Explaining the O'Hare Airport UFO (day events)

  • #1
252
0
The physics behind the scene on some type of UFO reports (events on clear day) is explained here.

This is an important issue to aviation security, and if you agree with this explanation make some effort in spreading the word.
--------------------------------------
Jet planes have HOT invisible exhaust gases.
In other cases just find the heat source (ex. a long queue of cars).
Geometric configuration on the environment makes those hot gases trapped
in some sort of bubble with a more or less defined surface.

A jet plane was near the event scene warming engines as a preparation to taxi away, and finally it goes away.

The no wind condition prevents the quick spreading of gases.
Turbulence became reduced and a bubble is formed with a more or less defined surface.

The delimiting surface between the hot region and the colder environment is reflective to tangential rays and gives the grey colour that makes people think they are seeing a metallic object, with stealth properties. It can only be seen from some directions and became opaque preventing the vision of background buildings and other known pre-existent features.

Hot air goes up and it reveals the 'UFO' hovering the airport.
Mutatis mutandis for other scenarios.

Finally the hole in the clouds became explained. Yes, you have guessed. Hot gases have evaporated the little drops of water in the clouds by releasing the heat.

In the sketches the bubble is dark colour for obvious reasons. In fact the bubble is transparent.

Some accidents happened because the no window condition prevents bubbles from spreading and inside them there is a lack of oxygen. See link bellow.
-----------------------------------------------
PS:
I do prefer a UAP designation (Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon)
just because they are not flying neither are objects.
( observers and investigators never report on wind strength, and a lot more things became unreported )
---------------
some links :
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1201218&postcount=81
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...ck=1&cset=true [Broken]
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=209678&highlight=airport
http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKHO86894720080119?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20080117-0
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
169
0


Jet planes have HOT invisible exhaust gases.
In other cases just find the heat source (ex. a long queue of cars).
Geometric configuration on the environment makes those hot gases trapped
in some sort of bubble with a more or less defined surface.
Hmmm, I'm having trouble with that.

Would airline pilots possibly have seen exhaust gasses before?

If so, would several of them have reported this incident as something out of the ordinary?
 
  • #3
252
0


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/448267.stm
in this site you will see a report of 1998 close encounters. near misses
(UFO baffles aviation experts)
the graph shows 159 incidents ; 18 with actual risk; 30 compromised aircraft security

if you go to an airport you will notice that exhaust gases are transparent/invisible, as I said above.

This is the why that reports doesnt mention what they do not see.

In calm weather they turn into a security problem.

the physics is about light refraction/reflection on volumes/surfaces of different refraction indexes. The reflected light comes from ambient, problably the sky.

the accident here reported http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20080117-0
is a little bit different, if, and I repeat if there is no wind then the previous aircraft that landed leaved a trail with low oxigen content, and engines faied.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176


Nice post heldervelez. Thanks.

Do you know for a fact that a plane was warming its engines in the required location?
 
  • #5
252
0


Nice post heldervelez. Thanks.

Do you know for a fact that a plane was warming its engines in the required location?
What is my desire is limit the discussion, to O’Hare airport like events, because it represents a whole class of UAP phenomenon, as they are quite common.
I've done my homework, spotting the underlying physics, not with this event in particular but reading a lot of reports from other UFO events, searching in databases, looking for patterns.

So I'm pretty sure that in some of the descriptions of O’Hare airport event we will find a reference.

-------------------- Next
If I find some acceptance on the physical mechanism that I focus for this class of events, (especially because it relates with aviation security)
then I will move for problems with photograph reports (that’s a marginal problem) and, finally the more general explanation of the more spectacular sightings of nightly UAP (UFO).

----------------------------- Proposal
I don’t like very much to write. If you think that I can count with participative posts I can point the way, ‘saying were to look’ with a few sentences, always saying what I found and reasoned and helping the community.
I hope that the community is physically minded and can accept the proposal.
Finally I’ would like that one of us, with more writing and sketching capabilities than I have, make a final post with the conclusions and make the credits to myself and also to the community.
I think it has more fun and it will be far more interesting the participation of more people.
This first post was to show that I’ve done the homework.
I know that a physical solution is not good for a lot of ufologists, after all is a way of life. There are investigators with a career, congresses, books to write and they will oppose.
But don’t we deserve the truth, physically based?
-------------------------------------------------
PS:
With this first post I’ have uploaded 3 simple sketches (jpg) to illustrate the geometry of the problem. I know that they are very simple, but I have no time to spend in the beautifying.
They became marked to approval. I think that the post will be better with them.
 
