Truth News Australia

Latest LIVE show

Hereward Fenton

April 1, 2014
In today's show we are joined by former Governor of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura, for the full hour. Get the podcast »

Listen Live or Call In !

Recent News & Podcasts

No jab, no play - the vaccine crackdown and your rights

May 22, 2013, part 1 of 2.
Download mp3 » click here
May 22, 2013, part 2 of 2.
Download mp3 » click here

25 May 2013 | Permalink | comments: 0
By Hereward Fenton

Categories: [ Syria, Vaccination ]

In today's show we look at the controversy over vaccines from the perspective of basic human freedom.

We propose that, whether or not vaccines are safe and effective, there is a moral imperative to protect the freedom of the individual which is being eroded by medical fascists who seek to make vaccines mandatory.

We look at reports of decreasing vaccination levels among some Australian communities and reflect on factors which may have influenced these changes.

In the 2nd hour we look at some research into the deep links between the Murdoch family and the pharmaceutical industry, links which may explain, among other things, the sustained persecution of Dr. Andrew Wakefield, whose medical licence was revoked in the U.K. after a sustained attack on his character in the Murdoch press.

We consider some research which highlights connections between vaccines, mitochondrial disorders and autism which complements the research of Dr. Wakefield.

We also take a look at some recent news from Syria and include an interview with independent vlogger "Syrian Girl".

Related Links

Atmospheric CO2 levels have reached a new high - should we be concerned?

May 16, 2013, part 1 of 1.
Download mp3 » click here

18 May 2013 | Permalink | comments: 0
By Hereward Fenton

Categories: [ Climate Change, Vaccination ]

Historical CO2 levels

In today's show we report on the latest climate change news as reported by Australia's national broadcaster the ABC. 

On 11 May the ABC reported:

The world's longest measure of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached 400 parts per million (PPM) for the first time in three million years.

We break down and deconstruct the above statement, and analyse the way in which the ABC script writers and journalists play word games in their attempt to persuade you to accept their predefined agenda. The fact is that the world's longest measure of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has only been going since 1958 - it can tell us nothing about the past 100 years, let alone three million!

The ABC is a serial offender in misrepresenting science to serve political ends and we call them to account for their abuse of the trust and financial support provided by the tax paying Australian public.

We further discuss more unsubstaniated and imprecise allegations contained in the same article.

We challenge the widely held assumption that historical CO2 leves were stable up until the latter half of the 20th century and provide peer reviewed research which shows huge fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 over the past 200 years (see image above).

Related Links

 

 

World news roundup for 8th May 2013

May 8, 2013, part 1 of 2.
Download mp3 » click here
May 8, 2013, part 2 of 2.
Download mp3 » click here

11 May 2013 | Permalink | comments: 0
By Hereward Fenton

In today's show we bring you a wide range of stories from Australia and around the world, leading with the latest developments on the Syrian conflict.

In a shocking development, the lead UN investigator into war crimes in Syria, Carla Del Ponte, has announced that the Syrian rebels most likely had used sarin gas and that there was no evidence whatsoever that the Syrian government was responsible for any chemical attacks. In an interview with Swiss radio, she is quoted as follows:

According to the testimonies we have gathered, the rebels have used chemical weapons, making use of sarin gas

We still have to deepen our investigation, verify and confirm (the findings) through new witness testimony, but according to what we have established so far, it is at the moment opponents of the regime who are using sarin gas.

Del Ponte reaffirms these views in a subsequent interview with the BBC:

We take a look the latest attacks on the Australian Vaccination Network by the Australian Medical Association, a new hit-piece in the Scientific American on conspiracy theorists and a recent interview with Julian Assange.

In the 2nd hour we bring you a highly original and controversial presentation by radical libertarian feminist Karen Straughan.

The cancer of statism is eating away at the Australian economy

May 1, 2013, part 1 of 1.
Download mp3 » click here

04 May 2013 | Permalink | comments: 0
By Hereward Fenton

Categories: [ Australia, Statism, Stefan Molyneux ]

In today's show we cover some local news, in the wake of announcements that the Australian economy is suddenly looking shaky after several years of moderate growth. In late April the Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced that revenue will be down $12 billion since the October budget update, and that spending cuts and tax hikes can be expected.

The government has asserted that the situation has not been caused by excessive spending despite numerous examples of so-called stimulus spending over the past few years, in many cases with extremely poor outcomes, such as the home insulation scheme.

We examine these developments in the context of a podcast by Stephan Moylneux, who ascribes this to the "cancer of statism".

I am joined today by Josh Jackson who offers his original and incisive analysis of Australia's economic situation.

Debunking the climate change scam with Malcolm Roberts

April 24, 2013, part 1 of 2.
Download mp3 » click here
April 24, 2013, part 2 of 2.
Download mp3 » click here

27 April 2013 | Permalink | comments: 0
By Hereward Fenton

In the 2nd hour of today's show we welcome to the show Malcolm Roberts, who joins us to continue the David and Goliath struggle of confronting and destroying the lies about climate which are being spread by the corporatist cartels who use bastardised science to subvert democracy and impose their Agenda 21 global eco-technic dicatorship.

You can find out more about Malcolm's work here and here.

In the first hour we examine and debunk some alternate theories in relation to the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing.

