Talk:Lightning/Archive 1

message: As an aside, apparantly this is a hybrid cloud between lenticular and mammatus, and is associated with thunder storms... anyone have any ideas on it or whether there should be a seperate article on it?--Badharlick 23:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  lenticular mammatus 

message: "Some repeat lightning strike victims claim that lightning can choose its target, although this theory is entirely disregarded by the scientific community. "
Is this really necessary??
err...why is my post on top?
The lightning page explains producing/separating electric charge by triboelectricity process among ice particles (or dust). But the triboelectricity page (and the Van de Graaff page), says that the rubbing particles must be of different material to produce/separate electrical charge. If so, the ice particles (or dust) being of the same material could not produce static electricity. These pages seem to contradict one another. Any comment? RS
:First, nobody understands how regions of charge in thunderstorms are produced.  It's still an open question in physics.  There are several theories, but each of them has problems, chief of which is that freezing water SEEMS to play a critical role, yet some rare clouds develop charge at far above 0C degrees.  Any popular book that states how lightning really works is wrong.  Instead try Dr. Martin Uman's book "Lightning."   That said... the most accepted current theory involves charge separation between water and ice, with half-frozen raindrops called "graupel" spalling off ice shards.  If I understand correctly, the tiny ice shards end up charged, with the raindrop developing equal and opposite charge, then the large raindrops outrun the tiny ice shards, causing huge positive and negative regions to appear within the storm. --Wjbeaty 18:45, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
::What about lightning in the atmosphere on Mars?  However rare that may be, it's bound to be possible.  Does the presence of iron oxide ions tend to dampen the phenomenon of lightning, or enhance it?
The article states that the charge separation occurs partly due to polarization - this is obviously wrong. Polarization would cause negative charge to move towards the positively charged upper atmosphere and positive charge towards earth - but the opposite is true. 193.171.121.30 17:05, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Theories all, however I believe you have forgotten the presence of a very strong thunderstorm updraft that can be in excess of 50 m/s in supercell thunderstorms.  These updrafts could easily move things against the very weak natural electric field between the clouds and the earth.  Keep in mind that the largest measured electrical field to date in a thunderstorm cloud is nowhere near the 30kV • cm-1required for the breakdown voltage of air. Clegett 01:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General (uncategorised) 

message: The article comments on positive lightning: It occurs when the stepped leader forms at the positively charged cloud tops, with the consequence that a positively charged streamer issues from the ground.  Shouldn't that read ... with the consequence that a negatively charged streamer issues from the negatively charged ground away from the cloud??? --Martin Rehker 13:00, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That link to a page of photos of positive lightning...  doesn't the author mean UPWARDS lightning?  Positive lightning is rare, and begins at cloud tops, while those photos clearly show cloud-base lightning (and there are several photos: NOT RARE.)  Remove it?--Wjbeaty 05:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positive lightning 

message: since streamers sometimes (?) are visible, could it be that the faint light to  the right was a streamer that did not connect to the cloud ligntning or the cloud-ground lightning to the right?
--Deelkar 14:44, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  image/streamer 

message: I added the "confusing" boilerplate in response to the immensely confusing language used in the "History of lightning research" section.  I had to read this section several times to understand it.  It looks like the author was sitting in front of a thesaurus picking pretty words.  I'm not an expert on Benjamin Franklin, but hopefully there's someone out there who can write about him while maintaining Wikipedia's standards of readability.  --Aeki 01:12, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just old writing; by someone who never played with Nintendo or Sega games, who never used a computer to edit his writing, never saw a spell-checker or online thesaurus. But much more than that, even—someone who never even watched a television program in his whole life, likely.  Never listened to the radio either.  Never had electric lights in his house, never saw an electric outlet.  This might be from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, or something even older (and if from the Britannica, probably a holdover article from an earlier edition).  Someone who didn't have the words in his vocabulary to deal well with the phenomenon of electricity.  Sparks he'd seen, from fire and flint on steel more than from electricity; and he'd seen a Leyden jar. Gene Nygaard 02:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, give the author a break, Leyden jars were probably a lot more common in 1828. (looks like the section was lifted from about half way down this page) -- Solipsist 07:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: No you're right, its one of the oldest examples I've seen. Quite a few articles are based on the 1911 Britannica, which is often seen as too old fashioned and out of date. We have templates to encourage updating that text. However, here the best course of action is probably to remove the section entirely and replace it with a stub. This text is most likely hampering people from writing a good history. -- Solipsist 08:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: OK, I rewrote the Section in conſern in a more legible manner, using the previous Source, in the modern Language. 68.39.174.39 05:58, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing language in "History of lightning research" 

message: ..."Lightning Alley", a group of states in the American Southeast that collectively see more lightning strikes per year than any other place on Earth...
Whats up with the change in this sentence? The information is factually correct, the American Southeast does see more lightning strikes per year than any other place on earth. Why was this changed? TomStar81 03:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My bet is that any tropcial area of the same size sees more lightening than the ligthening alley, they get a thunderstorm there at least once a day. In terms of lightenings per time and area (i.e. density) the record holder is a region in north Australia (forgotten where exactly) AFAIK. - Alureiter 13:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: More data, found on : "Florida is lightning capital of the United States." Mali said. Florida experiences lightning strikes at least 100 days per year.. This rules out the "world record", I'll remove it. The article also offers a different definition of ligthening alley: "Interstate 4 between Orlando and St. Petersburg is called lightning alley. There is more lightning activity on lightning alley than any other area in the U.S." - Alureiter 13:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My thanks in resolving this. I started the research, but then had to abonden it due to increasing school work loads and falling grades. About ten minutes ago it occured to me to come back here and check on this to see if it was still a live issue. Sorry I did not do the work myself, it was my responsibility so to speak. And to Peter: You were right, and I was wrong. Congratulations, and thank you for correcting me. TomStar81 04:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the Facts? 

