UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Aug > Aug 9

Re: Hole In The Clouds

From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 10:03:17 -0600
Archived: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:01:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Hole In The Clouds

>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 15:49:45 -0400
>Subject: Hole In The Clouds [was: NARCAP's O'Hare Report Blogged]

>Hole In The Clouds (HIC)


>In a calculation that must be considered illustrative or
>qualitative rather than definitive, they suggest that the object
>might have been traveling at about 300 m/sec and thus evaporate
>a cylindrical volume 300 m long by about 7 m in diameter. This
>would require a radiated power level on the order of 100 MW.
>Modifications to the assumptions of speed, size, etc. will
>change the result, but it seems likely that, _if_ heating is the
>explanation for the HIC, then the power added to the cloud by
>the UAP must have been at least tens to hundreds of MW .

Hi Bruce,

I performed this same calculation back in January, see


with some discussion of uncertainties at


I obtained an an absolute minimum required power output of 2 MW,
a factor of ~50 smaller than your value, but I also assumed a
much thinner cloud layer (100 ft).

As I opine in the second link above, I believe that the
'debunker-silencing' power output would have to be perhaps 2
orders of magnitude beyond human technology (assuming this
cannot be attributed to known weather processes). This would
correspond to several hundreds of MW. So, depending on your
assumptions, the O'Hare HIC phenomenon is marginally in this

I am sorry to say I have only glimpsed thus far at the NARCAP
report. I will be very interested to see what is included
regarding the cloud layer thickness and the associated


Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast