Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lightning Can Trigger Nuclear Reactions, Creating Rare Atomic Isotopes (sciencemag.org)

Posted by BeauHD on from the explosions-in-the-sky dept.

sciencehabit shares a report from Science Magazine: Rare forms of atoms, like carbon-13, carbon-14, and nitrogen-15, have long been used to figure out the ages of ancient artifacts and probe the nuances of prehistoric food chains. The source of these rare isotopes? Complicated cascades of subatomic reactions in the atmosphere triggered by high-energy cosmic rays from outer space. Now, a team of scientists is adding one more isotope initiator to its list: lightning. Strong bolts of lightning can unleash the same flurry of nuclear reactions as cosmic rays, the researchers report in Nature. But, they add, the isotopes created by these storms likely constitute a small portion of all such atoms -- so the new findings are unlikely to change the way other scientists use them for dating and geotracing.

75 comments

  1. But can it create by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    a Republican legislative victory in 2017? Lol fuck no it can't.

    1. Re:But can it create by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      a Republican legislative victory in 2017? Lol fuck no it can't.

      Seriously? Politics? Who the fuck cares? Why can't your comment pertain to the actual topic at hand?

      Better yet? Why don't you ask what the correlation is between this and curing cancer? No? Politics? Fuck off. Get off the internet and find some real humans to speak to - maybe you'll then realize that no one cares about your shitty irrelevant troll comments asides from the people who would rather punch you in the face for being unable to talk about the topic at hand.

      Random Stranger: "Beautiful day we're having!" AC: "OH LOOK TRUMP TWEETED SOMETHING DUR"

      You are one of the millions of people who make the internet (and the world) a toxic place. Sadly, it's not a new internet with blackjack and hookers that will fix this, it's by the removal of all vile like-minded individuals such as yourself.

    2. Re:But can it create by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Triggered conservative snowflake 0, troll 1

    3. Re:But can it create by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking quit it. You're making all of us look stupid.

    4. Re:But can it create by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really not that big of a deal, when you consider what happens in some parts of the world. Isis killed 300+ in a mosque in Egypt. These are fellow muslims. They are subhuman animals.

    5. Re:But can it create by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ~36% of us are dangerously stupid. I'm bringing awareness to the problem until an impeachment cure can be developed. Yes it's important enough to bother you whether you like it or not, by any means necessary.

    6. Re: But can it create by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who, the idiot progressives who think that tearing apart the country with calls for genocide is a good thing?

    7. Re:But can it create by nospam007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "It's really not that big of a deal, when you consider what happens in some parts of the world. Isis killed 300+ in a mosque in Egypt. These are fellow muslims. "

      Fellow? Hardly. They were Sufis, apostates.

      "They are subhuman animals."

      You mean like Christians, who made war among themselves for hundreds of years because of some minor differences in interpretation of non-existent gods?

    8. Re: But can it create by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Snowflakes are Liberals, no matter how much you try to change it.

    9. Re: But can it create by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post is nearly as flawed as the one you're replying to. Shame on both of you.

      Arguing that ISIL isn't an example of Islam, is a form of the No True Scotsman logical fallacy. While many Muslims reject ISIL as blasphemous, ISIL is run by Muslims. They are Muslim because they worship Allah as God and believe that the Qur'an as the literal word of God as given to the Prophet Mohammed.

      With respect to Christianity, the situation is similar. Many Christians consider violence committed for Christianity to be blasphemy. Yet the people who committed the violent acts, and those who do so today in the name of the Christian God, are still Christians because they worship Jesus Christ as God.

      You're essentially doing the same thing in regard to Christianity that you criticize the previous poster for doing with respect to Islam. The fact that some people use Christianity and Islam as excuses to engage in violent behavior does not mean that either religion is inherently violent or should be condemned.

      Your post is an example of why many Christians believe that there's a double standard applied to Christianity and Islam. It would be far more effective to say that of peaceful Christians don't want to be criticized for the acts of violent and hateful Christians, they shouldn't criticize peaceful Muslims for the acts of violent Muslims. The words of Jesus Christ apply here: Judge not, lest ye be judged.

      Each individual is responsible for their own behavior, peaceful or violent, good or bad. Let's be intelligent enough to understand that Christianity and Islam are defined by a few core beliefs shared by their followers, but encompass a wide range of beliefs outside of the core defining elements of those religions.