message: Did he really perform this stupidly dangerous experiment on lightning?? This casts some doubt --Light current 03:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how that page casts any doubt on anything. It's just a bunch of oversimplifications. No one knew the danger of the experiment when Franklin first did it, though they would soon find out. --Deglr6328 04:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They sure did know the danger. Many people were killed by lightning strikes before Franklin's experiment. Often, the victims were church bell ringers, who's job it was to ring the bells during thunder storms. The dangers of lightning were well-known. It was just unknown if it was electricity. Rsduhamel 03:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes.--Deglr6328 06:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think we can discount Franklin's research based on an article in "Kite Life" magazine...  However, I have always wondered why he didn't just tie the kite to something! Halsteadk 07:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Tom Tucker's book makes a pretty good case for the kite experiment being a hoax, in spite of what Franklin wrote about doing it with his son as witness. Dicklyon 03:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ben Franklin 

message: Good edit on ball lightning and lots of good material added!--Light current 21:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ball Lightning 

message: I thought disclaimers were strongly discouraged? See Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates (a guideline). I think this would be covered by Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer. --pfctdayelise 13:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it should be removed. Bergsten 15:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is disclaimer necessary? 

message: The electricity in a thunder storm is generated by piezoelectric effects in the small freezing droplets while they are elevated 10-12 km in the center of the cloud. The pressure in the crystal shell can be substantial due to the smallness of the droplets, probably exceeding 1000 bar. The piezoelectric theory completely answers all the questions on how electricity is distributed, cloud-to-cloud lightnings and cloud-to-ground lightnings.
The predominating "colliding theory" has many weaknesses, but the most obvious one is that colliding contradicts other laws of nature and it never has been observed!
John Larsson (jl[at]ing.dk)
:References please. --Heron 19:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electricity in lightnings 

message: Someone should say about fossil lightning, like there's this one at the science museum in Minnesota, where there's this lightning that hit some sand and the sand turned to glass or silicon or something in the shape of lightning.  I think that is cool and I want to learn more about it. 64.198.112.210 20:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look under "Facts and trivia" in this article, or see fulgurite. --Heron 21:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Fossil' Lightning 

message: I saw on TV news that some researchers had shown that the triggering of lightning has a co-relation with cosmic ray activity. i.e. other than atmospheric factors, influences from outter space can fire a nightning bolt.  I guess the phenomonon is easily measured by the astronauts in orbit.  Perhaps Thor is really up there. :-)
:See the "how lightning is formed" section (near the bottom of the section).  This is the essence of the "runaway breakdown" theory of lightning creation. – Wisq 21:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Triggered Lightning 

message: I changed feet to metres, as metres are used in most countries, and most of this article uses metres, so I thought having 100 million feet per second was a bit inconsistant. bruce89 22:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  feet -> metres 

message: in the section "Types of Lightning"?  --72.224.150.233 17:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice Anything Sloppy... 

message: I was looking on noaa's site, and i was able to find the fact that states: "You’re An Average Person, In An Average Location, With Average Outside Activities, And Average Lightning Safety Behavior. That’s About 35,000-To-One Over A life Time, And About 3,000-To-One Of Being Seriously Affected By A Family Member Or Friend Being Killed By Lightning." from 
However, this is not what our article states. Here, we say "The odds of an average person living in the USA being struck by lightning once in his lifetime has been estimated to be 1:3000(NOAA, National Weather Service)." Not quite true. The odds "A Family Member Or Friend Being Killed By Lightning" are 1:3000. Odds of you(perhaps "you" must be American?) getting struck in a lifetime are 1:280,000.
I will be making the necessary changes and removing the "citation needed" tag.
=== Correcting probabilities ===
Given that there is approximately 6.5 billion people in the world and 2000 are injured by lightning each year (Lightning#Lightning Safety), the odds of an average person being injured by lightning is approximately 1:3,250,000. One-in-three or one-in-four people injured by lightning die.
NOAA's site says: http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/resources/Ltg%20Safety-Facts.pdf
The Odds Of An Individual Being A Lightning Casualty In A Year In The U.S. Is About 280,000-To-One -- If You’re An Average Person, In An Average Location, With Average Outside Activities, And Average Lightning Safety Behavior. That’s About 3,000-To-One Over Your Lifetime, With About 300-To-One Odds Of Being Seriously Affected By A Family Member Or Friend Being A Lightning Survivor. In Florida, It’s Closer To 80,000-To-One Per Year Of Being Struck, 1,000-To-One In A Lifetime, And 100-To-One Of Being Seriously Affected.
The Odds Of An Individual Being Killed By Lightning Each Year In The U.S. Is About 3 Million-To-One -- If You’re An Average Person, In An Average Location, With Average Outside Activities, And Average Lightning Safety Behavior. That’s About 35,000-To-One Over A life Time, And About 3,000-To-One Of Being Seriously Affected By A Family Member Or Friend Being Killed By Lightning. In Florida, It’s Closer To 900,000-To-One Per Year, Or 12,000-To-One Over A Lifetime, And 1,000-To-One Of Being Seriously Affected.
It appears that people in the USA are ten times more lightning prone, having odds of a lightning strike 1:280,000 per person per year. On the other hand, the death rate is lower, about one-in-ten (instead of one-in-three or one-in-four).
If I live in the USA and expect to live 93 years, my odds of being struck by lightning sometime in my lifetime is about 1:3000.
If I have ten close friends or family members, I have have 1:300 odds of being personally affected by a lightning strike. 
--Kevinkor2 23:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lightning fact citation found! 

