Talk:Ball lightning/Archive 2

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.


 * 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)

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)

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)

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)

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


 * I agree. Better no picture at all than this. I've no theory to propound or explanation to offer for the phenomenon, and I hold no belief or superstition as to what exactly it may or not be, but I have seen with my own eyes an atmospheric phenomenon which fits some of the desciptions of "ball lightning" given here and in this article in Scientific American. The 'object' I saw was a fairly slow-moving luminous spheroid, perhaps several feet wide and as many above ground, near the course of a stream in the high Pyrenees about half an hour after a heavy thunderstorm. I watched it for about a minute or two; it came my way (freaky! - I was camping solo in a high valley) then "rolled" past and disappeared down stream. I had never heard of "ball lightning" previously and knew nothing at all about it. Even today, more than 20 years later, the event is clear in my mind. This picture clearly depicts a lightning strike. If it's supposed to be "ball lightning" we'd better radically redefine what that may mean or rename the article, which already seems to include a whole range of possibly related phenomena within its remit. Twenty years or so on, I'm still waiting for a scientific explanation for the very real natural phenomenon which I witnessed, which is partly why I came to this article, just out of curiosity... Enaidmawr (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I also agree. I hate the picture at the top of this article.  It is a picture of regular lightning with sparks and flame shooting off of whatever the lightning struck. 71.205.161.123 (talk) 00:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The object you think it's striking is actually much larger than it looks here, and further in the background. And they make no contact with each other. When you look at the original uncropped photo this might be clearer: http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Science/Ball%20Lightning.html. I'm not professing what exactly is in the photo, but whatever it is, it's not regular lightning striking that object. Equazcion (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

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:
 * Sergei G. Fedosin, Anatolii S. Kim. The physical theory of ball lightning. It is very shot and popular.
 * Other is Sergei G. Fedosin, Anatolii S. Kim. Electron-Ionic Model of Ball Lightening // Journal of new energy, V. 6, No. 1, 2001, P. 11 - 18. There are much more references in the last paper.
 * 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 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)

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)

Once again about the main picture.
It's processed(mirrored and cropped)image! See 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)

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)

No, the tumbleweed was a separate incident. I recently read all the books, and she very clearly describes ball lightning (without giving it any name) in one of them. The ball occurred indoors and interacted with a metal stovepipe connected to the outside during a thunderstorm. I can't remember which book, unfortunately. -- 76.202.112.169 (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

I have investigated the silicon nanoparticle theory in depth and find it entirely without merit. (In a few hours I will be defending my doctoral thesis on the subject of ball lightning.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.85.176 (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Great. Let us know if your thesis is published. GDallimore (Talk) 17:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

Esoteric Claim on Crop Circles?
Having studied crop circles, I am wondering about the source for the claim that ball lightning is claimed to be intelligent where crop circles are concerned. There are objects that seem similar to ball lightning, but which are clearly not electrical in nature. Also, the small glowing balls have been proved by Dr. Eltjo Haselhoff in "Physiologia Plantarum" (a peer-reviewed scientific journal) to be a point source for electromagnetic radiation responsible for apical node lengthening that creates the patterns. No claim that I am aware of can be substantiated to say that it is, in fact, ball lightning; further, the point source responsible for creating the crop circles must be under intelligent control, because I find it highly doubtful that pi (as in: 3.14...) can be randomly replicated with a 10-part graphical cipher. It is also highly doubtful that ball lightning is under intelligent control. Just wanting a source for the claim in that section, if you please! Red Heron (talk) 07:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed it pending a reliable source. Good shout. --John (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks... and now for the stuff about UFO's and skeptics... sources for that, too? Red Heron (talk) 07:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"Black Jack" Chasse Incident
Should this incident be included? It lacks the full name of the witness, or where Leicester is. It also appears to be second-hand report. Anybody mind me deleting it? 198.145.83.217 (talk) 07:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC) Andy A.

Here's what was there:

Black Jack Chasse
Leicester High School teacher "black Jack" Chasse has claimed for years to have been a purported witness and near victim of Ball Lightning. Direct witness reports go as such; "I was standing in my kitchen and looked outside. I saw a huge ball, about the size of a basketball, just hovering.  And then, all of a sudden, it was gone!  It burned the siding off of my house." Students and faculty alike have mocked him up until his retirement in 2004.

198.145.83.217 (talk) 07:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Andy A.

