UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Jan > Jan 13

Re: O'Hare Sighting Cloud Hole Effect - Tarbell

From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 19:09:55 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 07:33:13 -0500
Subject: Re: O'Hare Sighting Cloud Hole Effect - Tarbell

>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:21:45 -0000
>Subject: Re: O'Hare Sighting Cloud Hole Effect

>>From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:02:37 -0700
>>Subject: Re: O'Hare Sighting Cloud Hole Effect


>So I _think_ (!?) that putting the same energy selectively into
>water droplets directly, i.e. by microwave tuned at the right
>resonant wavelength, would evaporate cloud more efficiently than
>by spreading the same energy in a broad band through the
>droplets and the air mass.

I can't seem to convince myself that this is the case, but
neither can I rigorously preclude it. It seems to ultimately
require a mixture of air and water vapor with each at a
different temperature. Such a situation can't last long in this
density and temperature regime (each molecule undergoing
billions of collisions per second).

However, we are flirting now with the arcana of non-equilibrium
thermodynamics, which perhaps we should defer to another time
when (if) some of the more mundane issues have been settled. The
whole energy/power calculation is of little use without a better
handle on the basic inputs. The uncertainty in the volume of the
cloud channel is at least 3 orders of magnitude. Further
uncertainty in the actual temperatures in the cloud, timescale
of hole formation, etc., brings the overall uncertainty up to at
least 4 orders of magnitude.

Let's say that, in order to give pause to even the most cynical
debunker (having a streak of it myself), we must demonstrate
that the energy and/or power required to produce this effect is
at least two orders of magnitude greater than the limit of human
technology or known weather processes. That means the
uncertainty in our result must be substantially less than this,
which in turn implies that the slop in the current inputs must
be reduced by a factor of at least ~1000. Could use a
breakthrough or two there.

If we should ultimately learn that the cloud layer was quite
thin, I think I would return focus to the warm-air-entrainment
mechanism, though it may entail wading into turbulence, wakes,
vortices, etc. Quite a few books getting dusted off lately.


[ 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