message: Given that there is approximately 6.5 billion people in the world and 2000 are injured by lightning each year (Lightning#Lightning Safety), the odds of an average person being injured by lightning is approximately 1:3,250,000. One-in-three or one-in-four people injured by lightning die.
NOAA's site says: http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/resources/Ltg%20Safety-Facts.pdf
The Odds Of An Individual Being A Lightning Casualty In A Year In The U.S. Is About 280,000-To-One -- If You’re An Average Person, In An Average Location, With Average Outside Activities, And Average Lightning Safety Behavior. That’s About 3,000-To-One Over Your Lifetime, With About 300-To-One Odds Of Being Seriously Affected By A Family Member Or Friend Being A Lightning Survivor. In Florida, It’s Closer To 80,000-To-One Per Year Of Being Struck, 1,000-To-One In A Lifetime, And 100-To-One Of Being Seriously Affected.
The Odds Of An Individual Being Killed By Lightning Each Year In The U.S. Is About 3 Million-To-One -- If You’re An Average Person, In An Average Location, With Average Outside Activities, And Average Lightning Safety Behavior. That’s About 35,000-To-One Over A life Time, And About 3,000-To-One Of Being Seriously Affected By A Family Member Or Friend Being Killed By Lightning. In Florida, It’s Closer To 900,000-To-One Per Year, Or 12,000-To-One Over A Lifetime, And 1,000-To-One Of Being Seriously Affected.
It appears that people in the USA are ten times more lightning prone, having odds of a lightning strike 1:280,000 per person per year. On the other hand, the death rate is lower, about one-in-ten (instead of one-in-three or one-in-four).
If I live in the USA and expect to live 93 years, my odds of being struck by lightning sometime in my lifetime is about 1:3000.
If I have ten close friends or family members, I have have 1:300 odds of being personally affected by a lightning strike. 
--Kevinkor2 23:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correcting probabilities 

message: I noticed that three sections had been stripped from the article, and have since restored them. Hwever, the article IS getting a bit long... any thoughts on how to condense or split? Or is reducing its size even necessary? Bert 15:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: my idea below should work if you wanna condense it a bit. Joeyramoney 16:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restored stripped sections 

message: In fact, the sheer number of lightning strikes from one cloud during very high lightning activity in the central states does not support the accepted theory that the charge is caused by above-described polarisation mechanism while the ice crystals and rain droplets are moving up and down in the cloud. The charge supply must be larger, probably through the ionospheric charge just described.
To spontaneously ionise air and conduct electricity across it, an electric field of field strength of approximately 2500 kilovolts per metre is required.  However, measurements inside storm clouds to date have failed to locate fields this strong, with typical fields being between 100 and 400 kilovolts per metre.  While there remains a possibility that researchers are failing to encounter the small high-strength regions of the large clouds, the odds of this are diminishing as further measurements continue to fall short.
During the eighties, flight tests showed that aircraft can trigger a stepped leader]] when crossing charged cloud areas. Most scientists now think that positive and negative lightning in a cloud are actually bipolar lightning.
 The presence of these high-energy events support the "runaway breakdown" theory, and were discovered through the examination of rocket-triggered lightning, and from satellite monitoring of natural lightning.
It has been recently revealed that some lightning emits an intense burst of X-rays and/or gamma-rays which seem to be produced during the stepped-leader and dart-leader phases just before the stroke becomes visible. The X-ray bursts typically have a total duration of less than 100 microseconds and have energies extending up to nearly a few hundred keV. 
NASA's RHESSI satellite reports tha 50 of these lightning-associated gamma-ray events per day would be detectable from space, representing about 15 out of every million lightning strikes that occur, and some of these are strong enough to fit the theory.  Additionally, low-frequency radio emissions detected at ground level can detect lightning bolts from upwards of 4000 km away; combining these with gamma-ray burst events detected from above show overlapping positions and timing.
There are problems with the "runaway breakdown" theory, however.  While there seems to be a strong correlation between gamma-ray events and lightning, there are insufficient events detected to account for the amount of lightning occurring across the planet.  Another issue is the amount of energy the theory states is required to initiate the breakdown, and the sheer number of strikes observed from one cloud during high lightning activity.  Cosmic rays of sufficient energy strike the atmosphere on average only once per 50 seconds per square kilometre.  Measured X-ray burst intensity also falls short, with results indicating particle energy 1/20th of the theory's value.
''
-this needs a reference before it can be returned to the article. Dan100 (Talk) 11:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed pending [[WP:V|verification]] 

message: The How it is formed section contains a poorly paraphrased version of this 
NASA article
.  PrometheusX303 20:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duke University research 

message: Under the subject of "HOW IT IS FORMED" The statement "Emissions of gamma rays, the most energetic form of light,..." is vaguely correct by the definition of light however, lacks technical accuracy. The portion containing "the most energetic form of light" could be removed and a hotlink inserted on "gamma rays" or insert "the most energetic form of electromagnetic emission" instead. I'm new here and I don't wand to mess up someone elses work by editing the main article without obtaining a second professional opinion.  
--Lewisjr 01:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gamma ray classification 

message: In what places does lightning most commonly occur, i.e. which countries have the highest thunderstorm frequencies?
Is it true that in some places in Eastern Europe like Romania and in Georgia or in the Caucausus region lightning is an almost daily occurrence during the summer seasons? 62.249.242.232 14:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occurrences 

message: The caption of the picture claims that a lightning strikes the tower. Isn't it obvious that this is not the case? It is a ground-to-cloud stroke that is actually eminating from the tower. I think it's obvious at the first glance.
Also, wouldn't it be linguistically more proper to use the noun "stroke" rather than the common speech "strike"? --194.251.240.117 18:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  If it is ground to cloud lightning, then it begins from the tower.  As such, it cannot be striking it. PrometheusX303 02:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then why not rename the caption to The Eiffel-tower strikes the lightning to correct this obvious misnomer which is evident at first glance? Albester 21:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the tower didn't strike anything. PrometheusX303 22:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the Eiffel tower picture 

message: There is no source for pools keeping you safe from lightning strikes. The sources i have found say that pools are not a safe place to be for lightning strikes. Is there are truth to that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix316 (talk • contribs) 
:That is false. Water conducts electricity, plain and simple. I have removed the text, but the paragraph still needs some reworking (such as the cop-out use of "etc.", which, to me, says the author can't be bothered with coming up with anything else.) —Twigboy 16:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lightning Strikes Safety In Pool 

message: Re: It has been suggested that this article be split into multiple articles accessible from a disambiguation page. (Discuss)
:I can see no reason to do this. Disambiguation pages for Sprite, Elf and Jet already point to this article. 80.42.44.195 14:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sprites, elves, jets, and other upper atmospheric lightning 

message: Is it possibel that all the energy released in lightning comes from the water (in the clouds) itself? According the research, there are some energy in the water that can be released by exposing it to energy, and the energy released is higher than what is used to release it. It that's the case, maybe it could have some effect on the lightening? Some quotes and links:
"The sonoluminescent phenomena is probably related to some hitherto unknwon water bond issues. Graneau and myself feel all these processes involves the release of solar energy trapped in the water molecule's bond energy."
Cold Fog Discovery
Many other systems exist today, in a research, development, or theoretical stage, which also convert potential energy into useful work. The first example is the "Cold Fog" invention of Dr. Peter Graneau from Northeastern University that converts chemical bond energy into kinetic energy. Intermolecular bond energy in water is an available amount of energy estimated at 2.3 kJ/g. When injected with a high voltage capacitor discharge of 39.8 Joules, normal rainwater is accelerated into a cold fog that loses about 31.2 Joules of low-grade heat and a comparable amount (29.2 Joules) in fog kinetic energy output. As reported in the Journal of Plasma Physics, the output energy thus exceeds the input energy by about 100% creating a 2-to-1 overunity condition favorable for reduction to a motorized conversion system.
http://www.21stcenturyradio.com/fut...ch-11.24.00.htm
Shock waves and steam heat
http://www.alternativescience.com/over-unity.htm
  193.217.195.164 00:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Released energy 

message: There's two papers, all behind logins, dealing with infrared and near-infrared emissions of lightning.  Does anybody know any more about this or a source?  I have a bit of video from lightning a few days back (2006/Sep/28) and one frame shows a bolt of lightning, and fainter, reddish, imprint of another bolt of lightning; I thought it was just a flare at first but the fainter imprint does not match the bolt of lightning in that frame - it does, however, fit perfectly the bolt of lightning that occurs 3-4 frames later (at 25fps, that's around 100ms).  If anybody needs this material I can certainly make it available. ZeBoxx 22:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (near) Infra-red pre-strike? 

message: This section of the lightning article seems very shallow in its explanation of thunderstorm charge separation.  I would like to totally gut it, and add my findings to the page.  I have been doing book and Internet research on this subject for 12 years.  Any objections or suggestions?
Kq6up 01:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Would Like to Revamp the "How it is Formed" Section of The Article 

message: Added another few sentences to "Rocket Lightning", as the previous text was inadequate in size. The section now has more of a scientific face to it.
NiM 20:29, 02 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added more information to the "Rocket Lightning" section 

message: I looked through the article and it looked like everything seemed to be in the wikipedia format.  I want to know what it is that needs to be "wikified" and I'll do it. Nathan Wonnacott 01:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag about wikifying article 

message: ...whoever rewrote "Early research", thank you. 68.39.174.238 09:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK... 

message: The reference to Elvis Aron Presley in the second paragraph would seem rather unlikely.  Certainly it should not be linked to the musician of that name.  Leon Stauffer 22:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elvis? 