    10. Re: But can it create by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post is also a troll. The grandparent post objects primarily to the original post being off-topic. If you read the post and comprehend it, you'll note that it is objecting to politics being inserted into discussions where it has no relevance. Slashdot posts plenty of stories where political discussion is on-topic. This isn't one of them.

    11. Re: But can it create by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christ, I wish /. would IP ban all political commentators on non-political stories. You lost, so move on and build something new instead of demonstrating the cyclical and pervasive nature of depression.

    12. Re: But can it create by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Snowflakes are Liberals, no matter how much you try to change it.

      Sorry but the conservatives are the real snowflakes, they get really ass-hurt when a couple of gay guys get married, they aren't permitted to impose their religious dogma on others, or a black guy gets elected to the presidency.

    13. Re: But can it create by redmasq · · Score: 0

      Snowflakes are Liberals, no matter how much you try to change it.

      Sorry but the conservatives are the real snowflakes, they get really ass-hurt when a couple of gay guys get married, they aren't permitted to impose their religious dogma on others, or a black guy gets elected to the presidency.

      Snowflake status is politically and religiously agnostic. It only requires being unique like everyone else, melting when faced with real heat, and the ability to pile on top of other snowflakes to avalanche at the slightest peep. Conservatives, Liberals, Moderates, people off the artificially one dimensional political scale... Anyone can be a snowflake.

      That said, the idea of nuclear reactions being triggered by lightning does not seem any more shocking (pun intended) to me than a troll trying to turn a science post into an unrelated political discussion. Remember: never directly feed a troll, instead let the trained professionals throw the troll-bait under the bridge so that it safely returns to its natural habitat...

    14. Re: But can it create by dimko · · Score: 1

      Fully accepting gay rights atheist republican, reporting in. My ass hurts, but that's mostly due to haemorrhoids. You can call me snowflake. No shits given. Possibly due to haemorrhoids. It's funny to see you trying to do it on me.

    15. Re: But can it create by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Triggered conservative snowflake 0, troll 2

    16. Re: But can it create by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please do not feed the trolls.

    17. Re: But can it create by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of religion is a No True Scotsman fallacy.

  2. There is more salty water than air. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nuclear reactors had been polluting the atmosphere through the heavy water.

    1. Re: There is more salty water than air. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF are you talking about? Heavy water is made by painstakingly separating it from ordinary water. Diluted it's completely natural.

    2. Re: There is more salty water than air. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Heavy water is made by painstakingly separating it from ordinary water. Diluted it's completely natural.

      Even concentrated D2O is nearly harmless. You would need to drink a gallon or more before it had significant toxicity.

      Heavy water toxicity in humans

    3. Re: There is more salty water than air. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      The water used in nuclear reactors is initially water from the rivers or lakes, and later is converted to radioisotoped water that will contain heavy water as product of the nuclear reaction.

      For obtaining electrical energy, the nuclear reactors vaporize this radioisotoped water liberating many radioisotopes to the atmosphere. This is polluting the atmosphere.

    4. Re: There is more salty water than air. by Oceanplexian · · Score: 2

      You shouldn't spread FUD on a site where a non negligible portion of its users are nuclear engineers.

      Heavy water is not a product of a nuclear reaction. It's produced by filtering ordinary, natural water and extracting the D2O. The water is used to slow down neutrons in a reactor. In a PWR (almost all nukes) it's kept at a high pressure and does not boil out of the system. At some point the heavy water is replaced. At this time it will only have a slightly elevated level of tritium (Half life, only 12 years).

      The "steam" that comes out of a nuclear reactor is water vapor and has nothing to do with heavy water. It's part of a secondary coolant loop that has no interaction with any radioactive materials. Nukes don't pollute the atmosphere in any way. It is a 100% closed system.

    5. Re: There is more salty water than air. by cellocgw · · Score: 2

      Heavy water is made by painstakingly separating it from ordinary water. Diluted it's completely natural.

      Even concentrated D2O is nearly harmless. You would need to drink a gallon or more before it had significant toxicity.

      Ok, that makes no sense: according to homeopathy, the more you dilute it, the more powerful it is. So we should keep diluting heavy water until it spontaneously explodes... or something.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    6. Re: There is more salty water than air. by thomst · · Score: 1

      ShanghaiBill explained:

      Heavy water is made by painstakingly separating it from ordinary water. Diluted it's completely natural.

