Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Discover A New Kind Of Lightning

Exoman writes "Lightning that shoots upward up to 60 miles from the clouds? A team of researchers led by Han-Tzong Su of the National Cheng Kung University in Taiwan, videotaped the discharges last July from an observatory on the southern tip of the island. The lightning was firing from the top of thunderclouds more than 300 miles away across the South China Sea. The researchers reported their work Thursday in the journal Nature."

57 comments

  1. Pics & Video at Nature.com by Markusis · · Score: 2, Informative

    There are some pictures and video available at Nature.com - http://www.nature.com/nsu/020311/020311-6.html

  2. This has been observed a lot before by missing000 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Most notably, 19 times from space.

    1. Re:This has been observed a lot before by eMartin · · Score: 1

      Yeah. There was a special on lightning on the discovery channel like 5 years ago that talked about (and showed) this.

  3. Wired News: Lightning Jets Blow Sky High by $exyNerdie · · Score: 3, Informative
  4. Found a good image here by mike_lynn · · Score: 5, Informative

    Found their site (please be nice) and dug around enough to find a decent image of what this kind of lightning looks like.
    Check for yourself here.
    I gotta say, I'd think it was the end of the world if I saw something like this on a regular basis.

    1. Re:Found a good image here by mess31173 · · Score: 1

      The parent is posting a picture of LAVA. Hence the label of the picture stating GEOPHYSICAL. Christ people. Giving out mod points like candy. Mod him -1 troll.

    2. Re:Found a good image here by Detritus · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Geophysics includes atmospheric phenomena. Idiot.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    3. Re:Found a good image here by barakn · · Score: 1
      Geophysics includes atmospheric phenomena. Idiot.

      While you replied to the parent of the same post I did, it appears your problem is with my post, as I am the one who mentioned the article in Geophysical Research Letters. I never claimed atmospheric phenomena weren't geophysical. I was pointing out that the images linked in the parent and the article they came from were not of the newly discovered gigantic optical jets, but of already fairly well studied sprites. So who's the idiot?

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    4. Re:Found a good image here by barakn · · Score: 1

      Doh..... I wasn't the idiot you were referring to, but apparently I am an idiot. Detritus is the bestest poster ever, and you can quote me on that. Mod my previous post to same parent and the parent's parent down, please. Nothing nests right unless I browse at -1. That sucks.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
  5. Seems to be something new by isn't+my+name · · Score: 4, Informative

    The nasa page the parent points to seems to be describing red sprites, first photographic evidence in 1988/1989. This looks to be something different.

    From the article:

    Other types of high-altitude lightning events also have been documented in the past decade using high-flying planes and cameras carried aboard the space shuttle fleet. One, called blue jets, also streams upward but does not rise as high or spread over as wide an area as the giant jets in the new study.

    Red sprites, another form of high-altitude lightning, travel downward toward clouds but appear to stop short of reaching the top of thunderclouds.

    Su noted that while the other types of jets seem to occur over most parts of the world, the six gigantic optical jets observed so far have all been connected to thunderstorms over the open sea.


    Also, from the Wired article:

    Scientists had found plenty of evidence of sprites in the 1990s, but the larger, upward streaming lightning jets had escaped detection -- possibly because they may only occur over oceans, Inan said.

    1. Re:Seems to be something new by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall that most 'normal' (ground-based) lightning only occurs over land or near land. That should be a clue as to what is happening in the upper atmosphere.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    2. Re:Seems to be something new by n9hmg · · Score: 1

      lightning only occurs over land or near land
      That is incorrect.

  6. I thought i'd heard of this before... by Kiriwas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I thought I'd seen this on Discovery or such a long time ago, they were called sprites when I saw them. Is this something different?

    1. Re:I thought i'd heard of this before... by n9hmg · · Score: 1

      Yes. That's kind of the point. It'll be a dupe this afternoon when Michael hears about it.

  7. Quick! by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Patent it!!!

    --
    -1 Uncomfortable Truth
  8. Gigantic Optical Jets are not Blue jets by barakn · · Score: 5, Informative
    The link in the parent post is to an old paper on blue jets. The newest form of lightning is certainly not a blue jet. To quote:

    One, called blue jets, also streams upward but does not rise as high or spread over as wide an area as the giant jets in the new study.

