Talk:Ball lightning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ball lightning article.
Article policies
Archives: Index, 1
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
Notice
This is not the place to post personal sighting experiences. This page is only for discussing improvements to the ball lightning article.
Irrelevant comments may be removed. See Wikipedia: Talk page guidelines.
Archive
Archives (Index)
Archive 1
About archives

Contents

[edit] Can anyone find info on this strange photo?

I was searching for possible photos of natural ball lightning and came across this: http://home.wxs.nl/~icblsec/ab_shabanov.html.

Here's the root site address, which states in the last paragraph that the experiment was performed at the "International Symposium on Ball Lightning" or ISBL: http://home.planet.nl/~icblsec/noscript.html.

The photo looks like a fake to me, but seems to be from a legitimate source. The page also doesn't provide much of an explanation on how the experiment works, which from the photo seems to involve a small tank of electrified water. I hope someone can shed some light on this. Equazcion 22:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The photo as I understand it is a product of Russian sense for humor. It is just a illustration photo, it is a fake, and it is somehow ironic... However, the ball there is pretty similar to what was seen on the athletic field in report some pages above. --Eltwarg 18:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Videos also exist. The "ball" is actually a torus or smoke-ring of glowing electrical plasma which exists from the tube in the water tank.

--207.118.26.144 (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The photograph is most likely legitimate. Shabanov (Technical Physics Letters, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2002) is furthering the work of Egorov and Stepanov (Technical Physics, Vol. 47, No. 12, 2002). The experiment was subsequently repeated by a Japanese group (I will provide reference) and then by the Max-Planck Institute folks mentioned in the Wiki article (hotlink #13). The apparatus is little more than a high voltage capacitor bank discharged into a container of water. The event is short lived (<1s) and, aside from being occasionally spherical and self-luminous, has none of the commonly reported properties of ball lightning. It is an visually interesting experiment (I can provide photos and video of my replication) but a poor analog of natural ball lightning. --Sfusare 21:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes please provide that reference and the photos/video :) Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The Japanese group's paper is "Fireball generation in a water discharge" by Sakawa et al. It appears in the journal Plasma and Fusion Research, Vol. 1, p.039 (2006). At the time of this writing it was freely available for download at the following link [1].
My duplication of the experiment was not exact in that I used a modified (simplified) inner electrode arraignment. The video is far less impressive as the event is short lived (<1 sec). In this case the supply was a 260uF pulse capacitor charged to 5000V. The greenish coloring of the plasma ball stems from copper ions sourced from my inner electrode. Sfusare (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Image:water plasma.jpg
I have to say, this is remarkable. This visual is much closer to descriptions of natural ball lightning than the recent experiments with charged silica vapors. I wonder why we haven't heard more about these experiments. This information and these photos need to be included in the article somehow. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:56, 2 Jan 2008 (UTC)
I've added this info and the photo to the article. Thanks again, Sfusare :) Equazcion •✗/C • 19:21, 2 Jan 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent article

There was a recent article about a proposed mechanism of ball lightning and they've even been able to recreate something akin to it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That video is bogus.

I can't believe we have that video up on this page. It's utterly obvious that this is a reflection of the sun from the obviously wet roads - it's moving as the camera (presumably in a helicopter) tracks the vehicle. Take a look at the lighting of other objects in the scene and you can easily tell that the light is coming from above and behind the camera - producing exactly that reflection. The 'sparkling' around the edges clearly comes from the fact that the water is being churned up by the car that just drove over it.

We can't leave this in the article as "proof" - it's a terrible fake. SteveBaker (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I was rather surprised to see this video too. I don't necessarily consider it utterly obvious why it looks the way it looks, but I certainly agree that it can't go in the article saying "here's a video of ball lighting." Friday (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

since the image came from commons "ball lightning", it shouldn't be there either, if it is fake.

but it is the only 'photo' image there, compared to hundreds of candidates at google images.

if the ball is sun reflection, it should stay in one place, no? if it is a water reflection, there should be one behind the other car too, no?

