Target offers 3D body scanner to measure customers
TARGET has a new employee - a 3D body scanner - charged with making sure clothes fit better.
The national retailer is spending $1 million on the technology that will measure the dimensions of 20,000 men and women as part of a national survey to update their designs.
Perth shoppers will be able step into the scanner from May 25 to 29 in the company's Whitfords store.
Target managing director Dene Rogers said customers were frustrated and confused by inconsistent sizing. It was the main reason clothes were returned.
"By taking 60 seconds to come and be scanned consumers will not only find out their exact measurements, they'll be helping Target find out what size Australians really are today so that we can make clothes that really fit," Mr Rogers said.
How Full-Body Scanners Work – and Fail
TSA has been introducing full-body scanners to perform a virtual strip search of air travelers. Although technically travelers have the right to opt out, the TSA discourages this behavior with aggressive and invasive pat-down searches. Initially, TSA denied punitive pat-down searches. Then they acknowledged testing a “more aggressive pat-down technique.” TSA began a more widespread implementation of this tactic at the beginning of November, and TSA agents have reportedly been quite open about that fact that the “enhanced” pat-down searches are specifically aimed to be so offensive as to coerce passengers into the scanners. In a blog post otherwise bluntly supportive of full-body scanning (the title, “Shut Up And Get In The Scanner,” gives a good idea of the tone of the writing), one former TSA screener writes:
It is a terror tactic by TSA to get you to walk through the more thorough body scanner. I can’t defend TSA on this one. I have talked to the TSA officers and it is no more effective than the old pat down procedure. They tested it out with trainers and each other. It is purely a terror tactic by TSA.
Other bloggers (with sharper tongues and stronger stomachs than I) have exhaustively documented the steaming mass of epic fail that is the TSA’s new policy. The aim of this post is to explain how full-body scanners work – and fail.
There are two kinds of full-body scanners: those based on backscatter X-ray technology and those based on millimeter wave technology.
Total Body Scam? — Taking your money and freedom, (and coming to Australia too)
Was it just me? Was I the only one who noticed a tiny announcement in February that Airport Scanners were coming to Australia, the land where terrorists haven’t landed (yet), and … wait for it… there would be no (NO!) — opt — out– clause. Did I hear that correctly?
And the crowd roared (about the cricket), nobody said a word about the scanners, and the ten libertarians left who can bear to watch the ABC were too busy trying to save the nation from nastier threats. Australia is getting millimeter wave scanners at International Airports, and if you don’t want to be scanned, you need to leave the country… by boat. (Either that or swim with the crocs across the Timor Sea.)
With no opt out clause, what happens when the first person facing deportation refuses to be scanned? Well that’s all right then, we’ll just book them on a cruise to Kandahar? Civil Liberties Australia was one of the few to speak up. Maybe those scanners are safe? Maybe? But at least one man with a pacemaker says Australia is off his holiday list now. Can someone find the peer reviewed research showing there are no long term effects on the unborn?
There’s also the catch that if any terrorist has a computer with an internet connection, they probably know how to get guns past the scanners.
Then a nice man named Tony wrote to me asking if I liked his graphic (below), and I did. Do admire the powerful communication tool here (it’s worth a look). The only thing it lacked was to tell us non-US folk that the TSA stood for the Transportation Security Administration.
Once upon a time it took months to get to Australia, the ships had no GPS, sometimes not even an engine, and the in-non-flight food gave you scurvy. People died, no one had travel insurance, and before WWII even a blister could kill you.
Brace yourself, how things have changed. Travel in the satellite era is so dangerous now, it takes 62,000 employees to make it safe (just in the USA). Of those, nearly 4,000 are based in the Washington DC headquarters of the TSA. The average salary of those desk-based public servants in the regulating class is … $104,000. That’s average?
Here in Australia our airport scanning scheme is supposed to cost $28 million.
Pay the TSA $100 protection money to avoid scanning and pat downs
Hate the full-body scans, pat-downs and slow going at TSA airport security screening checkpoints? For $100, you can now bypass the hassle.
The Transportation Security Administration is rolling out expedited screening at big airports called "Precheck." It has special lanes for background-checked travelers, who can keep their shoes, belt and jacket on, leave laptops and liquids in carry-on bags and walk through a metal detector rather than a full-body scan. The process, now at two airlines and nine airports, is much like how screenings worked before the Sept. 11 attacks.
