Slashdot Mirror
Ball Lightning Caught On Video and Spectrograph
symbolset writes "Ball lightning has been reported for hundreds of years, and experimentally produced, but for the first time a natural will 'o wisp has been captured on video and amazingly, spectrograph, accidentally by researchers studying ordinary lightning."
I'd just like to note that a will o' the wisp is not the same thing as ball lightning.
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
It's available here: http://physics.aps.org/articles/v7/5
Not much to see though.
Warning: This is another of those annoying website articles that describe a visually fascinating thing, but don't actually include any pictures or videos of said fascinating thing. Not even the the spectrograph, though that seems to be in the paper behind the paywall. The only picture is of some earlier lab-made ball lightning.
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
Ball lightning video
(Don't complain that it is the Daily Mail, it worked better than the Puffington Hosts.)
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
It's available here: http://physics.aps.org/article...
Not much to see though.
From the link, with my emphasis:
That is what Ping Yuan and co-workers from Northwest Normal University in Lanzhou, China, now report. They had set up spectrometers on the remote Qinghai Plateau of northwest China to investigate ordinary lightning, which is frequent in this region. During one late-evening thunderstorm in July 2012, they saw ball lightning appear just after a lightning strike about 900 meters from their apparatus and were able to record a spectrum and high-speed video footage of the ball.
(groan) ... seems there are publications much slower than /. - this was supposed to be news one year and a half ago.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Except that you can see it clearly start at high energy level on the spectrograph then drop in energy level to lower wavelengths of light closer to red like a mega-hot star quickly burning out. I thought that was fascinating and obvious proof that it's ball lightning.
Yes, it's a ripoff of youtube from 2006. It's also one of the largest (the largest perhaps?) video portals on the internet. It's sad that you're stuck in a little bubble of "everything from China is terrible", and that _is_ the video, even though it sucks. Your name is deceiving, "noh8rz", yet your comment reeks of nothing but hate -- someone asked for the video, this is the f'in video, from "the" video portal from the country this article's team is from, I'm being helpful - you're just being a douche bag.
A grandmother of mine told a story about ball lighting that she saw in her kitchen. During a thunderstorm a bolt of lighting struck near her home and a bright hissing ball jumped out the phone, fell to the floor, moved a little ways across the floor leaving small scorch marks and vanished. This would have been the 1940's and the phone was probably a wall mounted rotary.
She was a sober and modest person with a sound mind throughout her life. I don't doubt the story.
(groan) ... seems there are publications much slower than /. - this was supposed to be news one year and a half ago.
To be fair, ball lightning sightings and claims to have photographed it or caught it on video are quite frequent, with a very high rate of hoaxes or mistaking other phenomena for it. (Almost as bad as UFO sightings and "evidence.")
It wouldn't surprise me at all if a few extra months were added to the researchers' analysis and to the peer review just to substantiate that this is what it says it is, and all the analysis is correct. Ball lightning is just one of those things that so many people have claimed to see, and it seems odd that scientists have so much trouble catching evidence of natural occurrences... so when you finally think you've got it, you want to be sure.
Not saying it explains the whole delay, but maybe part of it.
It takes a long time to get stuff published. They had to take their results, form a paper, get people to analysis it and then it goes under peer review. For us to have all this information a little over a year out is actually quite good. Also, we know it's gone under review. It could still have bad information in it, but it's less likely.
So, just for my understanding, you were science-minded at first, and then you saw something that scientists are actually researching and now you're all into paranormal stuff? Why? Just because something that *you* can't explain, does not mean there is no explanation for it. That's what science is all about!
My understanding is that it's the first time when we have sufficient review to conclude that this is real and is actually of the phenomenon it purports to document.
A low sperm count?
It's embedded in the first article, on the right hand side, under the picture.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?