Talk:Fulgurite

Untitled

• Petrified Lightning (as html)

This is an invalid link, I removed it but placed it here in case anyone can fix it if possible.

Also, does this next sentence sound right to anyone? I think it needs some grammatical cleanup.

"Petrified lightning featured in the movie Sweet Home Alabama where the lead male character 'Jake' attempts to manufacture fulgurite by placing metal poles into the sandy beach during a thunderstorm to channel the lightning into the ground"

It takes a couple of readings to make sense I would suggest a comma after "Alabama"

I think a comma after Alabama would make it OK.IceDragon64 21:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This still wouldn't be a complete sentence. An example of the above sentence completed would be: "Petrified lightning was featured in the movie Sweet Home Alabama, where the lead male character 'Jake' attempts to manufacture fulgurite by placing metal poles into the sandy beach during a thunderstorm to channel the lightning into the ground." Though in that sentence, my preference would be for "in which the lead male character...". Somerut (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

At the Museum of Science in Boston there is a fulgurite that's pretty long. I can't recall where it's from though. Anyone know? Should it be included in this article?--66.30.84.242 16:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I had a question. Is there another name for Fulgerite... ??somethingTUBE or something like that?

Spellings?

Though Chambers Dictionary spells it this way, other people spell it fulgarite- I would have- and fulgerite. If you look on the internet its there. "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Mineral Kingdom" by Dr Alan Wooley spells it Fulgarite. Is there a way one should deal with varient spellings?IceDragon64 21:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've always seen it spelled Fulgurite. But the question of variant spellings is a valid one. Are the variants widely used, or limited to mistakes or mis-transcription? Mgmirkin 18:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• if we're talking notability, check adsabs.harvard.edu. Do a basic search on fulgurite. 16 entries referring to it. Fulgarite: 0. Fulgerite: 0. To me that seems relatively conclusive? Mgmirkin 19:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• If we go with the Google test: try typing in 'fulgurite research' and varying the spelling of fulgurite. 'Fulgurite research' generally returns scientific sites, mining sites, papers as top results. 'Fulgerite research' and 'fulgarite research' on the other hand both tend to turn up "personal" sites, or "vanity sites" written by laymen. To me, that also argues for the user of 'fulgurite' as the correct spelling, and other transcriptions as possibly erroneous? My 2c, of course. Mgmirkin 19:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• The way to deal with an alternate spelling is to mention it at the beginning of the article ("fulgurites (also fulgarite)") and create a redirect. A citation to the alternative spelling would be nice, too. --Eyrian 18:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, edit conflict. I've slightly altered the section. As noted above, I think the "alternates" are typos, generally from not-as-notable sources? From a quick basic survey of reputable sources (adsabs.harvard.edu, and several rock/mineralogy sites online), fulgurite seems to be the preferred spelling. If there can be shown to be a number of "notable" variants (not just occasional typos, but systemic uses of variant spellings), then an "alternate spelling" section might be appropriate. As is, I'd still redirect from the other spelling so that concurrent articles don't get written and have to be merged later, adding time and effort (or dividing it, as the case may be). Mgmirkin 19:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Addedd a "Fact" tag, as I think those "alternates" are actually just typos. So, if there are notable citations for the alternates, please provide them. Else, they should probably be removed. Most of the technical literature uses 'Fulgurite.' Did add a redirect from 'Fulgerite' to the proper 'Fulgurite' spelling, with a comment on why, as noted above. That should be pretty non-controversial. Though, I think the "alternates" might be. Typos probably aren't notable, unless widely / intentionally used (why create confusion over what the correct spelling should be? Not that WP is a dictionary, mind you.). Just my 2c. Mgmirkin 19:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• On an amusing note, the intro even states that 'fulgurite' is based on the Latin 'fulgur'. 2 u's in fulgur... Coincidence that the correct spelling of fulgur-ite uses 2 of them as well? Mgmirkin 19:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• It's been a few weeks, and I don't see a citation. So, for now, in absence of evidence of the alternates being in wide use (aside from typos), I'm going to be bold & remove them for he time being. If someone can cite a large body of notable sources (papers or whatnot) that use the "alternate" spelling, then perhaps we can add them back in. Otherwise I'll assume for now that they're just typos, and we shouldn't sew confusion by listing typos as "alternates." Mgmirkin 00:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

References

I've added a "references" section and a references tag, so it should work right. See WP:FOOTNOTE for syntax on using it. But, let's please use it. IE, cite some notable sources for the materials used herein. I've added one for the term "exogenic fulgurite," which is used for the black glass created by the external melting of rocks from a lightning strike. Mgmirkin 00:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

finest?

