151–160 of 206 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I saw some photos of those ads on twitter a few years back about a certain manufacturer's engine being the correct choice for a specific in-development military plane. It's weird seeing physical advertising be so targeted. Like, multiple physical ads to target less than a dozen people total.
[The I-80 east has entered the chat]
I'm so confused. This article is explaining that eliminating contrails would have a significant effect on warming. But contrails are just the tiniest, tiniest fraction of the sky somewhere and only last over a given area for a few minutes generally. Like, sure, if you live next to a busy airport maybe you see them more often, but that's balanced out by the 99.9% of sky not next to a busy airport. Plus the many days t…
Initially yes, but as a contrail diffuses it acts like a seed for wider cirrus cloud formation.
During COVID lockdown, researchers at Universität Leipzig found that the reduction of air travel correspondingly reduced cirrus formation by 9% in the area studied.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don’t understand conspiracy loon logic. By the very act of hiding the chemtrails you are demonstrating that you are doing something nefarious.
Plus, the invisibility of a thing does not stop the conspiracy loons from building conspiracies around it. 5G RF is invisible, yet still being used by the government to control our brains. For chemtrails, the conspiracy is just going to turn into: "They're spraying invisible chemicals all over us to turn us into communists." There's no end to it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Numbers don't add up. If you take a 8K camera with a standard 50 mm lens, its angular resolution is about 20" / pixel. A 50 mm lens has a FOV of about 40°. It covers a cone of about 0.38 strad. A full hemisphere has 2·pi = 6.28 strad, so we need at least 16.5 such cones to cover the whole area; actually we need likely 20-25 because of imperfect geometry and some safety margins at intersections. We can, of course, mou…
Most camera sensors already detect in the IR range, you just need to remove the filter. I've done it, works great and pretty fun to convert some old webcams, robot vacuums lidar scanners look especially cool. Blurry video is fine when using techniques like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-b51C82-UE Clouds also don't save you (unless you have two thick layers to fly through) because this technique is even easie…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s always been something disturbing about public internet advertisements of military equipment. I suppose it’s dual use, but it seems like baiting a malicious actor to play with it in detail.
B-2 is not dual use. There is no civilian use for it.
It'd be worth it just to shut the chemtrail nuts up.
Furthermore https://duckduckgo.com/q=toxicologic+assessment+of+jet+fuel
and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fume_event
Are the fumes less bad, when they don't leak into the cabin by bleed air, just blown away backwards?
The solution to pollution is dilution (in the atmosphere)? With the current amount of global air traffic, no matter if civilian, or military?
I'm so confused. This article is explaining that eliminating contrails would have a significant effect on warming. But contrails are just the tiniest, tiniest fraction of the sky somewhere and only last over a given area for a few minutes generally. Like, sure, if you live next to a busy airport maybe you see them more often, but that's balanced out by the 99.9% of sky not next to a busy airport. Plus the many days t…
I am based in the UK and there are clear flight paths, for example, the big airport is west of London (Heathrow) and a lot of planes fly west to the 'New World'. A typical route will be over the Bristol Channel, which is over water rather than land. If you look at the satellite imagery in the different wavelengths then you will see the whole Bristol Channel 'clouded' with what can only be contrails.
If you are old enough then you might be able to remember 9/11 and the skies in the aftermath, when no planes were flying for quite a few days. The pandemic gave us a glimpse of this too, however, we were shutting down a lot else then.
To summarise, we are pissing in the pool big time with this aviation lark. I appreciate that you can't see it, but I don't think anyone that is heavily car dependent actually will. It is a 'wood for the trees' thing, and, if you are always around cars, trucks and planes, you are in the pool of piss and just not seeing it or smelling it.
You can see this filth if you get out of town, climb a hill and look back. If it is a clear day with a big sky and no wind, then you should be able to see the filthy air above the town, and that isn't from people riding bicycles.
