# Jet Streams



## Virgil (Sep 29, 2009)

Has anyone else noticed how multiple high Jet Streams will spread out and degrade what would had been a clear solar gain sky ?


----------



## lonestarbugout (Jan 25, 2013)

Looks like chemtrails to me.


----------



## Elwood P Dowd (Jul 23, 2013)

Those arent Jet Streams they are Con-Trails, nothing but water vapor and whatever chemicals you would create by burning jet fuel. Of course they spread out why wouldnt they, if you start a smokey campfire doesnt the smoke from that fire spread out and dissipate? And while it may be a perfectly calm day where you are on the ground chances are the air is moving a bit differently where those planes are flying as it can move at over 100mph in the actual jet stream which is much like a fast flowing river of air in the sky.


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

Those are chem trails . . . barrium oxide I believe (for one of the substances) . . all thanks to the secretive numb-nuts in our totally insane goobermint................
Normal con-trails disappear rapidly behind the aircraft..........
Chem-trails will be visible for many hours . . . . . . . . .
Those who drink the insane goobermint's Kool-aid incorrectly call them con trails.
I have conversed about this with a good friend who is a retired commercial pilot.....He flew 747's all over the world................. 

The Jet stream is unseen . . .we hear of it, and its position, from the good weather people.....


----------



## Elwood P Dowd (Jul 23, 2013)

Jim-mi you are wrong, con trails will last as long as the atmospheric conditions allow them to. Kind of like seeing your breath in the winter. If the air is dry they will dissipate rapidly if it's more humid they will last longer. I've been an aircraft mechanic the last 20 years specifically large jets if there was something other than Jet A or JP-8 fuel going into these things I would know about it.


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

Have you done a chemical analysis of the fuel that is supplied to where ever you are . .??
I didn't think so............
The elements are in small enough amounts so that you will not know it is there
Unless you do a analysis ...........

The humidity is not a factor at 35--40,000 feet altitude......

My thoughts come from many many others who have studied chem-trails for a very long time.....


----------



## Elwood P Dowd (Jul 23, 2013)

If those elements were in the fuel and were the cause of "Chem trails" then jet engines would create these "chem trails" from the time they start up until they were shut off. Chen trails have been around as long as aircraft have been flying at high altitudes. They are nothing but trails of condensation.


----------



## Gray Wolf (Jan 25, 2013)

You can see them but we don't see any measurable drop in output due to ___ trails adding to thin high clouds like in your picture. I don't worry about them.


----------



## ace admirer (Oct 5, 2005)

as others have said, its water, when hydro carbons are burned in air, you get water and carbon dioxide and then all the other "stuff" nox, cox 

its just water, its a water cloud.

they are probably from military flights, not many pure jets around now for commercial flights. to my knowledge, all large commercial liners use turbo-fan engines. the water (exhaust) is spread out by the fan so much that the con-trails (water vapor) cannot form.


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

Jim-mi said:


> Have you done a chemical analysis of the fuel that is supplied to where ever you are . .??
> I didn't think so............
> The elements are in small enough amounts so that you will not know it is there
> Unless you do a analysis ...........
> ...


You cant be serious can you?

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

Virgil said:


> Has anyone else noticed how multiple high Jet Streams will spread out and degrade what would had been a clear solar gain sky ?


Those contrails and clouds could be at two different elevations and from the looks of the picture I suspect I am correct, this just tells me there is enough humidity to sustain a cloud and contrails witch are both nothing but water vapor to begin with.

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

ace admirer said:


> as others have said, its water, when hydro carbons are burned in air, you get water and carbon dioxide and then all the other "stuff" nox, cox
> 
> its just water, its a water cloud.
> 
> they are probably from military flights, not many pure jets around now for commercial flights. to my knowledge, all large commercial liners use turbo-fan engines. the water (exhaust) is spread out by the fan so much that the con-trails (water vapor) cannot form.


Most commercial jets are in fact jet turbines, some of the smaller commercial planes are turbo prop which is a jet engine driven propeller. You might be thinking of turbo prop.

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## ace admirer (Oct 5, 2005)

they all have jet turbines, those that are not piston driven.. when the turbine turns a prop by way of a gearbox, its a turbo prop, not been used on large carriers since the 70's. the turbines now turn "fans" or multiple "prop blades -30 or more". only very fast (Lear and such and military use) pure jet engines or pure jet propulsion. all others use the turbine engine to drive a "fan" which is in a duct. the duct looks like the cowling for the engine but it is much, much bigger. 

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...q2TENP64AOyzYCgBg&itbs=1&sa=X&ved=0CDkQrQMwBQ


----------



## Elwood P Dowd (Jul 23, 2013)

ace admirer said:


> they all have jet turbines, those that are not piston driven.. when the turbine turns a prop by way of a gearbox, its a turbo prop, not been used on large carriers since the 70's. the turbines now turn "fans" or multiple "prop blades -30 or more". only very fast (Lear and such and military use) pure jet engines or pure jet propulsion. all others use the turbine engine to drive a "fan" which in a duct. the duct looks like the cowling for the engine but it is much, much bigger.
> 
> http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...q2TENP64AOyzYCgBg&itbs=1&sa=X&ved=0CDkQrQMwBQ


 Correct but a turbo fan can still make a contrail, in fact piston engines can also make them, there are plenty of old WWII photos of bombers on high altitude bombing ruins making con trails


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

ace admirer said:


> they all have jet turbines, those that are not piston driven.. when the turbine turns a prop by way of a gearbox, its a turbo prop, not been used on large carriers since the 70's. the turbines now turn "fans" or multiple "prop blades -30 or more". only very fast (Lear and such and military use) pure jet engines or pure jet propulsion. all others use the turbine engine to drive a "fan" which in a duct. the duct looks like the cowling for the engine but it is much, much bigger.
> 
> http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...q2TENP64AOyzYCgBg&itbs=1&sa=X&ved=0CDkQrQMwBQ


Didnt say they were piston engines, I said a turbine driven propeller. Still a jet turbine but it drives a prop via gearbox. Some of the Eastern puddle jumoers are turboprop.