    Here is a link to the two articles in the most recent Nature, though w/out a site license or subscription all you can see is the first paragraph of the paper by Su et al.

    --
    "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
  9. Re:New Kind? by barakn · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    You go to Baskin-Robbins for ice cream, and the pimply-faced teenager behind the counter asks "what kind of ice cream would you like?"

    Naturally you reply "What kind? It's either ice cream or it isn't."

    He gives you vanilla.

    --
    "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
  10. Sounds of the Northern Lights and Lightning by Chatmag · · Score: 1

    NPR had a great series called "Lost and Found Sound", one episode had the sounds of the Northern Lights, and lightning. Sounds of the Northern Lights

    --
    Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com
  11. but not the right kind.... by barakn · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes, they are nice images, but oddly enough I found the same images in the same directory without the annoying lettering. The lettering tipped me off to the fact that the images were the front cover of an issue of Geophysical Research Letters from last year (a pdf copy can be found in the same directory). The images are of a type of sprite known as a carrot, although the top one could be columniform.

    --
    "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
  12. But I thought... by Trogre · · Score: 2, Redundant

    The conventional ground-to-cloud lightning bolts occur because thunderstorms build up huge surpluses of negatively charged particles near the bottom of clouds while objects on the ground collect a surge of positive charges that eventually come together in a bolt.

    Erm, so are they saying that current now flows from a positively charged source to negative one?

    Man, I can't keep up.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    1. Re:But I thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Current is actually defined as a flow of positive charge. In most systems it is the electrons that flow (mostly because they are so small), but there are many sytems where the charge carriers are positive; in some materials, charge is transported by "holes" which are positively charged.

    2. Re:But I thought... by EEGeek · · Score: 2, Informative

      Current flows from a negative source to a positive source... opposites attract, and since electrons are free (for the most part they can be though of as a "soup"), they flow to the positively charged particles. I'm not sure what charge the ground and the clouds have, but I think its the opposite I recall a debate about it in the 80's and 90's, and I recall the conclusion being that lightning goes from the ground to the cloud, and its just an illusion that it goes the other way, they used cameras with extremely high shutter speeds... so we could conclude that the ground is negative, and the clouds positive...

    3. Re:But I thought... by Trogre · · Score: 1

      That is what I had thought, but the article had stated the opposite (ground +ve, clouds -ve).

      Misquote by the reporter, perhaps.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    4. Re:But I thought... by Alizarin+Erythrosin · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's 3 types of lightning: Cloud to ground, ground to cloud, and cloud to cloud. I guess you can figure out which has the positive and negative charge if, as stated above, charge flows from - to +.

      --
      There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
    5. Re:But I thought... by guybarr · · Score: 2, Redundant


      disclaimer: IANASSP (solid-state-phys.)

      The convention is that current flows from + to - .

      This convemntion was set before it was found electrons are current conductors, and they actually flow from - to + , of course.

      That being said, I must add that AFAIK electrical current in metals can also carried by positive "holes" in the electron sea, which flow from + to - .

      Wether such a description can be used in gasous/plasma environment I'm not sure.

      --
      Working for necessity's mother.
    6. Re:But I thought... by ndinsil · · Score: 1

      I believe cloud to ground and ground to cloud are the same thing, namely, cloud and ground both to midpoint. However, while most lightning comes from negatively-charged clouds some also comes from positively-charged (areas of the) clouds. It's these bolts that tend to be associated with sprites.

    7. Re:But I thought... by norton_I · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes. When someone says current flows from A to B, they (usually) mean 'positive current'. And usually, it doesn't matter. Usually (always? I don't remeber that class very well), electrons are the majority carrier in metals, but in semiconductors it can be either way.

      >Wether such a description can be used in >gasous/plasma environment I'm not sure.

      For sure, in plasma physics, both types of carriers are very important, though in this case it is electrons and ions, rather than holes.

    8. Re:But I thought... by guybarr · · Score: 1

      For sure, in plasma physics, both types of carriers are very important, though in this case it is electrons and ions, rather than holes.

      Well, I know about ions in plasma. I was refering to a possible holes-in-electron-field description. Wether such a description exists, or is in any way useful, I do not know.

      For solid state, the holes are the electronic eigen-functions left unoccupied in the conductance band. For plasma I do not see an analogical model. But that does not mean there isn't any.

      (And although Dirac's prediction of positrons does spring to mind, it is not really applicable. AFAIK, it is a quantum-relativistic theory which is applicable at very high enrgies.)

      --
      Working for necessity's mother.
    9. Re:But I thought... by hubie · · Score: 1

      In a wire it is certainly true that the electrons that are carrying the current, but in a plasma either species can be current carriers. In a lightning bolt the atmosphere is ionized so the electrons will want to move one way and the positive ions the other way.

    10. Re:But I thought... by CXI · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here's a link which does a good job of giving a general overview of how lightning works:

      http://wvlightning.com/cgdesc.html

    11. Re:But I thought... by warpSpeed · · Score: 3, Funny
      There's 3 types of lightning: Cloud to ground, ground to cloud, and cloud to cloud. I guess you can figure out which has the positive and negative charge if, as stated above, charge flows from - to +.
      --
      There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't

      Wouldn't that be 11 types of lightning?

    12. Re:But I thought... by Alizarin+Erythrosin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, you are correct. The distinction comes from which side of the equation (cloud or ground) has which charge.

      On an interesting side note, if you can find some slow-motion video of a lightning strike (which is probably out there somewhere, they had it on the Discovery Channel a few times) look for the little "streamers" (I think that's the term). The small branches of electricity that come up from the target. When the main bolt hits one of them, it connects to the ground and you have the main strike (BIG bolt).

      --
      There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
    13. Re:But I thought... by RodgerDodger · · Score: 3, Informative

      Erm, so are they saying that current now flows from a positively charged source to negative one?


      If there is a positively charged object and a negatively charged object, they exert an equal attractive force on each other, right?

      F = ma, or: a = F/m. The heavier the object, the slower it will accelerate due to the force.

      Now, in a wire, the negatively charged electrons are significantly lighter than the positively charged nuclei they've detactched from. So it's the electrons that move in an electrical circuit.

      However, we're not talking about an eletrical circuit here. We're talking about charged ions. Ions are atoms or molecules, not sub-atomic particles. It can be quite easy for positively charged ions to be lighter than the negatively charged ions, and thus the positive ions move instead. Even when the positive ions are heavier, they won't be so disproportionately heavy, so they'll still move.

      Keeping up now?
      --
      "Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
    14. Re:But I thought... by Sir+Holo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Discalimer: IAASSP (I AM a solid state physicist)

      Please ignore the parent of this post (the one with F=ma, etc.). If you've got some mod points, please mod it down, or at least label it as "Funny" because just about everything in it is dead WRONG.

      Going over all the made-up physics would just waste space. Please mod it down! (and me up) :-P

    15. Re:But I thought... by RodgerDodger · · Score: 1

      Or mod the parent of this one was incomplete... care to explain what I got wrong?

      Sure, it's a little simple, but it presents, at a high-school physics level, the explanation. If you've got a better one (at the same level, not the college post-grad one), feel free.

      --
      "Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
    16. Re:But I thought... by lars-o-matic · · Score: 3, Informative

      The reason why electrons (instead of nuclei) move in metals has nothing to do with relative accelerations. In a solid, the nuclei are fixed in place. They don't generate a positive electrical current at all, and the "equal and opposite" argument of the poster doesn't apply. (The fastenings on the wire take up the infinitesimal acceleration due to momentum change of the electrons.)

      The poster is wrong again about "charged ions" (by which he should mean plasma). Plasma isn't a solid; both species (positive & negative) of ions move and contribute to the current.
      I am not a plasma physicist but DID study university physics. The + and - carriers won't move in inverse proportion to their masses; they're not accelerating freely unless in a vacuum. They bump into stuff and can be treated as moving at constant velocity. Parent poster: look up "mean free path".

      On the scale of individual ions, balancing charge is WAY more important than balancing masses when figuring the dynamics.

      If you just say "F=ma" followed by anything you like, that's not a scientific explanation.

      --
      je ne suis pas un fou
    17. Re:But I thought... by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Just to illustrate to the discussion: two high-res images of (normal) ligthning above my condo: 1 and 2

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
  13. Re:oops by guybarr · · Score: 1

    This convention was set before it was found electrons are current conductors, and they actually flow from - to + , of course.

    ment to say current carriers, of course.