> Possibly the finest fulgurite sample on display can be seen in Philadelphia, USA, at the Academy of Natural Sciences. It was discovered in 1940.

why is it the finest? Elvis 09:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Pah! The best specimen is in the Natural History Museum in London, cos my mum works there! (Joke). No, seriously, its about 4-5 Metres long and is in three sections. IceDragon64 (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

There are two inconsistencies. At one paragraph the article claim the fulgurites can reach a length of 15 meters, implying there have been one found with that length. Further down the article I read the longest one found is around 5 meters. Which one should it be?

"Fulgurites have often deep penetrations, sometimes appearing up to 15 meters (50 feet) below the lightning-struck surface."

"The longest fulgurite found is approximately 4.9 to 5 meters (17 feet) in length, and was found in northern Florida, USA." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.137.147 (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No incosistency here. It simply says that a fulgurite may be found as much as 15 meters deep, not that fulgurites have been found that are actually that long. It may be that the fulgurite was that long when first formed, but that it was later broken and the parts scattered by various forces. It is also possible that lightning travelled several feet into the soil before finding material that could form a fulgurite.

Either way, there is no contracticton in saying that the longest fulgurite found was 5 meters long but that they have been found 15 meters deep! John Elson (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, what was the other inconsistency? John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 03:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Mystical powers

I never claimed that fulgurites actually have mystical powers, simply that they are used that way, much as candles and incense are used in other religious ceremonies. John Elson★3Dham★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 02:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The "religious use" bit and the book you used as a source might be OK in the charmstone or new age article, but not in a science article. The book used is simply not a WP:RS here. Vsmith (talk) 03:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent Stereogram Use

To whomever had the idea of including a stereogram of the two fulgurites: I applaud you! This is an excellent use of this medium. rowley (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to add, though... unfortunately, when you click the small cross-eye view to see it beigger, you get the parallel view. Which makes it seem kind of inside-out. rowley (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

When you click on it you go to the image's page, which is normal orientation. It is only on the Wikipedia page that you see it reversed. John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 03:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I think the one on the right looks kind of like an anatomically correct Pillsbury dough boy. What do you think? John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 17:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Artificial Fulgurite

Why no reference to fulgurite being formed artificially inside electrical fuses? When a short circuit occurs and the fuse blows the sand inside the fuse turns into fulgurite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.93.171 (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fulgurite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090930024840/http://www.nature.com:80/ngeo/journal/v2/n8/full/ngeo580.html to http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n8/full/ngeo580.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Falsely identified photos

Geochem PhD here, longtime rockhound, etc. I became familiar with Fulguritics via Facebook. The user incessantly posts images of smelter slag from the Kennesaw Peninsula, and claims that they are fulgurites. No rigorous studies have been performed on his samples, and they do not resemble fulgurites, aside from the fact that they are vesicular. Nearly all are metal rich, and none have typical fulgurite morphology. In-situ photos suggest slag. Every visible detail suggests that they are slag. He states that mainstream science is out to get him, etc., etc. I've tried removing the images; he simply reverts them back. Can someone with some clout deal with this? -Meteoritekid (talk) 08:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Weasel words and distortions

Rigorous studies were performed by Paul Steinhardt at Princeton, but I resent that accusative cliches - provided without evidence - would be applied to me merely because I disagree with the rather outdated viewpoints of a self-described slag expert. The photos will not be restored. All samples were recovered in SE Washtenaw co. in SE Michigan, over 700 km from the the Keweenaw Peninsula (not the fulgurite(not Kennesaw, as Meteoritekid claims inaccurately). The materials in images that have been removed prematurely are identical to examples of the Winans Lake fulgurite, recovered in the early 1980s only 15 km from these sites.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fulguritics (talk • contribs) 15:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Naively-resolved criticisms masquerading as authority

We need a slag expert much more than a fulgurite expert to address this dispute.