Search for Leicester on Wikipedia. --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please clarify this, Joshua, as not understood. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Googling for jack chasse, black jack chasse, jack chasse leicester, chasse teacher, chasse ball lightning etc doesnt turn up anything useful, so i'm prepared to call shenanigans on this. and also i can tell you what at least a number of search results for leicester will turn up - the mid sized city in the british east midlands, some 50 miles from where i live. From the sound of the tale spun above, i somehow doubt that's what you're after. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.101.220 (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Faraday Hoax???
According to the current version of the paper, "As is known, Faraday denied an interconnection between ball lightning and electricity. Faraday proposed that ball lightning is a pure optical phenomenon. He continued to speculate that it is an incoherent optical spatial soliton with different from zero curvature[38]". This looks like a hoax, because as far as I know Faraday could not possibly have any idea what a "soliton", or even what "curvature" is. 158.227.95.184 (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree this looks dubious, so I'm moving it here pending verification and rewrite: Verbal   chat  15:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree2. "As is known, Faraday ..." is screaming for a citation, and the physics sounds very dubious. --Art Carlson (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Specification of Faraday hypothesis
ccenied an interconnection between ball lightning and electricity. Faraday proposed that ball lightning is a pure optical phenomenon. He continued to speculate that it is an incoherent optical spatial soliton with different from zero curvature or in other words it is a light bubble. Unlike a usual soap bubble, a shell of the light bubble consists of a thin spherical layer of strongly compressed conventional air where an intense white light is circulating in all possible directions. The light provides the air compression due to the optical electrostriction effect. In turn, the layer of compressed air shows itself as an optical waveguide which provides a light confinement and prevents radiation of the light. Thus, ball lightning is a spherical clot of light. Like a conventional light beam, the light bubble tends to move in the direction of the gradient of the refractive index of air where the light bubble resides. This property enables to explain all puzzles of ball lightning behavior. Moreover, this approach explains phenomena inaccessible to another hypotheses such as a penetration of ball lightning through window panes and an accompany of flying airplanes. Stability of a light bubble has been shown in where references to other scientific papers published in international physical journals in last 5 years are given.

Can someone translate this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla and BL
Please if someone can see this article in which Tesla made a public demonstration of his ball lightnings, because there is an Italian skeptic administrator Hellis who doesn't believe in any Tesla's discoveries for prejudice! Thanks!--151.16.77.188 (talk) 03:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That source doesn't appear to be reliable at all. Eeekster (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me, why? Don't you believe in paper (the author) or in Tesla words? Because Corum & Corum proved the riability of Tesla's experiments.Thanks.--151.16.77.188 (talk) 06:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Little troubles with two last chapters
I think the References and External links chapters are quite messy. A very lot of links compared with the article length, and no organization. It takes to much time to navigate through thoses ressources and some links are much more worth than others. Do you agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.176.0.231 (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

93.176.0.231 (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

(Please add new sections to the end of the page.)

The References are all citations for some statement in the article, so I don't see any problem with the number or the organization of those. I agree that the External links are messy. I don't see right away how to organize them, but I would support you if you want to try. --Art Carlson (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe I could try to "refresh" that section and put the most useful links first. I'll think about it once I'm done with my work on ball lightning (right now I have no time).

193.253.116.99 (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"Pasquaney Lake"
I was not familiar with any lake in New Hampshire named "Pasquaney", mentioned in the Aleister Crowley section of this article. A quick search on the net seems to indicate that the lake in question is now called Newfound Lake, located somewhat to the west of Lake Winnepesaukee. "Pasquaney" is reputed to be the aboriginal name of the lake prior to European settlement.

Google maps reference:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=newfound+lake,+new+hampshire&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=50.644639,114.257812&ie=UTF8&ll=43.668865,-71.771622&spn=0.364563,0.892639&t=h&z=11

Since I'm not very practiced in making article edits, I'll leave it to someone else to make this correction, and also to fix the dead end reference to a stub article on "Lake Pasquaney" in the article. Rarkm (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

hypothetical
I was bothered by this word at first too. In common conversation, it's used to refer to an imaginary scenario, so using that word to describe ball lightning sounds sort of like ridicule. However, Princeton wordnetweb gives the following definition: "based primarily on surmise rather than adequate evidence", so technically the word isn't all that inaccurate a summary of the state of the ball lightning equation. I think better adjectives may exist that are still technically accurate while avoiding bad connotations. "Theoretical" or maybe "hypothesized"? Equazcion (talk) 04:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the lead now, looks good. Equazcion (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Home microwave oven experiments
I see Verbal has reverted a warning in the article not to try to repeat the experiments described at home (as not being a non-reliable source(?). Is this terribly wise? I am not even sure whether this is even non-encyclopaedic. Surely a warning of some kind is appropriate here. After all, this article is going to be read by schoolchildren who might just be tempted into all sorts of try-outs. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not just schoolchildren, but non-school children as well! Kidding. Anyway, as you probably know, the disclaimer was likely removed due to WP:No disclaimers. I would agree with ignoring all rules in this case, but then again, I'm not sure what warning is necessary other than "may damage your microwave", which is already there. Equazcion (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

