We propose ball lightning is powered by ions (charged particles) formed in the atmosphere, particularly from lightning, where columns of ions kilometres in length are produced from a lightning strike and “stepped leaders” (paths of ionised air). The new theory about ball lightning that my colleagues and I have published is unlike any before it. There have been hundreds of papers written in scientific journals speculating on these issues, variously assigning the energy source of ball lightning to nuclear energy, anti-matter, black holes, masers, microwaves … you name it.Ī recent theory (besides our own) about ball lightning – published in Nature in 2000 by John Abrahamson at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand – is that ball lightning is a ball of burning dendrites (branched projections) of silicon fluff formed after a lightning strike vaporises material from the ground.īut it seems impossible that such a mechanism could cause ball lightning inside a house or aeroplane. People claim to have seen ball lightning entering a house through a closed glass window, yet subsequent examination of the window reveals no damage or even discolouration of the glass. So how do these balls of lightning get inside houses and aeroplanes? And why does ball lightning almost always move? (By contrast, outdoor ball lightning has been seen to initiate very damaging lightning strikes.) I’ve heard one report of ball lightning in a plane passing right through or around an air hostess as it travelled down the central aisle of the plane. Luckily, it seems the ball lightning that appears inside of houses and aeroplanes is harmless and no injuries have been reported. Perhaps even scarier, ball lightning has been seen inside of aeroplanes. In fact a recent French survey of 350 sightings in France found far more observations of ball lightning inside houses than outside (181 to 94). While many sightings of ball lightning have been made outdoors, it is also seen inside houses. Yet we wrote a paper, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, entitled Toward a theory of Ball Lightning, in which we explained ball lightning could not just be hot air because hot air rises. In 1969, after the contract period had expired, my colleagues and I concluded we still had no idea what ball lightning was. But there was a problem with my “hot air” theory: hot air rises and ball lightning does not generally rise.
0 kommentar(er)