To qualify, frequent fliers must meet undisclosed TSA criteria and get invited in by the airlines. There is also a backdoor in. Approved travelers who are in the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's "Global Entry" program can transfer into Precheck using their Global Entry number.
"It's a completely different experience than what you're used to," said Matt Stegmeir, a platinum-level Delta Air Lines frequent flier who was invited into Precheck when it opened at his home airport, Minneapolis-St. Paul. Besides zipping through security screening quickly and easily, Mr. Stegmeir noticed another difference: TSA agents at the Precheck lane are usually smiling.
"It's really a jarring contrast. It reminds you just how much of a hassle the security procedures in place really are," he said.
Global Entry has been extremely popular with frequent international travelers. Approved travelers get to use a kiosk to enter the country rather than waiting in often-long lines to get their passports stamped and go through Customs inspection.
Consider that in January at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport, the average wait in line was 35 minutes between 4 and 5 p.m., and the longest wait was 137 minutes. The wait at Terminal 1 at New York's Kennedy International Airport averaged 44 minutes in January for people arriving between 10 and 11 a.m. Enrolling requires a $100 application fee for a background check, plus a brief interview with a Customs officer.
For domestic travel, Global Entry pays off because it gets you into Precheck. Once TSA announced in the fall that enrollment in Global Entry and CBP's other "trusted travel" programs (Nexus for frequent travel across the Canadian border and Sentri for frequent travel across the Mexican border) would get you into Precheck, applications for Global Entry took off.
In February, for example, 26,602 people applied, more than triple the number of applications in February 2011, according to CBP. And February applications were up 42% from January as more and more travelers catch on.
"We want as many people as possible in the program," said John Wagner, CBP's executive director of admissibility and passenger programs.
TSA says it also wants as many people as possible in Precheck, which is still in pilot-testing phase. Both agencies say the programs can enhance screening of people they know nothing about if they can move low-risk people who submit to background checks out of the main queues.
"We can reduce the size of the haystack when we are looking for that one-in-a-billion terrorist," said TSA Administrator John Pistole.
Mr. Pistole, an FBI veteran who took over TSA in 2010, said that by studying frequent-flier histories as well as conducting background checks, he's confident the U.S. now has the technology and the intelligence information to make less-rigorous, faster screening work. TSA has been trying to move to more "risk-based" security—something critics have suggested for many years.
Once in Precheck, TSA still checks names against terrorism watch lists before every flight, just as it does for other travelers. If a passenger is cleared for Precheck screening, a code is embedded in a traveler's boarding pass.
Stop CSG Rally video report - Government fails people of NSW
Truth News covers the stop CSG Rally at Parliament House NSW, 15 March 2012.
In the morning a motion was put to the NSW Upper House by Jeremy Buckingham of the Greens – to place a moratorium on all coal seam gas (CSG) projects in the state, other than the Camden production field. It was lost 16-19, with the Coalition, Shooters and Fishers and Christian Democrats against; and Labor and The Greens in favour.
In the afternoon a petition with over 20,000 signatures was presented in Parliament.
Protesters assembled outside Parliament at 4:00pm, then entered the building to continue their peaceful protest. After barely 10 minutes, the protesters were ejected from Parliament, allegedly because of the wording on their T-shirts.
Report from Stop CSG Illawarra follows:
Thursday March 15 2012 was a big day for the coal seam gas issue in our state parliament.
In the morning a motion was put to the NSW Upper House by Jeremy Buckingham of the Greens – to place a moratorium on all coal seam gas (CSG) projects in the state, other than the Camden production field. It was lost 16-19, with the Coalition, Shooters and Fishers and Christian Democrats against; and Labor and The Greens in favour.
In the afternoon it was the turn of our petition, YOUR petition, to be debated. Over 20,000 signed, calling on the Government to put in place an immediate moratorium on all CSG projects; a royal commission into the full impacts of CSG; and an immediate ban on fracking. Gareth Ward and Lee Evans spoke against, and Ryan Park and John Robertson spoke in favour. You can view the “debate” video (including its descent into chaos) in full online.
In both Houses Coalition members showed absolute contempt for the people of NSW. The Coalition called a moratorium irresponsible, saying that the Government must wait for more facts. But it is completely irresponsible to develop an industry before getting the facts.