UFO
a statement near the top says that 5% of Americans reported seeing ball lightening. Would this % be higher if UFO sightings (descriptions of which are quite similar to ball lightening) were included? Would some sort research into this sort of research be relevant? 63.230.97.167 (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

and Moses lifted up his rod
I still think that ball lightning may have been manifested as a consequence of a recorded event when Moses lifted up his rod. Some Bible translations talk about the lightning rolling along the ground, true, it doesnt say the lightning was in the shape of balls but some, but not all, freely moving ball shaped objects can roll along the ground, even I suppose, those composed of electrical discharge. I respect the general consensus here of rejecting this view, just want to add the possibility here in the Talk page to stimulate thought. Someone with a better grasp of Hebrew may be able to shed more light on the subject. I remember once in Bible study, people were puzzled on how lightning can roll around the ground. My witty remark consisted of two words, "ball lightning". --Another berean (talk) 10:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Does plausibility count?
The epilepsy theory is by far the most plausible of them all, and yet it is presented only in a short paragraph at the end. Is there any way to increase the prominence of this theory without violating WP rules? (collin237) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.217.24.147 (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We need two things: a source describing more about this theory, and a source suggesting that it is the most plausible so it can be given increased prominence. Having said that, the whole section's a bit of a mess structurally and could do with a rewrite to avoid giving any hypotheses supported by a reliable source more credence than any other. GDallimore (Talk) 19:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I found another (recent) source that suggests this is the cause, so I went ahead and edited it and changed it to it's own section, after adding the sources. I think it's notable enough to also add a small blurb at the top, so that a casual reader sees that there is another plausible explanation for it. Laytonsmith14 (talk) 04:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You may think this idea is "by far the most plausible of them all", but I haven't seen evidence that anyone else - besides the authors - thinks so. You were only able to find a single peer-reviewed publication, and the only secondary source is a blog that calls it "interesting". I don't think the special mention in the intro is justified. As for the section on "Possible scientific explanations", I'll still not sure according to what principles we should select and order the theories and give them weight. --Art Carlson (talk) 07:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC
 * I'm not suggesting it's more or less plausible than any of the other theories, but the introduction doesn't even address any of the other theories. Perhaps the intro shouldn't specifically address the hallucination theory, but I do think that it should at least mention that there are other possible explanations. Laytonsmith14 (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I confused you with collin237. Sorry. The intro does not currently address any theories at all. It just says, "some serious scientific discussions and theories have attempted to explain it." Considering the speculative nature of all the explanations, I think that's about as detailed as we should get in the intro. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Vaporized silicon
I added the "citation needed" template as I don't really understand why silica (i.e. Si02) should vaporise to silicon, or whether this has actually been described as a theory by a reputable source.Jimjamjak (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My change was reverted, as there are some references at the end of the paragraph. However, only one of these references makes any note of the transformation of silica to silicon, and the experimental data has all been produced using pure silicon. For that reason, I think that there should still be a reference relating to this transformation of silica to silicon.Jimjamjak (talk) 10:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The sentence you dispute is taken directly from the source, which is a reliable one. There's no discussion to be had unless you can provide a reliable source suggesting that the New Scientist report is incorrect. In other words, the fact that you can't understand it doesn't make it wrong, or make it something to remove from the article, or to require a second source to corroborate. The paragraph also makes clear that silica-> Si vapour is a theory adn the tests were done on silicon, so there's nothing misleading. GDallimore (Talk) 12:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this explanation. I see now why the citation needed template was removed. With more thorough searching, I did also find this reference supporting the theory of production of silicon metal (and not just silicon monoxide, which I what I would have expected) at the site of lightning strikes. Essene, E. J. & Fisher, D. C. Lightning strike fusion: extreme reduction and metal-silicate liquid immiscibility. Science 234, 189±193 (1986).Jimjamjak (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Criteria for "Other hypotheses"
User:Vladimir_Torchigin, as his first and up to now only contribution to Wikipedia, added this reference to his own work, published in Handbook of Solitons: Research, Technology and Applications. There is no indication how the articles in this book where chosen or refereed - if at all. There is no indication that this hypothesis has been discussed by any third parties in either the scientific or the popular literature. In short, I think it should be removed as non-notable. I didn't do it right away because I fear many or most of the references are just as skimpy, and we should try to apply any rules consistently. I am tempted to throw them all out, but maybe some readers will want to have a look at the breadth of proposals that have been made, no matter how ill-founded. What do you other editors think? --Art Carlson (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability is not at issue here. All that matters is whether the source is reliable. Clearly this is an article that has undergone editorial review, so it is reliable on the face of it unless there is evidence to the contrary. GDallimore (Talk) 11:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability certainly is an issue. Self-published fringe material is not appropriate for this article. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC).
 * What are you talking about? It's not self-published, but from an edited publication. And notability is about article subject matter, not which sources are used in it, so that is completely and utterly wrong. For that reason, I'm reverting your removal as completely inappropriate with no good reason. If you come up with a good reason, let me know. GDallimore (Talk) 13:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is true that in Wikipedia WP:Notability refers only to "how suitable a topic is for its own article", not the sources used to write an article on a (notable) topic. (I consider the terminology chosen somewhat unfortunate, but there you have it.) The policy more directly applicable to cases like this is WP:No original research, especially the section on Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Basically, just because an idea has been published, even if it has been published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal (which is not the case here), is not sufficient reason to mention it in Wikipedia. It should generally only be included if it has been mentioned in a secondary source like a "review article, book review, or meta-analysis" (in the words of Secondary sources). --Art Carlson (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with the above. What do other editors think? Is this material suitable? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC).


