Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Not a clue, though an educated guess would say its the local conditions that determine how the trail behaves.
|
According to the science that promotes lingering trails as nothing; all fuel types behave the same. It references exhaust information in general terms, and does not reference a point of there being differences in visible residual ice crystals from one fuel type to the other.
Do you know if one variation will produce ice nuclei that survive longer than others?
The science doesn’t explain how human made “clouds” (the title many mainstream scientists are giving the lingering trails) being emitted from a jet that is clearly at a higher altitude than one producing a disappearing exhaust, survive their expanding descent. They are stating that the end product is essentially the same as mother nature produces in microcrystalline salt crystals formed by breaking ocean waves as well as volcanic dust and other particulates are driven aloft by updrafts. That would make sense. . . if the aircraft was lower than the jet emitting a disappearing trail. It falls short in explaining how ice nuclei survive the tropopause on their descent when the other trail clearly did not.
How do ice nuclei that were sensibly created at 35,000-40,000 feet continue to fall without melting or producing any type of moisture other than what the trail itself is being classified as. The other trail is behaving within the laws of the science some of the mainstream experts are explaining. It makes sense that different thermal layers will allow one jet to have a disappearing trail that is lower, but to have a higher trail linger, expand, and descend surviving past the same point doesn’t obey the very laws they are promoting.
A difference in fuel types could offer a feasible explanation for this, but if it were the case why wouldn’t they just state that? Aside from element samples collected (which are agreeably debatable) this would be easier to pass off than the assumption they seem to take that "you’ve seen one fuel, you’ve seen them all."
I think push-pull skipped over my point without giving it a second thought. Since you have more training in this area than anyone also here, your perspective would be interesting. Since I can offer no proof, and I don’t expect you or anyone to take my word for it (and that is completely reasonable), I will phrase this as a theoretical question:
Yesterday, the sky was completely trail free. I did notice two standard disappearing trails. Under any sensible circumstances, not seeing the other kind would be no big deal. Weather conditions yesterday did not support them. I can with great certainty, and complete accuracy predict that in 7-8 days another day of such conditions will occur. Still not a big deal. I can predict even further that the same thing will happen the following week, and the following week, and so on. Each 7-8 day cycle only producing 1 day. NOt 2 or more----just one. Its not ESP, but simple observations of the skies over my city for the last 2 ½ years. Some of those “clear days” did have normal clouds. I’m referring to being clear of trails.
My question is, if you observed this phenomenon yourself, would you at least question the odds of it happening? If you saw this to be true for yourself would it be in anyway puzzling to you? If not, is there an explanation how this could occur?
According to push-pull, the geography of a region could produce results as consistent as this. A geyser at Yellowstone going off at consistent intervals makes sense. A uniform break in mother nature to not support conditions that support aerial vectoring makes no sense. I’m striving to make some out of it though.