message: Last night I saw lighting in a snowstorm for the first time ever, which prompted a whole variety of curiousity as to how this occurs.  Before putting this into the article myself, I thought I'd put forth the question as to whether the occurrence of lighting during snowstorms is worth mentioning to all of you here on the talk page.  I've found at least one credible source that I could cite for this purpose.  Well? Eccomi 17:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well sr its is rare for that to happen! one time life event from what the Weather Channel says! I also have been in it and almost pissed my clothing!--Mr.Taka 17:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lightning during a snowstorm 

message: The article is completely ambiguous as to whether or not lightning's "return stroke" rises upwards from the ground, although above on this page a lighting expert appears to say this is true.
But let me please clarify something that the lighting expert needs to know:  The word "lightning" refers to the bright light that is created in the various physical processes referred to in the article.  It does NOT mean, per se, the movement of electricity that accompanies lightning, or the ionization of the atmosphere.  THESE phenomena help to EXPLAIN lighting, but they are not lightning themselves.  
When someone asks whether lighting moves up from the ground to a cloud, they want to know whether high-speed photography, for instance, would show the bolt of lighting rising from the ground to a cloud.  The information about the direction that electricity moves, and the direction that air gets ionized, are of course INTERESTING and by all means well worth mentioning.  But please let us not pretend that the question of which direction lightning goes -- up or down? -- is ambiguous.
From the article, I infer that the initial lightning strike -- quite thin -- moves down from the cloud to the ground.  I infer from this Talk page that the "return stroke" as defined in the article then moves up from the ground to the cloud.
If this is correct, I hope that an expert will make the latter fact much clearer than it currently is in the article.Daqu 12:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Return stroke" -- up or down? 

message: This Sprites (lightning) article was created to allow expansion of the  section located in the lightning article.  The knowledge of the phenomena is becoming better known and documented requiring more room to allow proper expansion. As can be seen :ja:レッドスプライト other languages have started separate sprites articles.  EnviroGranny 14:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article creation 

message: So, I just changed the hell out of this article.  Muahahaa!!  Unfortunatly, I don't know anything about lightning, other than what I just learned from this article; if a lightning expert is here, s/he might want to look it over to make sure it's all accurate and correctly categorized.  I think it is.--Xiaphias 13:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks OK to me.  One doesn't often see articles start with level-1 headings, but I guess it works.  Other opinions on this? Dicklyon 14:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi, Xiaphas.  You combined "Rocket lightning" with "Rocket triggered lightning" although those are quite different  things.  I restored the section of "Rocket lightning", although I wasn't sure  where to put it.  Cardamon 07:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass Reorganiz'n 

message: As Whitepaw's calculation shows, the potential needed for a 300 m arc is about 1 GV. However, some sources give lightning a voltage of 10 MV to 120 MV. As well, from the formula, W=cV (work (in joules) equals charge (in columbs) times potential (in volts)), a lightning bolt that transfers 5 coulombs of charge and does 500 MJ (megajoules) of work would only have a voltage of 100 MV.
I remember reading a magazine (? Scientific American ?) article that said that the voltage involved with lightning was much less than what would be predicted from the dielectric breakdown of air. Does anyone else remember this?
--Kevinkor2 14:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've not heard of that, but your maths is certainly correct. I don't know what the typical length of a lightning bolt is, but it would have to be 30m for 5C/500MJ to fit, which seems rather a short distance... --Whitepaw 21:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I read it, and it's clearly true.  All kinds of stuff goes into creating a breakdown event long before the breakdown field of air itself is approached.  Cosmic rays, water in the air, kite strings, what have you. Dicklyon 00:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lightning Voltage 

message: I noticed that the Upper-atmospheric section here is redundant since the UAL article has everything.    Shouldn't the section here be mostly deleted and brought into line with the ball-lightning section (link to main article, short summary)?  I'd start editing, but I'm at work right now. 65.220.25.66 14:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy ([[Upper-atmospheric lightning]]) 

message: The term "cloud-to-cloud" seems to refer to lightning from one cloud to another cloud (inter-cloud), but the paragraph talks about lighting all withing the same cloud (intra-cloud).  Should the subsection title be changed from "cloud-to-cloud" to "intra-cloud"?  I'd prefer someone more of an expert on the subject than I make the change, if they're paying attention.
The thunderstorm article says that inter-cloud lighting, which doesn't seem to be mentioned here, is the rarest form.  Is that true?  Shouldn't it be documented here if it so?  --Kbh3rdtalk 22:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cloud-to-cloud ''vs.'' intra-cloud 

message: Maybe we should add something about the role of lightning as a plant fertilizer due to the nitrates it produces? I've seen this talked about in many science articles. 84.9.34.103 11:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lightning as a fertilizer 

message: there is a </ref> tag that is visible in the "in culture" section of the article
can somebody fix this (I wasn't  able to do it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elfalem (talk • contribs) 04:02, 26 July 2007
:Elfalem - There  seem to be two figures for the number of times a year lightning strikes the  Empire  State  building:  "more  than 100"  and  "around 23".  I trust the lower figure more, since it seems  to me to be better sourced. The lower  figure is already  given in the first paragraph of Records and Locations.  So I solved the problem by reverting.  Cardamon 08:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reference tag 

message: Not all lightning produces thunder. Thunder is a sound caused by the expanding gases around the discharge path. If there is no one around to hear these explosions, like in the upper atmoshpere, then, although gas expansion may occur, thunder is not produced. I dont believe the term thunder is scientifically defined and therfore should be removed from the definition in the lead para. Thoughts?--Light current 08:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this the same argument as the old saying "if a tree falls down in the woods and no-one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?".  If the sound is still produced then it makes no difference whether anyone is around to make it. Halsteadk 11:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I'd say, thunder is the acoustic phenomen that is created by the shock waves of a lightening bolt (and their echos). - Alureiter 16:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer is that thunder always accompanies all lightning.  However, the caveat is that thunder has an audible range of only 10 to 12 miles (~16km) depending on atmospheric conditions.  Myself, and many scientists I know have personnally witnessed this phenomenon...many, many times.  During the night, it is more obvious than during the day time, because distant lightning does not seem that luminous during the day—its not as noticeable. - HRS IAM 16:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does thunder always accompany lightning? 