We also take a look at some of the recent atrocities in Syria, and an ABC Four Corners investigation into the Coal Seam Gas industry in Australia.

Anatomy of a terrorist attack: the Boston Marathon Bombing

April 17, 2013, part 1 of 2.
Download mp3 » click here
April 17, 2013, part 2 of 2.
Download mp3 » click here

19 April 2013 | Permalink | comments: 0
By Hereward Fenton


Remains of the pressure cooker bomb believed to been packed with ball bearings

Today's show focusses on the recent terrorist bombing at the Boston Marathon. Our aim is to understand the underlying "message" behind this attack, and to deconstruct the MSM propaganda which seeks to portray this as the act of some fringe groups who are disgruntled over gun ownership legislation and the intrusion of government into their private lives.

We suggest that the propaganda message being broadcast is indeed far more important than the event itself, which while tragic for those directly involved, was insignificant compared to the daily road toll.

The Boston attacks have triggered discussion in Australian media about the threat of "ideological terrorist attacks" - and we provide an alternate analysis of this information.

Also in today's show we take a look at the plunging carbon price in Europe (and what that really signifies), as well as some recent developments in the war against vaccine dissidents in Australia.

Related Links

Introducing Nicole Bijlsma: building biologist and expert in the health effects of radiation

April 3, 2013, part 1 of 2.
Download mp3 » click here
April 3, 2013, part 2 of 2.
Download mp3 » click here

12 April 2013 | Permalink | comments: 0
By Hereward Fenton

Today it is my pleasure to welcome to the show Nicole Bijlsma, a best selling author with extensive knowledge on many health issues related to the toxic effects of ordinary things found in your home.

Nicole joins us in the 2nd hour of today's show.

Nicole's website provides information on the health effects of household chemicals, toxic gases, lead dust and electromagmetic energy, and on today's show she shares with us some of her research with an emphasis on the health effects of various forms of electromagnetic energy, including smart meters, wireless routers and mobile phones.

More backgound on Nicole can be found at buildingbiology.com.au:

Nicole Bijlsma is a woman of passion, and her passion lies in environmental medicine. She first became interested in building biology as a result of two events that occurred in her life: the first was when she began to notice the connection between many of her patient’s ill health and their homes. The second was her infertility.

The cause of her ten miscarriages was eventually identified as an immune disorder (which was diagnosed by a US reproductive immunologist) which she now suspects arose from long term exposure to a high electromagnetic field. Once these issues were addressed, she successfully gave birth to her three children. Nicole is an accomplished naturopath, acupuncturist and building biologist who has been in clinical practice since 1989.

She is also the founder of the Australian College of Environmental Studies which was established in 1999 to educate people about the health hazards in the built environment. The college provides nationally accredited training in Building Biology and Feng Shui. Nicole is the author of the book Healthy Home, Healthy Family and is a popular speaker who conducts lectures on sick building syndrome and healthy homes throughout Australia. Nicole has appeared on every major television network including the 7PM Project, Sunrise (five times), the Today show and The Circle and is regularly asked by the media to comment on health hazards associated with our homes. - source

In the first hour of the show we cover some recent news, with a critique of ABC Australia's coverage of the Climate Commission report titled "The Angry Summer"

Related Links

Full body scanners now in operation at Sydney International Airport

March 27, 2013, part 1 of 1.
Download mp3 » click here

30 March 2013 | Permalink | comments: 0
By Hereward Fenton

Categories: [ Full Body Scanners ]

In today's show we re-visit the thorny issue of full body scanners and what they signal for your rights, your privacy, your health and human freedom generally.

Full body scanners (millimitre wave) are now in operation at all international airports in Australia. The devices deployed in Australia include what is called "privacy protection" in that the images displayed to operators show a stylised "stick figure" version of the human body. Despite this welcome enhancement, it is still nonetheless true that going through these devices is equivalent to a "strip search" - something that is not normally expected by law abiding citizens going about their daily business.

What if I refuse a body scan?

If a person refuses to undergo a body scan, and they have no medical or physical condition which prevents them for undertaking a body scan, they will be refused clearance and not allowed to pass through the screening point. They therefore will not be allowed to board their aircraft. This policy not only applies to passengers, but also to pilots, other aircrew, government officers and airport staff.  - source

We propose on the show that a national movement of opposition and lawful rebellion against the degrading practice of strip searching air travellers needs to be a top priorty for all who value freedom.

Related Links

Page 6 of 104 pages ‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 8 >  Last ›

Listen Live

Recent Comments

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.

By Leonard Clampett on 2012 12 10 - 21:50:08
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

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.

By Josh on 2012 12 09 - 19:46:17
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

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.

By Leonard Clampett on 2012 12 09 - 10:13:19
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

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.

By Josh on 2012 12 08 - 19:16:00
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

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.”

By Leonard Clampett on 2012 12 08 - 17:02:44
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

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 Josh on 2012 12 08 - 06:41:28
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

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?

By Leonard Clampett on 2012 12 07 - 22:06:42
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

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?

By Josh on 2012 12 07 - 17:45:39
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

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.

By Leonard Clampett on 2012 12 07 - 11:22:51
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

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?

By Josh on 2012 12 07 - 07:10:40
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Categories