BNW Brave New World
Samenzwering, verborgen agenda's en geheime geschiedenis. De zoektocht naar de wereld die achter de façade van alledag ligt.
het was toch als je niet gelooft wat in de krant staat dat de complotten juist de wereld inkomen toch? zoals jou?quote:Op dinsdag 10 april 2007 22:18 schreef mcDavid het volgende:
een ander zou me dan een "kritische lezer" noemen.
Jij leest dat iemand iets van plan is, en gaat er voor het gemak vanuit dat'ie dat dus allang aant doen is.
Ah, dus zó komen complotten de wereld in!
Op dinsdag 7 juni 2016 23:04 Papierversnipperaar het volgende:
En waarom staat Groot Brittannië er niet tussen? Alleen al het drugs geld dat door HSBC is witgewassen levert dat land een ereplaats op.
Website ware Islam: http://harun-yahya.net/
En waarom staat Groot Brittannië er niet tussen? Alleen al het drugs geld dat door HSBC is witgewassen levert dat land een ereplaats op.
Website ware Islam: http://harun-yahya.net/
Hoezo? Contrails komen al langer voor, alleen nu meerquote:Op dinsdag 10 april 2007 13:36 schreef Anti-NWO het volgende:
[..]
Yeah right, plotseling vanaf midden jaren 90 gelden er opeens andere regels voor "meteorologie
Die zijn al zo vaak langsgekomen. En waarom zijn die van 40-45 niet goed genoeg? Omdat je denkt dat die bommenwerpers en jagers toen al chemtrails sproeiden? Hoe komt het dan dat daar nergens in de geschiedensboeken aan gerefeerd wordt, is dat stilgehouden? Door alle kanten? Dus dat was het enige waar de nazi's, de amerikanen, engelsen en russen het over eens waren? Want al hun vliegtuigen trokken contrails, zowel de jagers als bommenwerpers, maar het moest stilgehouden worden?quote:Jammer dat de webstie van de meteoroloog er niet meer is ivm chemtrails. Zou hij jou een cursus kunnen geven. Periode 46-94 vergelijkbare foto's laten zien, tot die tijd zijn chemtrails een feit.
Lijkt je dat niet een beetje vergezocht?
Om er nog maar over te zwijgen dat de jagers überhaupt geen ruimte hadden voor tanks met sproeivloeistof. En dat er tijdens de Battle of Britain boven London zowel door engelse als duitse jagers contrails werden getrokken. Waarm zouden ze dat nu doen, die engelsen, chemtrails tijdens gevechten op leven en dood trekken boven hun eigen grondgebied, terwijl de duitsers hetzelfde doen?
En tijdens luchtgevechten boven Duitsland trekken ook beide partijen chemtrails? Was heel WO2 dan een spelletje om die chemtrails al vast eens grondig uit te testen?
Sorry hoor, maar het is gewoon een feit dat in WO2 er al persistente contrails waren. En ook in de jaren erna, maar zoveel vliegtuigen als er in WO2 in de lucht waren, dat heeft gewoon járen geduurd voor dat weer eens voorkwam.
De amerikanen en engelsen hebben wel aanvallen gedaan met 1000 (!) bommenwerpers + jagerescorte. Dat leverde contrails op zoals die nog nooit gezien waren (en daarna ook niet meer). En echt niet om wat te sproeien, want het doel van die aanvallen waren duitse steden/fabrieken. En die werden dan aaridg platgegooid. Als het doel was om met chemtrails de vijand te bestrijden, dan hadden ze alleen maar gesproeid, niet ook nog bommen geworden. Want die kisten hadden niet zoveel laadvermogen als de huidige passagiersjets, en in een oorlog ga je op de effcienste manier je middelen inzetten. En dat betekent als sproeien je doel is, je alleen maar sproeit en geen bommen meeneemt. En als bommenwerpen je doel is, ga je niet ook nog een sproeitank meenemen, want dat is slecht voor ofwel je actieradius, ofwel je bommenlast.
[ Bericht 0% gewijzigd door #ANONIEM op 10-04-2007 22:27:21 ]
En wat blaat ik na dan ?quote:
Ik beweer dat er geen complete gegevens over kerosine/JP8 te vinden zijn. Bedrijfsgeheim.
Ook beweer ik dat metingen aan aerosolen schaars en kostbaar zijn.
Dus i.m.o blaat ik niemand na, in dit geval zijn er niet veel/geen metingen om na te blaten.
1+1=2, zelfs dat is nablaten...dus i.d.d..beheheheheh.
En zelfs al had ik metingen gedaan/llaten doen. , dan nog zijn er voldoende factoren om die metingen te betwijfelen.
Dit had je allemaal al van me kunen weten, als je dit topic 's zou doorlezen.
Met kleurenfilters, gewoon voor de gein hoor.quote:ter info
[quote]. Een manier om aërosolen te meten is het meten van het zonlicht dat door de aërosolen wordt verstrooid en geasorbeerd. De maat waarin de hoeveelheid aërosolen wordt uitgedrukt is de aërosol optische dikte (AOD). Als de atmosfeer aërosol optisch dik is betekent dat dat er veel aërosolen in de atmosfeer zitten en dat er dus veel licht wordt verstrooid en geasorbeerd door de aërosolen.
http://www.knmi.nl/globe/informatie/aerosol.html
Zie je die schaduw rechtsonderin?
Ik heb het nog nooit over sproeien gehad, maar dat kun je niet weten want je leest dit topic niet.quote:Je beweerde dat er vooral tijdens "bepaalde weertypes" gesproeid zou worden. Daaruit maak ik op dat er bij andere weertypes dus mínder gesproeid zou worden.
Ik denk alleen dat men bepaalde operaties verlegd naar gebieden met gunstiger omstandigheden.
Ik beweer al heel lang dat contrails 'n onjuiste benaming is, maar dat kun jij niet weten want je leest dit topic niet.quote:Oh dus nu bestaan contrails uberhaupt niet meer? Het wordt steeds gekker!
En het is meer dan trails alleen.
Maar het valt best me met die trails..
We must guard against the aquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.
Eisenhower1961.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.
Eisenhower1961.
En zoiets is natuurlijk nog nooit gebeurd, dat "ze" "ons" iets niet vertelden..De A is van Agent Orange, Etc,quote:Op dinsdag 10 april 2007 22:18 schreef mcDavid het volgende:
een ander zou me dan een "kritische lezer" noemen.
Jij leest dat iemand iets van plan is, en gaat er voor het gemak vanuit dat'ie dat dus allang aant doen is.
Ah, dus zó komen complotten de wereld in!
We must guard against the aquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.
Eisenhower1961.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.
Eisenhower1961.
Ik snap niet helemaal waar je heen wilt met die foto's met kleurenfilter.quote:Op dinsdag 10 april 2007 22:34 schreef Resonancer het volgende:
[..]
En wat blaat ik na dan ?
Ik beweer dat er geen complete gegevens over kerosine/JP8 te vinden zijn. Bedrijfsgeheim.
Ook beweer ik dat metingen aan aerosolen schaars en kostbaar zijn.
Dus i.m.o blaat ik niemand na, in dit geval zijn er niet veel/geen metingen om na te blaten.
1+1=2, zelfs dat is nablaten...dus i.d.d..beheheheheh.
En zelfs al had ik metingen gedaan/llaten doen. , dan nog zijn er voldoende factoren om die metingen te betwijfelen.
Dit had je allemaal al van me kunen weten, als je dit topic 's zou doorlezen.
[..]
Met kleurenfilters, gewoon voor de gein hoor.
[afbeelding]
[afbeelding]
[afbeelding]
[afbeelding]
[afbeelding]
Zie je die schaduw rechtsonderin?
[..]
Ik heb het nog nooit over sproeien gehad, maar dat kun je niet weten want je leest dit topic niet.
Ik denk alleen dat men bepaalde operaties verlegd naar gebieden met gunstiger omstandigheden.
[..]
Ik beweer al heel lang dat contrails 'n onjuiste benaming is, maar dat kun jij niet weten want je leest dit topic niet.
En het is meer dan trails alleen.
[afbeelding]
Maar het valt best me met die trails..