  • #6
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176


What is my desire is limit the discussion, to O’Hare airport like events, because it represents a whole class of UAP phenomenon, as they are quite common.
I've done my homework, spotting the underlying physics, not with this event in particular but reading a lot of reports from other UFO events, searching in databases, looking for patterns.
I understand.

So I'm pretty sure that in some of the descriptions of O’Hare airport event we will find a reference.
This is a bit bothersome. We can't make assumptions.

-------------------- Next
If I find some acceptance on the physical mechanism that I focus for this class of events, (especially because it relates with aviation security)
then I will move for problems with photograph reports (that’s a marginal problem) and, finally the more general explanation of the more spectacular sightings of nightly UAP (UFO).

----------------------------- Proposal
I don’t like very much to write. If you think that I can count with participative posts I can point the way, ‘saying were to look’ with a few sentences, always saying what I found and reasoned and helping the community.
I hope that the community is physically minded and can accept the proposal.
Finally I’ would like that one of us, with more writing and sketching capabilities than I have, make a final post with the conclusions and make the credits to myself and also to the community.
I think it has more fun and it will be far more interesting the participation of more people.
This first post was to show that I’ve done the homework.
I know that a physical solution is not good for a lot of ufologists, after all is a way of life. There are investigators with a career, congresses, books to write and they will oppose.
But don’t we deserve the truth, physically based?
-------------------------------------------------
PS:
With this first post I’ have uploaded 3 simple sketches (jpg) to illustrate the geometry of the problem. I know that they are very simple, but I have no time to spend in the beautifying.
They became marked to approval. I think that the post will be better with them.
It is entirely appropriate to pursue an earthly, scientific explanation for UFO reports. However, we have to be careful to keep this in perspective. We can't just assume that this is the correct explanation for any or all UFO reports. Each case has to be considered on its own merit. And the explanation you offer needs to be considered in detail. But your motives are entirely consistent with those of this forum.

I don't see your attachments?
 
  • #8
252
0


http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/chi-0701010141jan01,0,4807868.column?page=2
quoting
The object was seen to suddenly accelerate straight up through the solid overcast skies, which the FAA reported had 1,900-foot cloud ceilings at the time.

because the diferential of temperature in the ground is lower it starts moving up slowly, but as it gains altitude the differential becomes higher and the movement starts accelerating.

The pilots of the United plane being directed back from Gate C17 also were notified by United personnel of the sighting, and one of the pilots reportedly opened a windscreen in the cockpit to get a better view of the object estimated to be hovering 1,500 feet above the ground.

That night was a perfect atmospheric condition in terms of low [cloud] ceiling
end of quote

they never talk about the wind.

I affirm that there is no wind, are you in position to make a confirmation? I think its more pertinent than finding the particular jet responsable for the occurrence. Most probable there were several of them given the size of the 'object' (700 foot tall)

Dont forget that I'm talking about a class of events. This one in O'Hare is an example.
If I were there I'll have notice the weather conditions. No one seemed to care about.

in the map http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0812/00166AD.PDF"
I cant even find C17 gate.

The first time I searched (not recently) I've found a more complete report than I'm finding now.
I'will try to find but I remember again that I've no time, and others can pursue the local conditions.

After all I've made my quest for the explanation on UFO's several years ago. When I rested, I was satisfied with myself.
After all I can remain in silence, as usual, because the fun was in the pursue of truth itself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
252
0


I'm only willing to explain events of the type "sightings by night" with no physical contact but electromagnatic effects will be also addressed, no abductions or other phsycological effects.
it represents a broad range of reported events.
I think it is fair if I ask for colaboration because inducing people in the reasoning, finding in the wikipedia, finding for images is some homework that people must do if they want to know the truth.
I'm 54, electronic engineer and I'will only refer simple physics. My wife and daughter need time, as my other projects and work.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
252
0


the complete report can be downloaded from here
http://www.ufocasebook.com/2007/narcapcase18.pdf [Broken]
Case 18 Main Text 1 Rev. 07/24/07 R.F.Haines et al.
It was a www.NARCAP.org full report (152 pages).
National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena1
Probably also available at narcap.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
169
0


uploading the 3 drawings
Ok, now I have some serious problems with the physics.