What we have done with cars is to make them more efficient. Nobody is rolling coal any more, well, maybe in South Carolina, but everything was 'rolling coal' with added lead until relatively recent times. There might not be clumps of soot the size of snowflakes in the air, what happens now is that the car dependent person has a vehicle that burns the same amount of fuel as before, but the particle sizes that come out the back are extremely small, so small that you can't see them. But you can see them if you happen to be using a satellite to do so, or if you do get ten miles out of town on a clear day, and look at it properly.
I live in Scotland where we have had an interesting history with air quality. We have a network of paths that are made from former railway lines and canals that take you a long way from cars. There are stretches where you are riding through nothing but flowers for mile after mile. You can also unlock extra adventure levels to find networks of roads that don't exist on Google Maps that are closed to cars but definitely open to bicycles. However, eventually, some big road will need to be crossed or there will be a road running parallel to the trail. Then the magic ends.
What amazes me is how you can get used to the wonderful smells of the truly clean air to then be utterly appalled at how toxic the air is anywhere within a mile of a car. But, inside a car,the air always smells good, right? It is not as if you get tired from carbon monoxide poisoning on longer journeys, is it?
So, does any of this matter? Not if you are young with no health problems. Just suck in the air wherever there is an abundance of vehicles. You will never know what good air is or why it matters. Besides, we all need cars and trucks to get food on our tables, so there is no escaping and it would be hypocritical to do so.
Or you can opt out, to never fly and never drive. I chose this as a challenge and, so far, no regrets. I haven't been on a plane for three decades yet I seem to know more about the world than most frequent fliers. As for not getting into a car, there are occasions such as funerals where I will get a lift, and yes, I do get the occasional item delivered to my door, but everything else? Bicycle, or electric train, powered by wind farms. It seems to me that you can only really assess the problem if you aren't part of it.
Regarding contrails, they have been a conspiracy theorist talking point for as long as the internet has been around. What is pernicious about conspiracy stories is that there is always a small grain of truth in there. All of these hydrocarbons we burn - all of them - are toxic to life and cancer causing. Conspiracy theorists have egged the pudding on this, but who wins from this? Well, it means that anyone with a preference for genuinely clean air, buzzing with bees and wonderful smells from plants, can be branded a crazy person because they must be, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does a consumer-grade 8K camera sensor detect a 20°C difference in a few pixels? Cameras have to aggressively fight against thermal noise. Visible light is much more energetic than IR; detecting a faint IR signal with a sensor which is about as hot as the object it's looking at is hard. You need to cool the sensor down; old military aircraft even carried a tank of liquid nitrogen for that. I mean, yes, you can take a…
How many of those attacks were successful? Russia has fairly advanced radar that is quite capable of picking up a plane like that. I think the more likely explanation is that it was incorrectly deemed not a threat or a minor threat. 700 miles is far more than the standard range of the A-20 (210nm). Is it possible they launched it from well within Russia thereby making it much less likely to be considered a threat?
So no, these are not isolated incidents, this is a big hole in air defense, and Russia used to produce some competent air defense systems. They are just not geared towards the drones, much like Patriot air defense systems are not either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 5G RF is invisible, yet still being used by the government to control our brains. Well it's one of the main last-mile mediums people use to doomscroll their propaganda feeds, so... yes?
It's funny how often the conspiracy types are both right and wrong. We have precision targeted ~~propaganda~~ content streaming straight to the tracking device everyone willingly carries, but they land on 5G being some sci-fi form of mind control. It's some form of motivated reasoning. The same people who will tell you a secret cabal of billionaires controls the government will roll their eyes if you bring up the her…
N2O (laughing gas) is not combustible, but autodecomposes into a mixture composed of 1 part oxygen gas and 2 parts nitrogen gas, which happens to be the approximate composition of the atmosphere. In theory we could design and use N2O engines and airplanes etc, and their exhaust could be a gas that is nearly equivalent to atmospheric composition. One important issue is making sure all the N2O has decomposed because it…
N2O formation enthalpy is just 82kJ/mol. For comparison, water is 240kJ/mol. It doesn't sound so bad, but when translated into grams, it's 1.86kJ/g for N2O and 13.3kJ/g for water. In other words, when burning a gram of hydrogen, you get about 120kJ of energy. When decomposing a gram of N2O, you barely get 2kJ.