The Crux of the Geoengineering Argument: The High-Bypass Turbofan Engine

All the jets parked up on this runway will operate the High-Bypass Turbofan Engine

The market for supplying engines to the world’s current crop of commercial airliners is dominated by five corporations.

An end of year report for 2014 produced by FlightGlobal, in association with CFM International, breaks the market share down as:

  • CFM International: 41%
  • General Electric: 22%
  • Rolls Royce: 12%
  • International Aero Engines: 11%
  • Pratt and Whitney: 9%
  • Other: 4%

Discounting ‘Other’, these leading five companies had a combined 44,504 engines in use at the end of 2014.

The type of engine used in today’s commercial airliners is the High-Bypass Turbofan. Since the beginning of its inception in the 1980s, it has been widely proclaimed as a cleaner, more fuel efficient engine than the first generation of jet power-plants.

The connection to Geoengineering rests upon what side of the argument you trust in. Those who believe that Geoengineering is widespread, largely in the form of aerosol particulate spraying, believe that the high-bypass turbofan is virtually incapable of producing contrails. Therefore, the long, expansive trails seen world wide are not those of water vapour but are instead a mix of electrically conductive chemicals such as aluminum, barium and strontium.

Those who proclaim that Geoengineering is a baseless conspiracy believe that the turbofan is in fact likely to produce far more contrails than its predecessor.

To understand the reasoning behind either claim, let’s look at what the proponents of each argument have gone on the record as saying.

Here I will present some extracts from their work, with two examples advocating contrails, and two examples dismissing them. After presenting both cases I will offer my own thoughts.

Contrails: The Case Against

The first argument comes from Russ Tanner who runs Global Skywatch. For the full length version, please visit the link:

The ratio of air-to-exhaust is much too high to facilitate the formation of condensation because the majority of air expelled from the back of the engine is not combusted. It is passed through the “fan” and simply blown out the back without mixing with any fuel at all.

The formation of condensation trails requires vacuum (reduction in air pressure), cold temperatures, and high humidity, however, the output side of a jet engine contains mostly outside air that has been pushed through the engine by the large ducted fan. This high-pressure at the output of the engine is contrary for the formation of condensation trails because pressurized air has the ability to hold much more water in suspension, without producing condensation.

Only a fraction of the air that enters the engine is taken in by the turbine engine. This air is mixed with jet fuel (essentially kerosene), combusted, and then exits the engine under very high pressure and high temperature. Condensation formation requires a decrease in ambient air pressure to form, but the output of the turbine is under very high pressure which prohibits the formation of condensation trails.

Since the exhaust of the turbine engine driving the high-bypass turbofan is very hot – and remains hot for a long distance behind a jet, condensation formation is – once again – prohibited. (Hot air holds much more water without producing condensation.)

Furthermore, the ratio of air-to-fuel used in high-bypass turbofan engines is as high as possible (lots of air but relatively little fuel) so as to keep engines efficient and cost-effective, so the reduced amount of fuel in this ratio results in a lack of water in the exhaust.

In short, the more efficient the engine, the less fuel it uses per unit of air moved, and this renders high-bypass turbofans virtually incapable of producing condensation trails, unless they use water injection, which is extremely rare today.

If you go to an airport and watch jets take off, you will see that they emit a faint trail of black carbon soot, which is typical of burnt jet fuel (kerosene), but you will not see water vapor.

This second argument against contrails comes from For the full length version, please visit the link:

The ingenious design (of the High-Bypass Turbofan Engine) employs a cogeneration process where “waste heat” from the combustion chamber is used a second time to heat the air from the bypass phase in order to provide 80% of total thrust.  This design greatly reduces the potential for contrail formation where 80% of the thrust is developed without adding water vapor to engine exhaust. Furthermore, any water vapor from the combustion phase that could contribute to contrail formation is mixed with the non-combusted bypass thrust, thereby causing the water vapor exiting the combustion stage to be negligible as it is subsumed by the larger volume of ambient bypass air mixing at the point of engine exhaust.

The generic High Bypass turbofan design uses only 15 to 20% of air intake for the combustion phase with 80% of thrust developed in the bypass phase with no opportunity to add additional water vapor for contrail formation.  Furthermore, the mixing of combustion thrust with bypass thrust at high exit temperatures, significantly neutralizes or dilutes whatever water vapor is contained in the 20% combustion phase.  These two conditions significantly lower the probability of visible contrail formation.

High Bypass jet engine design used in almost all commercial and military transport aircraft requires significantly high relative humidity at flight level in order to generate a normal, water vapor contrail.

Contrails: The Case For

The first argument here comes from Mick West who is an administrator at

The exhaust of the (High-Bypass Turbofan) engine is the gasses that come out of the combustion chamber. It’s the product of burning kerosene (hydrogen and carbon) with the oxygen in the air, and the result is carbon dioxide and dihydrogen monoxide (water). It’s the water in the exhaust that makes the contrail. And the exhaust gasses are basically the same regardless of if it’s a low-bypass, no-bypass, high-bypass or even an internal combustion engine.


What creates a contrail is the mixing of the exhaust with cooler air. It does not matter if it’s mixing with the air that passed through the bypass fan, or if it’s mixing with the air that passed around the engine. It’s still just exhaust gases mixing with the air. As the gasses mix, the temperature falls, and the water condenses out.

The only difference with a high bypass engine is that the exhaust gasses in a high bypass engine are a little less hot (more of the energy has gone into producing thrust from the bypass fan). So they reach the condensation point quicker, and so are more likely to form contrails.

In reality, any plane can make a contrail. High bypass, low bypass, no bypass, even prop planes will make contrails. And they always have.

The second argument for contrails comes from Jerry E. Smith. Jerry passed away in 2010 after battling cancer:

It (the High-Bypass Turbofan Engine) is like a turbocharger add-on for a car. It pumps in extra air into the jet engine. But most of the air flows around and past the engine, between the engine and the cowling. This maintains a constant sea-level air pressure on the engine – during high thrust takeoff and in the extremely thin air at normal cruise level.

The new generation engines never “starve” for air and thus never dump half-unburned smoky fuel out the back. This increases the efficiency of the engine, produces more power and eliminates all the sooty oily black exhaust.

First generation jet engines were less than 20% efficient, and the High Bypass Turbofan made them more than 90% efficient! This means it took significantly less fuel to fly an airliner equipped with the High Bypass Turbofan from point A to B, thus a huge increase in profit for the airlines. Plus the same plane could now fly farther on the same tank of fuel.

The black oily spot from the first generation engines quickly absorbed the heat from the sun and caused the ice crystal balls to melt within several minutes. When the ice crystals melt, they disappear. The old contrails usually only lasted for several minutes. 

The new ultra-clean exhaust of the next generation jet has no black oil spots in the center of the contrail ice crystal balls. The heat and light from the sun pass right through the clear ice crystals of these next generation contrails as if they were transparent. They do not absorb any solar heat and thus do not melt. They may remain frozen and persist, looking like long thin high cirrus clouds for 24 to 36 hours before they simply disperse but do not melt and disappear.

Ironically, technical advances in engine efficiency have resulted in jet engines that burn fuel more completely, thus combining more hydrogen with oxygen and yielding more water for contrail formation. New fuel was formulated to run cleaner in these new engines, producing the clear or white condensation nuclei that traps and holds the growing ice ball around them. Better engines also have resulted in cooler exhaust temperatures, making it easier for the contrails to form. Warmer global temperatures have also increased the amount of atmospheric moisture present (the warmer the air is, the more moisture it can hold) contributing to the production and persistence of contrails. Thus, the engines have changed, the fuel has change and the atmosphere itself has changed – all of which contribute to the formation of persistent contrails

Persistent jet contrails can be entirely explained by science without having to resort to a “conspiracy theory” scenario. They appear to be no more than the natural result of the introduction of the hi-bypass turbo fan, improved jet fuel (JP-8) and “global warming.”


The arguments presented here are by no means the whole story. They are designed to give you a varying perspective and will hopefully encourage you to research the topic further.

As I have written about in previous posts, my own research has led me to believe that a world wide operation of manipulating the Earth’s biosphere has been at work for decades. A dominant cause of this has and continues to be through climate engineering a.k.a. Geoengineering.

In regards to the High-Bypass Turbofan Engine, I want to pick up on a further comment of Jerry E. Smith. Whilst I disagree with his view that the engine produces widespread contrails and that what we see in the sky is not the result of aerosol particulates, he said something else which is of critical importance to the whole subject of Geoengineering:

These persistent contrails, however, are not benign as the government claims. They are a huge environmental disaster in that they are a major factor in climate change over the northern half of the planet. They hold in heat radiated from the earth’s surface like a blanket, altering the climate under them. Rather than mitigating global warming they are in fact exacerbating it!

Here I would replace ‘persistent contrails’ with ‘aerosol particulates’, but the overall message is highly pertinent. When trails of aerosols expand across the sky, the result is that heat within the troposphere (below the trails) cannot dissipate as it normally would. It becomes trapped. Therefore, over time, you end up with a warming climate. Think of it like a sauna. The heat in the atmosphere has no where to go except to circulate within the troposphere. And it is within the troposphere that all life on Earth is supported.

Another comment from Jerry E. Smith is also well worth a mention:

“Chemtrails” is a popular misconception that actually plays into the hands of the military, as all this Chicken Little nonsense has kept the mainstream media from investigating and reporting on the real releases and the real environmental dangers. Sadly, “chemtrail” activists are doing more harm than good.

Whilst I agree that the term ‘Chemtrails’ does nothing to support the case for exposing Geoengineering, to suggest that those who campaign against it are in some way responsible for the media’s lack of investigation into our changing climate is absurd. Jerry failed to recognise the mainstream media’s dominance in setting the narrative of news. That notion is supported by the fact that just six media corporations wordwide have control of up to 90% of what we read, watch and listen to. Their role in suppressing the truth on climate engineering and pushing the line of ‘CO2 is the sole cause of climate change‘ is shored up by every major government, corporation and think tank around the globe.

Jerry’s comments also do not take into account the mounting evidence of chemical particulates discovered in rain water tests and recurring instances of contaminated soils, both of which have been documented by researchers such as Dane Wigington at

Turning away from Jerry E. Smith’s analysis, I want to point out a separate point of view I discovered at This will hit home with anyone who, like myself, regularly monitors Geoengineering activity:

We can find no convincing explanation as to why the sky can be completely free of contrails for an entire day while measured relative humidity at flight level (30-40k ft.) is no different than the previous day when unusual appearing, persistent contrails are inexplicably seen filling the sky with often, bizarre patterns from horizon to horizon.

Simple observations such as this help begin building a picture of what is truly going on above our heads. Hundreds of people document through Facebook groups and blogs the days when heavy particulate spraying occurs, to then be followed by days of clear blue sky, and then replaced once more with more spraying. Those recording these patterns also report how atmospheric temperatures remain consistent over the time scale.

Here we have a clear example of a significant inconsistency in the assertion that the High-Bypass Turbofan Engine is responsible for the trails we witness in the sky. Why only on specific days do the trails manifest?

My belief is that it is a targeted program which has no direct correlation with regular flight paths, air traffic, or indeed the formation of contrails. Many times in my own area I have witnessed commercial airliners emitting no trails whilst flying at an altitude where it has become common to see aerosol particulates during a program of spraying.

I will conclude with these words from Russ Tanner at Global Skywatch. Mainstream science often enforces a deliberate habit of convoluting discussion and seeing things from the narrowest of perspectives, in an attempt to shut down debate and intrigue.

This from Russ Tanner:

Physics also tells us that, under the right conditions, condensation can form when air is cooled. Since the exhaust of the turbine engine driving the high-bypass turbofan is very hot – and remains hot for a long distance behind a jet, condensation formation is – once again – prohibited.

As with acknowledging the patterns of Geoengineering programs between days of blue sky, it tends to be the simple observations that carry with them the most truth.

What do you think? Please let me know your thoughts.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s