None of the images or samples derive from the Kennesaw Peninsula of Michigan, but from the Ann Arbor area of SE michgan, 700 km from that isolated locale. Rigorous studies have been performed on these specimens, and they have been known in the literature on fulgurites since the 1986 publication of a massive surface-extending slaggy fulgurite with poor tube development found within 20 km North of Ann Arbor, the Winans laKe fulgurite, which is curated at the University of Michigan. None of the 20+ instrumental analyses identify an iron content of higher than 5% in these specimens, with most "metal" aluminum and titanium with high calcium content and silicon, with the metallic surfaces of some the objects enriched in silcides and metallic silicon, a known and ubiquitous feature in fulgurites formed in reducing atmospheres by high-energy, presumably positive charged lightning (see pp 86-88 of "Chemical Reduction of Silicates by Meteorite Impacts and Lightning Strikes" by bigail Anne Sheffer , and ). These properties are collectively-consistent with the glassy fulgurites of the Washtenaw county area and other glassy objects with slaggy texture found in lacustrine soils in deflated contxts. Non-clinker Slag from Kennesaw derives from the locally-abundant hematitic ore, and is chemically dissimilar to the lacustrine sediments of Washtenaw Co., which have much higher silicon, calcium, aluminum, titanium, and vanadium content. The water content of the fulgurites from Michigan, as well as in many disputed [craterless] impactites (e.g. Dakhleh, Edeowie, Rio Cuarto/Pampas) is well above that in any industrial slag, as well as that found in true tektites and impactites. These fulgurites are also lower in manganese than the typical slag from iron refining, except for some clinker from early industrial revolution-period slags - which these only resemble due to their chaotic and vesicular texture.

I had made no paranoid claims regarding systematic opposition by the hypostatized, monolithic effigy of Science. The only person who seems to be "out to get me" is he/she above, who is pigeonholing me and my arguments into a convenient set of stereotypes that equate any views I have that support terrestrial and non-anthropogenic origins for a few types of vitreous sedimentary materials with those of one who projects conspiracy theories onto their antagonists' motives. I have, however, implicated the conflict of interests of those who market disputed impactites when challenging the arbitrary and categorical dismissal of all glassy irregular materials presented for analysis that cannot be positively assigned to a particular tektite or impactite-recognized locale as "slag" ( ). People employed by scientific institutions, but also violate professional ethics by marketing meteoritic or other related materials retrieved and researched under the aegis of scientific inquiry, are not credible, neutral authorities. For this, I feel no shame, and it is within my right as a critical thinker and researcher who also seeks to falsify a few over-reaching fringe planetary science theories with empirical evidence and quantitative analysis. Thaddeus Andres Gutierrez 21:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fulguritics (talk • contribs)

Source 1 describes tektites and fulgurites. All of the fulgurites described differ from your samples; they exhibit typical fulgurite morphology and they are not enriched in metals. It does not support your claims.

Source 2 refers to reduction and metal segregation in fulgurites. What is not described in the paper is metal "enrichment." Vesicular samples rich in metal could be fulgurites if the source material were rich in iron, but the vast majority of the samples you have photographed and posted on this page (and elsewhere online) are both iron rich -- and show no actual evidence of being fulgurites. They look like slag. You have no evidence to suggest they are not slag. You provide no evidence to suggest they are fulgurites, instead of slag. As someone who has analyzed countless slag specimens as supposed meteorites: they are slag. You wanted an expert in slag. I am about as experienced as they get, until you get to archaeologists who study historical metallurgy.

Source 3 contains analyses of slags from the Ynysfach Ironworks . Do you have analytical evidence to suggest that your samples are different? Since the Kennesaw Peninsula is known for its copper, iron, and gold deposits, have you compared analytical data for your specimens to slag from other types of mining operations -- or perhaps to locally-sourced slag? There are large deposits of slag throughout the state. Since you do not provide lab analyses of your samples, this is meaningless.

Source 4 suggests that lightning strikes can produce shocked quartz. Has anyone observed shocked quartz in your samples? Again, without evidence re. your samples, this does not support your claims.

Source 5 is a news article describing the findings in source 4.

In summary, you linked to a bunch of mostly academic articles -- that don't actually support your claims.

You make some other arguments. You refer to silicides as though their existence is evidence of an object being a fulgurite. Any quenched silicic melt (tektite, fulgurite, volcanic glass, or slag) is going to contain silicides. Metallic silicon is common in smelter slag because the same processes used to extract other metals also reduce and concentrate silicon. You also refer to low (but not implausible for slag) iron contents in (some of) your specimens, but do not address copper or other metal abundances. In correspondence, you had stated that you sent only photos to two laymen for verification, and when I queried one of your sources, he offered no comment; it seems unlikely that you could have had your samples rigorously analyzed since we corresponded last week.