      Even concentrated D2O is nearly harmless. You would need to drink a gallon or more before it had significant toxicity.

      Prompting cellocgw to respond:

      Ok, that makes no sense: according to homeopathy, the more you dilute it, the more powerful it is. So we should keep diluting heavy water until it spontaneously explodes... or something.

      Mod parent +1 Funny, please ... !

      --
      Check out my novel.
    7. Re: There is more salty water than air. by burtosis · · Score: 1

      And then there are people who go ahead and taste it for themselves

    8. Re: There is more salty water than air. by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Informative

      You don’t need to be a nuclear engineer to know all that - you only need to be somewhat technically literate.

      I will quibble with part of your comment though. Nuclear reactors do not pollute the atmosphere during routine operation. There are circumstances where reactors have released (usually small amounts of) radioactive material into the air - these things are well-studied. Also, the potentially bigger environmental concern raised by some has been the affect of increased water temperature on fish and other aquatic life due to the release of cooling water into rivers and such. Regulation, combined with monitoring, helps ameliorate this.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  3. including ANTIMATTER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/2154230-lightning-leaves-clouds-of-radiation-and-antimatter-in-its-wake/

  4. before the creationists chime in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The accuracy of c-14 dating has already been firmly established (and calibrated) through the comparison of radiocarbon dates to dendrochronological (tree ring) sequences. So no, this casts no doubt on the accuracy of the technique.

    1. Re:before the creationists chime in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Creationists that deny scientific measurement are idiots. At this point, it's fairly obvious that radiocarbon dating is valid and so are other measurement techniques. (That said, radiocarbon dating is only good back to about 5700 years ago. But there are far longer-span radioisotope measurement processes available as well.)

      Creationists that deny scientific fantasy are creationists. There is still no proof of either Darwinian or Lamarckian evolution. There is still no disproof of the solid claims made in the Bible's record of creation. (Not even going as far as "God did it", but just sticking with "this is the order things were created in, and nothing has jumped from being one "kind" of plant or animal to another".)

      Then you have the nutters that think it was all created in literal 24-hour days. Those people are easy to disprove. How long is a "day"? 24 hours? 12 hours (and then it becomes night)? How long was your grandpa's "day" when he tells you those old stories? Every dog has it's day. Dogs live for 10-12 years, typically. So, creationist nutter, how long is a day?

      Scientific process and principles are sound and worthwhile. Nutters are nutters. But reasonable people can see that there's nothing wrong with the Bible's account of creation according to actual, proven and non-disproven scientific findings.

    2. Re: before the creationists chime in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, radiocarbon dating is reasonably reliable back to 40kyrs.

    3. Re:before the creationists chime in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But reasonable people can see that there's nothing wrong with the Bible's account of creation according to actual, proven and non-disproven scientific findings."
      As long as these "reasonable people" are religious nutters to begin with...

      This "account of creation" begins to fall apart when comparing the internal inconsistencies:
      "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
      But things get sticky with:
      "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."

      So which was it, Man first or Beasts first? And a further confusion arises as to just when Woman arrives on the scene. Was it after all that naming? "Sweet Cheeks", "Damn Fine Ass", and "Let's Make the Beast With Two Backs" must have given God second thoughts, and he created Woman to contain some of Adam's rampant dominioning over every creeping thing that creepeth. Though Adam still had a fondness for a damn fine Ass, even to this day.

      "There is still no disproof of the solid claims made in the Bible's record of creation."
      This is right, there is no disproof, because there are no solid claims, just a lot of hand waving, a "Fiat Lux!" or two, and taking Sunday off to catch a ballgame. The "Enlightened Creationism" posited above is still bullshit. Whether bullshit preceded the Creation of Adam is still not clear; I suspect so. But I'm entirely open to the explanation that Adam, out one day seeking Carnal Knowledge of a likely Ewe, stepped on a big steaming pile, and yelled up to the Heavens "What the hell is this crap?"

      Now about Radiocarbon Dating. This is very tiresome; 14C takes its damn sweet time decaying to form 14N. Counting Decays is so last century. Count the Atoms instead. The Mass difference between 14C and 14N is quite small, about 1:100K, but with a high enough Harmonic Order Cyclotron, they can be separated, and this has been done. Or with an Energy high enough for full Stripping in a Foil, 14C+6 comes out at M/Q=~2.333, and 14N+7 is M/Q=~2.000. Easy. But one historical problem with Radiocarbon Dating was getting a large enough sample to count, usually several milligrams is needed, and the counting for good statistics might take months.
      With these Accelerator Isotope Separation techniques, a microgram sample ionized in an ECRIS takes less than a second to analyze, and the sensitivity is enough for at least a hundred equivalent half-lifes; half a million years or so. Beyond that, the Noise level starts to rise, as secondary Transmutation processes come into play.

      So stick that up your Bible-thumping, Beasts-Of-the-Field Buggering Ass, you pompous arrogant twat. Your deceitful Evangelism isn't wanted here. You have made no Converts, you just managed to heap more ridicule on your pathetic excuse of a Religion.

      Captcha: bluster
      hehe

  5. Well of course, lightning produces 1.21 Jigawatts! by mykepredko · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Doc told me so.

    If it's enough power to move through time, then there's enough power there to create new isotopes!

    --
    Mimetics Inc. Twitter
  6. Interesting by rmdingler · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's interesting to note these scientists have just introduced the discovery of a natural phenomenon that creates rare atomic isotopes previously associated with cosmic rays entering earth's atmosphere, and are at once certain " the isotopes created by these storms likely constitute a small portion of all such atoms."

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Interesting by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2

      It's interesting to note these scientists have just introduced the discovery of a natural phenomenon that creates rare atomic isotopes previously associated with cosmic rays entering earth's atmosphere, and are at once certain " the isotopes created by these storms likely constitute a small portion of all such atoms."

      Good point; how do they know these constitute a small proportion? Just because it has to be so, because reasons?

    2. Re:Interesting by guruevi · · Score: 2

      Because lightning storms don't have enough power to do this consistently at high rates elsewhere it'd be very apparent after every lightning storm that a bunch of these particles got created.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    3. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because the effect of cosmic rays on 14C production in the atmosphere has been directly measured, and while there is a measurable shortfall there, the production from lightning can't amount to very much or the amount being produced from cosmic rays would be far off the observed atmospheric concentration. There's also a good historical record of 14C concentration in the atmosphere thanks to tree rings, glacial ice cores, and corals going back thousands of years. Example. Other than the mess made by 14C production since ~1945 thanks to atmospheric nuclear bomb testing, those concentrations jive with what would be expected primarily from the cosmic ray production. If lightning contributes too, it would have to be a relatively small proportion or the equilibrium achieved between 14C production and decay would be at a much higher concentration.

      It's also worth noting that the gamma-ray production from lightning, which is associated with the process producing 14C, is only observed for the most extreme lightning events, detected at rates of around 50 per day world-wide versus the millions of individual lightning strikes that presumably aren't strong enough.

    4. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, I'll let you consider your confidence in "I looked today, things must have worked the same millions of years ago".

      Just don't posit certainty, as having it is formally epistemologically impossible.

    5. Re:Interesting by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, we're talking about roughly 1.4 billion flashes per year, and they're not evenly distributed around the planet. As to the power of each flash, I don't know how you could get good readings and keep the sensors intact... only 10 to 20 percent of the bolts reach the ground so we need disposable balloons or something to get actual voltages. Getting amperes or wattage has to be an estimate. So, now we know that rare isotopes created... but is lightning also creating common isotopes? If so, how much and what kinds? There could be WAY more going on then these first clues indicate.
      More on lightning here:
      http://www.aharfield.co.uk/lightning-protection-services/about-lightning
      and here:
      https://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/where-world-does-lightning-strike-most.html
      and here:
      http://geology.com/articles/lightning-map.shtml

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    6. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was my thought too. Cosmic rays strike the atmosphere continuously and the resulting isotopes mix quickly to normalized background concentration ratios. IIRC, the assumed evenness of atmospheric isotopes is what allows all measurements, anywhere, to be treated as the same.
      Thunderstorms are "point" events on a planetary scale and usually include precipitation. The concentration of atmospheric rare isotopes is incredibly small (I looked up C-14, it's 1 or 1.5 atoms per 10^12 atoms of the carbon in the atmosphere). If lightning is locally producing higher concentrations of rare isotopes and they are immediately precipitated to ground level instead of diffusing, it seems that regions with regular storms could receive statistically more isotopes over time.

    7. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't understand how science applies the principle of uniformitarianism. It's not an assumption. It's a testable hypothesis. Like if physics of the past worked the same as today, then we should see "X" in the evidence, otherwise we will see something different. Whether the experiment was conducted 5 minutes ago, 500 years ago, or 5 million years ago affects the practical aspects of doing the science, not the fundamental nature of how science is performed by making predictions and then going out and comparing the evidence to them.

      For example, we don't assume 14C decayed in the past like it does today. We can count annual growth rings in trees, corals, and glacial ice going back thousands of years to see whether the carbon isotope results match. Likewise, for longer-term isotopic systems like uranium-lead we can make predictions about how nuclear processes worked, and see if the geochemical signatures in natural nuclear reactors such as Oklo, which was active almost 2 billion years ago. There are also many tests of whether nuclear processes worked the same in the past via such things as astronomy, where the distances involved are large enough that you are looking back far into time. If nuclear processes worked differently in fundamental way, for example, then you'd see differences in the way that light fades after a star goes supernova as you looked at events further and further away. Scientists have always been interested in the possibility that fundamental physical constants have changed in the deep past, and have looked for evidence, but it's kind of a boring exercise because usually the results show no detectable change to within measurement limits.

      We don't simply assume this stuff works exactly the same and ignore ways to test it, especially when there is evidence for variation of rates of *some* processes today, and some fundamental things about the Earth have changed over the long term (e.g., little or no free oxygen in the atmosphere billions of years ago, or changes in the Moon's orbit that have affected the tides). Those differences yield different products. The more fundamental nuclear stuff, not so far.

      The only people who think scientists blindly apply the principle of uniformitarianism are usually pseudoscientists with an axe to grind or people who don't understand how scientists actually use it. It's nothing more than an application of Occam's Razor until you've got evidence that significant change has actually happened.

    8. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not an assumption. It's a testable hypothesis.

      No, as Wikipedia rightly states, it's an assumption.

      I understand people with a certain predisposition toward refusing to acknowledge that science contains axioms which are, essentially, articles of faith, bristle at this.

      Still, fact, and it's the denial of this that ventures to deny science and being into the being the actual pseudoscience.

      We have empirical data points, which "test the hypothesis" as you wish to render it. Problem is, you are simply wishing that your "hypothesis" actually spoke to what you are trying to demonstrate. The only relevant hypothesis to the question of Uniformitarianism is the hypothesis that behavior of entities and physical "laws" will -always- result in expected behavior based on previous tests. This is the same fallacy that is proposed by those ignorant, accidentally or willfully, of how science works who claim any theory is "proven". Claiming such a status is possible, is to reject actual science. No matter how well-tested a theory is, it is always possible new empirical data will be discovered that forces a revision to the model.

      Permanently. Forever.

      You might consider it pleasant to your personal desires as to what you want to hold science as to claim certainty for subjective (or, as your tone suggests, political) reasons. But, sorry, your position is not science. Mine is.

      Sorry, though, I'll have to address your wholesale misapplication of Occam's Razor another time. Occam's Razor, never, ever, claims a resolution of what is -true-. It simply is a pragmatic heuristic to maintain conceptual simplicity, when all else is equal. It never, ever, arbitrates or determines what is -true-.

      Check the original writings of the originator, the rather brilliant theist Occam, for clarification. You can't stretch that to cover proof of "saw this so far, will always see this" either.

    9. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's interesting to note these scientists have just introduced the discovery of a natural phenomenon that creates rare atomic isotopes previously associated with cosmic rays entering earth's atmosphere, and are at once certain " the isotopes created by these storms likely constitute a small portion of all such atoms."

      Agreed; there's a lot more lightning than high energy cosmic rays.

      I'm near sea level in Tennessee, and see about 3 cosmics per minute here, with a background around 100.

      There's a lot of uranium in the clay here, so radon is an issue; but a 30 second long decay after a lightning bolt is pertty significant, imho.

      I'll have to start looking for these.

    10. Re: Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look out! This guy went to Wikipedia and he's gonna school all you fools.

    11. Re:Interesting by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I spilled a glass of water on the floor earlier today. I was "at once certain" that no one would drown in the resulting puddle.

      If by "interesting" you mean "I have a general distrust of everything ever including science" then sure, let's go with that.

    12. Re:Interesting by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      I spilled a glass of water on the floor earlier today.

      I'm sorry for your loss, but hey, the bright side is it could've been single malt Scotch.

      If by "interesting" you mean I have a general distrust of everything ever including science" then sure, let's go with that.

      Or. If it seems "thou doth protest too much," and your defensive behavior maketh you seem suspicious, my skepticism may not be completely unwarranted.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    13. Re:Interesting by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      and your defensive behavior maketh you seem suspicious

      This behaviour isn't defensive. It is "normal".

      By contrast your behaviour is religiously distrustful and aggressive. Maybe you should get a science degree so you can understand why your distrust is so incredibly misplaced.

  7. No Comments? by asylumx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One of the few articles that are actually related to science. Not a clickbait headline... and there are no comments. I get that real science isn't "sexy" but it'd be nice to see a discussion about what this discovery could mean. What are the wild ideas for using lightning to create this isotope? What are the new possibilities? I imagine that we'll be able to generate them artificially, so what can be done with them? IANA Physicist but there used to be some here, and their comments were always welcomed and interesting.

    1. Re:No Comments? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the few articles that are actually related to science. Not a clickbait headline... and there are no comments. I get that real science isn't "sexy" but it'd be nice to see a discussion about what this discovery could mean. What are the wild ideas for using lightning to create this isotope? What are the new possibilities? I imagine that we'll be able to generate them artificially, so what can be done with them? IANA Physicist but there used to be some here, and their comments were always welcomed and interesting.

      Because when everything is normal there is no reason to voice your opinion about it. Clickbaits and lies needs to be shouted down and responded to. Regular science mostly just verifies things that could be expected and requires no further comment.
      It's just when people are being stupid enough that you can't even be sure they aren't trolling that you feel the need to respond.

      For example, no-one is speculating about using lightning to create those isotopes because it is a retarded idea on the level of Frankenstein style fiction.
      If you want to use that kind of method you can just do the discharges in a lab over a distance less than a cm to keep the voltages in a range that you can control with off-the-shelf semiconductors.
      The method still seems unpredictable, there are probably more conventional ways that gives a higher yield.

    2. Re:No Comments? by deviated_prevert · · Score: 1

      One of the few articles that are actually related to science. Not a clickbait headline... and there are no comments. I get that real science isn't "sexy" but it'd be nice to see a discussion about what this discovery could mean. What are the wild ideas for using lightning to create this isotope? What are the new possibilities? I imagine that we'll be able to generate them artificially, so what can be done with them? IANA Physicist but there used to be some here, and their comments were always welcomed and interesting.

      Certainly and hopefully these discoveries will bring more funding for high energy physics labs. Hell we might even see a revival of a Tesla like super tower and in so doing discover many new things about how energy and matter interact. For one the plasma form of ball lightning is a fascinating manifestation of lightning that begs greater study, we know very little about what it can do to matter.

      I very much look forward to seeing scientists having bad hair days again simply because they were too close to the action. They might even figure out the great secret of achieving the Trump Hair effect which has mystified humankind for a very long time. Either that or Elon Musk will find a way to recharge his cars and transport trucks anywhere after having a person to person talk with Nicola about how to demodulate and frequency modulate extremely high energy streams of wave energy created by the movement of electrons. Unfortunately what will most likely occur is Russians will beat us to it by re purposing the old Soviet equipment and technology that created the woodpecker signals which were known to do all sorts of strange unpredictable things when fired up. The program was built to confuse and jam Norad but wound up doing some really weird shit that the Russian scientists became excited about. But the GRU and the Kremlin put the kibosh on the program when the project failed to do what it was intended to do, which was simply to screw with radar signals long distance.

      So yes there is a very great deal to learn from the physics involved in lightning and how to create it in different ways especially frequency modulated forms. One tends to forget that the visible spectrum of lightning is only a very small part of what is going on with Thor's Hammer.

      --
      This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
    3. Re:No Comments? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IAA physicist and my previous research group did some interesting work on laser-guided plasma discharges, with applications to laser-guided (and triggered) lightning. The hard part would be recovering the isotopes, even if the Lightning could be triggered.

    4. Re:No Comments? by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Not a clickbait headline... and there are no comments

      Holidays season. People are with their families. The few people who don't seem to have any friends are posting both critiques and distrust of science in general on Slashdot, and a few odd jobs are posting political shit.

  8. What about an experiment by bobstreo · · Score: 2

    With a bunch of Tritium and some lightning?

