Explaining the O'Hare Airport UFO (day events)

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter heldervelez
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Events
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the physics behind UFO sightings at O'Hare Airport, specifically during clear day events. Participants explain that hot exhaust gases from jet planes can create a bubble effect, which reflects light and may appear metallic, leading to misinterpretations of UFOs. The lack of wind conditions contributes to the persistence of these gas bubbles, which can obscure visibility and create safety concerns in aviation. The conversation emphasizes the need for a scientific understanding of these phenomena to enhance aviation security.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of thermodynamics, specifically gas behavior and heat transfer.
  • Familiarity with light refraction and reflection principles.
  • Knowledge of aviation safety protocols and incident reporting.
  • Basic grasp of atmospheric conditions affecting visibility and gas dispersion.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the physics of gas behavior in atmospheric conditions.
  • Study light refraction and reflection in varying temperature gradients.
  • Examine aviation safety reports related to UAP incidents.
  • Explore the implications of UAP sightings on aviation regulations and protocols.
USEFUL FOR

Aviation safety professionals, physicists, and anyone interested in the scientific explanations behind UFO sightings and their implications for air traffic management.

  • #31
I expressed fear in my earlier post that I may come out as fanatical as my bretheren in the other camp (of UFOs believers) and am afraid your (Ivan's) assessment of myself may be spot on. Since you also mention that everyone else seems to be impatient the more I pray to see more scientist come up with rational explanation. I guess I'll have to read more and write less. Kudos to you for playing the Devil's advocate.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
boit said:
I expressed fear in my earlier post that I may come out as fanatical as my bretheren in the other camp (of UFOs believers) and am afraid your (Ivan's) assessment of myself may be spot on. Since you also mention that everyone else seems to be impatient the more I pray to see more scientist come up with rational explanation. I guess I'll have to read more and write less. Kudos to you for playing the Devil's advocate.

I think you may be the first person to ever make a post like this in S&D wrt the subject of UFOS. :smile:

Most serious people who have an interest in the subject recognize not only the fallibility of witnesses, but also that 90-95% of all "sightings" can be [easily] explained in conventional terms. But when all is said and done, there is a residue of intriguing reports that come with compelling evidence the form of multiple otherwise credible witnesses, and or RADAR data, and or photographic/video evidence, and sometimes even trace physical evidence. The most intriguing reports often come from the military - the government archives at places like the NSA, CIA, DoD etc. A good amount of the best information can be found in the UFO Napster. Note however that the NSA just readdressed their archives - third time now in five years - so many NSA links won't work. I will be updating these links as time allows. However, in the mean time you can search the NSA UFO database for the relevant reports.

Since I have never seen an "alien spacecraft " [at least not that I know of :biggrin:], I don't "believe" that ET has been here, but I do understand why so many people do. My goal is to provide for the presentation of the most credible evidence for whatever it is that people see. Beyond that I have no agenda other than to provide the proper context for these reports. As I said, I started on this twenty years ago - at one time or another I have read probably every one of the thousands of related government documents, as well as at least a few thousand more public reports - and I'm still mystified by the subject.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
heldervelez, last night the show UFO Hunters addressed the O'Hare event, so I made a point of watching with your idea in mind. The biggest problem seems to be the duration of the event - the claim is that the "disk" was observed for fifteen minutes. But the confidence in this number is low since we don't even have direct testimony except through the Chicago Tribune reporter. And wouldn't you know it: I had to leave the room for a short time. When I returned they were talking about the energy required to punch a hole in the clouds...I think. What's more, Ted Roe, with NARCAP - the Haines group, one of those contacted about your idea - was on the show. So I think they were addressing your line of reasoning but I couldn't be sure as I missed most of that segment. The show is not yet available online but it will be. It is called Aliens at the Airport and can soon be viewed here:
http://www.history.com/video.do?name=UFO_Hunters
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
I watched it and believe they said it would take about 100MWs to create this kind of hole through that thick of cloud cover. And the aircraft (don't remember what type) would only provide about 1MWs.
 
  • #35
Cool. Two months to go from the first post on PF, to the TV?

They were talking about heldervelez's idea? Was the discussion framed the same as discussed here? That is what I wasn't sure about.
 
  • #36
I saw the announcement and it is about 'aliens' . I'm pretty sure that they will not address within this perspective.
 
  • #37
Today morning a plane crashed at Amsterdam airport.
I saw fog -> No wind
No dead people -> final landing phase

I bet :
lack of oxigen in the engines
due the coincident landing path with a previous airplane not sufficiently separated in time.

Can someone check the local weather conditions, and air traffic on that lane?

May be we could save lives in the future.
 
  • #38
heldervelez said:
I saw the announcement and it is about 'aliens' . I'm pretty sure that they will not address within this perspective.

I think the point was that it sounds like they did. They do hype things a lot, but they also have a scientist from MIT on the team.
 
  • #39
I personally think you are going to have a couple problems explaining a few things.

*The metallic color.
*A solid shape that rotates.
*That it is stationary over the airport at set distance then suddenly accelerates at a drastic value.
*The power necessary to to deflect the cloud cover sounds like it is out of bounds for most conventional phenomena explanations though I could be wrong.

If all these observations are correct any explanation should take into account all observations simultaneously.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
Just a shot in the dark. But, what if a puff of smoke had been released from an engine, for some reason. And, due to the constant presence of hot air, from the jet engine, the smoke, actually had been trapped beneath, or within this flow of hot air, until the engine shut down which then led to the sudden release of this puff of smoke, causing it to rise approximately as fast or a little slower than the hot air column from the engine.

If this were possible, it would explain the optical properties, as well as the hovering.
 
  • #41
I found this article shedding some light on a possible effect which may be worth looking. Although I'm not sure it is relevant to this situation.

In that study Andy Ackerman, of NASA’s Ames Research Center, and co-authors used a computer model to demonstrate that energy-absorbing aerosols can have a semi-direct affect on cumulus clouds over the ocean. At the time he wrote his paper, Ackerman was unaware of Hansen’s paper and so he wasn’t familiar with Hansen’s term “semi-direct effect.” Instead, Ackerman described it as the “cloud-burning effect of soot.” But both groups of scientists described the basic underlying physics of the process in pretty much the same way: as the top of the boundary layer becomes filled with dark-colored particles (like soot), the aerosols absorb sunlight and warm the temperature of the air relative to the temperature of the surface. According to Ackerman, this heating at the top of the boundary layer burns away clouds in two ways: (1) by accelerating the process of evaporation of existing clouds, and (2) by suppressing the upward flow of moisture from the surface needed to form new clouds.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SmokeClouds/smoke_clouds2.php
 
  • #42
Well that is interesting it might burn back the clouds but there is still the issue of the metallic reflection, and a solid object rotating, and the sudden accelerations. Hot air once released should reach terminal velocity quite quickly at a relatively low speed.
 
  • #43
dustinthewind said:
Hot air once released should reach terminal velocity quite quickly at a relatively low speed.

What does this mean? What's "terminal velocity" for "hot air?" What do you mean by "relatively low speed?"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #44
mugaliens said:
What does this mean? What's "terminal velocity" for "hot air?" What do you mean by "relatively low speed?"

I think he meant the maximum velocity at which the hot air will rise.
 
Last edited:
  • #45
Maybe a combination of wind and hot air released from the jet engine? If the wind were blowing at maybe a 45 degree angle to the air stream released by the engine, and the smoke had been carried by the wind into a sweet spot of interaction between the two, it could form some kind of vortex, or swirl of smoke, held in place by both the wind and the hot air from the jet engine, until the jet engine stops releasing it?