 * As far as I can tell, the situation here is that the original paper was published in 2003 and was then picked up and published (by an independent third party pair of editors) in a 2009 book reviewing work on solitons. Unless there is some specific reason to doubt the reliability of the second publication - and I am more than happy to listen if anyone can find out more about it - then it appears perfectly adequate as a reliable source. GDallimore (Talk) 23:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and for the purposes of this article, the 2003 paper is a secondary source, not a primary source. The topic of this article is not the 2003 paper, in which case citing the paper to discuss the paper would be using a primary source. But we are not discussing the paper or it's validity. Rather, the topic of the article is ball lightning, and the paper is a secondary source analysing and attempting to explain ball lightning. A primary source would be a first person account witnessng ball lightning, for example. GDallimore (Talk) 23:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Torchigin has published several papers on ball lightning but, according to Google Scholar, none of them has been much cited. I have not checked to see how many of the existing citations are self-citations. Many people have published work on ball lightning but Wikipedia is not a physics review journal that is expected to mention every paper that has been written on the subject. Torchigin's work will only be worthy of note when it has been assessed, cited and discussed by others. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC).


 * I say again, this is not an article about Torchigin's work on ball lightning, therefore we do not need other people to discuss his work before citing him. This is an article about ball lightning and Torchigin has written a paper (or papers) about it. The issue of notability is not remotely relevant. All that matters is whether his paper(s) are reliable. Were they self-published, for example? I don't know. But what I do know is that this 2003 paper has been gathered in a 2009 book edited by someone else and that means it meets the criteria for being a reliable source which means it can find a place in this article. That's all there is to it. Notability is a complete red herring. WP:RS does not use the term once. WP:OR mentions it once, but only in the context that a "topic" must have secondary sources (eg, this paper by Torchigin) to make it notable. GDallimore (Talk) 09:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Torchigin has created the article Ball light about his theory. I hope we agree that WP:Notability clearly applies there and is equally clearly lacking, so that that article should be immediately deleted.
 * Where was the paper published in 2003? Was it peer-reviewed? Do you have a link to it?
 * Your reading of WP:PSTS is rather creative. That essay on policy applies also, perhaps mostly, to articles about historical events, so not all of it is trivially applicable. What it does say directly about scientific subjects is "a scientific paper is a primary source about the experiments performed by the authors" while "a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research". Also "research articles (primary sources) ... review articles (secondary sources)". A research paper presenting a novel theory to explain a natural phenomenon is not in any sense a secondary source.
 * --Art Carlson (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hadn't seen that article. Looks a mess, yes.
 * My reading it not remotely creative, it is exactly what you quote at me: the paper is "a primary source about the experiments performed". Exactly, so the paper is a primary source about any new theories and experiments proposed in the paper, eg "ball light". But it is a secondary source about "ball lightning" since it is a step removed from the phenomenon that is ball lightning.
 * I can't track it down to confirm, but it appears that the paper was originally published by some Russian think tank in 2003. No idea what that publication entailed, but I'd be willing to assume that verged on self-publication. The fact that the paper has since been picked up means we have nothing to argue about, though, unless you can find out something dodgy about the 2009 publication. GDallimore (Talk) 11:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There is the following information for clearing situation. There are 12 scientific papers published in International peer reviewed Journals in English in period 2003-2010. The list is the following . All of them are accessible through internet. By clicking any reference everyone can read Abstract in corresponding journal. As for Russian Journal Doclady Physics that it is a leading journal of physics of the Russian academy of sciences where the most valuable selected papers of 3 pages volume are published. The paper must be presented by one of Russian academicians. In particular, the paper were presented by academician A.F. Andreev. He is a chief editor of known Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics

Besides, there are several papers in Russian. The first of them is the paper in the Russian Electronic Journal

These papers are not taken into account because they are written in Russian. As is seen a number of references to peer reviewed journals concerned the discussed approach is greater than a total number of references in whole section OTHER HYPOTHTSIS. One can see that the papers were published in 6 various Editorial Boards and were studied by various referees which were convinced by us that the papers do not contain errors and the papers are suitable for publications. This was not a simple task because initially nobody can imagine that there are light bubbles in the nature.

Besides a survey of these works has been published in 2009 in the Handbook

Certainly, this work is a secondary source. We knew nothing about S.P.Lang and Salim H. Bedore. They have read our papers and sent us an invitations by email where asked us to prepare a review of our works. This review appeared satisfactory for them and they included it in their handbook. As follows from an etymology of REVIEW, this a repeated view, that is a text about other texts. Synonyms of HANDBOOK are MANUAL or ENCYCLOPEDIA. There are no original investigations.

As for site BALL LIGHT then the following considerations have been taken into account. As is noted at the very beginning of BALL LIGHTNIG site “the true nature of ball lightning is still unknown”. In the same time there is a many-century history of investigations, there are above 2000 papers and reports (see references in monographers of Singer, Barry, Abrahamson), there are about 200 various theories and hypothesis. Unlike other unsolved problems of physics, Ball Lightning is the most known and interesting. All these knowledge are presented on the site poorly. It is explained by a very great volume of information. A solution is known. Like any complex system, the site needs to be structuralized. Hyper references enable to obtain a hierarchical tree instead of a site in a form of brush. In this case named nodes are required to introduce. One of such node is node named BALL LIGHT. It is not reasonable to insert one string in the main site and to accompany this single string by a dozen of references without any explanation, like in this text. It is reasonable to give one reference to other site with a name which bears semantic loading and is self identified. There is a place in the other site where main features can be explained popularly with corresponding references. Vladimir Torchigin (talk) 06:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Brought into the scientific realm?
Under "Possible scientific explanations" it say "Several theories have been advanced, however, since it was brought into the scientific realm by the French Academy scientist François Arago in 1855". However, here is a reference for a Mr. Snow Harris trying to explain the phenomenum in 1843 in a book called "On the nature of thunderstorms" and in 1853 here Richerman (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Could this be the first video footage of ball lightning?
Recently, i saw this video on youtube, nobody in the comments seems to know what it is and i thought it could be a ball lightning. I am not an expert on these things, could please someone take a look? 93.184.73.10 (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked at the footage and just by reading the article it does not seem to be ball lightning. It does not move or change its surface features in anyway. By, those standards no it is not, but it could be a related Phenomena. It would not match to descriptions of ball lightning thus far. It could be ball lightning that failed to mobilize or could be in a state before or after mobilization.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.113.22 (talk) 06:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Some more references
I have just found a number articles on ball lightning in old issues of Popular Science at google books here Richerman (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Added sentence about St. Elmo's fire
I added "Ball lightning is often erroneously identified as St. Elmo's fire. They are separate and distinct phenomena. "

I found it on the St. Elmo's fire page and decided it was worth having on both. AngelsFan42 (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)AngelsFan42

Ball lightning film from Los Alamos
There's an appearance by James Tuck talking about his experiment in attempting to create ball lightning at Los Alamos using a submarine battery, on the Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World episode 'Clarke's Cabinet of Curiosities ' on YouTube here:  - it also has some filmed footage of the results of the experiment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.82.187 (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The author Patricia Anthony has seen what she thought was ball lightning
Described here: http://www.sfsite.com/10a/pa90.htm Songflower (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Way to "fight" Ball Lightning
Given that ball lightning is sometimes said to be destructive and lethal - setting things on fire, melting metals, and killing people - and is often said to enter buildings, including homes, would it be a good idea to "fight" it were one to see it in its home? My first impulse would to spray the damn thing with an ABC fire extinguisher; that would destroy both an electrical and a combustion object (the two main hypothesis categories). Or would this be dangerous and/or ineffective? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.125.233 (talk) 05:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)