You claim this 'ball' of hot gas is contained by some sort of 'geometrical' phenomena, please elaborate. Any gas in the atmosphere will mix with any other gas to obtain a uniform concentration. That's why farts don't stick around forever (thankfully). This is called diffusion, and the rate at which they mix is proportional to the temperature, exponentially so infact.

Wind is not needed for a ball of hot gas to disperse, it does that by itself with the random thermal motions of the atoms/molecules. A temperature gradient in the atmosphere will cause a change in refractive index yes, but referring to my previous post, several United Airlines pilots reported seeing an 'object' out of the ordinary at O'Hare. These guys are seeing jet exhaust every day, and I'm assuming this wasn't the first calm day in the airports' history.

Of course hot gasses will cause optical effects, but you're proposal is lacking in physics and fails to explain why this hot gas was somehow magically contained in three dimensions with a well defined boundary.
 
  • #12
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176


Based on the upward velocity of the hot air stream, the rate of effusion of the hot air, and the altitude of the clouds, it seems that one could estimate the size of the hole in the clouds that we would expect, if any. Perhaps there is an existing model that could be used.

The off-topic posts were moved to this thread.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=154990
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
Environmental or Industrial Engineering: Smokestacks

What happens after the exhaust stream leaves the stack is an area of interest. For one, this is considered in order to calculate the required height of the stack.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
252
0
Mr Ivan,thanks for your contribution.

The model of this event must begin with a simple model, instead of a complete model of the airport environment, because we don’t have access to the traffic conditions and used lanes on that particular day.
So, although I’m not interested in the modelling itself (***), because of the time to be invested, I can contribute with some ideas. At least it is a good exercise.
We have to use a CFD code (OPENFoam as good features, is opensource and free, or another CFD code) to do the thermodynamic calculus.
Model the atmosphere initial conditions with a gradient from hotter at the ground level and decreasing temperature with crescent altitude.
Model the exhaust gases: Output temperature, total mass/second and velocity. The engine is essentially a burner and a blower.
It is reasonable to assume a lower constant level of emission instead of a pulsed emission (one pulse of duration X for each plane take-off), as a result of time integration with a slow dispersive medium.
At the take-off the engines were pointed down to ground, and due to the high velocity of the output we can assume a simpler model with a constant influx of heat concentrated at a small surface area at ground level. We can also assume no obstacles which points to a cylindrical configuration.
Until know thermodynamics expertise was needed and the CFD will output the temperature/pressure profile at a later moment, not necessary at an equilibrium point.
Then we must know more about the physical characterization of the gases, in particular the index of refraction (IOR). I think that the IOR is dependent on temperature/pressure. I think we can get such data from internet, but not sure.
Now we need to translate the map of temperature/pressures distributed in space to an IOR map with a spatial distribution.
Then we need to visualize with the help of another package.
PovRay, Maya, (I don’t know if ‘light++’ package will do the job, but it is an impressive package). Model the space as an ‘onion’ (*) assigning to each layer a specific IOR. Model the illumination: ambient diffuse light coming from all directions superimposed with a stronger plane of light coming from near horizon at low angle (due to the sun-set).
Model the clouds also, as they contribute with another plane of light from above.
Finally chose an appropriate point of view, by chance or intuition, from where you can see the light rays, tangent to the ‘surface’ (**), suffer a reflection and provide a metal grey visualization.

(*) ‘onion’ is a way of speaking. A spatial grid needs to be constructed to represent the geometry of the temperature/pressure.
(**) ‘surface’ is only a way of talking because it relates to a volume in the outer layers. The bending of rays is not at a definite surface and at a specific point as with a mirror, but along all the path of light. Inside the volume the rays get progressively bended.
(***) I dont feel the need, personally, to do the modeling, because I have total confidence that a powerful source of heat and the absence of wind is responsible for this class of events.

A comment about ‘objects’ we see:
We see light, just, and only light, not objects.
Our brain constructs a mental representation of a familiar object to associate to the seen light. We have a need to integrate the world around us into a framework that makes sense. This is a basic principle and only under this principle we are subject to optical illusions.

A comment about the general shape of UFO's as they are usually represented in literature:
It can be seen as the top part of the 'bubble' with a bump at the center due to the fact that heat is more intense at center. Think about it.


Good work.
 
  • #15
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
Without a formal analysis we can only guess for now, but I must say, I think you might be onto something here. It could account for the reported details of the event.

I strongly urge that existing models be used where possible. A formal derivation from first principles could be quite a challenge, even for accomplished physicists. But if one could predict the size of the expected hole in the clouds, this could be used as a fairly definitive test.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
243
0
Here are some of the witness descriptions to compare it with:

All the witnesses said the object was dark gray and well defined in the overcast skies. They said the craft, estimated by different accounts to be 6 feet to 24 feet in diameter, did not display any lights.

Some said it looked like a rotating Frisbee, while others said it did not appear to be spinning. All agreed the object made no noise and it was at a fixed position in the sky, just below the 1,900-foot cloud deck, until shooting off into the clouds.
...
All the witnesses to the O'Hare event, who included at least several pilots, said they are certain based on the disc's appearance and flight characteristics that it was not an airplane, helicopter, weather balloon or any other craft known to man.
...
The object was seen to suddenly accelerate straight up through the solid overcast skies, which the FAA reported had 1,900-foot cloud ceilings at the time.

"It was like somebody punched a hole in the sky," said one United employee.

Witnesses said they had a hard time visually tracking the object as it streaked through the dense clouds.

It left behind an open hole of clear air in the cloud layer, the witnesses said, adding that the hole disappeared within a few minutes.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/chi-0701010141jan01,0,4807868.column

...received a report that a group of twelve airport employees were witnessing a metallic, saucer-shaped craft hovering over gate C-17.

According to eyewitness reports, the strange object was first spotted by a ramp employee who was "pushing back" United Airlines flight 446 which was departing Chicago for Charlotte, North Carolina. The ramp worker then apprised the flight crew of UA446 of the existence of the spinning, metallic object above their aircraft, and it is believed that both the pilot and co-pilot of this aircraft also witnessed the object at that time.

According to Jon Hilkevitch of the Chicago Tribune in an interview on CNN's Glenn Beck program: "The disk was visible for approximately two minutes and was seen by close to a dozen United Airlines employees, ranging from pilots to supervisors, who heard chatter on the radio and raced out to view it." [1][2] The UFO was then seen to suddenly accelerate straight up through the overcast skies. Witnesses reported that the object left behind an open hole of clear air in the cloud layer and that the mysterious hole disappeared or "closed" within a few minutes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_O'Hare_UFO_sighting_2006
Are there any pics of the heat-light-reffraction that can show me what it looks like?
 
  • #17
252
0
I will illustrate with an example from common experience:
You are driving a car in a very hot day, and your son (5 years old) is at your side.
(for safety send him to the back seat after this experiment).
He is looking to the road far ahead and exclaimed: Look, the road is wetted, is it raining there?
No son, it is not water. You are just seeing the sky reflected in the hot air.
Pa, it looks like water!
-----------------------
As you are an adult you are not expecting to see the water in the road, so you know that it is not. You don’t believe.
Your sun knows nothing about light bending and optical effects. He can only see water. He believes.
The internal representation of what we see must conform to experience.
In this experiment 'water' is an object.
----------------------
In the O'Hara event the 'object' is also the sky reflected in the hot air.
But the ‘object water' colour is different from the one seen in this ‘object’!
Yea, there is no black asphalt in the sky.
 
  • #18
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
heldervelez, I have been in contact with someone who is not only a real expert on some of this, but who also likely knows all of the reported details of the O'Hare event. For the moment he wishes to only relay his thoughts for your consideration. I will add a few comments of my own as well. If anyone objects to this, I guess we could have Greg [the owner of PF] verify that the related personal email does exist as represented here.

The first issue mentioned gets back to the rate of effusion. He seems to indicate that we might expect more a bubble, than a column of rising air. But his position on this was not entirely clear to me. Based just on my personal experience, particularly with campfires, I would tend to expect a column of air that effuses much less quickly than it rises. So, my own expectation would be that of a rising and expanding, approximately conical volume of heated air. But, again, without having done a formal analysis, I can only suggest that this is what we might expect.

The next consideration was that we might expect this cloud-hole phenomenon to be fairly common around airports. That being the case, we might expect this to be well understood already. So I think the objection amounts to one of “where’s the evidence?” Why don’t we see this on a regular basis?

To me it seems possible that we may be talking about something that occurs only under specific conditions. As a result, it may rare, and when it does happen, it may often go unnoticed.

The next point may be a bit more difficult to counter. The alleged object was seen to hover at a fixed altitude for a couple of minutes.

If the details of the event are known to this level of precision, then your explanation would seem to be in direct contradiction to the reported observations. My suggestion would be to determine the confidence that we might have in the reports of “hovering”. Perhaps this part of the story is not well supported, in which case we might allow for this. If on the other hand this directly contradicts the alleged facts, then it becomes more troublesome.

The next two considerations are that of the angle through which the light is refracted, and the claim of a silvery disk. The objection made is that we would only expect refraction through an angle of less than one degree. So while we might select preferred positions of observations to coincide with your explanation, the facts of the case, as reported, do not agree with this. One witness was reportedly almost directly underneath the observed phenomenon. So in order for our explanation to work, we require more refraction that we would expect. Also, we have no reason to assume that the boundary layer between the hot and cool air would appear as a silvery or gray metal disk. While I do understand your expectations here and would tend to make the same assumption, we don’t know this to be true.

Also, we don't really know how quickly a hole would form in the clouds above. Would this happen in a flash, or would it take place over a period of several minutes, or more? I don't think we can say without just guessing.

The final point was that while you have the top of the bubble rising faster as it gains altitude, we might also expect it to slow as the temperature of the hot and cold gases approaches equilibrium. So, again, we need a rigorous model to make the correct determination here.

Note: Fifty-five years ago (1953) the late Dr. Donald Menzel, Harvard professor of physics and (publicly at least) a UFO skeptic, proposed various atmospheric effects to explain UFO sightings, which included a formal theoretical model for a bubble of hot air. Your suggested explanation requires angles of refraction that far exceed even those of Dr. Menzel. And it is argued that he streched the applicability of his theory far beyond its range of potential application.

You are invited to respond to these considerations, but in regards to the specifics of our rising air column, or bubble, what we really need is a reliable model to reference. We can’t do "science" by waiving our arms for much longer. It is important that we don't slip into pseudoscience.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
Of course, if the cap of a rising cone of hot air is essentially bubble shaped, then an observer nearly underneath the bubble might view the light refracting through a small angle along the curved vertical wall of the cap - the boundary layer. So it seems possible to me that refraction through only small angles could still account for the reported observations. So it might be worth taking a look at this possiblity, but this still assumes that the appearance of the boudary would agree with the reports.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
An email from Dr. Bruce Maccabee [our original guest contributor]. Dr. Maccabee is widely considered to be one of the top scientists actively engaged in UFO research. His specialty is optics, which is particularly useful to this discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Maccabee
http://brumac.8k.com/ [Broken]

I read Heldervelez' illustration of what the effect he supposes explains the sighting. He illustrates the atmospheric refraction by the well known inferior mirage effect: light from the sky that travels downward at a very small slant angle compared to a flat road, is bent upward very slightly and so, instead of hitting the road and being absorbed, this light travels upward at a very slight angle. If a person happens to be looking along the road and if the person's eyes are not far above the road (a few meters or less, depenging upon the distance to the horizon), the person will see this upward-traveling light which, because it is light from the sky, is brighter than the light reflected from the road. Hence the person will see "skylight in the road."

This occurs when the road is hotter than the air that is a meter or so above the road. The road surface heats the air that is immediately above it, causing an atmospheric temperature gradient, dT/dZ, that is negative (the temperature drops as the altitude increases). The air somewhat above the road is cooler and therefore more dense than the air next to the road. The speed of light is lower in cooler, denser air. The phenomenon of refraction or bending of light occurs when a light ray encounters a gradient in the speed of light, alternately known as the gradient in the magnitude of the refractive index, n = c/v, where c = speed of light in a vacuum and v = speed of light in a medium, in this case, air. Since v varies with height (v decreases with increasing altitude above the road), n varies with height, being larger far above the road than at the level of the road.

Stated simply, light is "bent into" a medium of higher refractive index (in this case, cooler air) from a medium of lower refractive index (warmer air). The variation in refractive index is a very small quantity in air. Hence a light ray has to travel within the gradient region for a considerable distance in order to achieve noticeable bending. In the case of "Water on the road", the "water" generally appears to be hundreds of meters in front of the observer, and this requires light to pass through many meters of the air near the road. The density gradient is not perfectly uniform over the road because convection causes some air to rise and cooler air to fall at various locations along the road. This causes the refractive effect to vary with time and one sees "wavy" skylight above the road.

A similar effect occurs in the vicinity of flames or other sources of very hot air such as hot air that comes out of a jet. If one is looking along the column of heated air the effect of "waviness" on light rays coming from objects beyond the heated volume can be quite noticeable. (I'm sure that virtually everyone knows this from experience.)

In this particular UFO sighting, the requirement that the light pass through many meters of air that has a refractive gradient, and the consequence of the very small refractive gradient, namely that the total bend angle be very small, MIGHT be satisfied for the observer directly below the "object" if the observer were standing in a location very close to the bottom of the assumed cylindrical column of heated air. Looking upward along the heated cylinder boundary the observer might see something like the "water in the road" effect, except that in this case the observer would see light from the cloud cover at 1900 ft. The observer might see a "wavy" cloud effect. However, there is no reason to believe that the "wavy cloud" image would appear as an object, darker than the clouds, that hovers at a constant height for many seconds, even as long as a couple of minutes (exact duration not known) and then suddenly accelerates upward and appears to rapidly punch a hole in the clouds.

The observer directly below would have the greatest chance of seeing something unusual because the light rays travelin downward from the cloud cover would have traveled along the longest possible path distance, namely, along the length of the supposed cylinder of heat. However, for observers at considerable distances from the supposed heated cylinder, the distance traveled within the temperature gradient region would be much smaller. It is likely that they would see no more than the slight "wavy" effect one sees when the sighting line to distant objects passes close to a flame. There is no reason to believe that this slight wavy effect would appear as a solid object, blocking the light from directly behind it.

The famous/infamous Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Object, a.k.a. ,"the Condon Report" or "the Colorado Report" which reports on the work done at the University of Colorado from 1967 - 1968, provides a good overview of the mirage effect and shows how quantitative theory limits the mirage angle to less than a degree.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
252
0
Without a formal analysis we can only guess for now, but I must say, I think you might be onto something here. It could account for the reported details of the event.

I strongly urge that existing models be used where possible. A formal derivation from first principles could be quite a challenge, even for accomplished physicists. But if one could predict the size of the expected hole in the clouds, this could be used as a fairly definitive test.
I do Agree whit you Mr. Ivan: a formal analysis is possible and must be done.
As I've pointed out it must begin with a thermodynamical CFD model , and it is premature an optical expert opinion, as we don’t have enough data to characterize the optical part of the problem.
The airport is like a furnace and the burners warm up the air at different altitudes in the ascendant/descendent trajectory above lanes.

quote http://www.ufocasebook.com/2007/narcapcase18.pdf [Broken] (pag. 24 of narcap case18 report from Dr. Haynes et al.)
O'Hare's air traffic controllers typically handle about ninety six arrivals per hour or one every 38 seconds, usually on multiple runways. They are kept extremely busy.
end-quote

being 1 arrival each 38s, it will be 1 airplane (arrival and departure) each 19s;
what is the thermal transfer to the atmosphere in the combustion of jet fuel in Taxiing (T minutes), and in the landing phase (Ls seconds), and in take-off (Ts seconds) ?
Each plane as at least 2 engines and a mean value for the power delivered by each one must be obtained due to the different type of engines in presence.


take-off lanes
quote http://www.ufocasebook.com/2007/narcapcase18.pdf [Broken] (appendix F.4, pag. 148 of narcap case18 report from Dr. Haynes et al.)
F.4 Personal Observations as a Pilot Related to Take-offs on Runway 32L and 27L at O'Hare Airport on
November 7, 2006 at About 4:30 pm.
It would appear to me that if there was any change to runways due to the UAP's presence it would have most probably been departures on runways 27L and specifically 32L. An aircraft sitting on the "button" of runway 32L would have had a clear view of something hovering over gate C17 almost
regardless of the UAP's altitude. An aircraft departing on either of these runways would get increasingly closer to the object as they climbed out. An aircraft on 32L would have been looking up at the bottom of it from a distance of only approximately 1,500 feet laterally to the east. An aircraft taking off on 27L would have been at a greater altitude when passing the alleged UAP's position.
end-quote
Consulting the airport diagram at pag.12 it can be seen the gate C17 (UAP location) in in the 'center' of the airport and lanes 27L and 32L are just nearby C17.

can someone more versed in the facts and this text, enlighten me what are the lanes used in fact for the takeoffs and if I can presume that in lane 27L the takeoff is from E to W, and at lane 32L is from SE to NW ?

