Talk:Lightning/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

photo removal

I am surprised at the removal of the photo of the 3 struck trees as this is a very rare occurance while it is quite common for 1 one tree to be hit among others. Eg. see the demolished tree in the article photo and the others which are quite close.Cgoodwin (talk) 07:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Image placement

Would there be anywhere to place this image in this article. The articles lacks diagrams, but I don't exactly know where to put it, if it could be put in. Thanks. --pbroks13^talk? 05:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I would suit the Formation section of the article but first you need to souce some fact/sources since the image/diagram can be classed as original research. Bidgee (talk) 07:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The image was derived from here, if that helps any. --pbroks13^talk? 07:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That could be seen as a Copyvio since it looks like the image on that site even if you did make it yourself. Bidgee (talk) 07:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Safety

Can please somebody add a paragraph about human safety regarding lightning. Is it safe to fly aircraft etc.--Dojarca (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Silent lightning

Could be a good idea to make a note about lightnings without thunder, the phenomena occurs every now and then... —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 13:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong speed?

The text says: a leader of a bolt of lightning can travel at speeds of 60,000 m/s. But i think there is a mistake over there. The speed is actualy 60,000 miles a second as said here:

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/wea00/wea00189.htm: Per the MEDICAL MYSTERIES LIGHTNING STRIKES video put out by the Discovery Channel (2000 Publication), it states that lightning travels at a rate of 60,000 miles a second.

So it has to be miles/second not meter/second as stated in the article. Or it should say 96 560 640 meter per sec (60 000 (miles per sec) = 96 560 640 meter per sec). That would make more sense, since that is about one third of the speed of light, and the speed of electricity in a cable is about 2/3 of the speed of light source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_propagation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bart.godderis (talk • contribs) 10:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

News article: Pollution Causes Most Lightning Strikes at Midweek

Causes Most Lightning Strikes at Midweek. Discovrry. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 04:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

reserch

hi i need to know what to do because im at school and i need help with my reserch and its hard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.163.212.15 (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If you actually needed help, and still need it, perhaps you could give some more information. No one knows what to help you with when you just say "its hard."

Otherwise, It's probably safe to delete this comment... James1293 (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

An appeal for non-scientists

I consider myself to be a reasonably intelligent person, with college level physics classes on my CV... that said, I found much of this article to be incredibly dense and hard going, often lacking any framework by which an average individual might hope to understand the details. Certain key terms, such as "leader" are inadequately defined and no attempt is made to put purely scientific power quantities into "real world" terms. This is a problem endemic to Wikipedia's science pages, but while it might be excusable on something like Amperes or Dark Mater or Hot Jupiters, something as common as lightning really needs to be as accessible to the general public as possible. If this is in the wrong place, can someone move it to the right place and can someone with a background in meteorology please have a go at this before I have to explain to my 8 year old niece again why Wikipedia uses big words instead of actually helping her finish her homework... Seriously, my sister, a school teacher, called me to get me to translate this page into something she could understand... so she could translate it for her daughter. 65.32.90.119 (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

OK Locke'sGhost 17:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Scientific credibility?

At least two sources appear to be links to websites promoting pseudoscientific bollox, namely 49 and 50. It goes without saying, for an article discussing natural phenomena, this is unacceptable. 150.254.181.174 (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Anon

Controlling the size of the article

When trying to get the tropical cyclone article through FAC, we had a similar issue to this one, in that its size was getting huge. In an effort to control the size of this article (which is quite big), I've used a similar strategy, and created a subarticle for Sprites (lightning). It merged the content from this article and the upper-atmospheric lightning article. Now both of these larger articles have the lead of the sprites subarticle, which leads to more reasonably sized sections. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Frequency and wavelength of lightning

Gentlemen, we all know the frequency of home electric is 50 to 60 hertz. But how about the frequency of lightning? Please mention it.

And I mean hertz, not "times per year".

And mention its wavelength.

You see on Faraday cage they say it can't fit into car windows... Jidanni (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Keraunelectricity?

I'd appreciate a section on why lightning is not a viable power source for human needs. I heard thing like “too high intensity/not enough voltage”, but the article would definitely gain from an answer to this question that children often ask.
David Latapie (✒ | @) — www 21:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

>>the answer to that is that we can't rely on lightning as a power source because we don't know when and how often lightning will occur in a certain location.

quick question

Since the earth is a negative charge, and since electricity moves from negative to positive, is it that lightnining originates from the earth and moves up into the cloud? If so, then why we see a strike coming down and hitting the ground?

