Leonard Clampett said:

“our eyes are stereoscopic and we use the same principle in range finding equipment.”

Both true, but what I tried to get accross was that the stereoscopic view is limited.

This paper (from 2010) says:

Our stereoscopic depth magnitude data clearly show that stereopsis is useful for objects whose mean egocentric distance is much greater (up to 164 m)

http://ww.journalofvision.org/content/10/6/19.full

They have corrected earlier findings that had determined the limit of stereoscopic depth perception as 44.1 m.

That’s the reason why optical rangefinders are increasing the parallax:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coincidence_rangefinder

No, you can’t tell the distance of an object 17 km by using your stereoscopic depth perception. Unless you are indeed using an optical rangefinder. Did you?

Correction of last post - should have read:

No, you can’t tell the distance of an object at least 17 km away by using your stereoscopic depth perception. Unless you are indeed using an optical rangefinder. Did you?

Josh, I am now quite sure that you are not just out of your depth, but in way over your head. You are inferring that we were never able to estimate our range properly when using SLR’s and M16’s by visual means and all our successes must have been good luck. You need to do some training and get some experience rather than reading the Internet. You could also probably, if you joined the Army and learned a few more things, get some practical working knowledge of mini range finders which are small in size for portability and not as large as the Artillery use, and not much wider than the distance between our eyes. Are you saying that target drops at 1,000 metres, using eyeball estimation, were all good luck? Experience brings with it good judgement and estimation. Nothing you have raised so far gives me any confidence that you actually know what you are writing about,and are just making it up as you go from information searched out on the Internet. You don’t seem to have anything of substance, i.e the crap about supersaturation you either got from some dubious web-site or manufactured yourself, among other things. You deny the existence of chemtrails, so now come up with some good solid evidence to prove your averment. Your claims about the photographs I took amount to very little so far because you are guessing and attempting to cover your lack of knowledge with what amounts to bullshit. My detector almost goes into overdrive when I read each of your succeeding posts. Give me something solid to discuss with you instead of trying to bullshit your way through.
Some of your claims are immature slights upon professional pilots who spend their careers estimating distances in the sky around them and for navigation purposes, and quite safely dare I say. You also slight professional soldiers who do what you claim they can’t by way of everyday ops. You can also note down that we pilots do not carry range finders with us to determine distance to targets, we do it with our eyes.

We have just returned from a trip to the supermarket at Newmarket and upon exiting we noticed an aircraft spraying a chemtrail to the south of Brisbane in a large loop across the sky at high altitude with the only loud in sight being an approaching front promising rain again tonight as we had last night. Dollars to peanuts we get no rain tonight because the front will dissipate. I will post the photographs we took quite soon and no doubt you and other deniers will have some vapid reasoning to offer. Maybe pilots skylarking or some-such in their million dollar airborne mopeds? The only problem with those excuses for it is that farmers tell us that around the Kingaroy and associated areas they have very frequent occurrences of the same spraying and they have found that the chemicals that end up on their paddocks are destroying the micro flora and fauna in their soil. Consequently it gets harder to grow the food that the careless who live in the city, who are so dumb they cannot see what is happening around them because they have so much faith in their choice of politicians that they don’t believe the pollies would do anything to harm them, get to buy and eat. Ho hum, whilst the dumb ignore, the silent violence against them continues.

For those who wish to view the photographs taken this afternoon, Tuesday 4-12-2012 at Newmarket, Brisbane at about 18:30 hours of a high flying aircraft spraying a chemtrail to the south of Brisbane please go to

http://imgur.com/yopIp&MQ1lG;&Yuo1v;&Xccf0;&gc4bd;&ZVCg9;&dEE0T;&zhVA9;&9Gy4G;&bErPX;&eXEB1;&JAxYF;&5ToOX;&MPcfK;&OzNDr;&ZBcRS;&r4sMY;&c1F1w;&KSklp;&cuewm;&K0PUD;&7uANv;&SzSp5;&ETGGJ;&m2xmm;#6

I suspect that the deniers will have some wonderful stories to tell, especially those who weren’t there, about how they “know” it is not a chemtrail and that it would be pilots having fun or some such other rubbish, but I can tell you that there are no holding patterns in that area and farmers tell me that they see the same activities, and at lower altitudes, frequently. Cheers,

Leonard Clampett said:

“You are inferring that we were never able to estimate our range properly when using SLR’s and M16’s by visual means.”