perhaps the video could go back in as hypothetical? perhaps Penubag or someone could contact the originator, the friend of Артем Владимирович Молдавский (Artem Vladimirovich Moldavian), from whom it came, for more details? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.94.118 (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually agree, it definitely appears as an absolute fake as you say. I will question the image uploader and probably tag it for deletion.-- Penubag  05:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
EDIT: That user has no userpage or talkpage, meaning he has never received a message before inquiring me that he will ever reply. I didn't bother to ask him, so if you guys agree, I'll tag it for deletion.-- Penubag  05:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

put back a link only to the ru video as possible candidate (down in the car ball section). video can't be of sun reflection, since a sun reflection would stay in one place on the road, no? if a fake, easiest way i can think of is a towed mylar balloon. still would like more details from the source...

additionally, i have seen tens of candidate videos of balls following power lines, but cannort now find any of them. if y'all know where those vids are, could they be added too?

It would be easy to get a similar video of a reflection off a power line. It'd be easy to shoot such a video next time it rains then clears up, about half an hour before sunset. APL (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(changing subject - looks like that list of theories near the bottom was started but never finished. perhaps some of you who know what they are talking about could add at least a sentence and/or some links to each of those theory headers?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.94.69 (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Personaly, I enjoy how everyone is driving normaly even though there's ostensibly a four foot ball of fire closely following one of the cars. APL (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

HAHA... Yeah that always bothered me, too. At least it wouldn't happen in America. We'd have ended that clip in a ten-car pileup. Maybe in other countries they're less surprised by spectral masses of floating flame. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another picture

How about adding this picture to the article? ru.wikipedia has it, why can't we? -- penubag  00:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure but I think we used to have this picture, but it was removed because of suspicion that it was a hoax. I have no problem with including it though... I think any pic of ball lightning is going to carry the same suspicion, so might as well include an example anyway. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:41, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)
As a "student" of the phenomenon, it is my opinion that there are NO uncontested photographs (or videos for that matter) of ball lightning. Mainstream science will be convinced with nothing less than a laboratory reproducible experiment. As the recording equipment available to the "common" man has increased in availability and capability so has the software tools that may be used for hoaxing. It is my opinion that, although it may be of interest, a photo or video will never be acceptable "proof" to the established authorities.Sfusare (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
True, and I agree, but we can still include photos in the article, as long as we make no claims as to their authenticity. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:33, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)
Forwarded, looks great! -- penubag  00:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Why would anybody honestly believe that the picture of lightning striking something and throwing off embers is a depiction of ball lightning??? — NRen2k5 14:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plasmoid model

I have removed all references to the "Electron-ionic model" of Sergey G. Fedosin. The model itself is just another plasmoid model, with all the problems associated with them, such as low energy (due to pressure balance with the atmosphere and the virial theorem) and high buoyancy. Fedosin proposes that the plasmoid is non-neutral and attracted to its image charge in the ground, but that would normally be an unstable equilibrium at best.

Perhaps more important here, this particular work does not seem in any way notable. It is not clear whether any of the publications cited are refereed. They are at best in low-impact journals and for readers of the English Wikipedia inaccessible, being mostly in Russian. They have presumably not been discussed in the secondary literature, neither in scientific journals nor in news reports. The author also does not have any independent claim to fame.

Unfortunately, the discussion of plasma models was removed from the article by Equazcion on a very productive day last month. I rather liked the old version, at least bits of it. After all, I wrote it. Equazcion called it original research. I would call it under-sourced. It did not include any controversial physics claims, and can all be found in the ball lightning literature if you dig for it. What do Equazcion and the other editors think of reinstating a short discussion of the physics of the plasmoid theory, which remains one of the most often discussed models?

--Art Carlson (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No. It was original research and that's why it was removed. It was basically a discussion between users here. We don't discuss things in articles -- we only regurgitate facts we find elsewhere. If you want to add something that was once removed, include a source. Otherwise this will become the same mess of OR it was before. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:25, 8 Feb 2008 (UTC)
It's sometimes hard for me to separate things I have read from common sense - "common sense", that is, for a professional plasma physicist who has taken the time to think through the physics. Maybe you're right. That sounds dangerously close to original research. You did a good job of cleaning up the rest of the article, so I'll let you have the final word on this part, too. --Art Carlson (talk) 10:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


It is a pity but when Art Carlson removed my references he removed even reference which was always in the article before my last correction. I think it is very bad from him. It is not right also to compare "Electron-ionic model" with plasmoid model, since we speak about ball lightning not about plasmoid. The energy in "Electron-ionic model of ball lightning" is fully enough - almoust 11 kJ. This energy is mostly in energy of very hot air and electromagnetic fields. About equilibrium - ball lightning attracted not only to the ground but also to the clouds which are non-neutral too, it is well known, so equilibrium is possible.