message: Anybody know much about the new theories about lightning forming because of interaction from space? There were several articles on Newscientist.com a few months ago
:That is a hot topic among space weather scientists...is there an interaction between space weather and Earth weather?...is a question currently being studied. - HRS IAM 16:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  new theories 

message: Article says:
:"A better location would be inside a vehicle (a crude type of Faraday cage)."
While reality can easily tell this. The story was recently reported in Swedish news and the unfortunate woman and her friend temporarily lost hearing from the bang alone, and was believed to be only centimeters from even worse dangers. A vehicle is a bad location because: petrol tanks have been known to explode, the wind shield has been known to shatter, many parts of the vehicle can become conductive, like the gears, and electrical failures have been known to occur, all of these even individually having the possibility of being fatal in case the person is driving at a reasonably high speed.
There may be truth in the Faraday cage behavior, but there are more things to consider when talking vehicles, and I believe people reading this article won't assume the vehicle spoken of is immobile and in a garage or another place like this. -- Northgrove 09:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but more people are struck in homes or other type of shelter than in cars, I'm pretty sure.  Would have to find a source to back that, but lightning casualties inside vehicles are very rare. -Runningonbrains 23:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The other problem is that the windows have to be rolled up, and you are not sitting in a convertable.  - HRS IAM 16:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And one picture does not make a whole story. - HRS IAM 16:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The vehicle myth 

message: I was reading a weather book and saw a question asking:
"Do we know everything about electricity? The response was NO! The it said something like this:
*Two young girls were throwing a plastic Frisbee back and forth when it
apparently struck 'some invisible force' and reversed its course immediately.  It was like hitting a BRICK WALL that was NOT THERE. Following this the two girls found themselves surrounded by a 'yellow bubble' seemingly akin to the vortex tube. from their perspective INSIDE the tube the girls were able to offer an account of its effects.  They were hit by a force that they describe as a MILD ELECTRIC SHOCK and were THROWN to the ground by its strength. They also found it DIFFICULT TO BREATHE, possibly because the air was actually more RAREFIED WITHIN THE FIELD.  Fortunately they did not stay inside until the air ran out (as it may well have done in time) but rushed forward and 'broke through' the wall of the 'bubble' to escape.
Now I have a theory, by the way there has been several cases like this globally! My theory is....well before I say that on some TV program that had involved making a manmade force field! It happened! At some plastic making place! The worker said, "things like that happen here! It happened not to long-ago here!" I forgot the rest! the plastic place was in South Carolina I believe! so my theory was: the fact that polarized ions are known to displace oxygen. High density electrostatic coupling of the
air molecules would make it difficult to breathe in such a dense environment! And so basically electricity had everything to do with this! and you can do it to, at your own risk! Low Humidity, And perfect temperatures will contribute to this! But also something with high static power! so this is a good subject right?  
By the way dont vandalise me again or you will pay! KAMPAI!--Mr.Taka 12:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Son of a Derecho! --Takaomi I. Shimoi 17:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Bubbles! and Tubes! ... actually we know everything about electrons/EM/electricity, we just forget to apply it to lightning... - HRS IAM 17:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rare 

message: I have experienced lightning passing through a roof before, and I also know two other people who have had similar experiences, yet I find no mention of this phenomenon and it's possibility on this page. I believe that this should be mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.68.151.55 (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its possible, but there are many endless possibilites as to why it happened in the first place. - HRS IAM 17:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lightning pasing through rooves and walls 

message: As news of the experiment and its particulars spread, people attempted to replicate it. However, experiments involving lightning are always risky and frequently fatal. The most well-known death during the spate of Franklin imitators was that of Professor Georg Richmann, of Saint Petersburg, Russia. He had created a set-up similar to Franklin's, and was attending a meeting of the Academy of Sciences when he heard thunder. He ran home with his engraver to capture the event for posterity. While the experiment was under way, ball lightning appeared, collided with Richmann's head and killed him, leaving a red spot. His shoes were blown open, parts of his clothes singed, the engraver knocked out, the doorframe of the room split, and the door itself torn off its hinges.[1]
Even if that's a true story, what a reason to put it to public???.. also notice troughfull explanation on what happened to unsuccessful professor....
:What does this have to do with racism? And please sign your comments.
* I think lightning and insanity go hand in hand. - HRS IAM 17:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism ??? 

message: Could the animations in the article be sufficient to trigger a photosensitive epileptic seizure? --MatthewKarlsen 14:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go away, this is not the right place to ask this. - HRS IAM 17:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animations and Epilepsy 

message: Is it not impossible, if we take into account the earths rotation, orbit, and the movement of our solar system? Caode 10:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lightning striking same place. 