You are referring to a ducted fan, still technically a jet turbine. Same principle.

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## ace admirer (Oct 5, 2005)

yes, by fan i mean ducted fan axial flow aerodynamic device which, it seems is about to be impacted by the fecal matter......,

to most people "tech people" jet engine implies jet propulsion as in a jet of high velocity burnt gases pushing the plane "which is a very fast method of propelling aircraft" thus there use by military. 

i have not heard the term "jet engine" used to describe commercial liners in decades, except in cartoons and such 

and yes even my f250 leaves contrails in the winter. those contrails in the posters pics are left by military flights. i bet cha.

thank you for informing me that turbine engines are used on air liners,,,,,,,

good grief.


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

ace admirer said:


> yes, by fan i mean ducted fan axial flow aerodynamic device which, it seems is about to be impacted by the fecal matter......,


Fecal matter of an uninformed op who believes contrails are more than just water vapor?

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## ace admirer (Oct 5, 2005)

hmmm mostly water vapor plus "other stuff" my truck puts out other stuff too. just not that high up and way slower. come to think of even my cows put out con trails,,,,,and other stuff


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

ace admirer said:


> yes, by fan i mean ducted fan axial flow aerodynamic device which, it seems is about to be impacted by the fecal matter......,
> 
> to most people "tech people" jet engine implies jet propulsion as in a jet of high velocity burnt gases pushing the plane "which is a very fast method of propelling aircraft" thus there use by military.
> 
> ...


Ive seen many commercial jets fly over leaving contrails...I know they are commercial because I hear them on my scanner lining up for hartsfield airport in atlanta. Ive also been to many airshows and I certainly can tell the difference between a 747 and an F16, 18, 22...

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

Ducted fan or jet turbine, doesn't matter...both propel by forcing exhaust through an opening.

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## Elwood P Dowd (Jul 23, 2013)

Sorry double post


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

Elwood P Dowd said:


> You are correct but a modern turbo fan motor is just as capable of producing a contrail as a turbo jet, in fact even piston engines can produce a contrail and there are plenty of photographs of WWII bombers on high altitude runs making them.


Correct... not sure where ace lives, but just about every high flying plane around these parts create contrails and most, if not all are commercial airliners. I rarely (like never) see military aircraft other than C130's which are turboprop at lower altitudes. 

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## ace admirer (Oct 5, 2005)

i don't guess the additional air flow caused by the fan could disperse the moisture laden exhaust to the point of the vapor being too spread to collect to the point forming a visible con trail...its just not possible is it? i live in the Piedmont, none of the passenger liners in this three state area leave noticeable contrails (to amount to anything) all of the military jet propulsion large aircraft leave contrails in this are. ok you tell me the difference they are all ge and pratt Whitney engines.


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

ace admirer said:


> i don't guess the additional air flow caused by the fan could disperse the moisture laden exhaust to the point of the vapor being too spread to collect to the point forming a visible con trail...its just not possible is it? i live in the Piedmont, none of the passenger liners in this three state area leave noticeable contrails (to amount to anything) all of the military jet propulsion large aircraft leave contrails in this are. ok you tell me the difference they are all ge and pratt Whitney engines.


It would depend on humidity and temperature. If its dry it may not leave contrails, since its frozen water vapor the temp plays a factor too. In my experience at airshows, its best to watch jets when its cool and a there's moisture in the air. 

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## 12vman (Feb 17, 2004)

Yup.. If ya can see 'um, they's blockin' photons..


----------



## Elwood P Dowd (Jul 23, 2013)

wannabechef said:


> It would depend on humidity and temperature. If its dry it may not leave contrails, since its frozen water vapor the temp plays a factor too. In my experience at airshows, its best to watch jets when its cool and a there's moisture in the air.
> 
> Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 4


 It could also depend on where he is at in reference to the airport. If he's close to the airport that the aircraft are coming from they may not be high enough to create con trails yet.


----------



## ace admirer (Oct 5, 2005)

not discussing different psychometric conditions, under the same psychometric conditions will the exhaust of a pure jet propulsion engine be more likely to show contrails than a diluted (by additional ducted fan air flow) fan engine.....say it, yes or no,,,,say it.


----------



## Elwood P Dowd (Jul 23, 2013)

ace admirer said:


> not discussing different psychometric conditions, under the same psychometric conditions will the exhaust of a pure jet propulsion engine be more likely to show contrails than a diluted (by additional ducted fan air flow) fan engine.....say it, yes or no,,,,say it.


 No, I would say that the "dilution" factor is minimal at best.


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

Elwood P Dowd said:


> No, I would say that the "dilution" factor is minimal at best.


I agree...

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

http://contrailscience.com/why-do-some-planes-leave-long-trails-but-others-dont/

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## doingitmyself (Jul 30, 2013)

It would be far easier, cheaper and more efficient to do that from a ground based distribution facility and even easier yet to just taint the municipal water supplies. No one tests water for tiny amounts of the stuff some say that's in the vapor trails.


----------