Also I must say that in Russian version of Wikipedia in the article about ball lightning I have not such problem as I find here when try to translate for English version of Wikipedia "Electron-ionic model of ball lightning". I think it is not more exotic as "black hole ball lightning". Fedosin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.33.234.162 (talk • contribs)

You can't put your own research into an article. See WP:OR and WP:COI. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:33, 8 Feb 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edit led me to take a closer look at the article, which is why I noticed the old reference. It should be removed for the same reasons that I removed the detailed contribution. If my Russian were better, I would do the same in the Russian Wikipedia. I agree that "black hole ball lightning" is very exotic and I'm not sure that it really belongs here, at least with such prominence. But it does have the weight of Sandia National Laboratory and New Scientist behind it. We should try not to go too much into the physics here since, at the end of the day, what counts in Wikipedia is notability and verifiability, which are both lacking for your model. That said, your model is two-fluid MHD with significant electric and magnetic fields. You don't call it a plasmoid, but that's what it is. From the virial theorem, an equilibrium configuration of plasma and fields contained by the atmosphere cannot have an energy density of more than about 0.1 kJ/m^3. If your configuration has 3000 times that much, it will blow itself apart. Finally, it doesn't matter whether a charge is near one conducting plane or between two conducting planes, the attraction to the image charge increases when you approach the plane, making any equilibrium with a second force unstable (assuming that force is uniform). --Art Carlson (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Art Carlson, I agree with you "Electron-ionic model of ball lightning - is a plasmoid. But what is wrong? You tell us about virial theorem. But do you know it is right only for little ball lightning with size about 1 cm? It is easily to accounting for energy balance. And for big ball lightning there are not any balance and virial theorem is not applicable. It is a reason for its annihilation. According to Johnson P.O. Ball Lightning and Self-containing Electromagnetic Fields // American Journal of Physics, 1965, V. 33, No 2, P. 119., full energy of plasmoid in view of virial theorem no more then 3PV, where V  volume, P  atmospheric pressure. If P = 1 atm, size of ball lightning 10 cm, then energy is 1000 J.
But we must include in energy balance the heat energy of very hot air inside ball lightning (up to 10000 K). It energy density is up to 180 kJ/m^3. Its pressure is opposite to atmospheric pressure from outside and pressure from electrostatic force between positive charge of air inside ball lightning and negative electronic charge in envelope of ball lightning. And envelope is stable because it consist of electrons are moving quickly. The current of this electrons is the reason for the magnetic field, which was find at ball lightning, and is the reason for the cases when ball lightning touch the sand on the ground and sand fly in one side.
About equilibrium. When usual lightning have place then from clouds electrons fall to the Earth. In the cases when clouds have negative charge ball lightning with positive charge may quickly fly to the sky – it is was seen some people. But if ball lightning was formed near ground it can move near the ground in equilibrium of all the forces. The main of them – force of Archimedus which is up and electric force of the attraction to the image charge on the ground which is down. Why there are not equilibrium as you write?
The "Electron-ionic model of ball lightning was not only my idea, but there is also other author S.A.Kim. Our work was supported by the laboratory of spectroscopy of Perm University where we worked. The patent of Kim A.S. and Fedosin S.G. Way of reception of ball lightning // Patent of the Russian Federation No. 2210195, class 7H05H1/00, G09B23/18, bulletin No. 22, 2003 is the patent of Perm University too.
Fedosin
It looks like I got confused. Your energy calculations appear to be at least approximately correct. I didn't say there could not be an equilibrium between buoyancy and electrostatic forces, I said that such an equilibrium would be unstable. You and Kim are not the first to consider plasmoid theories for ball lightning. Why do you not reference previous work in your paper? --Art Carlson (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
We have 6 papers on the theme of ball lightning. The numbers of references are different in our papers. For example in book “Contemporary Issues of Physics. In Search for the New Principles. – M.: Editorial URSS, 2002, 192 pp, “ there 32 references about almost all well known models of ball lightning.
Moreover the next paper is ready where rhe model of bead lightning is presented. This model is the same as "Electron-ionic model of ball lightning, and in our opinion it is good agreement of all types of lightning. The common for them is strong electron current and magnetic field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fedosin (talk • contribs) 10:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Has your work been mentioned in any reviews of ball lightning? Are there a significant number of publications that discuss your work? That is roughly the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia (with some exceptions). --Art Carlson (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
In English we have two papers:
Fedosin (talk) 07:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
So, there no discussion of your work in other publications, much less in the secondary sources Wikipedia depends on. It is not even clear if your work has been peer reviewed. Sorry. This is not the right place to garner support for your model. Come back after you have convinced the world (or at least a significant portion of it) that you are right. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
For the standards Wikipedia requires in its sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Once your research meets that criteria it could then (possibly) be included. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:25, 11 Feb 2008 (UTC)
May be some other people will want to participate in our discussion? For them we organized a page Electron-ionic model of ball lightning —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fedosin (talk • contribs) 08:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