Gareth Ward spoke against the petition – defending Coalition plans as adequate. Lee Evans spoke against the petition, then admitted to signing it. But he can’t have it both ways. He either stands with his community, and the 74% of people in NSW who support the call for a moratorium, or he tows the Coalition line and acts on behalf of the CSG industry. Yesterday, he chose the latter.
Actions speak louder than words. The Liberals opposed the petition. The Coalition voted down a moratorium. Barry O’Farrell did not even show up. CSG wells are being drilled in our drinking water catchment and the Government is not stopping it.
Yesterday, the vital role of community campaigns could not have been clearer. The Government is failing to act for the people of NSW; so we must. As the Coalition scrambles to defend the indefensible, we must launch a people’s moratorium and lock the industry out of our communities.
See you at the CSG Community Conference on Sunday March 25.
How Facebook is exterminating communities
Ladies and gentlemen, I have been struggling (unsuccesfully) to get the new facebook timeline features to work in a reasonable way which suit the needs of this website, and I just want to let you all know that I've had enough!
I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more!
I've come to the conclusion that the Facebook ruling elite have decided to quietly exterminate their community pages, by forcing everyone (including fan pages and groups) over to the new publishing format which gives THEM more control and YOU less control.
Of course, this is sugar coated as such draconian changes always are, with superficially "nice" features such as a wider tab and a few token settings which give you the illusion of control.
But here is the bitter pill: as an admin of the TNRA page I can no longer control what users see - this is now managed by Facebook. THEY now decide is appropriate for each of us to see, based on our friends, our "likes" and our previous browsing choices.
They call this "personalizing" our user experience.
Don't be fooled! In reality they are CONTROLLING our user experience, under the cover of tailoring our view to a vacuous commercial construct of "personal preference".
Hyper "personalization", which facebook is forcing on us, is anathema to the very essence of community, which is about shared experience. It is more in keeping with modern consumer marketing practices, which use all kinds of psychologically manipulative tactics to get people to become attached to a BRAND.
Indeed, personalization is a great way of DESTROYING communities because it forces everyone into a scenario where all interactions are mediated by "Nanny Facebook", who "personalizes" what we see based on an involuntary algorithm which determines what is best for each of us.
Folks, it is time to LEAVE Facebook!
The CSG Exploration Permit that covers Sydney
In 2008, the NSW government under Labor granted Dart Energy a Petroleum Exploration Licence (PEL 463) to explore for CSG across 2400sqkm of the Sydney Basin - from Gosford on the Central Coast to Coalcliff south of Sydney. The first exploration well has been approved was for the inner city Sydney suburb of St Peters. On June 2, 2011 Stop CSG-Sydney provided Dart Energy with a list of questions related directly to their plans to drill in St Peters, based on the Review of Environmental Factors. Here's the list of questions and the responses (received 64 days later).
Dart Energy agreed to meet St Peters residents at St Peters Town Hall, Tuesday 16th of August 6pm. For those that couldn't make it visit You Tube or watch the video.
CSG mining is already destroying communities across NSW and QLD, so it is crucial we act now to stop csg drilling in St Peters.
So far we have rallied together, lobbied our politicians, held community information events, hosted a community forum to hear the City of Sydney plans for trigeneration (view the City Of Sydney response to our questions), screened the US documentary Gasland, letterboxed hundreds of homes, submitted a formal submission to the NSW Government Coal and Gas Strategy and more.
Over 200,000 people live, work and play within 2km of the gas exploration site in St Peters.
ARE YOU ONE OF THEM?
TSA threatens media not to cover story exposing body scanner blind spots
The engineer who reported on serious flaws in body scanner technology now reports that journalists are being warned not to cover the story.
I’ve been on the phone all day for the last 2 days with reporters and journalists of all kinds, including the big bad MSM, and one South Florida reporter told me that he had been “strongly cautioned” by the TSA not to cover my viral YouTube video showing TSA nude body scanners to be completely worthless. Absolutely unbelievable:
Update: The name of the TSA spokeswoman who attempted to intimidate this journalist is Sari Koshetz.
