies. i've lived in chicago and minneapolis, also hubs of air traffic, and all i remember are the "normal" contrails, the ones which disappear shortly after they appear, in spite of your elaborate explanations.
this is experience and memory and even though i'm 63 years old, there isn't much wrong with my memory, although i'm not stupid enough to think that memories are perfect and entirely accurate. when i raise this issue, no one wants to chime in, one way or the other. you can show me web pages created in the past year or two to debunk all the chemtrail paranoia. such web pages double my suspicion, like the wizard of oz bellowing at me to pay absolutely no attention to the little man behind the curtain. why can't i can't get any of the older climbers here to give a little testimony from the field--back me up or contradict me, but be a real climber i know on here. i think this group ought to be one of the best qualified for it, spending time under the sky and noticing nature.
|
|
Shack
Big Wall climber
Reno NV
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 12:44am PT
|
My personal belief is that we are seeing larger, more persisting contrails
due to the evolution of the jet engine.
They continually make design changes to increase efficiency.
The newer jets engines suck in larger quantities of air and tend to make much larger contrails.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 02:21am PT
|
Yes, but since they are also operating at higher pressures and temperatures
it seems they should be burning the water vapor off to a greater degree (no pun
intended} than older engines.
|
|
Shack
Big Wall climber
Reno NV
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 03:17am PT
|
it seems they should be burning the water vapor off
Burn off water vapor? Where would it go? What would it become? something other than H2O?
|
|
michaeld
Sport climber
Near Tahoe, CA
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 03:28am PT
|
"Tony B"
k, shack, since you're the self-proclaimed expert now, tell us why some contrails disappear shortly afterward and others expand and expand and fill the sky-
Wind at that altitude. Just because it's not windy at ground level, doesn't mean at 30,000+ feet its dead still. Some will disappear shortly after because of the sun exposure, evaporating it fully.
"Tony B"
-especially if they're caused by such a limited amount of extra vapor, what dribbles off an engine exhaust.//
Depends on the moisture in the air at that altitude/pressure density. The heat of the engine cowling, how cold the wings are at 30,000+ feet, deicing during a really cold flight also.
When an airliner is flying at an altitude of 30,000 feet, the temperature of the air outside may be as low as -30 F.
But what do I know, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I know nothing but what Oprah and CNN tell me while I eat my Ben&Jerry's.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 05:36am PT
|
Tony, congratulation you are worse than I expected.
"i have to reject "contrail photos through history", an obviously concocted ad hoc effort to debunk chemtrail arguments. rules of evidence never allow casual photography, and yet we are peppered with pictures of western mountains that could have been taken any time since the invention of color photography and photoshopped as one pleases."
Yes, everything is a hoax. Where are your evidence for your claims?
"pull out a photo, raymond, from your personal album when you hiked shasta in, say, 1968."
Where are your evidence? Why should I post photos when you never back up anything you write? Where are your photos showing the clear skies with all contrails? Remember to also prove without a doubt that they are the real deal.
"and then i'm afraid we're going to have to vet you as a genuine climber here. you've obviously just joined this forum and dived into what can only be called a Klimmer Special, using a lighthearted pseudonym."
You are obviously an idiot that can't even try to find what is true before spouting nonsense.
My profile shows that I have posted 244 times on this forum and the first post was posted Sep 27, 2006
You can also find posts about climbing but I don't know why it matters.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 05:44am PT
|
"don't think you have the expertise to explain them, however, dodging around these questions the way raymond does. "
What questions am I dodging?
"k, shack, since you're the self-proclaimed expert now, tell us why some contrails disappear shortly afterward and others expand and expand and fill the sky--especially if they're caused by such a limited amount of extra vapor, what dribbles off an engine exhaust. "
What if you at least tried to read the wikipage about contrails?
Contrails depends on:
Amount of water vapour in the air.
Temperature of the air.
Number of particles in the air.
It can also be a good idea to take into account that the maximum humidity level (before cloud formation) is very low at low temperatures.