Can this configuration of takeoffs contribute to the increase of the 'curling' of exhaust gases?

can we expect that someone in this forum with thermodynamic expertise can do the CFD model?

-- about experts ---
'an expert' in some field is someone that can point or at least contribute to the solutions.
In all mysteries there is a lot of pressure to keep them a mystery. It’s business as usual.
----------------------
The contribution to the solution of this kind of events can prevent future aviation accidents, and save lives. This issue must prevail over other considerations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
-- about experts ---
'an expert' in some field is someone that can point or at least contribute to the solutions.

In all mysteries there is a lot of pressure to keep them a mystery. It’s business as usual.
When scientific explanations or answers are offered, esp when definitive, it is not reasonable to assume improper motives. That is the realm of crackpottery. It is important to not allow personal bias to govern the interpretations of the facts.
 
  • #23
252
0
...
The final point was that while you have the top of the bubble rising faster as it gains altitude, we might also expect it to slow as the temperature of the hot and cold gases approaches equilibrium. So, again, we need a rigorous model to make the correct determination here.
...
...
You are invited to respond to these considerations, but in regards to the specifics of our rising air column, or bubble, what we really need is a reliable model to reference. We can’t do "science" by waiving our arms for much longer. It is important that we don't slip into pseudoscience.
The bubble is a direct result of a Rayleigh–Taylor instability
this is an effect expectable when a denser fluid (cold air) is on top of a less denser one (hot air).

do it at home experiment in this American Physical Society site:
http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/pictures/cup.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh–Taylor_instability
"movies" http://hmf.enseeiht.fr/travaux/CD0001/travaux/optmfn/hi/01pa/hyb72/rt/rt.htm
 
  • #24
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
heldervelez, I have contacted a few of the leading people/groups who look at this stuff. Maybe someone will try to run with your idea.

If there is anything to it, don't be surprised if you see it discussed on TV someday. It seems a like a real stretch for me, and as Dr. Maccabee pointed out, there are problems, but without a complete and rigorous analysis, we can't know. The nice thing is that a proper analysis of this idea should be possible. And everyone has commented that your idea is quite unique - esp the idea of punching a hole in the clouds. If nothing else, I congratulate you for your original thinking.

Although thought to result from a different process than the one that you suggest, there are such things as hole-punch clouds
http://www.wkrg.com/weather/article_education/hole_punch_clouds/4097/ [Broken]

late edits
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
252
0
heldervelez, I have contacted a few of the leading people/groups who look at this stuff. Maybe someone will try to run with your idea.

If there is anything to it, don't be surprised if you see it discussed on TV someday. It seems a like a real stretch for me, and as Dr. Maccabee pointed out, there are problems, but without a complete and rigorous analysis, we can't know. The nice thing is that a proper analysis of this idea should be possible. And everyone has commented that your idea is quite unique - esp the idea of punching a hole in the clouds. If nothing else, I congratulate you for your original thinking.

Although thought to result from a different process than the one that you suggest, there are such things as hole-punch clouds
http://www.wkrg.com/weather/article_education/hole_punch_clouds/4097/ [Broken]

late edits
Mr Ivan thanks for the link hole_punch_clouds.
Thanks for your attention to this subject.
I do not seek any protagonism and, in the event of some media focus, it would be nice the reference to some Portuguese guy.
To all my apologies on my poor english.
I whish you all a Merry Christmas.

Back to the subject, I think that this particular form of phenomena can be disastrous from time to time, esp if the pilots took some precipitated evasive manoeuvres.

About O'Hare Airport weather condition there is one aspect that is relevant (among several of others of course) and it is the local 'Sea Breeze'. The water in the Lake is a huge termo-accumulator and by night the wind blows in one direction and by day in the opposite direction with two daily minima (0 knots in the absence of other dominant wind).
I think that a zero or near zero wind is a rare condition but it is not irrelevant.
I've browsed the reports of the accidents in that airport and I've found that one, or even more, happened with a near zero wind and a lack of oxigen in the flight path could be accountable. Perhaps revisiting those accidents could bring us a safer world.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads on Explaining the O'Hare Airport UFO (day events)

  • Last Post
2
Replies
25
Views
12K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
47
Views
33K
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
8
Replies
197
Views
19K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
66
Views
90K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • Last Post
9
Replies
222
Views
16K
Top