No, I don’t. Obviously depth perception is not the only component of visual determination of distance.

However, you made the specific claim that “the chemtrails were at about 10,000 by observation, by three people, of detail in three dimensions, not two.”

You can’t perceive an object in three dimensions in 17 km distance with your bare eyes.

I quoted the study from 2010 that had the limit at 164 m. Do you have better data?

Leonard Clampett said:

“You don’t seem to have anything of substance, i.e the crap about supersaturation you either got from some dubious web-site or manufactured yourself”

I am using Google. That does not alter the facts though.
By all means, check them out for yourself - instead of just attacking the messenger!

Here is a selection of papers and studies about supersaturation and contrails. Are they all ‘dubious’? Do you have any new data that these scientists didn’t have? I’m sure they would accept new findings if the evidence is good.

From The dependence of contrail formation on the weather pattern and altitude in the North Atlantic:

Aircraft flying through cold ice-supersaturated air produce persistent contrails which contribute to the climate impact of aviation

From Cirrus, contrails, and ice supersaturated regions in high pressure systems at northern mid latitudes:

The radiosonde data showed that the upper troposphere was very often supersaturated with respect to ice.

From Formation, properties and climatic effects of contrails:

Condensation trails (contrails) are aircraft induced cirrus clouds, which may persist and grow to large cirrus cover in ice-supersaturated air

From Properties of Ice-Supersaturated Layers Based on Radiosonde Data Analysis:

While supersaturation with respect to ice is not required to form a contrail, it is necessary for the contrail to persist for long times.

From Contrail formation in aircraft wakes

[...] contrails form when the air surrounding the particles becomes supersaturated with respect to ice.

From Aviation and the Global Atmosphere:

Each of these freezing mechanisms requires that the atmosphere be highly supersaturated with respect to the vapor pressure of ice before crystals can form.

“A society whose citizens refuse to see and investigate the facts, who refuse to believe that their government and their media will routinely lie to them and fabricate a reality contrary to verifiable facts, is a society that chooses and deserves the Police State Dictatorship it’s going to get.”—Ian Williams Goddard  
 
“Those who make peaceful change impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”—John F. Kennedy
 
“Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among people.” (August 1765) John Adams

“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”
Said to have originated in a statement of Irish orator John Philpot Curran in 1790: “It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance.”

So, Josh, You need to understand that you are not just a messenger, you are a carrier and promoter of denial of government sponsored chemtrails.

Dealing with your spurious web-sites, and all they claim, I choose to speak with people who can give me solid information. Yesterday I spoke with a Fuel Technology Chemical Engineer (we engineers tend to stick together because all systems need design input from engineers) from one of the big oil companies at some length. He was left with some queries to ponder. He told me he believed that a tonne of Avtur/Jet-A1 burned produces about 1.5 tonnes of water. I asked if this was from oxidisation and he agreed it was. I asked if this was much the same process, except at high temperature (about 700 degrees Celsius), used in fuel cells and he agreed that it was. The difference being that fuel cells use cold fusion to extract hydrogen gas, using the electrolysis process, which is burned and then returns to its natural state upon exhaust and mixing with the ambient atmosphere where the necessary atoms are attracted and exchanged and the natural balance returns at reformation. (I have a hydrogen gas producer fitted to our car so I do not entertain any claims they don’t work, and treat such claims with the contempt they deserve, and make my claim without fear of intelligent contradiction). Hence the Universe maintains equilibrium, as it always does, because for every action there is an equal and opposite re-action.

I am left to figure out the following. We take a Boeing 747-800, as an instance, and we fill it full of a carbon based fuel. This fuel is burned and gives use enough energy to lift 300 tones to, say, 45,000 feet and thrust it along at some 0.85 for hours on end. It turns each tonnes of fuel into 1.5 tonnes of water (H2O). That is 140 tonnes of fuel becomes 210 tonnes of water if we burn every drop. Not only that, we also exhaust many tens of tonnes of CO2. CO2 is 1.5 times the weight of air and immediately comes under the unforgiving force of gravity and begins to descend to, and be absorbed by, either the earth or water it lands upon. Ergo, the CO2 tax you and I have been saddled with has no scientific basis whatsoever despite the claims by the IPCC “experts” who are paid to espouse total crap at our expense.

So not only do we magically create 50% more in weight from a carbon based fuel but the CO2 and other exhaust gasses as well. All this whilst also getting the benefits of high speed travel. Bloody marvellous, what?

Just to recap on your thesis. Our aircraft magically creates weight from a magic process. Luckily it does not retain the exhaust gasses otherwise it would weigh an extra 70 tonnes, plus the CO2, upon landing. This must be why we need to be so careful in filling out the TOLD card prior to landing.

This system, and how it works, has obviously been suppressed by the oil companies, otherwise we could have used it years ago to improve our lot. Imagine burning the water instead of the fuel to get the water. Why would we bother with the fuel?

One other thing Josh, you may have not yet figured it out, but if, as you claim, ice crystal in contrails gather moisture from the surrounding atmosphere, in direct contradiction to the laws of thermodynamics (entropy), without the required up-drafts found in
Cb’s, as they gained weight they would descend and melt. This would be if they could overcome the natural balance of integrating with the surrounding atmosphere not unlike the ice cubes in the swimming pool comparison. All this apart from the fact that a trivial amount of water exhausted into tens of cubic kilometres of surrounding atmosphere as a craft passes by at about 900 kilometres per hour or about 15 kilometres per minute.

At 11,000 metres (where the air temperature is about -50 degrees Celsius) the speed of sound is approx 86% of that in air at 20 degrees Celsius, that is about 1063 km/h 0.85 x 1063 km/h = 904 km/h

Have you worked on the photographs from Tuesday of the chemtrail being sprayed near Brisbane?

I note that the truth has become to exude from your subconscious as it always will. Estimating range requires a stereoscopic image and our eyes are stereoscopic. 164 meters is not 1,000 metres and you need to be able to perceive detail of some kind at that distance in order to dope the sights. The chemtrail shown in the photographs taken from our home were large enough for us to see the detail required which would not have been had they been at your wished-for 30,000 feet.

About supersaturation, Have you been able to discover any scientific evidence, not Internet crap, that confirms that we can have more than 100% humidity in the free atmosphere or have you given up?

Cheers,

For Hereward and Josh,

Take a look at this short video and at about the 1 minute 30 second point you will see what happens to carbon dioxide gas, which is about 1.5 times heavier than air, when it is allowed to go its own way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_f3SkxTWxc

Cheers,

Leonard Clampett said:

“About supersaturation, Have you been able to discover any scientific evidence, not Internet crap, that confirms that we can have more than 100% humidity in the free atmosphere or have you given up?”

Did you read any of the papers at all? The abstracts, at least?

Scientific papers are printed in scientific journals (which is the moment of introducing new findings in all fields of science). They are then scrutinized by fellow scientists.

Only because some of them are available on the Internet does not make them ‘crap’.

How much more scientific evidence than scientific studies about contrail formation would you accept?

Do I really have to list the scientific journals the linked papers were published in?

If you can ask an engineer about combustion (who confirms what I have been saying all along), why not ask a meteorologist about supersaturation?

Josh, for a fleeting moment or two I suspected that you had discovered some common-sense which just isn’t common any more. I’ll explain to you in simple terms so you can follow. Atmospheric pressure is measured at the bottom of a column of air stretching to the top of the exosphere, right up through the troposphere, the tropopause, the stratosphere, the the mesosphere, the thermosphere to the exosphere.