Update 2: Second journalist comes forward in comments on this post: SmarterTravel March 8, 2012 at 3:34 pm | #11 Reply | Quote | Edit We were also “strongly cautioned” not to cover the story. We did anyway at SmarterTravel: http://tinyurl.com/7te5wj8
The TSA is clearly no fan of the 4th Amendment, nor of 5th Amendment due process rights, and now this blatant attempt to manipulate the free press with “strong caution” hits at Amendment the First. Why strong caution? Are there repercussions for journalists that fail to heed this “advice?” Because, you know, if I were a member of the free press and the federal government asked me to censor myself, I’d happily comply . . . . . . . . . riiight.
I have news for the federal government: Americans will not take censorship in any form. We thought we made this clear when you tried to force SOPA on us.
So what should we do about this? If you’re a journalist who has received any kind of similar warning, please contact me. Everyone else, please take a moment to contact your local mainstream media outlets (Fox, ABC, NBC, CNN, etc.) to request that they cover the original story. The Internet has been absolutely amazing as have large alternative programs (Alex Jones, for example) and I do believe that we have successfully spread the word. But, if the TSA doesn’t want the MSM to cover it, there’s probably a reason, so let’s take the battle there!
TSA responds to viral video about body scanners
STOP ACTA: things you can do right now
This document and video presentation outlines steps you can take right now to help put a stop to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which poses a serious threat to our freedom and national sovereignty. For additional information and links on ACTA, please click here.
We need a new approach, whereby we take back government from the elite’s stooges and appointees – grassroots campaigns whereby we go to visit our Local Members with a carefully prepared plan, limited to a maximum of ten point plan to tell them why we find something unacceptable. What I mean is don’t go in with voluminous documents except as reference documents. Let the politicians know that this reference material is not part of the presentation.
The Most Effective Strategy is to actually visit your Local MP in person to make representations as to why we should not ratify ACTA.
How to find your Local Federal MP
If you are unsure in which electorate you reside, then, try visiting the Australian Electoral Commission Website at http://apps.aec.gov.au/esearch/.
in order to ascertain this information.
What to Do About Getting an Appointment
Ring your Local Federal MP’s office and make an appointment to see them. Suppose that you are told that they are unable to see you, then, don’t be deterred, ask to see the appropriate member of their staff.
Prepare a Ten Point Plan
Do not go into visit your Local MP with a voluminous document complaining about ACTA because it will not be read! Instead prepare a careful ten point plan that sets out the problems with ACTA in summary but do make sure that you reference every point and do take in the reference material with you. If your MP, or their staff member asks for a copy of this or access to this reference material, then, give them a copy.
Do be polite but let your Local Member know that you are very concerned about the impact that ACTA will have on our society and that you are only prepared to support a candidate who will vote against ACTA being implemented.
Politics is a numbers’ game!
If every electorate in Australia receives ten visits, then, that will be sufficient to let our politicians know that we don’t want ACTA ratified. Not many politicians have a death wish and visits of this magnitude will convince them that the policy is not only unpopular but that supporting it is political suicide. Get your friends to do likewise. Make this information go viral! Urge everyone on your email contacts’ list to do the same.
ACTA 10 Point Plan – Point Form Only
Download the FULL 10 POINT PLAN: click here
- The Stated Aims of ACTA do not stand up to scrutiny
- There is no necessity for ACTA as there are already remedies available for breach of copyright and Trade Mark violations
- ACTA makes it possible to bypass the judicial system of this country
- If a warrant is issued against someone in your household then every computer in your place will be seized
- ACTA provides for a custodial sentence for the unauthorized copying of cinematographic films: This is manifestly excessive!
- ACTA necessitates the Principle of Excessive Surveillance
- ACTA will make criminals out of an estimated 25% of Net users
- The Claims about Net Piracy Are Flawed
- We do not know how foreign law is to apply as regards extradition?
- ACTA was negotiated in secret with public consultation
- The Dirty Secret of the Copyright Lobby is that is that the very people who are trying to make criminals of those who upload or download copyright material are the very same people who have made a fortune out of file sharing software!
- ACTA may well prevent you getting the vitamins, minerals and alternative medicine you want
-
ACTA may well prevent you watching sport when you want to watch sport
Recent Comments
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 - 18:16:00
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 - 16:02:44
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 - 05:41:28
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 - 21:06:42
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 - 16:45:39
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 - 10:22:51
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 - 06:10:40
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
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,
By Leonard Clampett on 2012 12 06 - 17:03:25
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
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,
By Leonard Clampett on 2012 12 06 - 10:43:00
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
“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.”
By Leonard Clampett on 2012 12 05 - 15:30:24
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.