The hematite ore in the Kennesaw Peninsula region consists of Fe-rich ocean sediments. It is actually quite similar to lacustrine sediments compositionally. Again, since your specimens have not been analyzed, making claims about chemical differences here is pointless. We have nothing upon which we can base a comparison.

You make some other claims re. water content and impact glasses. Please see here.

I have been collecting meteorites since I was 8. Hence the outdated username. You seem to be under the impression that this precludes me from an academic career. This is not an appropriate forum to debate such matters. You may take it up with the Regents. Also, please note that this is a personal attack that has no bearing in a discussion of fulgurites. Please note that I in no way attack your character. Simply your claims. -Meteoritekid (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Winans Lake fulgurite

DLA and DBM are prevailing models for stochastic growth of an electrical diffusion network, the paper by Essene and Fisher has been cited well over 50 times, and carbon-dominated fulgurites are almost always phytofulgurites. These three facts you misrepresented when deleting these sections on this page, among others. That you would suppress an extended summary of the composition of the Winans Lake fulgurites is tantamount to the suppression of the first rigorous study that identified the co-occurance of silicides, native silicon, and Schreibersite in non-meteoritic and non-industrial materials. This is a groundbreaking discovery for those who recognize how such exceptions cast doubt on many rigid typological criteria that suffice as ad hoc verification schemes for a number of hypotheses regarding the formation of planetary bodies, impact dynamics, and the falsification of vague hypervelocity impact hypotheses. http://www.b14643.de/Tektites/ is non-sequitur in this application, and supports that Rio Cuarto glass is more water-rich than undisputed impactites and tektites (with the exception of Libyan Desert glass, which may have been post-depositionally-enriched with water) which accounts for its wide spectrum, from water-poor, to relatively water-rich and overlapping the range of obsidians. Obsidians are known to accrete water on their outer and vesicle surfaces, a continual process that constitutes the referential basis for [relative] Obsidian hydration analysis. This affects bulk measurements as reported. Thaddeus Gutierrez 01:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fulguritics (talk • contribs)

Some of the above claims made by Fulguritics are correct. "DLA and DBM are the prevailing models for the stochastic growth of an electrical diffusion network," however, this does not relate to the formation of fulgurites beyond the general morphology of type-I samples. E.g. they are shaped like branching fractal networks. That's it. In this case, the subject of a cited academic paper does not warrant a section on wikipedia. Just as this fulgurite paper does not. The Winans Lake fulgurite is a large example, but larger ones have been noted in Florida and other places, since.

>That you would suppress an extended summary of its composition is tantamount to the suppression of the first rigorous study that identified silicides in non-meteoritic and non-industrial materials.

Every scientific paper theoretically introduces a new idea or hypothesis. They're not all on Wikipedia. Silicides are...silicides. If this was the first example of silicides that wasn't ____ or ____, that means this paper described the third example? The second type of natural example, behind "n" meteorites? There are plenty of references in meteorite literature predating ~1985. Does the first noted example warrant a paragraph on the meteorites page? No. This topic is only important if you view silicides as being extremely important. If you want to start a page of "notable fulgurites," this would fit well. As it stands, it is one of many studied and published fulgurites, and the paper describing it noted some novel features. It does not warrant an in-depth description on this page. Your comments re. hydrated impact glasses don't make sense, and Libyan Desert Glass does not show any signs of chemical alteration or hydration. The range of water contents observed in Libyan Desert Glass is not surprising given that samples appears to be sourced from a poorly mixed melt sheet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meteoritekid (talk • contribs) 10:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Neutral observer's comment

I saw this dispute listed at DRN but I wanted to take off my DRN-volunteer's hat and weigh in before waiting for Fulguritics response there in the hope of perhaps preventing an extended discussion there which, if it goes like it has here, will be misguided. I'm going to only respond to the issue raised there: That the images submitted by Fulguritics are not, in fact, fulgurites.

You're both barking up the wrong tree by arguing your relative expertise in this matter. To apply your knowledge or personal qualifications to an issue here is prohibited original research. Here's the way things work here: The Verifiability policy applies to essentially everything here. It says, in pertinent part, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article." That applies to images just like everything else. Now that Meteoritekid has challenged the images posted by Fulguritics, a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia must be provided that the images are in fact what they are claimed to be. General sources describing what that thing should look like are not sufficient. The source must say that the items in those particular images by Fulguritics are what they are claimed to be. Here's why: Those images are a WP:PRIMARY source, which are defined like this:

Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent or third-party sources. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources.