message: Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning#_note-2 & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunder
The two articles don't seem to agree on lighning speed. 
In "Calculating distance" in the article of Thunder, it says "Using this difference (sound travels slower than light), one can estimate how far away the bolt of lightning is by timing the interval between seeing the flash and hearing thunder. The speed of sound in air is approximately 344 m/s or 769 mph. The speed of light can be assumed to be infinite in this calculation because one must know that there has been a lightning strike before starting counting. " It implies that the lightning is travelling at speed of light; while in "Properties of lightning" in the article of Lightning, it says "A bolt of lightning can travel at a speed of 45 km/s (kilometres per second) (100,000 mph, 160,000 km/h)." (Speed of light in a vacuum is about 300,000 km/s.)
Can I conclude that the speed of light in the atmosphere is about 45 km/s? Could it be possible that the speed of light is reduced from 300,000 km/s to 45 km/s in the air? Or there is something I missed? 
Any expert please clear my confusion?  --Natasha2006 21:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The speed of light in the air is only 0.03% slower than in vacuum. 45 km/s must be how fast the light-emitting bolt moves. Sagittarian Milky Way 23:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So a bolt is not simply the light, can I say that? It is not sound, nor light, what is it? --Natasha2006 20:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is a bolt an electrically charged air parcel? --Natasha2006 20:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bolt is where a large electric current went through the air.  The air was ionized and heated, which is why it gave off light.  It was not necesarily charged.  By the way, the Science  reference  desk may be a  more appropriate place to ask this  kind of  question.  They may refer you to the  article though, so  tell them if you have already read the Wikipedia article on something you are asking about.   Cardamon 23:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the lightning travelling speed? 

message: This article has multiple issues that need some attention. First and foremost, it is overly long, and tends to be redundant in many places. Also, the use of images in this article seems to be mostly decorative, with many redundant images. One image of generic lightning is all that's needed, and duplicate animations are not helpful. Animated .gifs are best used for things like this, and are really unnecessary for lightning. Additionally, some images are not in their default size, Per the manual of style: "Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended: without specifying a size the width will be what readers have specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers). However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width to enhance the readability or layout of an article. Bear in mind that some users need to configure their systems to display large text. Forced large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult." Additionally, images should directly be relevant to the article's context, and used to assist in understanding sections or illustrate a point. Thus, one of the things that will help this article, both in load time, and in quality, will be to weed out some of these redundant and irrelevant images. Also, the references section is in serious need of some overhauling. I'll be making these changes, and probably more, in the coming days, so do not panic if you see large changes or removals, there is a lot of redundant and unnecessary information. Ariel♥Gold 21:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article issues 

message: The article says the energy in a bolt of lightning is "500 joules (MJ), or enough energy to power a 100 watt lightbulb for just under two months." The link is ambiguous - is it J or MJ? - so I did a little calculation. About 100,000 seconds in a day, times, say, 50 days, times 100 W is 500 million J. So I changed it to 500 MJ. DirkvdM 08:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lightning energy 

message: Should divide this section into ground/cloud, cloud/cloud types and universal strikes. this would organise the types better than having some cloud/cloud strikes somewhere, to be broken by the ground/cloud underneath. Iciac 22:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of lightning 

message: Sometimes when lightning strikes nearby, I can hear an audible "click" or "zap" of an electrical nature at the precise moment the bolt of lightning is visible. What's that about? --65.35.37.231 03:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but this page is for about improving the article, and not for answering general questions, so I can't give you a technical explanation for the phenomenon, but the folks over at the Reference desk probably can! They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe, hope that helps! Ariel♥Gold 03:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sound" of lightning (not thunder) 

message: My edit corrected figures and cited sources which actually agreed with the text. In this version of the article, a source was cited for the temperature of lightning, though the source did not agree with the text. In this edit, the sources given after the sentences about temperature and speed did not mention temperature at all and the temperature in Fahrenheit was changed to 60,000 degrees which made the conversion from 28,000 ºC wrong. Also, the use of Template:Mph created a ridiculously precise value of 160934 for the number of kilometres per hour that lightning travels. I have provided new figures for the speed and temperature cited to reliable sources - the second source also confirms that "lightning makes glass". I have done away with the measurement templates - they don't support commas which are necessary for big numbers. Graham87 10:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My edit 

message: Anyone knowledgeable about the lightning's effect on humans or other organisms, the Keraunomedicine article could use some expansion. --Xiaphias (talk) 04:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lightning and Health 

message: "while Oklahoma, with cloud bases about 450-600 m (1,500-2,000 ft) above ground level"  This statement is inaccurate.  True, some cloud bases in Oklahoma might be as low as 2000 feet, though most are probably 3000-5000 feet(I have viewed storms in Oklahoma that had bases close to 10,000 feet).  There simply is not enough moisture.  
     I could possibly be wrong, I would love to hear your opinions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trilobite12 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cloud Bases 

message: That is indeed an inaccurate statement. Rarely do cloud bases extend that low, even in tropical climates.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.144.164 (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agreed== 

message: Okay, we had a spelling test a couple of days ago and one of the words was lightning. However, I spelled it wrong, even though it is listed here in Wikipedia as Lightning. The correct answer was lightening. So what's up? Is there a difference. What? Tcatron565 (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the word referred to the natural electric discharge, the "correct" answer was wrong: that's lightning. If it meant "the act of making lighter" (as in a burden or a color), then it was correct as lightening. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  E 

message: I have an interesting photo of a group three trees that were struck in a forest. Interested?? Cgoodwin (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Iciac (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lightning strikes 

message: The lightning entry states that, "In the Christian faith, God is believed to be in command of the natural phenomena of lightning and thunderbolts." 
Is there a reason Wikipedia (an encyclopedia!) refers to gods when discussing a scientific subject? And I’ve never met a Christian who thought that a god throws the lightning around.
The lightning entry states that, "The rolling and gradually dissipating rumble of thunder is caused by the time delay of sound coming from different portions of a long stroke.” Later, the article says, “The sound of thunder from a lightning strike is prolonged by successive strokes.”
Which is it, is rolling thunder from one long stroke or successive strokes?
The lightning entry states that, "Bolt from the blue” is used to colloquially describe both Anvil-to-ground and Positive lightning. 
The entry fails to make clear what the electrical charge of the earth is in a cloud-to-ground lightning – is it generally positive or negative?
FriendlyIowan  —Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlyIowan (talk • contribs) 08:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors? 

