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: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 10:54:59 -0700
Archived: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:27:44 -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)

>The HIC is discussed in the NARCAP report where they suggest
>that the hole was created by radiant energy or atomic particles,
>in either case resulting in a large extinction coefficient for
>the radiation (i.e., it doesn't travel far into the cloud). They
>suggest that the hole was "bored" as the UAP (AFC?) moved upward
>through the cloud. Hence they suggest that the UAP was radiating
>energy at a power level sufficient to evaporate the moisture in
>the cloud, i.e., convert it from droplets to (invisible) vapor
>(gas).

>This requires heating each drop from about 10C to 100C and then
>adding enough energy to evaporate the drop (to "carry" the water
>through the liquid- gas transition, i.e, to add the latent heat
>of evaporation to the droplet).

>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 .

>I bring this up because seeing this calculation reminded me of
>calculations I have done in the past: the Canadian Air Force
>pilot (Childerhose sighting) and the New Zealand  light/UFO/AFC.

>In the case of the Canadian AF pilot I estimated power levels
>in the range of 10^9 to 10^10 watts within the spectral range
>of the film. See:

This is also a similar order of magnitude for the kinetic energy
of a craft traveling ~300 m/sec. Guess mass of the craft at 10
metric tons (10^4 kg), then:

KE is 1/2mv^2 = 1/2 x 10^4 x 300^2 = ~ 0.5 x 10^8 joules:

Similarly, the gain in potential energy in climbing 300 meters
is:

PE = mgh = 10^4 x 10 x 3 x10^2 = ~3 x 10^7

Total energy expended (100% efficiency) is is KE + PE = ~8 x
10^7 joules

If the climb took only 1 second, power expended would be 8x10^7
J or 80 megawatts.

100 mW of energy to evaporate the cloud would represent power
output over and above this, such as heating of air by friction
or radiated energy as perhaps part of an atmospheric control
system as mentioned by a number of analysts, such as Paul Hill,
James McCampbell, Hermann Oberth, and our own Stanton Friedman.

By comparison, jumbo jets have a maximum power output of about
40 Megawatts, with a maximum takeoff weight of about 250 metric
tons.

Just think of the same order of magnitude energy packed into a
much smaller and lighter craft, and you get the high
acceleration, high performance vehicle we associate with UFOs
capable of zipping out of sight in the blink of an eye.


David Rudiak




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

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/


[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com