[afbeelding]
Op die onderste 2 foto's zie ik respectievelijk zeer lichte cirrusbewolking, waarschijnlijk duidend op een hogedrukgebied, en wat hevigere cirrusbewolking, waarschijnlijk duidend op een naderend warmtefront.
Dat gedoe over de peut draag je aan als argument. Nu zeg je zelf dat niemand precies weet wat erin zit. Het is dus een compleet non-argument. Ik zou nu ook kunnen beweren dat vliegtuigen juist heel milieuvriendelijk zijn omdat ze MISSCHIEN wel op afgewerkt frituurvet vliegen.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ik denk niet dat we te laat of te vroeg zijn. Ik moet mijn beeld omtrent dit 'idee' nog verder uitwerken, maar ik kwam al een topic tegen dat wel enigzins aansluit en een inleiding (ietwat symbolisch/vaag) geeft in het idee van de wereld 'als spel'. ik heb het over dit topic
Ik denk namelijk dat alles gaat zoals het enigzins gaan moet. De grote lijnen. Variatie is mogelijk, daar waar de grote lijnen ons pad kruizen. En die kunnen we gaan zien, op het moment dat we het spel achter de schermen beginnen te herkennen. (wat ze ook wel synchroniciteit noemen)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maar genoeg daarover, erg offtopic allemaal..
Dat het verschijnsel in de lucht me begint op te vallen, vind ik persoonlijk nog wel het vreemdste. En daarbij ook idd de al vaker genoemde "WAAROM?" vraag. Waarom maak ik mij er druk om? Waarom kan ik het niet laten rusten en laten zijn voor wat het is?
En dan weet ik weer waarom ik in Truth rondhang
Hoe te handelen? Goede vraag! Ten eerste denk ik dat het van wezenlijk belang is in te gaan zien dat niets zo maar werkt. Ken je 1 kant, dan doe je er goed aan in de tegengestelde richting te zoeken. Know thy enemy zal ik maar zeggen. Maw leer datgene kennen wat jij nog niet kent of wat je niet wil kennen. De werkelijke vijand ben je m.i. namelijk zelf.quote:Op dinsdag 10 april 2007 21:46 schreef Orwell het volgende:
ik doe met je mee, geachte boswachter
hoe te handelen?
kan het de "soft way" of zijn we dan te laat?
Ik denk niet dat we te laat of te vroeg zijn. Ik moet mijn beeld omtrent dit 'idee' nog verder uitwerken, maar ik kwam al een topic tegen dat wel enigzins aansluit en een inleiding (ietwat symbolisch/vaag) geeft in het idee van de wereld 'als spel'. ik heb het over dit topic
Ik denk namelijk dat alles gaat zoals het enigzins gaan moet. De grote lijnen. Variatie is mogelijk, daar waar de grote lijnen ons pad kruizen. En die kunnen we gaan zien, op het moment dat we het spel achter de schermen beginnen te herkennen. (wat ze ook wel synchroniciteit noemen)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maar genoeg daarover, erg offtopic allemaal..
Dat het verschijnsel in de lucht me begint op te vallen, vind ik persoonlijk nog wel het vreemdste. En daarbij ook idd de al vaker genoemde "WAAROM?" vraag. Waarom maak ik mij er druk om? Waarom kan ik het niet laten rusten en laten zijn voor wat het is?
En dan weet ik weer waarom ik in Truth rondhang
Ware Wijsheid Liefdevolle Vrede
Peaceful Warrior "What are you?" "This Moment"
Peaceful Warrior "What are you?" "This Moment"
Zulke luchten zoals op de foto's door Resonancer geplaatst wil ik zien op foto's van de periode 1946-1994. Gelukkig is de website van de meteoroloog ook weer online: http://www.weatherwars.info/index.php
Zie ook:
Ook 'leuk':
Zie ook:
Ook 'leuk':
Nogmaals waarom? Wat is er mis met fotoá uit wo2? Zie ook mijn vorige post hierover.quote:Op woensdag 11 april 2007 10:42 schreef Anti-NWO het volgende:
Zulke luchten zoals op de foto's door Resonancer geplaatst wil ik zien op foto's van de periode 1946-1994. Gelukkig is de website van de meteoroloog ook weer online: http://www.weatherwars.info/index.php
En laatst was er trouwens op National Geographic een docu over Sabre-piloten in de Koreaanse oorlog, waarin je ook wat beelden zag van MIGs en Sabre's die contrails trokken.
Bezit jij geen logica of wat? Ik doe maar 1 poging om het je duidelijk te maken. Zelfs op foto's uit WWII zijn geen vergelijkbare uitgewaaide strepen/luchten te zien. En al zou dat wel het geval zijn geweest dan zou dit nog niet zeggen om redenen die al zijn uitgelegd. Maar laten we voor jullie plezier aannemen dat er in WWII wel vergelijkbare luchten waren. Waarom is het dan zo dat tijdens de periode 46-94 geen vergelijkbare luchten voorkwamen? 1 + 1 = ...quote:Op woensdag 11 april 2007 10:48 schreef Wombcat het volgende:
[..]
Nogmaals waarom? Wat is er mis met fotoá uit wo2? Zie ook mijn vorige post hierover.
En laatst was er trouwens op National Geographic een docu over Sabre-piloten in de Koreaanse oorlog, waarin je ook wat beelden zag van MIGs en Sabre's die contrails trokken.
Beetje logisch nadenken, hoeft niet zo moeilijk te zijn. Ik kijk al wat langer naar boven dan alleen de laatste paar jaar en vliegtuigstrepen die kunstmatige bewolking vormen is niet iets wat altijd al te zien is geweest. Zo wel dan horen hier voorbeelden in overvloed van te zijn en moet de wetenschap dit altijd al interessant hebben gevonden. Maar goh wat vreemd, pas sinds het chemtrails fenomeen is begonnen, is de wetenschap pas begonnen met het tonen van interesse in vliegtuigstrepen die lang blijven hangen. Hou zou dat nou toch komen. Ook weer 1 + 1.
Misschien geen foto's, wel verslagen, kijk maar hier.quote:Op woensdag 11 april 2007 10:56 schreef Anti-NWO het volgende:
[..]
Bezit jij geen logica of wat? Ik doe maar 1 poging om het je duidelijk te maken. Zelfs op foto's uit WWII zijn geen vergelijkbare uitgewaaide strepen/luchten te zien. En al zou dat wel het geval zijn geweest dan zou dit nog niet zeggen om redenen die al zijn uitgelegd. Maar laten we voor jullie plezier aannemen dat er in WWII wel vergelijkbare luchten waren. Waarom is het dan zo dat tijdens de periode 46-94 geen vergelijkbare luchten voorkwamen? 1 + 1 = ...
Beetje logisch nadenken, hoeft niet zo moeilijk te zijn. Ik kijk al wat langer naar boven dan alleen de laatste paar jaar en vliegtuigstrepen die kunstmatige bewolking vormen is niet iets wat altijd al te zien is geweest. Zo wel dan horen hier voorbeelden in overvloed van te zijn en moet de wetenschap dit altijd al interessant hebben gevonden. Maar goh wat vreemd, pas sinds het chemtrails fenomeen is begonnen, is de wetenschap pas begonnen met het tonen van interesse in vliegtuigstrepen die lang blijven hangen. Hou zou dat nou toch komen. Ook weer 1 + 1.
Overigens zijn er genoeg foto's uit WO2 te vinden met enorme contrails over de hele foto, vervolgens zullen die ook uitwaaien.
Je moet er bovendien rekening mee houden dat er in WO2 véél meer vliegverkeer was dan in de jaren daarna. Dat was natuurlijk wel vrijwel allemaal militair vliegverkeer. In de jaren 50-80 was vliegverkeer nog een luxe. Minder vliegverker= minder persistente contrails= minder uitwaaiing door bewolking.
Beetje logisch nadenken hoeft niet zo moeilijk te zijn hoor, 1+1=2.
Uit een verslag van de koreaanse oorlog:
http://www.acepilots.com/korea_fischer.htmlquote:In April, 1953, UN intelligence got word that the Chinese had based bombers in Manchuria, near the border. Concerned for their valuable jet fighters at forward bases like K-13, the UN forces started ferrying them nightly to other bases in the rear. Fischer led ferry flights back to Kunsan, which was very tiring, as they were flying back and forth, as well as trying to sleep at a strange base. On the morning of April 7, a bright sunny day, he took off from Kunsan and made K-13 without incident. After a minor mixup with his wingman, he took off on the afernoon flight, and climbed into the search area, where they saw contrails leading north, almost certainly MiGs. Numbers three and four in Fischer's flight went to investigate, while Fischer soon spotted a flight of four MiGs coming into Korea. He jockeyed into postion and fired, trying to compensate for his guns' misalignment; they had not been properly boresighted after their last use. Four other MiGs joined the bounce and the Sabres turned into them, but the MiGs were too fast and promptly headed back across the Yalu.
Contrails leading north, dat zijn natuurlijk geen korte contrails. Hoe lang ze precies waren, kun je uit het verslag niet afleiden.
Een quote over de zwakke punten van de MIG-15:
http://www.chosin.com/kumsok.htmlquote:Still, he does discuss a number of weaknesses that MiGs had.
* they were not supersonic, even when diving...
* the T-shaped tail obscured your view and often was fatal when exiting the cockpit....
* the double-wall canopy would often fog up....
* there was no rear view mirror...
Authors comment. Rear view mirror?? Fighter pilots use rear view mirrors? Do they use turn signals too?
* poor fuel economy....
* long and visible contrails from Soviet jet fuel..
* lousy tires.....
Ik kijk ook langer naar boven als de afgelopen paar jaar, en eind jaren 70 kon ik toch ook écht al contrails zijn die lang in de lucht bleven hangen en verwaaiden. Nee, ik heb er geen foto's van, want foto's maken was toen niet zo makkelijk en goedkoop als nu.
[ Bericht 0% gewijzigd door #ANONIEM op 11-04-2007 11:18:18 ]
Pot, ketel, zwart, van dat soort dingen.quote:Op woensdag 11 april 2007 11:21 schreef Anti-NWO het volgende:
Bla bla, niks concreets waar je iets mee kan. 1 + 1 blijft 2.
Pot, ketel, zwart, van dat soort dingen.
Ten es gheen wondere, dat mi tderuen grief gheeft:
Niemant en scheet gheerne van dat hi lief heeft.
Niemant en scheet gheerne van dat hi lief heeft.
quote:Op woensdag 11 april 2007 11:21 schreef Anti-NWO het volgende:
Bla bla, niks concreets waar Anti-NWO iets mee kan. 1 + 1 blijft 2.
[ Bericht 2% gewijzigd door The_stranger op 11-04-2007 15:22:13 ]
You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe
C. Sagan
C. Sagan
hmm wat een heerlijke vraagstelling zet je hier neer!quote:Op dinsdag 10 april 2007 17:50 schreef TeenWolf het volgende:
[..]
je begrijpt het nog steeds niet, je begrijpt jezelf niet eens, lees je het uberhaupt wel?
Je hebt gelijk, het werd niet gelezen zo te lezen
Dan nog blijft mijn vraag staan, als regeringsleiders , ministers dit weten, waarom laten ze dit toe?
Ook hun eigen gezondheid en die van familie en vrienden gaat hierdoor achteruit...hun kinderen?
Ik zou dit niet kunnen verantwoorden , maar ik heb een geweten...
//Jij bent een user waar er meer van zouden moeten zijn, zhe devilll // Ik dacht dat je schreef Hitler ofzo//Huillie is mine!
Die bovenste, lijkt me fotoshopquote:Op woensdag 11 april 2007 10:42 schreef Anti-NWO het volgende:
Zulke luchten zoals op de foto's door Resonancer geplaatst wil ik zien op foto's van de periode 1946-1994. Gelukkig is de website van de meteoroloog ook weer online: http://www.weatherwars.info/index.php
[afbeelding]
Zie ook:
[afbeelding]
Ook 'leuk':
[afbeelding]
die 2e, geen idee wat het is maar iig geen chemtrails of whatever
die 3e ziet er uit als een typische holding-area.
2 woorden. Minder vliegtuigen.quote:Op woensdag 11 april 2007 10:56 schreef Anti-NWO het volgende:
[..]
Bezit jij geen logica of wat? Ik doe maar 1 poging om het je duidelijk te maken. Zelfs op foto's uit WWII zijn geen vergelijkbare uitgewaaide strepen/luchten te zien. En al zou dat wel het geval zijn geweest dan zou dit nog niet zeggen om redenen die al zijn uitgelegd. Maar laten we voor jullie plezier aannemen dat er in WWII wel vergelijkbare luchten waren. Waarom is het dan zo dat tijdens de periode 46-94 geen vergelijkbare luchten voorkwamen? 1 + 1 = ...
Beetje logisch nadenken, hoeft niet zo moeilijk te zijn. Ik kijk al wat langer naar boven dan alleen de laatste paar jaar en vliegtuigstrepen die kunstmatige bewolking vormen is niet iets wat altijd al te zien is geweest. Zo wel dan horen hier voorbeelden in overvloed van te zijn en moet de wetenschap dit altijd al interessant hebben gevonden. Maar goh wat vreemd, pas sinds het chemtrails fenomeen is begonnen, is de wetenschap pas begonnen met het tonen van interesse in vliegtuigstrepen die lang blijven hangen. Hou zou dat nou toch komen. Ook weer 1 + 1.
Waarom blijf je dat negeren?
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Ben je echt zo dom of doe je alsof? Ik hoop voor jou het laatste. Minder vliegtuigen zou alleen maar gelijk staan aan minder persistente trails. En niet: geen persistente trails. Of snap je dat al niet? Oftewel foto's van uitgewaaide persistente trails in de periode 46-94 (en niet uit oorlogsperiodes/gebieden). Kom dan nog eens terug om wijs te doen.quote:Op woensdag 11 april 2007 16:21 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:
2 woorden. Minder vliegtuigen.
Waarom blijf je dat negeren?
Vind het vreemd dat je dit uitsluit, maar goed...quote:Op woensdag 11 april 2007 16:53 schreef Anti-NWO het volgende:
[..]
(en niet uit oorlogsperiodes/gebieden).
1991
1993
1983
1993
1983
Zomaar een aantal foto's, er zijn er nog meer...
In 1953 was er een wetenschapper, Appleman, die contrails heeft onderzocht. Hij kwam zelfs tot een methode
om uit te rekenen hoe hoog en wanneer er contrails zouden ontstaan.
twee grafiekjes om de stijging van het aantal passagiers (en dus het aantal vluchten) te laten zien.
En nog een plaatje om te laten zien waar de meeste contrails te zien zijn, niet geheel toevallig precies op de plaatsen waar de maatschappij het meest ontwikkeld is....
Wat publicaties over contrails van voor 1994:
Als er geen lange contrails zijn die blijven hangen, is er ook geen research naar te doen.. Het aanwezig zijn van deze research bewijst dus ook dat contrails ook in die tijd bleven hangen.. (en ook in cirrus verwaaiden, zoals het onderzoek van Peter M. Kuhn (zie boven) laat zien.
[ Bericht 15% gewijzigd door The_stranger op 11-04-2007 17:26:39 ]
You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe
C. Sagan
C. Sagan
even een vraagje: ik ben 2 weken in de himalaya geweest, en 5 maanden op een plek waar praktisch geen vliegtuig overheen komt. Als er echt chemtrails in Nederland zouden zijn, dan had ik verschil moeten merken toch? Waarom deed ik dat niet?
Extremistisch gematigd.
denk je niet dat alsquote:Op woensdag 11 april 2007 16:53 schreef Anti-NWO het volgende:
[..]
Ben je echt zo dom of doe je alsof? Ik hoop voor jou het laatste. Minder vliegtuigen zou alleen maar gelijk staan aan minder persistente trails. En niet: geen persistente trails. Of snap je dat al niet? Oftewel foto's van uitgewaaide persistente trails in de periode 46-94 (en niet uit oorlogsperiodes/gebieden). Kom dan nog eens terug om wijs te doen.
a. er veel minder vliegtuigsporen zijn, en
b. fotografie voor de elite is,
c. de foto's die in die periode gemaakt werden slechts in zéér beperkte mate digitaal beschikbaar zijn
de kans op foto's van vliegtuigsporen veel kleiner is?
Dit zou toch voldoende moeten zijn om het 'pre-1994-argument' te ontkrachten.quote:Op woensdag 11 april 2007 17:19 schreef The_stranger het volgende:
[zéér uitgebreide argumentatie]
Maar ik vrees het ergste
Ten es gheen wondere, dat mi tderuen grief gheeft:
Niemant en scheet gheerne van dat hi lief heeft.
Niemant en scheet gheerne van dat hi lief heeft.
Trail Research Report
This report is the result of research into the science of contrail formation and an analysis by observation and measurement of contrail persistence. This research was inspired by the claims of an unnatural type of trail known as Chemtrails as an attempt to detect such trails.
Chemtrails
For several years the existence of an unusual type of aerial activity has been reported, generally termed Chemtrails. Chemtrails are purported to differ from typical contrails in their high degree of persistence and subsequent spreading, as if a substance had been released. The purpose, effects and existence of these so-called Chemtrails are widely debated, however essentially there is a claim made by many that they are witnessing something out of the ordinary, beyond an ordinary contrail. Chemtrails are also said to sometimes differ in their configuration from contrails, as they are supposedly not about getting from point A to point B, but, rather, dispersing some type of substance.
Goals
While it is scientifically accepted that normal contrails may persist for hours and spread, the research represented in this report attempts to use the tools available to make a scientific analysis into the veracity of the Chemtrail claims by attempting to isolate any data that might show evidence of such activity. The measurements and observations described in this report can be repeated by anyone who is willing to invest their time and a small amount of resources in a Flight Explorer subscription.
The Scientific Method
1. Observe some aspect of the Universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
If the hypothesis needs to be modified repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
The application of these steps as applied to this study:
1. The long-lasting trails that have been described as unusual by many are the area of interest in this study. Is there such a thing as a Chemtrail, a man-made addition to natural phenomena, that can be detected?
2. Hypothesis: There is a new type of trail that is not consistent with normal contrail persistence and normal contrail formation physics.
3. An analysis of trails, contrails and the presumed Chemtrails, should show whether any such anomaly was present. The prediction is that if the given hypothesis is true then there will be evidence that there is a category of trail that exhibits persistence inconsistent with and beyond verified normal contrails.
To be valid, a hypothesis must be disprovable, or falsifiable. This hypothesis is falsifiable if inconsistent data is not found.
4. The rest of this document is concerned with describing the tools and methods used to collect data and a detailed presentation of that data.
Contrail Formation and Persistence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jet aircraft leave behind a heated mixture of water, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfates, unburnt hydrocarbons, soot, etc. as by-products of the combustion of fuel in the engines. Water and particulates play a fundamental role as the basic foundation for the formation of a contrail. Pre-existing particles in the air will serve as nucleating bodies for the warm water to condense around, creating larger droplets that will quickly freeze given the appropriate atmospheric conditions. Fresh soot from the exhaust is generally hydrophobic, but over time can become hydrophilic, and thus suitable as condensation nuclei. The ability of the resultant ice crystals to last is governed by the ambient moisture at flight altitude. So, temperature serves generally as a threshold mechanism for the production of contrails and increased moisture provides slower sublimation rates and thus longer dissipation times for contrails. (Evaporation, often incorrectly applied to the process of contrail dissipation, is the process of a liquid changing to vapor. Sublimation is the process of a solid changing to vapor, bypassing the liquid state.) Various numbers are quoted as the threshold temperature for contrail formation: -40C, -38C, -35C. In this study, the warmest temperature at which a contrail was observed was -41C.
In practice, the speed of dissipation of a contrail can be from a few seconds to hours. This varies with differing atmospheric conditions due to seasonal, daily, and frontal weather changes as well as global placement as varying local temperatures and humidity at flight levels provide differing ranges of persistence. The observations made in this report are all from Houston, TX. The conditions that support contrail formation are present, but not in an overabundance. In this study, the longest-persisting contrail observed from a known identified aircraft was approximately 25 minutes. This occurred on one occasion, out of 53 documented observations. The next longest in persistence were trails lasting approximately 2 minutes. This occurred on about 5 occasions. Most contrails observed were in the 5-20 second range. Unidentified flights were observed to produce trails with persistence from 20 seconds to several hours.
Tools used in Collection of Data
Flight Explorer
Flight Explorer Personal Edition is an Internet-based flight-tracking tool that allows the user to obtain information about commercial, passenger, and private flights. All flights utilizing IFR (instrument flight rules) submit a flight plan to one of the regional ARTCCs (air route traffic control centers), this information becomes part of the FAA supplied datastream that is used by Flight Explorer. Aircraft flying via VFR (visible flight rules) are not part of the datastream, however this is irrelevant to this study since the lowest altitude at which contrailing was observed during research was 31,000 ft. and there are no VFR flights allowed in a Class A airspace, above 18,000 ft., although there is one very rare exception to this rule. Military flights are filtered from the datastream by the FAA for security reasons. The filtering algorithm used removes flights that don't include a number, which reportedly may filter some foreign jets. The documentation says that Canadian flights specifically are not filtered and personal observation shows that Mexican aircraft, common in this area, are not filtered as well as dozens of other international flights. Also some flights are marked as blocked which means that the identifying information is hidden, however the altitude, aircraft type and other information are still available.
The majority of flights in the Houston area are arriving at or leaving from Hobby (HOU) in the southeast part of town or Bush Intercontinental Airport (KIAH) to the north. A main flight corridor runs over the center of the city with traffic flying at 2,000 to 8,000 ft. as they descend for landing at Hobby Airport. There is typically not as much traffic above the 30,000 ft. level relative to all flights shown on FE. High-level traffic includes occasional flights to and from Mexico, along a roughly north-south route, as well as flights to and from other parts of Texas, Florida and other states. See the animated Flight Explorer screen shot above to compare traffic above and below 27,000 ft.
Pertinent information that is being collected via this tool:
Flight Id
Aircraft Type
Altitude at time of observation in feet
GOES Atmospheric Soundings
The soundings provided by NOAA/GOES provide a profile of the characteristics of the atmosphere for a given area. Soundings for Houston, TX have been utilized to collect:
Temperature celcius (T<c>) at given atmospheric pressures (P<mb>)
Dewpoint temperature celcius (TD<c>) at given atmospheric pressures (P<mb>)
Atmospheric pressure is converted to altitude in feet based on standard conversions, which allows reading the data values for a given altitude from the numerical table titled "GOES PROFILE" on the right side of the sounding. This table contains values that are represented graphically by the dark red line (temperature) and the dark blue line (dewpoint temperature). The closer these two lines come together the more humidity is present, which combined with cold enough temperatures, will produce conditions favorable to contrails. Higher and lower altitudes are at the top and bottom of the graph respectively, which is vertically labeled in units of pressure known as millibars (P<mb>). Most of the contrailing flight altitudes are in the range of 300 to 200 mb, which is approximately 31,000 ft. to 40,000 ft. The difference between temperature and dewpoint in degrees celcius (T<c> - TD<c>) is utilized as a humidity measurement, sometimes called the temperature/dewpoint spread, referred to in this report as degrees of separation. The degrees of separation is a relative humidity measurement that provides a consistent measurement across different temperatures which affect the ability of the air to hold moisture. A value of zero, when the temperature is equal to the dew point, indicates the highest humidity and the most ideal conditions for contrail formation, although lack of sufficiently cold temperatures could prevent contrail formation. In this study contrails were observed at up to 17 degrees of separation.
The NOAA/GOES soundings are measurements taken, ideally, hourly in clear and semi-clear conditions. The measurements are not guaranteed to be perfect due to instrument calibration, bias and error. The measurements are representative of a local area of the sky which will differ to some degree from the observation site.
Visual Observations
For each day of the research period general weather conditions are recorded. Also notations are made of any specific contrails observed and associated measurements. A specific notation is made for days that have highly persistent trails that evolve into cirrus aviaticus.
Procedures for Collection of Data
The GOES atmospheric soundings are first checked to verify that there is a new sounding available for the current hour. Availability of this online resource has averaged about 30-40% of the time during the data collection period, although this included about one month of continuous downtime. Normally the soundings are available about 70% of the time. If observations are taken, the sounding image is saved for historical reference, and the pertinent text from the "GOES PROFILE" table is recorded for reference. This process will be repeated if the observation period spans multiple hours thus requiring the latest sounding. Nearly 50 skew-T charts have been archived and are available in this report, although some sounding charts were not archived in cases where the next hour's sounding was identical or nearly identical or many soundings were utilized.
Flight Explorer is scanned for flights that will be passing over the local area. Typically, the filtering of flights below 28,000 ft. is done to remove irrelevant planes on the screen display. From the center of the city most of the flights arriving or leaving from Hobby and Bush Airports are not viewable because these flights are not passing over at contrailing altitudes or because of their descent, with the exception of the low-level landing corridor for Hobby which runs over the center of town. Most of the contrailing jets observed are just passing over and through the Houston area, so these flights are of primary interest when tracking flights on Flight Explorer. After locating a candidate flight on the tool, an attempt is made to visually observe and measure persistence of the contrail from the jet as it passes nearby, or a trail may be observed and measured then immediately correlated with Flight Explorer. A contrail will occasionally pass over existing persistent trails as well as visually clear sky areas. This will result in a non-consistent sublimation time as areas of the sky that happen to already contain concentrated moisture from highly persistent trails will trap overlapping segments of new contrails. The measurement that is recorded is the sublimation duration in the areas visibly clear of preexisting moisture. Timing of the duration is achieved by counting seconds or using a stopwatch while observing the time from initial contrail formation to subsequent complete visual dissipation of contrail. As many measurements are taken of each contrail as possible to ensure accuracy. If the jet cannot be correlated with absolute certainty due to ambiguity with other nearby jets on similar courses, the observation is abandoned and not recorded. This occurs with about 10% of sightings.
Once the persistence measurement is taken, the time and date, and selected flight data from Flight Explorer are recorded. Then temperature and degrees of separation are calculated from the atmospheric sounding table. Data values for flights at altitudes between measured sounding altitudes are figured by interpolating and estimating values.
Data collected per identified observation:
Length of contrail persistence
Altitude of flight at time of observation
Temperature at altitude
Dew Point at altitude
Degrees of separation at altitude
Flight Id
Basic Aircraft Type
Time and Date
Lees hier maar verder voor de resultaten van dit onderzoek:
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/report.shtml
Ook belangrijk:
CONTRAIL PHYSICS
Clifford E Carnicom
September 17 2000
A preliminary model has been developed to estimate the length of time that is
required for a contrail to dissipate. It is assumed within this
discussion that the contrail is composed of water vapor (per
historical definition). The model developed agrees extremely well
with the historical behavior and observation of contrails. The model
is not intended to encompass all variables that may be in effect, but
it does model reasonably well the expected behavior of water at
flight altitudes. Any errors will be corrected if and as they are
brought to my attention. It will be noted that this model is not a
function of relative humidity, as no basis from thermodynamics
has yet been established for it's inclusion. Any model based upon
the premise of "mixing" as the primary mechanism for dissipation
requires quantification to receive consideration. Cloud formation and the
introduction of aerosol particles to assist in their formation is an
entirely different discussion which is to be examined separately.
The conclusions that result from the study of this model are several:
1. Contrails composed of water vapor routinely dissipate, as the physics and
chemistry of this model will demonstrate. As a separate and distinct
set of events, clouds may form if temperature, relative humidity, and
aerosol conditions are favorable to their development. If "contrails"
by appearance transform into "clouds", it can be concluded that the
material of composition is not water vapor.
2.The conditions under consideration show that the ice crystals
within a contrail can warm to the melting point and subsequently melt
with the heat provided by solar radiation.
3. As demonstrated both by historical observation and this model, the
time expected for contrail dissipation is relatively short, e.g., 2
minutes or less. This assumes the contrail is composed essentially
of water vapor, per the classic definition (condensed trail).
4. The rate of contrail dissipation is highly dependent upon the
the size of the ice crystal particles and the amount of solar radiation.
Dependence upon relative humidity is not evident. 'Cloud'
formation from aircraft, should it occur, is dependent primarily upon
the temperature, the relative humidity, and the type and size of
aerosol particles(nuclei) that are introduced.
The basic form of the contrail dissipation model, based upon the
chemistry, mathematics and physics of thermodynamics is as follows:
time for dissipation = (mass of water crystal * (Q + heat of fusion))
/ power
where Q is the amount of heat required to increase the temperature of
a substance (ice).
or
t(sec) = (m (kg) * Ht(kj/kg)) / P(watts)
where t is the time required for contrail
dissipation(transformation), in seconds, m is the mass of the ice
crystal in kilograms, Ht is the heat of transformation of ice in
kilojoules per kilogram, and P is the power applied to the system in
watts.
Calculating the internal energy, or enthalpy, of water vapor often
involves several phase changes, as water varies between solid, liquid
and vapor under varying conditions of temperature and pressure. In
the case of a contrail composed of water vapor, the heat of
transformation will consist of two phases. The first is the amount
of heat required to raise the temperature of the ice crystal at a
sub-zero temperature to 0 deg. C., which will be designated as Q in
the present case. The second segment of heat required will be that
which melts the ice crystal to a liquid form. The primary processes
involved in contrail formation therefore appear to involve:
1. The emission of water vapor from the aircraft.
2. The freezing of the water vapor at sub-zero temperatures into ice
crystals.
3. The warming of the ice crystals to the melting point through solar
radiation.
4. The melting of the ice crystal with solar radiation to where the
water vapor once again no longer is visible. This returns the water
to the state from which it was emitted from the engine.
Let us now quantify the components of this model with elements that
are typical or representative of the conditions of contrail
formation:
Mass:
Assume that we have a cubed particle size (nucleated ice crystal) of
dimension d on a side, measured in microns(designate as u). Given
also that the density of ice is .917gm/cm3, the mass of the particle
is:
mass=(d(u) * (1E-6m/u))^3 * (1E6cm3/m3) * (.917gm/cm3) * (1E-3kg/cm3)
or
mass = (d^3 * 9.17E-16 cm3 gm kg m3) / ( m3 cm3 gm)
Q + Heat of Fusion:
Q is equal to the amount of heat required to increase the temperature
of the ice crystal from the ambient temperature to 0 deg. C. The
specific heat of ice is given as 4.21 kJ/(kg C) at 0 deg. C. The
specific heat varies only slightly with respect to temperature and
pressure, and this value will therefore be used. J refers to joules
of energy.
The heat of fusion of ice is 335kJ/kg. It requires this amount of
energy to melt ice.
Therefore, the amount of heat required to transform the ice crystal
is:
dQ + heat of fusion = 4.21 kJ/(kg C) * dT + 355kJ/kg
where dQ is the amount of heat entering the ice crystal, the heat of
fusion is the amount of heat required to melt the ice crystal, and dT
is the temperature change from the ambient air to 0 deg. in Celsius.
The model now becomes:
t(sec) = (d^3 * (9.17E-16)cm^3 gm kg m^3 * ((((4.21kJ/kg)*dT)/(kg C))
+ 355kj/kg)) / P * (m^3 cm^3 gm)
Power (P):
The energy of solar radiation is given in terms of watts/ square
meter. Representative values measured range approximaely from 200 to
700 watts/m^3. To arrive at the power applied to the ice crystal, we
will take the surface area of the crystal exposed perpendicularly to
the sunlight, and apply the solar radiation to it. The solar
radiation will be applied on a continuous basis to the surface area
until melting is complete.
Power absorbed = d^2 * (watts/m^2) * (1E-6m/u)^2
and since 1 watt = 1 joule/sec
Power absorbed = d^2 * (J/(m^2 s) * (1E-12) m^2/u^2
The model now becomes:
t(sec) = (d(u)^3 * (9.17E-16) cm3 gm kg m^3 * ((4.21kJ/kg * dT kJ/kg
C) + (335kj/kg))) / (d(u)^2 * (J/(m^2 s) * (1E-12) m^2 / u^2)
Simplifying:
t(sec) = ((d(u) * (9.17E-13) * (4.21dT + 335) J cm^3 gm kg m^3 s
m^2) / (Watts * 1E-12 J m^2 m^3 cm^3 gm kg)
or t(sec) = (d(u) * (9.17E-13) * (4.21dT + 335)) sec / (Watts *
1E-12)
or t(sec) = (d(u) * .917 * (-4.21T + 335)) / Watts/m2
where d is measured in microns, T is the air temperature where the
contrail forms, measured in Celsius, and solar radiation is in watts
per square meter.
Representative cases and the application of this model will now be
considered. Research indicates that the expected size of particles
emitted from aircraft ranges between 30 and 200 microns (Goethe MB -
Ground Based Passive Remote Sensing of Ice Clouds with Scattered
Solar Radiation in the Near Infrared - Max Planck Inst Meteorol).
The temperature of the air at flight altitudes commonly approaches
-50 deg. C. Solar radiation commonly ranges between 400 and 700
watts per square meter.
In the tables presented, d is the dimension of the ice crystal along
one side of the cube, T is the temperature of the ambient air where
the contrail forms (.e.g, 35000ft. MSL), and P is the solar radiation
in Watts/sq. m. t is the length of time that it requires for the
contrail, or ice crystal to dissipate (i.e., transform from ice to
water vapor).
d(microns) T(deg. C.) P(watts/sq. m) t(sec)
1 -50 600 1
10 -50 600 8
30 -50 600 25
50 -50 600 42
100 -50 600 83
1 -40 400 1
10 -40 400 12
30 -40 400 35
50 -40 400 58
100 -40 400 115
1 -30 700 1
10 -30 700 6
30 -30 700 18
50 -30 700 33
100 -30 700 60
This model covers the expected size range of any particles expected
to be emitted by aircraft; most airborne particles range between
0-100 microns. It is of interest that the particle sizes considered
in this model are generally considered to be too large to serve as
cloud condensation nuclei; the average expected size of cloud
condensation nuclei is extremely small, and on the order of .1 to .2
microns. A 10 micron particle is considered extremely large with
respect to cloud condensation nuclei. This size distinction, when
coupled with the results of the model above, further indicate the
need to consider cloud formation as a separate and distinct physical
process from that of contrail dissipation. That analysis would
necessarily consider the significant role that aerosol particles,
deliberately or otherwise introduced, would have on the cloud
nucleation and formation process.
As can be seen, the results of this model agree extremely well with
the observed properties of contrails over their historical existence.
This work is based upon the physical processes, chemistry and
mathematics of thermodynamics with respect to water and the various
phase states. Consideration has also been given to the phenomenon of
sublimation, and it has been found to be not applicable due to the
extremely low atmospheric pressure requirements for sublimation to
occur(P<.006atm). The greatest variation within this model is seen
to relate to particle size. It is seen that the contrails composed
of the smaller particles dissipate within 30 seconds or less, and
that the contrails composed of even relatively large particles are
expected to dissipate within a couple of minutes at most.
If the dissipation of an observed contrail does not conform to the
model above, and the corresponding physics and chemistry and math of
same, then the logical conclusion that can be drawn is that the
material of emission is not likely to be water vapor. As mentioned earlier, the
physics of cloud formation are an entirely separate process, and are
highly dependent upon temperature, relative humidity, aerosol type
and the size of aerosol particles that are introduced. Any
alterations in the formation of cloud processes as they have been
repeatedly observed and recorded must necessarily consider the impact
of these aerosols, identified and unidentified, within the analysis.
Prior attention given to microscopic hydrated salts remains a
priority in this research.
Clifford E Carnicom
September 16 2000
http://www.carnicom.com/conright.htm
This report is the result of research into the science of contrail formation and an analysis by observation and measurement of contrail persistence. This research was inspired by the claims of an unnatural type of trail known as Chemtrails as an attempt to detect such trails.
Chemtrails
For several years the existence of an unusual type of aerial activity has been reported, generally termed Chemtrails. Chemtrails are purported to differ from typical contrails in their high degree of persistence and subsequent spreading, as if a substance had been released. The purpose, effects and existence of these so-called Chemtrails are widely debated, however essentially there is a claim made by many that they are witnessing something out of the ordinary, beyond an ordinary contrail. Chemtrails are also said to sometimes differ in their configuration from contrails, as they are supposedly not about getting from point A to point B, but, rather, dispersing some type of substance.
Goals
While it is scientifically accepted that normal contrails may persist for hours and spread, the research represented in this report attempts to use the tools available to make a scientific analysis into the veracity of the Chemtrail claims by attempting to isolate any data that might show evidence of such activity. The measurements and observations described in this report can be repeated by anyone who is willing to invest their time and a small amount of resources in a Flight Explorer subscription.
The Scientific Method
1. Observe some aspect of the Universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
If the hypothesis needs to be modified repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
The application of these steps as applied to this study:
1. The long-lasting trails that have been described as unusual by many are the area of interest in this study. Is there such a thing as a Chemtrail, a man-made addition to natural phenomena, that can be detected?
2. Hypothesis: There is a new type of trail that is not consistent with normal contrail persistence and normal contrail formation physics.
3. An analysis of trails, contrails and the presumed Chemtrails, should show whether any such anomaly was present. The prediction is that if the given hypothesis is true then there will be evidence that there is a category of trail that exhibits persistence inconsistent with and beyond verified normal contrails.
To be valid, a hypothesis must be disprovable, or falsifiable. This hypothesis is falsifiable if inconsistent data is not found.
4. The rest of this document is concerned with describing the tools and methods used to collect data and a detailed presentation of that data.
Contrail Formation and Persistence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jet aircraft leave behind a heated mixture of water, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfates, unburnt hydrocarbons, soot, etc. as by-products of the combustion of fuel in the engines. Water and particulates play a fundamental role as the basic foundation for the formation of a contrail. Pre-existing particles in the air will serve as nucleating bodies for the warm water to condense around, creating larger droplets that will quickly freeze given the appropriate atmospheric conditions. Fresh soot from the exhaust is generally hydrophobic, but over time can become hydrophilic, and thus suitable as condensation nuclei. The ability of the resultant ice crystals to last is governed by the ambient moisture at flight altitude. So, temperature serves generally as a threshold mechanism for the production of contrails and increased moisture provides slower sublimation rates and thus longer dissipation times for contrails. (Evaporation, often incorrectly applied to the process of contrail dissipation, is the process of a liquid changing to vapor. Sublimation is the process of a solid changing to vapor, bypassing the liquid state.) Various numbers are quoted as the threshold temperature for contrail formation: -40C, -38C, -35C. In this study, the warmest temperature at which a contrail was observed was -41C.
In practice, the speed of dissipation of a contrail can be from a few seconds to hours. This varies with differing atmospheric conditions due to seasonal, daily, and frontal weather changes as well as global placement as varying local temperatures and humidity at flight levels provide differing ranges of persistence. The observations made in this report are all from Houston, TX. The conditions that support contrail formation are present, but not in an overabundance. In this study, the longest-persisting contrail observed from a known identified aircraft was approximately 25 minutes. This occurred on one occasion, out of 53 documented observations. The next longest in persistence were trails lasting approximately 2 minutes. This occurred on about 5 occasions. Most contrails observed were in the 5-20 second range. Unidentified flights were observed to produce trails with persistence from 20 seconds to several hours.
Tools used in Collection of Data
Flight Explorer
Flight Explorer Personal Edition is an Internet-based flight-tracking tool that allows the user to obtain information about commercial, passenger, and private flights. All flights utilizing IFR (instrument flight rules) submit a flight plan to one of the regional ARTCCs (air route traffic control centers), this information becomes part of the FAA supplied datastream that is used by Flight Explorer. Aircraft flying via VFR (visible flight rules) are not part of the datastream, however this is irrelevant to this study since the lowest altitude at which contrailing was observed during research was 31,000 ft. and there are no VFR flights allowed in a Class A airspace, above 18,000 ft., although there is one very rare exception to this rule. Military flights are filtered from the datastream by the FAA for security reasons. The filtering algorithm used removes flights that don't include a number, which reportedly may filter some foreign jets. The documentation says that Canadian flights specifically are not filtered and personal observation shows that Mexican aircraft, common in this area, are not filtered as well as dozens of other international flights. Also some flights are marked as blocked which means that the identifying information is hidden, however the altitude, aircraft type and other information are still available.
The majority of flights in the Houston area are arriving at or leaving from Hobby (HOU) in the southeast part of town or Bush Intercontinental Airport (KIAH) to the north. A main flight corridor runs over the center of the city with traffic flying at 2,000 to 8,000 ft. as they descend for landing at Hobby Airport. There is typically not as much traffic above the 30,000 ft. level relative to all flights shown on FE. High-level traffic includes occasional flights to and from Mexico, along a roughly north-south route, as well as flights to and from other parts of Texas, Florida and other states. See the animated Flight Explorer screen shot above to compare traffic above and below 27,000 ft.
Pertinent information that is being collected via this tool:
Flight Id
Aircraft Type
Altitude at time of observation in feet
GOES Atmospheric Soundings
The soundings provided by NOAA/GOES provide a profile of the characteristics of the atmosphere for a given area. Soundings for Houston, TX have been utilized to collect:
Temperature celcius (T<c>) at given atmospheric pressures (P<mb>)
Dewpoint temperature celcius (TD<c>) at given atmospheric pressures (P<mb>)
Atmospheric pressure is converted to altitude in feet based on standard conversions, which allows reading the data values for a given altitude from the numerical table titled "GOES PROFILE" on the right side of the sounding. This table contains values that are represented graphically by the dark red line (temperature) and the dark blue line (dewpoint temperature). The closer these two lines come together the more humidity is present, which combined with cold enough temperatures, will produce conditions favorable to contrails. Higher and lower altitudes are at the top and bottom of the graph respectively, which is vertically labeled in units of pressure known as millibars (P<mb>). Most of the contrailing flight altitudes are in the range of 300 to 200 mb, which is approximately 31,000 ft. to 40,000 ft. The difference between temperature and dewpoint in degrees celcius (T<c> - TD<c>) is utilized as a humidity measurement, sometimes called the temperature/dewpoint spread, referred to in this report as degrees of separation. The degrees of separation is a relative humidity measurement that provides a consistent measurement across different temperatures which affect the ability of the air to hold moisture. A value of zero, when the temperature is equal to the dew point, indicates the highest humidity and the most ideal conditions for contrail formation, although lack of sufficiently cold temperatures could prevent contrail formation. In this study contrails were observed at up to 17 degrees of separation.
The NOAA/GOES soundings are measurements taken, ideally, hourly in clear and semi-clear conditions. The measurements are not guaranteed to be perfect due to instrument calibration, bias and error. The measurements are representative of a local area of the sky which will differ to some degree from the observation site.
Visual Observations
For each day of the research period general weather conditions are recorded. Also notations are made of any specific contrails observed and associated measurements. A specific notation is made for days that have highly persistent trails that evolve into cirrus aviaticus.
Procedures for Collection of Data
The GOES atmospheric soundings are first checked to verify that there is a new sounding available for the current hour. Availability of this online resource has averaged about 30-40% of the time during the data collection period, although this included about one month of continuous downtime. Normally the soundings are available about 70% of the time. If observations are taken, the sounding image is saved for historical reference, and the pertinent text from the "GOES PROFILE" table is recorded for reference. This process will be repeated if the observation period spans multiple hours thus requiring the latest sounding. Nearly 50 skew-T charts have been archived and are available in this report, although some sounding charts were not archived in cases where the next hour's sounding was identical or nearly identical or many soundings were utilized.
Flight Explorer is scanned for flights that will be passing over the local area. Typically, the filtering of flights below 28,000 ft. is done to remove irrelevant planes on the screen display. From the center of the city most of the flights arriving or leaving from Hobby and Bush Airports are not viewable because these flights are not passing over at contrailing altitudes or because of their descent, with the exception of the low-level landing corridor for Hobby which runs over the center of town. Most of the contrailing jets observed are just passing over and through the Houston area, so these flights are of primary interest when tracking flights on Flight Explorer. After locating a candidate flight on the tool, an attempt is made to visually observe and measure persistence of the contrail from the jet as it passes nearby, or a trail may be observed and measured then immediately correlated with Flight Explorer. A contrail will occasionally pass over existing persistent trails as well as visually clear sky areas. This will result in a non-consistent sublimation time as areas of the sky that happen to already contain concentrated moisture from highly persistent trails will trap overlapping segments of new contrails. The measurement that is recorded is the sublimation duration in the areas visibly clear of preexisting moisture. Timing of the duration is achieved by counting seconds or using a stopwatch while observing the time from initial contrail formation to subsequent complete visual dissipation of contrail. As many measurements are taken of each contrail as possible to ensure accuracy. If the jet cannot be correlated with absolute certainty due to ambiguity with other nearby jets on similar courses, the observation is abandoned and not recorded. This occurs with about 10% of sightings.
Once the persistence measurement is taken, the time and date, and selected flight data from Flight Explorer are recorded. Then temperature and degrees of separation are calculated from the atmospheric sounding table. Data values for flights at altitudes between measured sounding altitudes are figured by interpolating and estimating values.
Data collected per identified observation:
Length of contrail persistence
Altitude of flight at time of observation
Temperature at altitude
Dew Point at altitude
Degrees of separation at altitude
Flight Id
Basic Aircraft Type
Time and Date
Lees hier maar verder voor de resultaten van dit onderzoek:
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/report.shtml
Ook belangrijk:
CONTRAIL PHYSICS
Clifford E Carnicom
September 17 2000
A preliminary model has been developed to estimate the length of time that is
required for a contrail to dissipate. It is assumed within this
discussion that the contrail is composed of water vapor (per
historical definition). The model developed agrees extremely well
with the historical behavior and observation of contrails. The model
is not intended to encompass all variables that may be in effect, but
it does model reasonably well the expected behavior of water at
flight altitudes. Any errors will be corrected if and as they are
brought to my attention. It will be noted that this model is not a
function of relative humidity, as no basis from thermodynamics
has yet been established for it's inclusion. Any model based upon
the premise of "mixing" as the primary mechanism for dissipation
requires quantification to receive consideration. Cloud formation and the
introduction of aerosol particles to assist in their formation is an
entirely different discussion which is to be examined separately.
The conclusions that result from the study of this model are several:
1. Contrails composed of water vapor routinely dissipate, as the physics and
chemistry of this model will demonstrate. As a separate and distinct
set of events, clouds may form if temperature, relative humidity, and
aerosol conditions are favorable to their development. If "contrails"
by appearance transform into "clouds", it can be concluded that the
material of composition is not water vapor.
2.The conditions under consideration show that the ice crystals
within a contrail can warm to the melting point and subsequently melt
with the heat provided by solar radiation.
3. As demonstrated both by historical observation and this model, the
time expected for contrail dissipation is relatively short, e.g., 2
minutes or less. This assumes the contrail is composed essentially
of water vapor, per the classic definition (condensed trail).
4. The rate of contrail dissipation is highly dependent upon the
the size of the ice crystal particles and the amount of solar radiation.
Dependence upon relative humidity is not evident. 'Cloud'
formation from aircraft, should it occur, is dependent primarily upon
the temperature, the relative humidity, and the type and size of
aerosol particles(nuclei) that are introduced.
The basic form of the contrail dissipation model, based upon the
chemistry, mathematics and physics of thermodynamics is as follows:
time for dissipation = (mass of water crystal * (Q + heat of fusion))
/ power
where Q is the amount of heat required to increase the temperature of
a substance (ice).
or
t(sec) = (m (kg) * Ht(kj/kg)) / P(watts)
where t is the time required for contrail
dissipation(transformation), in seconds, m is the mass of the ice
crystal in kilograms, Ht is the heat of transformation of ice in
kilojoules per kilogram, and P is the power applied to the system in
watts.
Calculating the internal energy, or enthalpy, of water vapor often
involves several phase changes, as water varies between solid, liquid
and vapor under varying conditions of temperature and pressure. In
the case of a contrail composed of water vapor, the heat of
transformation will consist of two phases. The first is the amount
of heat required to raise the temperature of the ice crystal at a
sub-zero temperature to 0 deg. C., which will be designated as Q in
the present case. The second segment of heat required will be that
which melts the ice crystal to a liquid form. The primary processes
involved in contrail formation therefore appear to involve:
1. The emission of water vapor from the aircraft.
2. The freezing of the water vapor at sub-zero temperatures into ice
crystals.