Re Fedosin's own research (now removed), from a purely Wikipedian point of view, I agree original research should not be included in Wikipedia articles. If, however, articles or books have been published by the author him/herself about the subject elsewhere and which are therefore citable by others, does that still apply? After all, he could easily appear with a different nick, which would then make his citing the research legitimate? Even if he included his own research under his own name but the results could be sourced independently - sources in which he originally published his papers - would that not be legitimate? I know this doesn't happen very often, if at all, but hypothetically is quite possible. Dieter Simon (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It would still be COI. Someone else could add the items instead. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:30, 9 Feb 2008 (UTC)
There are some cases where it is OK to cite your own work, but the danger is great that you will not be objective about it. The reasons I gave for removing this work would apply no matter who put it in. --Art Carlson (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Once again about the main picture.

It's processed(mirrored and cropped)image! See [2]for comparison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shureg (talk • contribs) 11:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I did the cropping, see the summary at Image:Ball lightning appears cropped.jpg. Not sure how it being mirrored is significant. Also, your link is likely the mirrored version, not the original, because it's smaller/lower quality than the version we have (see our version uncropped). Equazcion •✗/C • 16:41, 8 Apr 2008 (UTC)
On second look, yours is even less cropped than our uncropped version, which is interesting. Thanks for that link. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:46, 8 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Here's the gallery from that site, if anyone's interested: http://zeh.ru/shm/galerey.php. Some interesting stuff. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:18, 8 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I was a little hesitant to do this but I've retouched the main picture, please revert if unnecessary (before-after) -- penubag  (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Laura Ingalls incident

I don't believe the incident described by Laura Ingalls qualifies as ball lightning... I don't have the books on hand to check, but if I remember correctly, didn't they learn afterward that they were actually tumbleweeds that had caught fire? 75.209.155.46 (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Silicon

I'm confused by the claim that a lighning strike will vaporize the silicon in the soil and that the subsequent "burning" could be the source of the ball. The article cited is irrelevant, I believe to the claim. There is, as far as I'm aware no naturally occuring free silicon. So the article is claiming that Silicon dioxide is vaporized, somehow the oxygen is separated from the silicon and the purified silicon then burns with more oxygen to reform the silica. What hogwash. Why worry about citations when you're basically writing junk science? As for books being cited. Only if they are composed of peer reviewed articles. Trash science. Very disappointing.71.31.146.24 (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)dimwitdw-5-17-08

Silica certainly does occur in nature. I'm sorry you don't trust the scientists, but I frankly trust them more than you, and since your opinions aren't valid on their own for a Wikipedia article source, I think we'll stick to the current, sourced claims. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

The photo in the article from Japan doesn't appear to be ball lightning. It looks like a normal lightning striking a pole. when lightning hits objects the heat an energy released is very high, creating an explosion-like ball of light seen in the picture. Although it maybe ball lightning the most logical is a normal lightning bolt. Ball lightning is rare and there aren't many good pictures of ball lightning in nature but I'd personally rather have no picture before one that is probably not the topic of article.--Bhockey10 (talk) 08:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)