    1. Re: What about an experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For extra irony, add a kite and string!

    2. Re:What about an experiment by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      already known to happen with deuterium and tritium, thermonuclear reactions from lightning are cited in the footnotes of that paper.

  9. Checkmate! by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Checkmate atheists! This PROVES the Earth was created by God 6000 years ago and your science is wrong! And the Earth is flat, and nobody has gone to the Moon, and the twin tower bombings was a CIA job orchestrated by the Nazis living in Antarctica.

    1. Re:Checkmate! by gtall · · Score: 4, Funny

      My money's on the nutcase who wants to use his self-made rocket to prove the earth is flat and Darwin's Survival of the Smartest, all in one shot.

    2. Re:Checkmate! by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      if that nutcase suceeds with his rocket jump, he could get more chicks than a slasherdotter ever will. The horniest and most attractive more likely to pass on their genes....not the smartest.

    3. Re: Checkmate! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His RV "launcher" broke down in his driveway...no launch for that nut job.

    4. Re: Checkmate! by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      he's repairing it so might get a launch somewhere either legal or before "the authorities" can stop him. whether he survives or kills/maims anyone remains to be seen, of course.

  10. Android Applications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    App lock Apk

  11. Because they measured the rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's non-zero, which is interesting. But that same measurement also produces an upper bound.

  12. OK Try this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Farnsworth–Hirsch fusor works on a similar principle, and can operate at only 50,000 volts. It is a known way to react nuclei, and create products of fusion. Lightning is likely not very efficient at converting electric energy into colliding nuclei.

  13. Re:Well of course, lightning produces 1.21 Jigawat by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    A typical lightning bolt lasts about 0.2 seconds and dissipates about a billion joules of energy. So 1.2 Jigawatts would be a small bolt.

    There are about 20 million cloud-to-ground lightning strikes in America per year. At a billion joules each, averaged over a year, that would be about 6 GW (or JW) of power.

  14. Remember kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't forget your radiation suit when going outside. Not lightning resistant, so be careful when playing out in a storm.

  15. Lightning, Miller-Urey, and Life Itself by PollyAnna · · Score: 1

    Isn't this in keeping with the findings of the Miller-Urey experiment? Lightning makes things happen. Pretty cool, if you ask me.

    1. Re:Lightning, Miller-Urey, and Life Itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hummm ... electron cloud events will produce different external consequences than nuclear events. Even a bubble can produce changes within atomic/molecular shells , but isotopes --> nuclear re-arrangements ... entirely different morphic & energy scales.

    2. Re:Lightning, Miller-Urey, and Life Itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hummm ... electron cloud events will produce different external consequences than nuclear events. Even a bubble can produce changes within atomic/molecular shells , but isotopes --> nuclear re-arrangements ... entirely different morphic & energy scales.

      When I first read this incoherent little sample of your personal stream of consciousness, I assumed that it was a context-less braindump from some autistic super-genius, of the kind you sometimes get on Slashdot.

      But after putting the effort into working out what you were trying to say, it turns out that you're just not a very clear thinker or writer.

  16. Already well known by purkrtadam · · Score: 1

    ...from the another world intro

  17. So ... by PPH · · Score: 2

    ... nature's version of a fusor.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  18. Re:Well of course, lightning produces 1.21 Jigawat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are 31,536,000 seconds in a calendar year (non-leap year).

    There are 100 lightning strikes per second, cloud-to-ground, earthwide.

    That puts the number of strikes about 2 orders of magnitude higher than you calculate.

  19. Line emission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are wondering (like I was) what "line emission" means and why this would present conclusive evidence for positron annihilation, take a look here for the definition of the term: https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/nasa/measuringuniverse/spectroscopy/a/absorptionemission-lines

  20. Energy can influence matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who would have thunk it?

  21. Re:Well of course, lightning produces 1.21 Jigawat by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    That puts the number of strikes about 2 orders of magnitude higher than you calculate.

    Strikes in the world are about two orders of magnitude greater than strikes in America because the surface area of the world is about two orders of magnitude greater than the surface area of America.

  22. Re:Well of course, lightning produces 1.21 Jigawat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the surface area of the world is about two orders of magnitude greater than the surface area of America.

    Time to make America Great Again! I think we should start by annexing Poland.
    (it's a joke you libtards, lighten up).