3. The warming of the ice crystals to the melting point through solar
radiation.
4. The melting of the ice crystal with solar radiation to where the
water vapor once again no longer is visible. This returns the water
to the state from which it was emitted from the engine.
Let us now quantify the components of this model with elements that
are typical or representative of the conditions of contrail
formation:
Mass:
Assume that we have a cubed particle size (nucleated ice crystal) of
dimension d on a side, measured in microns(designate as u). Given
also that the density of ice is .917gm/cm3, the mass of the particle
is:
mass=(d(u) * (1E-6m/u))^3 * (1E6cm3/m3) * (.917gm/cm3) * (1E-3kg/cm3)
or
mass = (d^3 * 9.17E-16 cm3 gm kg m3) / ( m3 cm3 gm)
Q + Heat of Fusion:
Q is equal to the amount of heat required to increase the temperature
of the ice crystal from the ambient temperature to 0 deg. C. The
specific heat of ice is given as 4.21 kJ/(kg C) at 0 deg. C. The
specific heat varies only slightly with respect to temperature and
pressure, and this value will therefore be used. J refers to joules
of energy.
The heat of fusion of ice is 335kJ/kg. It requires this amount of
energy to melt ice.
Therefore, the amount of heat required to transform the ice crystal
is:
dQ + heat of fusion = 4.21 kJ/(kg C) * dT + 355kJ/kg
where dQ is the amount of heat entering the ice crystal, the heat of
fusion is the amount of heat required to melt the ice crystal, and dT
is the temperature change from the ambient air to 0 deg. in Celsius.
The model now becomes:
t(sec) = (d^3 * (9.17E-16)cm^3 gm kg m^3 * ((((4.21kJ/kg)*dT)/(kg C))
+ 355kj/kg)) / P * (m^3 cm^3 gm)
Power (P):
The energy of solar radiation is given in terms of watts/ square
meter. Representative values measured range approximaely from 200 to
700 watts/m^3. To arrive at the power applied to the ice crystal, we
will take the surface area of the crystal exposed perpendicularly to
the sunlight, and apply the solar radiation to it. The solar
radiation will be applied on a continuous basis to the surface area
until melting is complete.
Power absorbed = d^2 * (watts/m^2) * (1E-6m/u)^2
and since 1 watt = 1 joule/sec
Power absorbed = d^2 * (J/(m^2 s) * (1E-12) m^2/u^2
The model now becomes:
t(sec) = (d(u)^3 * (9.17E-16) cm3 gm kg m^3 * ((4.21kJ/kg * dT kJ/kg
C) + (335kj/kg))) / (d(u)^2 * (J/(m^2 s) * (1E-12) m^2 / u^2)
Simplifying:
t(sec) = ((d(u) * (9.17E-13) * (4.21dT + 335) J cm^3 gm kg m^3 s
m^2) / (Watts * 1E-12 J m^2 m^3 cm^3 gm kg)
or t(sec) = (d(u) * (9.17E-13) * (4.21dT + 335)) sec / (Watts *
1E-12)
or t(sec) = (d(u) * .917 * (-4.21T + 335)) / Watts/m2
where d is measured in microns, T is the air temperature where the
contrail forms, measured in Celsius, and solar radiation is in watts
per square meter.
Representative cases and the application of this model will now be
considered. Research indicates that the expected size of particles
emitted from aircraft ranges between 30 and 200 microns (Goethe MB -
Ground Based Passive Remote Sensing of Ice Clouds with Scattered
Solar Radiation in the Near Infrared - Max Planck Inst Meteorol).
The temperature of the air at flight altitudes commonly approaches
-50 deg. C. Solar radiation commonly ranges between 400 and 700
watts per square meter.
In the tables presented, d is the dimension of the ice crystal along
one side of the cube, T is the temperature of the ambient air where
the contrail forms (.e.g, 35000ft. MSL), and P is the solar radiation
in Watts/sq. m. t is the length of time that it requires for the
contrail, or ice crystal to dissipate (i.e., transform from ice to
water vapor).
d(microns) T(deg. C.) P(watts/sq. m) t(sec)
1 -50 600 1
10 -50 600 8
30 -50 600 25
50 -50 600 42
100 -50 600 83
1 -40 400 1
10 -40 400 12
30 -40 400 35
50 -40 400 58
100 -40 400 115
1 -30 700 1
10 -30 700 6
30 -30 700 18
50 -30 700 33
100 -30 700 60
This model covers the expected size range of any particles expected
to be emitted by aircraft; most airborne particles range between
0-100 microns. It is of interest that the particle sizes considered
in this model are generally considered to be too large to serve as
cloud condensation nuclei; the average expected size of cloud
condensation nuclei is extremely small, and on the order of .1 to .2
microns. A 10 micron particle is considered extremely large with
respect to cloud condensation nuclei. This size distinction, when
coupled with the results of the model above, further indicate the
need to consider cloud formation as a separate and distinct physical
process from that of contrail dissipation. That analysis would
necessarily consider the significant role that aerosol particles,
deliberately or otherwise introduced, would have on the cloud
nucleation and formation process.
As can be seen, the results of this model agree extremely well with
the observed properties of contrails over their historical existence.
This work is based upon the physical processes, chemistry and
mathematics of thermodynamics with respect to water and the various
phase states. Consideration has also been given to the phenomenon of
sublimation, and it has been found to be not applicable due to the
extremely low atmospheric pressure requirements for sublimation to
occur(P<.006atm). The greatest variation within this model is seen
to relate to particle size. It is seen that the contrails composed
of the smaller particles dissipate within 30 seconds or less, and
that the contrails composed of even relatively large particles are
expected to dissipate within a couple of minutes at most.
If the dissipation of an observed contrail does not conform to the
model above, and the corresponding physics and chemistry and math of
same, then the logical conclusion that can be drawn is that the
material of emission is not likely to be water vapor. As mentioned earlier, the
physics of cloud formation are an entirely separate process, and are
highly dependent upon temperature, relative humidity, aerosol type
and the size of aerosol particles that are introduced. Any
alterations in the formation of cloud processes as they have been
repeatedly observed and recorded must necessarily consider the impact
of these aerosols, identified and unidentified, within the analysis.
Prior attention given to microscopic hydrated salts remains a
priority in this research.
Clifford E Carnicom
September 16 2000
http://www.carnicom.com/conright.htm
Simplifyingquote:Op donderdag 12 april 2007 12:29 schreef Anti-NWO het volgende:
Simplifying:
t(sec) = ((d(u) * (9.17E-13) * (4.21dT + 335) J cm^3 gm kg m^3 s
m^2) / (Watts * 1E-12 J m^2 m^3 cm^3 gm kg)
or t(sec) = (d(u) * (9.17E-13) * (4.21dT + 335)) sec / (Watts *
1E-12)
or t(sec) = (d(u) * .917 * (-4.21T + 335)) / Watts/m2
where d is measured in microns, T is the air temperature where the
contrail forms, measured in Celsius, and solar radiation is in watts
per square meter.
Kom op, ik weet zeker dat je dit zelf ook niet begrijpt. Eerst vraag je om bewijs van trails van voor 1994, dan komt dat bewijs en dan doe je een copy-paste van heel erg lange tekst waar niemand wijs uit wordt?
Ten es gheen wondere, dat mi tderuen grief gheeft:
Niemant en scheet gheerne van dat hi lief heeft.
Niemant en scheet gheerne van dat hi lief heeft.
Behalve dat je die verhalen (zoals Rasing al zei) zelf ook niet snapt,quote:Op donderdag 12 april 2007 12:29 schreef Anti-NWO het volgende:
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/report.shtml
http://www.carnicom.com/conright.htm
Zoek jij informatie over de 2e wereldoorlog ook op stormfront.org?
En informatie over veehouderij op peta.org enzo?
en wel informatie zoeken van 911 op .gov sitesquote:Op donderdag 12 april 2007 12:47 schreef mcDavid het volgende:
[..]
Behalve dat je die verhalen (zoals Rasing al zei) zelf ook niet snapt,
Zoek jij informatie over de 2e wereldoorlog ook op stormfront.org?
En informatie over veehouderij op peta.org enzo?
Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, media destroys information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.