This column of air measures 1013.2 Mb/hPa or 29.92 inches of Mercury in the International Standard Atmosphere. To pressurise the atmosphere up where contrails are normally formed you would have to increase the atmospheric pressure that altitude to above ambient. How can that be done except by increasing the amount of air above the contrail formation altitude. It actually can’t be done, which is what you do not seem to grasp.

What is it that you do not yet understand? You see there is nothing to ask a meteorologist, and the chemical engineer, far from confirming what you have been saying all along, could not tell me, as I pointed out in my last post, how an aircraft weighing about 300 tonnes was able to produce another 70 tonnes of weight by some magical means.

i.e. you seem to be claiming that the aircraft would have weighed 370 tonnes if it kept al the exhaust emissions on board.

Leonard Clampett said:

“You would have to increase the atmospheric pressure that altitude to above ambient”

No, supersaturation does not depend on pressure increase. It happens because a lack of condensation nuclei (solid particles). It’s a scientific fact.

You also said:

“how an aircraft weighing about 300 tonnes was able to produce another 70 tonnes of weight by some magical means.”

Again (for the fourth time, I think):

The additional weight comes from the intake of air, the oxygen in it.

Why is it that a considerable part of any combustion engine (jet or piston) is dedicated to collecting and compressing outside air?

Why can’t fuel burn in outer space?

To complete your thought experiment: let’s assume there is no outside air. As a consequence, your 747-800 would have to carry 70 tons of oxygen in addition to the fuel.

Got it?

OK Josh, you are slowly getting there, and I may be able to carry you across the line of understanding if you keep up the good work, because there was a smidgeon of knowledge oozing out of your last post, although I suspect that it may have accidentally come from your subconscious which cannot help but expound what you actually believe. So you are making headway, it seems, although it is a toss up as to whether or not you just argue for the sake of it or are really believing the kinds of things you postulate.

Josh Anonymous said:

“No, supersaturation does not depend on pressure increase. It happens because a lack of condensation nuclei (solid particles). It’s a scientific fact.”

Josh, that is just plain bullshit and you must know it. Firstly let me iterate that there is no such thing supersaturation in the free atmosphere at any altitude. You need to get your head around this point otherwise you cannot advance your knowledge. There is no such thing as more than 100% humidity in the free atmosphere. Got it yet? No matter how many nuclei of any kind are present in the free atmosphere they, or their lack, cannot cause an increase in pressure to do what you claim. You the go on to broach the subject of compressors, but ..... Nuclei are what condensate clings to in order to create ice crystals, larger rain drops and hail. The moisture builds up on the nuclei. Supersaturation means that there is more moisture in a parcel of air than can be absorbed under natural conditions, i.e. in the free atmosphere, and to increase the amount of moisture requires a containment of the air in order to be able to make it absorb more water vapour, to force it in, as in how carbonated soft drinks have CO2 forced into the container they occupy to cause a supersaturation of the liquid with the gas which, when you open the container, releases as bubbles of gas. Ergo, equilibrium returns when you rip the top of a stubbie and the CO2 escapes. You are making progress because you appear to follow that all the water vapour is already up at altitude and is not carried up their by an aircraft. Hence, the engines do not “make” water because the exhausted water vapour is an accidental result of the combustion process from the air that is drawn into the engine air intake. Engines do not create water, and certainly no more water vapour than is drawn into the engine will be exhausted. Bear in mind the most basic point that water cannot be compressed, only vapour can be and only to the point of 100% humidity because it then becomes water. The temperature in the combustion chamber, and inter-stages, allows for an increase in vapour content but also reduces any vapour to steam to be exhausted.

You seem to have understood that the aircraft does not carry water into the upper atmosphere from the ground, and that each engine has a series of compressors, axial and centrifugal, to compress (read pressurise), the air that is drawn into the engine intake from the free atmosphere. I can give you a gold plated, diamond encrusted, solid platinum guarantee that no turbine engine will even come to life without its compressors working. Ergo, there can be no supersaturation in the free atmosphere and as soon as the exhaust gasses are emitted from the engine they expand to reach the same pressure as the surrounding ambient atmosphere almost instantly. So out the window goes your theory, and, if you have ever been involved in an explosive decompression situation you would know exactly how fast the pressure balance is reached.

Josh Anonymous also said:

“The additional weight comes from the intake of air, the oxygen in it.”

No Josh, you don’t seem to get it, there is no additional weight at all. The air flows THROUGH the engine, the aircraft does not take it on board.

Josh Anonymous also said:
“Why can’t fuel burn in outer space?”

Well, Josh, it does burn as rocket propellant but it is hydrogen that is burning, not a carbon based fuel. Duh?

Josh Anonymous also said:
“To complete your thought experiment: let’s assume there is no outside air. As a consequence, your 747-800 would have to carry 70 tons of oxygen in addition to the fuel.”

Well, Duh again, if there was no outside air, as in space, there would be no flight. Simple, Eh?

Got it?

Leonard Clampett, when I said:

“Why can’t fuel burn in outer space?”,

you replied:

“it does burn as rocket propellant but it is hydrogen that is burning, not a carbon based fuel.”

Rockets burning hydrogen also take their oxygen with them.
There is no burning without oxygen.

You also said:

“The air flows THROUGH the engine, the aircraft does not take it on board.”

I never claimed that, nor did I claim an aircraft would somehow carry water along with the fuel.
The air is compressed and then the oxygen contained in it reacts with the fuel.

Once more (I am at a loss how to put it ever simpler):

-> In goes air - from the outside

-> In goes fuel - from the aircraft’s tanks

xx Combustion: hydrogen and carbon both react with oxygen

<- Out goes carbondioxide

<- Out goes hydroxide (which is H2O, or water - as vapour of course)

The chemical formula I posted before shows that there is an equality of the number of atoms going in and out which is what the laws of nature are requiring. The net mass of the elements involved does not change, it all adds up.

However, if you just compare the mass of fuel in and the mass of water out, the relation is 1 to 1.3 ...

By jolly Josh, You have confirmed that you are for entertainment purposes only and senseless argument is your conduit.

Hydrogen, H2, is not carbon. Some rockets use liquid hydrogen, LH2, and liquid oxygen LOx. The resultant mixture causes decomposition of those elements. Decomposition does not create water, any water present upon exhaust was there in the beginning in a different form. There can be no increase in volume or weight from any burned fuel considering starting point. Matter only changes form and does not add or subtract anything to the universe from any reaction. Energy is never lost only its state is altered. Alteration of a state is not creation of new matter. To put it as simply as possible for you, any water resultant by way of a rocket burning fuel in space was taken there, not made out of what little is there by way of matter in space and the weight and volume of the resultant matter will exactly equal the weight and volume of the initial ingredients. Quite apart from this is the fact that your points regarding rockets in space can be forgotten as whatever is emitted by a rocket exhaust will be instantly dispersed as it merges into billions of cubic kilometres of nothingness, so let’s dispense with that rocket/space nonsense.

The ratio of fuel to air mixture for a jet engine at sea level is about 58.82 to 1, i.e. 1 tonne of fuel mixed with 58.82 tonnes of air, will emit 59.82 tonnes of hot gas which will contain a proportion of water that existed in the mixture in the first place. There will not be any gain in weight of the resultant. Hence, the weight and volume of the input of fuel and atmospheric air that is exhausted by an aircraft engine exactly equals the weight and volume of what went into it in the first place. What part of physics do you not yet understand? Over-unity does not come into these equations.

The same applies to aircraft in our atmosphere. Whatever water results from their passing was there and not taken there by the aircraft. Compression/pressurisation of the atmosphere is what you seem to mistake for additional matter. The water resulting from the steam emitted is the same as was there prior to the passing of the aircraft and the balance, as I have explained to you previously, of the atmosphere will be the same moisture content as soon as the merging of matter takes place.

As you have postulated, the sum of the emissions is equal to the sum of the input. In other words, what comes out is equal in weight and volume to what went in. What goes in comes out, but in a different form and is no greater than what went in. Get it yet? To claim otherwise is to claim over-unity which certainly does not happen in aircraft engines no matter how hard you try to convince yourself otherwise.

The best place to go for a definition of hydroxide is the Encyclopaedia Britannica which puts paid to your claim that hydroxide, which is part made up of metals, is simply water or water vapour because some hydroxides are only sparingly soluble in water. You couldn’t actually claim that water is soluble in water could you, because soluble means to be able to be dissolved in another substance? But then, with your determination to back the government genocide ……….

As you are so well versed in over-unity make believe, I have a huge moneymaking proposition for you. I will set up a cat farm producing cat pelts for sale to China where they make all kinds of items of apparel from the skins. I will feed rats to the cats and feed the rats on the cat carcases. So, all we need to do is feed and slaughter, skin, process and ship the skins. As rats die the other rats can consume them as well which will mean no cost for feed of any kind. We can make an absolute fortune from the trade and all I need from you is the start-up finance and I can almost guarantee you will get a fortune from the mark up in the trade. No crap. No spin, only the truth. We could sit back and make huge money. That is, of course, if entropy does not come into the equation.

For the following, see above.

Josh Anonymous said:
“The net mass of the elements involved does not change, it all adds up.”

Leonard Clampett said:

“The water resulting from the steam emitted is the same as
was there prior to the passing of the aircraft”

No. This is your central error.
New water is generated during the burning process. As you say: “Matter only changes form”.

Burning is one of the ways for oxydation. The fuel molecules are cracked up by heat (that’s why you need heat to start a fire), the freed atoms are reacting with oxygen from the air around.

Even a campfire from dry wood generates water.

I called water “hydroxide” to highlight the fact that it’s just oxydized hydrogen. The correct name would be “dihydrogen-monoxyde” as the molecule consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

Josh, Now, let me make sure I have this straight. You claim that 1 tonne of fuel is converted into 1.3 tonnes of water. Correct so far? Yes. I suggest that you keep up your subscription to the Flat Earth Society as they need the money and their membership has been dwindling for decades, even a century or two. What I can let you in on, is the fact that after an aircraft passes by, any increase in the weight of the surrounding atmosphere, which would be the result of whatever the aircraft exhausted only, would exactly equal the weight of what was exhausted “and no more”. I iterate, “and no more”. Let me reiterate, “and no more”. The engines would not burn 1 tonne of fuel and exhaust 1.3 tonnes of anything, but 1 tonne of exhaust only. Can you see the finer picture here? Nothing disappears, nothing is added, as matter only alters form. This, of course, only occurs for a very short period of time as instantly, as in space, upon exhaust, the emission is subject to, and I have explained this to you a couple of times, immediate dispersal to balance the ambient atmospheric temperature, pressure and humidity. If the ambient temperature, pressure and humidity are less than the exhaust emissions, the emissions will be instantly subject to reduction to reach equilibrium. Got the larger picture yet?

I can go through it slowly for you if that is your need. However, to add to that, it seems you have difficulty following the very simple fact that as equilibrium is the arbiter of all things in nature, everything that is introduced into the upper atmosphere is absorbed by the surrounding atmosphere, which, at 30,000 feet, extends to hundreds, if not thousands of cubic kilometres, and temperature, pressure and humidity are equalised rapidly.

I believe you should get your machine that you claim creates more than is input, and sell it to the governments across the world so they can make money. Should be worth billions to you, and the best of luck.

Just another question for you, although, as you would studied and passed examinations on Principles of Flight for gliders, you may not have had to do propellers, but you should know anyway. Can you tell me if lift always equals weight, and thrust always equals drag, in balanced flight, in the formula to calculate these aerodynamic forces? The accepted belief in this matter will demonstrate to you the inherent difficulties in following the kind of dogma you keep flogging among other dead horses.

Leonard Clampett said:

“You claim that 1 tonne of fuel is converted into 1.3 tonnes of water”

Don’t forget the other substances - else the equation will indeed not add up.

Let’s add molcular masses and you will see how it works out. First, here is the combustion equation again:

2 C12H26 + 37 O2 = 24 CO2 + 26 H2O

Molecular mass of kerosene: 170.3360 g/mol
Molecular mass of an oxygen pair: 31.99886 g/mol
Molecular mass of carbondioxide: 44.00964 g/mol
Molecular mass of water: 18.01532
(All rounded)

So, the mass going into combustion is:

2 * 170.3360 + 37 * 31.99886 = 340.672 + 1183.95782 = 1524.62982 g/mol

The mass coming out of the combustion is:

24 * 44.00964 + 26 * 18.01532 = 1056.23136 + 468.39832 = 1524.62968 g/mol

The total mass is unchanged (apart from th rounding errors).

If you break down the relations to one ton of fuel you get this:

1.00 t fuel and 3.47 t oxygen going in, 3.10 t carbondioxyde plus 1.37 t water coming out.

4.47 tonnes in, 4.47 tonnes out.

If there are errors in the calculation, point them out please.

Ask your engineer friend about the combustion formula if you think it’s wrong.

Josh, by golly, I think you almost have it. A little extra stretching and presto. You are now getting toward understanding. I spoke with a professor chemistry and she agrees with me that only 1 tonne of fuel residue is exhausted from an engine following combustion of that 1 tonne, along with 58.82 tonnes of resultant matter from the compressed air that goes through the engine adding up to a total of 59.82 tonnes exhausted from the combustion process.

Josh Anonymous said”
“If you break down the relations to one tonne of fuel you get this:
1.00 t fuel and 3.47 t oxygen going in, 3.10 t carbondioxyde plus 1.37 t water coming out.
4.47 tonnes in, 4.47 tonnes out.”

Interesting Josh! I think you stumbled across the fact that fuel does not burn by itself earlier in the discussion. Your calculation does not take account of the entire air mass moving through the engine. It cannot simply be ignored. 1 tonne of fuel and 58.82 tonnes of atmosphere compressed and burned equals 59.82 tonnes of which a very small portion is water. The water was always there in the atmosphere, and came from OUTSIDE the aircraft and was heated by the combustion process, turned to steam , exhausted and condensed.

The point being - the extra weight comes from OUTSIDE. Duh!

Air is a mixture of gases
Oxygen: 20.99%
Nitrogen: 78.03%
Carbon Dioxide: 0.03%
Hydrogen: 0.00005%
Argon: 0.93%
Neon: 0.0018%
Helium: 0.0005%
Krypton: 0.0001%
Xenon: 0.000009%
= 99.982459%

Concerning Carbon Dioxide. Did you ever see the effect of having dry ice, solid carbon dioxide, in a punch bowl at a party? The dry ice is vaporising to the gaseous state, as well as condensing some water vapour in the air to produce a white fog that sinks in the air. It flows over the edge of the bowl and sinks. This shows that the carbon dioxide and cold water vapour are more dense than air. i.e. they sink. This should tell a wide awake observer that CO2, being 1.5 times the weight of air, descends when released at altitude and will not remain there to become a cloud. This is why you see real contrails that dissolve in a very short time apart from the well known fact that natures equilibrium ensures the universe remains in an overall steady state.

The ratio of fuel to air mixture for a jet engine at sea level is about 58.82 to 1, i.e. 1 tonne of fuel mixed with 58.82 tonnes of air, will emit 59.82 tonnes of hot gas which will contain a proportion of water that existed in the mixture in the first place.

A friend of mine called me yesterday from mid NSW as he was driving from Narrabri to Melbourne to tell me that he was looking at a peculiar chemtrail in the sky west of where he was parked on the highway. A circle with two crossed chemtrails situated to make it look a skull and crossbones. That is not done by either commercial or Air Force jet traffic and it would appear that as the powers-that-be have sufficient deniers like yourselves now so they believe they can do whatever they like with impunity as you assist in dividing the community with your belief that governments would never do such things to We, The People.

Josh, chemtrails are being sprayed across the globe every day. Get used to it. Any amount of information is available for those with eyes to see and ears to hear. No amount of denial will change that and arguing against it assists the agenda.

Leonard Clampett,

is my calculation correct?

If so, then for every tonne of fuel there are 1.37 tonnes of water generated.

If not, please point out the error.