The water vapour part should be very obvious for everyone that have looked at the sky a couple of times.
The chemtrail conspiracy theory is still probably the most stupid one I have seen because it really seems to be based on an almost completely lack of understanding of the atmosphere. It is just "I don't understand phenomena x so conspiracy y must be true".
Tony B is a clear example of that thinking.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 05:46am PT
|
I haven't had the time or energy to read through this large thread but have a question, seeing all the arguing about contrails?
Aren't all flights near urban areas tracked contantly by air traffic controllers? Why would the government have ANY problem identifying any commercial flight that was photographed at a known time and place. Isn't it a bad sign that they would have to throw up their hands and say "We don't know but don't think there's any evidence there's a threat"
Given they don't have the truth on hand that could easily be verified, seems safe to assume they are lying about what they don't care to talk about
PEace
Karl
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 05:53am PT
|
What are you talking about Karl? I have read far from everything about this issue but it was clear very early that at least one airplane flow in that area at that time. Did the military really claim that they didn't know that?
|
|
FRUMY
Trad climber
SHERMAN OAKS,CA
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 11:18am PT
|
i think it is very nice that our government goes out of it's way to - hide aliens - shoot missiles - hide jimmy haffa or what ever his name was - & do all the things that they do just so all the bored nuts in this country have something to do.
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 11:22am PT
|
reilly and shack are getting back to dew point science. if it's water vapor, it isn't clouds, it's invisible gas. shack and mono are trying to tell us a jet engine adds a lot of vapor to the air, enough to increase humidity to the point of condensation, somehow so much that, when the humidity is high, it expands to incredible volumes of visible clouds in the wide, wide sky. i'm not saying this doesn't happen, necessarily. but on the other hand, we're painting a picture here of such abrupt variation of dew point factors in the upper troposphere that this process also seems to run up against virtual brick walls, and frequently. look at mono's photos again, especially the second one. i don't feel bumps that often on jet rides. a little guy behind the curtain flicking a switch makes more sense.
in that same vein, i tend to think pressure is more of a factor than humidity. that's my prejudice, having spent much time at the elevations of cloud formation and watching it happen firsthand as a function of altitude, and therefore pressure. and you know what bears me out? a contrail forming at a wingtip, as we're seeing in so much of your "debunking" bunk here. no exhaust injection into the air goes on at a wingtip.
i'm still waiting for a little oral history from oldfart climbers. karl?
the recentness of this phenomenal ubiquitousness (pardon the french) is what bothers me. i suspect shack notices this too, if he's speculating about how development of engine technology might be involved. again, i'm not discounting that. what bothers me is the attack mentality of doberman pincers like phule, hellbent to stamp out every itty bit of conspiracy theory while ignoring many aspects of an argument.
so phule, let's make a few rules. first, tell us what a carabiner is for. second, try putting all these links in your own words instead of making me look at webpage after webpage. there's this basic rule of thumb: if you can't put it in your own words, you don't understand it, you're just reading what someone else wrote and agreeing with it.
congrats on #900, fort. #1,000 is the real plum. what is it about a Klimmer Special?
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 11:31am PT
|
Shack,
I was just wondering aloud but it seems that under those pressures and
temperatures the water vapor could turn into dihydrogen monoxide plus ozone.
|
|
monolith
climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 11:48am PT
|
Yes, Tony, you are right about the pressure. Rapid pressure changes happen in an engine and in a wingtip vortice.
Read the explanation of wingtip contrail formation.
The lowering of the temperature in the lower pressure area causes condensation from the high humidity.
So contrails are a function of pressure, temperature, humidity.
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 12:15pm PT
|
so--does that mean we can discount the vapor-exhaust arguments entirely?
i hate to point this out, but do you see how far from consensus we are here?
|
|
monolith
climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2010 - 12:26pm PT
|
I don't understand Tony.
Look into cloud seeding if you want to learn about condensation from particles.
Multiple processes could be happening in engine contrail formation.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!