message: Expand the list in the section "Most spectacular lightning strike incidences" and find more examples of spectacular lightning strikes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.46.252.238 (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most spectacular lightning strike incidences 

message: There are two main issues:
First, I removed the first picture from the article because it contradicts the text's definition of rocket lightning. The text states, with a convincing citation, that rocket lightning is generally horizontal, whereas the pic appears to show vertical lightning. Even if rocket lightning can occasionally be vertical, the pic is hardly typical. If this is a pic of horizontal lightning, then it is not a good depiction. Instead, the second pic seems to be more consistent with the text's description, at least of the timing, of rocket lightning.
Second, there is now a related, and potentially confusing, class of lightning called rocket induced lightning. This is when a rocket trailing a copper wire is fired from the ground into a storm cloud. The wire creates a conductive path from the cloud to the ground, generating a return stroke along it. This sort of "rocket lightning" allows physicists to measure aspect of lightning which would be otherwise difficult to do with natural lightning.Robert P. O'Shea (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rocket lightning 

message: when we talk about lightning, we always study the forms on how the lighning is made, study on how this lightning create less or enough amount of heat conducted because of the ions of our atmosphere, BUT, the question that is bothered in my mind is on how the lighting create their patterns in every lighning strike?
we all know its a hard and very dangerous study,furthermore, to know the EXACT patterns of lightning, we produce our own Tesla Coil to really destinguish the effect and on how strong this thing could be.
Question:
is it really the fact that lightning go to the flow like weather does? as we all know, weather has also no patterns to be followed relevant to lightning.vahn_dinio (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patterns of the lighting 

message: When lightning strike the ground it affects the plants in range.  The effect of the strike is that the plants convert Their hydrogen Into a more solid element.  This helps the plants.  
The source for this should be in the listed topics:
*Biology
*Botany
I wish I could include more but if someone were looking to improve this, then it could be added to the Lighting page. Thanks. --Condalence] 07:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  benefits of lightning to plants 

message: Wasn't there a picture here of artificial lightning without and with laser guidance? Or if not, can someone link me to said picture?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blasterman 95 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artificial lightning targeted by laser 

message: I removed the statement about indoor pools for two reasons:
1. The article says that no deaths have been cause indoors, only in outdoor pool.
2. The person who wrote the article seems to have forgot simple physics principles.
The pump in a swimming pool has an electric motor - correct.  The water is not in contact with that motor though.  For starters the circuitbreaks and fuses would blow thus isolating the pump; secondly the voltage and current required to arc from the motor to the water would be greater than the wires could handle, and they would melt (providing somehow the current got through the fuse).  
The last problem is that the pool is mostly likely not earthed, thus not providing a path for the electrons.
It seemed a pointless paragraph to have anyway as it contributed nothing, yet went into great detail
Mcmadkat (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your reason #1 isn't a reason...the article doesn't have to say that someone has definitely died. Neither the statement nor the citation ever said that they had to. The citation correctly backs up the statement. Your #2 is flawed in many ways..but that is why we use sources. Circuit breakers & fuses should blow..and wires might possibly disintegrate BUT NOT BEFORE the strike does the damage. I have seen lightning damage where the master fuses blow and then the voltage arc'ed 6 inches from contact to contact bypassing the fuses. About the pool not being grounded....it is by default. Doesn't need a human-introduced earth ground. Not scaremongering..just good common sense. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indoor Pools 

message: ....... I thought he never actually did this experiment. Like it'd be impossible because you'd die. I don't know exactly what's right, but has ANYONE seen that Mythbuster's episode when they tested it???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.196.190 (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I really like Mythbusters, but I would say they are wrong about 10% of the time. In this case, I didn't see the show, but the story is that Franklin insulated himself from the conductive kite string with a dry silk thread. The lightning was used to impart a charge to a Leyden jar (a primitive capacitor). There is some argument whether he was the first to perform this experiment - or if he performed it at all - but he proposed it (in publication) two years before it was known to be conducted in France. In any case, he made a number of important contributions to the study of electricity that put him at the forefront of the field, whether or not he did the lightning experiment. Tapatio (talk) 06:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ben's Kite 

message: I have found a video which I think is relevant to this discussion and it shows very clearly the 'streamer' part of the lightning
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1825827  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.134.128 (talk) 03:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video illustrating lightning 

message: In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 
* "uman" :
** 
** Uman, 1986. Chapter 5, page 41.
** Uman, 1986. Chapter 9, page 78.
* "agu" :
** 
** 
DumZiBoT (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: FACT : LIGHTING COMES FROM THE GROUND, NOT THE SKY  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.21.193.207 (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact