Talk:Lightning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Lightning was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
October 31, 2005 Peer review Reviewed
October 16, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee
WikiProject Physics (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Severe weather (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Severe weather, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of severe weather on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Dark lightning[edit]

The section on dark lightning seems dubious. It comprises individual researchers' research project which is not backed up by independent findings or peer-reviewed articles. This seems unsuitable for an encyclopaedic article. Additionally the links are to other articles which are also questionable. I would recommend removing (or at least heavily editing) this section.

It looks as if the term "dark lightning" is now being used as an informal synonym for conventional TGFs (terrestrial gamma ray flashes). On a tangentially related point, I found this sentence still in the text: "A number of observations by space-based telescopes have revealed even higher energy gamma ray emissions, the so-called terrestrial gamma-ray flashes (TGFs). These observations pose a challenge to current theories of lightning, especially with the recent discovery of the clear signatures of antimatter produced in lightning.[61]"
It's true that TGFs are still a bit of a mystery, but the antimatter is not. Everybody knows that gamma rays produce electrons and positrons through pair production. The fact that the positrons hadn't previously been detected does not equate with them being surprising or unexpected. The source cited here (Science News) makes it sound like a surprise, but NASA website here (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/fermi-thunderstorms.html) makes it clear that it's no surprise. "...pose a challenge to current theories..." is seriously misleading. Zyxwv99 (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
By the way, I think this article could benefit from the return of the "Dark Lightning" section with three conditions: 1) Change the name. "Dark lightning" has already been used for more than a century to describe any high-energy event in a thunderstorm that is not lightning or not as bright as ordinary lightning. There are other more technical terms that could be used. 2) Someone needs to explain it in plain English. When the terms "antimatter" and "runaway breakdown" are used with no explanation, it sounds like science-fiction or pseudo-science. 3) Put it in the context of closely-related theories that are being taken seriously. Dwyer's theory is taken seriously by the scientific community, but as a variant of a broader set of theories, all of which are being watched with interest. And finally, it looks like Dwyer has become something of a "celebrity scholar" with a cult following, at least among his grad students and their friends. As a result we need to be extra vigilant to weed out the hype. Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Nitrogen[edit]

This article does not have a part about lightning and the nitrogen cycle. Where can I find such information? Or just add some information in the article.

Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Just google "lighting and hydrogen" and you will find stuff like this. Richerman (talk) 06:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Qwertyxp2000 should do his own research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by White909090lightning (talkcontribs) 12:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Path of Least Resistance[edit]

The Path of least resistance idea is only an approximation to what really happens. Actually, electrical current flows simultaneously amongst all available paths at current levels inversely related to their electrical impedance. Electrical paths with lower impedance carry higher currents than those with higher impedance. However, even so-called "high" impedance paths can still carry lethal currents if the voltage gradient is great enough. Since lightning involves millions of volts, you're not safe just because there is a low impedance ("least resistance") path nearby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.177.137 (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Not accurate[edit]

The article talks about the religion of the Bantu tribes. There are hundreds of Bantu languages and ideas need not be the same for all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by White909090lightning (talkcontribs) 12:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)