References

That same policy then goes on to say:

Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

What's going on here is that you're both trying to analyze the photos to properly interpret them. That's wholly improper under Wikipedia's rules. I think that I can safely assume that, since these are Fulguritics personal photos, there are no third party sources which say that these particular photos are what they are claimed to be. That being the case, under Wikipedia's rules they cannot be used here unless there simply no reasonable possibility that an average person — not an expert in fulgurites or minerals, but an average person — would not recognize them for what they say that they are. I mention that because one exception to the Verifiability policy is the situation where matters are of such common knowledge that no average person would reasonably disagree that they are true. This is only true for things like "20+2=24" "20+2=22" and "Chicago is located in Illinois." Applying that to photos, most photos such as this one fall into that category: There's just no reasonable room for challenge. (With many others which aren't so certain it's simply a matter that no one has objected.) Applying that to this situation, however, the common knowledge rule relies upon what average people know: The reason that those things don't need to be verifiable is because everyone knows that they are what they are. It cannot be reasonably said that everyone knows whether or not a picture of a rock is or is not a fulgurite. And that being the case then these photos, having been challenged, must be sourced to a reliable source or excluded and, as I say above, I rather suspect that since these are personal photos that they cannot be so sourced and must be removed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. Given that, I think the issue here is that Fulguritics is of the opinion that his specimens are fulgurites beyond any reasonable doubt, and I disagree. Due to that, we're on different sides of the policy. I've tabbed all of the pages re. verifiability, original content, etc., and will look them over for future use. -Meteoritekid (talk) 09:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Dispute Resoluion Filing

A filing was made for dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard. An experienced editor has suggested that both parties have missed the point and are requesting original research. Are the parties willing to withdraw the dispute? Otherwise a volunteer may close it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes on my part, but I think Fulguritics is less likely to agree with the conclusions reached above. I will check back. Thanks. -Meteoritekid (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Reversions

I've reverted the recent additions by @Fulguritics:.

• "Fulgurites occasionally form as glazed tracks on rock, or as networks completely metamorphosing the target rock. Ejected droplets and irregular sub-rounded structures are associated with such rock (type IV) fulgurites, as well as type II (mixed soil)" (1) Substandard souce. (2) Not found in source.

• "often quench into bizarre forms - typically aerodynamically-contoured and displaying some degree of structural complexity, are classified as exogenic fulgurites (Type V), and can resemble crater glass forms, impactites, and [[tektites]" (1) Rock & Gem magazine not a peer-reviewed source. (2) Pasek et al is too primary.

• "Type V - droplet fulgurites, which are exogenous (e.g. spheroidal, botryoidal, filamentous, or aerodynamic)" (1) Dissertation source is too primary (2) Apparent Misinterpretation of Pasek et al / OR in calling it "exogenous". (3) Pasek et al is too WP:primary to declare a new category of fulgurite.

• "A sixth category is proposed to include fulgurites that formed on carbon-rich biological materials...." Not found in source given. Will be removing this momentarily.

• "Carbon-based fulgurites, produced directly on biomass, such as wood, or as scavenged biogenic...." Too much emphasis on one paper, too much material out-of-scope for the article.

• "The long-term survivability of chiral organic compounds native to organisms has been demonstrated reliably in carbonaceous chondrites such as the Murchison, a CM chondrite." Out of scope / WP:SYN.

• "Reduced phosphorus as phosphides and phosphites have been identified through quantitative analyses of a representative sample of 10 fulgurites recovered from most continents, in the form of schreibersite (Fe₃P, (Fe,Ni)₃P) - terrestrially extremely rare, but common on meteorites, comets, interplanetary dust, and some planetary bodies - and TiP, which is unique to fulgurites. Reduced phosphorus species were necessary for the development of DNA and RNA in proto-biotic systems that eventually emerged as primitive life...." Original research/SYN, out of scope.

• "There is also experimental evidence that lightning is responsible for greater than 50% of all terrestrial nitrogen fixation" Out of scope, OR

• Thefreelibrary.com is not a reliable source.

• Postings at TheFreeRepublic.Com are not reliable sources.

• "For instance, the fact that fulgurites are abundant in the Sahara Desert demonstrates that lightning once was a frequent occurrence in that region." Misreading of souce/not in source given.