    --
    Working for necessity's mother.
  14. columbia by qed123 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The last time I heard about weird electical lightning formations was when they were throwing around ideas and someone had a suspiscious picture.

    from space.com
    While it's not likely Columbia was struck by lightning flying through clear skies some 40 miles high, it is possible that some kind of electrical event took place. At least one image is reported to exist in which it appears something like lightning is striking, or discharging from, the shuttle as it approached the California coast.

    Also a little more detail in this article.

    I never heard anything else so apparantly they decided that the picture was fake or irrelevant, I guess. I wasn't able to find any more current info.

  15. Finally, images of gigantic optical jets by barakn · · Score: 4, Informative

    I don't read Chinese, so it was difficult. Here are some colorized images superimposed on fanciful daytime scenes from this page. The original images are not in color, and they come from this mostly illegible (to me) page. Most of the other images appear to be of sprites. I'm not certain how they know the tops are red and the bottoms are blue.

    --
    "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
  16. Re:New Kind? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I fucking hate vanilla...

    And who the fuck modded the parent offtopic??? Do you not understand analogies?? It seems perfectly relevant to me...fucking slashtard mods...

  17. Re:oops by Tower · · Score: 1

    or perhaps even charge carriers...

    --
    "It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
  18. A question by greentree · · Score: 1

    Lightning creates the ozone, right? I'm no ozonelogist to say the least, but if someone is I am sort of curious... Does this mean anything in regards to the ozone layer?

    1. Re:A question by Chatmag · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lightning does create an upper atmosphere layer of ozone, which is beneficial. Without it, we'd fry.

      Carbon monoxide (fossil fuel burning, auto emissions, that MickieD you ate) creates a layer of ozone at the surface of the earth, which cannot go into the upper atmosphere, and is harmful.

      --
      Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com
  19. Re:New Kind? by barakn · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    of course it does't make any sense out of context, which is the case if its parent is modded so low nobody sees it.

    --
    "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
  20. Re:New Kind? by unitron · · Score: 1

    Gee, two different 'troll' mods, you must have enemies. Nevertheless, you are quite correct; unless God has been revising the laws of physics lately there likely aren't any new kinds of naturally ocurring lightning, but, at best, newly discovered forms that have been occuring all along and have only now been noticed.

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  21. Who is paying for this research??? by skogs · · Score: 1

    Isn't this the lightning that we've been seeing from space for over 30 years? Come on. Figure out how to make your own lightning, then we'll fund your damn salary and expensive cameras.

    --
    Who is this that even the wind and the waves obey Him? Surely this computer must submit also!
    1. Re:Who is paying for this research??? by GoatEnigma · · Score: 1

      I already patented making your own lightning. Once someone builds it, I stand to make a lot of money.

  22. Stop the presses! by MyDixieWrecked · · Score: 1
    Students at the chinese university had the camera upsidedown!

    ack

    --



    ...spike
    Ewwwwww, coconut...
  23. So, here I am with mod points... by Royster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...and I see this message attached to a 5:Informative comment. I'm supposed to mod it down as overrated on the basis of the say so of a nick that says Sir Holo who claims to be a Solid State physicist?

    If the poster is full of shit, explain his errors. Becuase otherwise, I have no basis to accept your words over his.

    --
    I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
  24. If Tesla were alive to see this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he'd cream his fuckin' jeans.

  25. this is not new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there was another article about a similar discovery from one of the islands of Hawaii a long time ago.

  26. This is in the 'propaganda' pictures. by mrmeval · · Score: 2, Informative

    One is called burning tree and is quite unique. This is a tree like discharge appearing to hover above the ground.

    http://www.astronet.ru:8100/db/x/msg/1170947

    I don't think its new.

    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
  27. Working link to pictures by Knacklappen · · Score: 1

    But you can at least have a look at the pictures, even without a site license... start here and use the arrows to navigate. And here is the figures from paper #2.

    --


    Excellence: Moderate (mostly affected by comments on your karma)
  28. Bad News For Geosynchronous Cables? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If atmospheric conditions are dependant on these 6,000 cubic kilometer lightning events, wouldn't stringing an orbital elevator cable from the surface of the earth up through the ionosphere have undesirable environmental effects? Would it even be possible to string a cable of any material from the surface through the ionosphere without having a significant ongoing effect on these types of discharges?