• "A fulgurite was found within the contents of the ash altar at Lykaion, conforming to the Type II typology (mixed clayey/silty soil). It is not known if the object was contemporaneously transported and deposited post factum, or produced authigenically" Misrepresentation of source [1]. Other sources that follow are irrelevant to statement.

• In general I am concerned about the cavalier manner in which Fulguritics has used sources here. Geogene (talk) 21:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Also no reference to "dung" fulgurites was found in the sources given for it, so I took that out of the lead. No idea how long that was there or who wrote it though. Geogene (talk) 21:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

As of 6/2019, a number of these reversions have been undone by Fulguritics. Meteoritekid (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

After several seemingly judgmental attempts to cast doubt on the conclusions of a credible source, it is evident that the section is not being read. Again, after three attempts, I reverted another revert from a concise, newly-edited version of section *In material culture* HEre, I would like to mention how obvious it has become that editors are quibbling over personal prejudices. Any violations of wikipedia policy I have sought to rectify hitherto. Fulguritics (talk) 7:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Yet again, undid reversion by meteoritekid, who is not reading the content, claiming that popular science sources constitute the published claims of the scientists involved with the Mt. Lykaion excavation. These reversions seem to imply that the credibility of those who made the discovery is being questioned by the editor, who is not substantiating this assessment. The three-revert rule applies to events of 16 June 2019 UT by meteoritekid. Some corrections are not disputed. The protests by user meteoritekid over the fulgurite found at Mt. Lykaion are based on a knee-jerk response to an older version of the paragraph that has since been corrected. Fulguritics (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Has symbolic attrition of a wikipedia page on an old subject that had been ignored by geologists and chemists become a sort of game? It's annoying for the reader, and embarrassing for the self-parodic aggressor, to add critical remarks that themselves are less supported by preponderance of the same literature being demanded. To maintain consistency with certain attitudes, should I begin to monitor the veracity of simplistically-reasoned, single-department promoted conclusions found in many papers in impact geology, the defense of particular hypotheses regarding interpretation of often ambiguous evidence seemingly motivating judgments on fulgurites and the long-term contribution of lightning to geologic, geomorphological, and ecological change? I have refrained from this petty pattern of attacks on entire sciences, as I have no particular invested interest in the undermining of any form of consistent, empirical, falsification-driven scientific inquiry. Why so many wikipedia pages exist for individual meteorites is an excellent example we could propose as weight against the promotion of particular biases that make decisions as to where information should be truncated. This article is still one of the few summary resources for the subject of fulgurites that exists outside of scientific journals that incorporates general research from the last two decades. Obviously, that fulgurites are associated with the typological overlap of various proxies that are crucial in impact geology, geochronology, and even archaeological dating is a threat to the security of some over-reaching frameworks. Add flags when necessary, do not commit the same biased abuses to the reach of citation and do not delete references. Be civil, and do not maintain double standards. Thank you. Fulguritics (talk) 9:06, 04 Sept 2019 (UTC)

corrections of relevant content affected by reversions on Feb 29, 2016

My attempt to represent the topic for its vastness suffer from its novelty and the limitations of scope permitted to individual articles by Wikipedia quality of content standards. I apologize for any OR. It is tempting to expand where breakthroughs are just now being synthesized in the nascent study of fulgurites, and so, to retain implication without imposing bias, I stated only direct references to peer-reviewed works. Accept my apology for my zeal and intransigence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fulguritics (talk • contribs) 03:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fulgurite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150802001819/http://www.sgsmp.ch:80/lichtenberg.htm to http://www.sgsmp.ch/lichtenberg.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fulgurite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141106212409/http://www.yale.edu/opa/arc-ybc/v34.n30/story3.html to http://www.yale.edu/opa/arc-ybc/v34.n30/story3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Physics wording needs correction

The article reads "When lightning strikes a grounding substrate, upwards of 100 million volts (100 MV) are rapidly discharged into the ground.[2] This charge propagates into and rapidly vaporizes and melts silica-rich quartzose sand, mixed soil, clay, or other sediments."

The wording needs fixing here. 100 million volts is not a measure of charge ("this charge..."), it's a measure of potential difference. A charge would be measure in coulombs. And it doesn't make physics sense to talk of a voltage being discharged into the ground.

It's not just a matter of changing the units. The figure for the voltage seems to be about right. If it was a charge it would be in the tens or hundreds of coulombs, according to the article on lightning.

Please could someone who knows more about lightning than me fix this? Macboff (talk) 07:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)