I think it has a lot to do with the step leaders but I really don't understand how they work and this article isn't much help there. I also think it has a lot to do with temperature gradient. If I understand correctly, the lightning flash happens after the electricity has passed through the air. It happens when electrons fall back into their original orbits, and give off energy in the form of light, after the voltage equalizes. Since it is cooler near the cloud than near the earth--and thus less energy--the electrons should attain their regular orbits sooner. Therefore, you see the flash begin at the cloud and travel to the earth. I have seen plenty of lightning that did not seem to travel; it just flashed instantaneously. Perhaps in this case the temperature gradient isn't as much. Rsduhamel (talk) 04:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

>>acually the ground is positivly charged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The moses man (talk • contribs) 05:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Lightning Power Harvesting - example of misleading numbers

At the physics.org site they mention 5 billion Joules rather than 500 MJ, so they get 84,000 minutes of running a 1kW toaster (that's 1400 hours), while in reality a bolt of lightning typically holds 138 kW/hr, and a typical toast takes two minutes, that's 30 tosts an hour, so you could tost, during your 138 hours, only 1400 slices of bread, not that much for what you'de think a lightning bolt has in it...-- Pashute (talk) 07:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Pashute, good point. I have come across articles, or parts of articles about lightning before, and I was surprised to find out how little voltage or power a lightning bolt has compared to what I imagined it would be. So, yeah, it is surprising how little toast you get from one bolt of lightning. Ti-30X (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Voltage

It is probably not correct that the voltage of lightning is proportional to its length. While this is a good rule for small shocks of static electricity, for large bolts of lightning, I suspect it is not valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.40.183 (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Mistake on the First Picture

There is a mistake in the caption for the first picture of the article. The lightning isn't striking the tower. The tower is giving off lightning into the sky. It's a rare form of lightning, but you can tell that it's ground-to-air lightning by the way it's organized. Lightning doesn't really converge on one point, but instead spreads out its step leaders looking for a place to send its electrical discharge. That's what appears to be happening in the picture.

I suggest that the caption be changed. Or the caption could be changed and the picture moved to the "Ground-to-Cloud Lightning" section of the article as an example. I don't know how to move pictures around, so I'll just leave that to someone else. I just wanted to bring that to attention.

Frogger1093 (talk) 02:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: I've changed the caption on the first picture from "Lightning strikes a..." to "Lightning emanating from a..." to reflect the type of lightning the picture depicts. As for the possibility of moving the picture to the "Ground-to-Air Lightning" section, I'm clueless as how to do that.

Frogger1093 (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Added images "over crowds" article "Trees and Lightning"...

Bidgee removed a pair of images which clearly and helpfully elucidated the text of the article. One complaint was that it "Over crowds" the article; nothing adds more to an article about a short lived, mysterious and devastatingly unpredictable phenomenon like lightning than informative, high resolution photographs of its effects.

Technical text covering "skin effect" and Amps per microsecond are equally essential in a comprehensive article. Why, within an unlimited space like Wikipedia, is there a concern about the number of directly applicable images? The criteria should be relevance to the subject, elucidation of the text and image quality. I have the luxury of a high quality monitor; if screen real estate is the concern, a direct link within the thumbnail to an image gallery sounds like an excellent idea, but deleting helpful images does not advance the mission of Wikipedia.

Also, the images are fully documented as to description and authorship; the concise description appears directly below the image, and authorship is clear at the link. If there is an issue, please be specific about completeness and attribution.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeroboambramblejam (talk • contribs)

I've stated why on your talk page but please do not copy and paste my comments and misquote them! Wikipedia's article do have limited space (Reason why we limit images in articles), I also disagree that the images you added into the article added any more value to the article. Best place for the images to be is the Lightning page on Commons. Bidgee (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge bolt from the blue

The bolt from the blue page is extremely stubby, and already indicates it is a synonym for Lightning#positive lightning; I suggest a merge of what content is not an overlap. Based on the single paragraph in the main page, it shouldn't be much. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! All that bolt from the blue really is just a powerful positive lightning strike (Reasons for it travelling long distances [up to 30 mi IIRC] is still debated among scientists). Bidgee (talk) 06:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. The talk page still needs to be merged, I never know if it's an official thing or just a redirect. I usually redirect to an archive. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

'Heat' Lightning

I came to this page looking for this information. But found it elsewhere. I think it would be at home on this page

http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/whys/heatlightning.htm http://whyfiles.org/137lightning/applet/index.html

Namely that heat lightning is (or can be) unaccompanied by rain and thunder.

Heat lightning may get merged back to this page... see Talk:Heat lightning —Will research for food (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Speed of lightning?

Is the link number 2: "Lightning fact sheet" accurate on its assessment of a leader bolt being 60,000 m/s? Wherever I look all over the net I can find very different statements on this.

Some sites say 60,000 MILES per second, some a third, or even a half the speed of light! Mekhatronic (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Mekhatronic

Really, there is no set speed for a lightning bolt. Its marginally dependent on atmospheric variables. Now a static discharge, in a dry air laboratory situation, will have a measurable and repeatable speed. At any rate, fast is a good description. —Will research for food (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

However, you will never find lightning moving as slow as 10m/s say. Is 60,000m/s actually reliable for lightning at all? I assume lightning has been clocked at that speed, but has it also been clocked at half the speed of light, or is that a random guess? Need more info on how the speed of lightning has been measured, regardless of whether it varies or not. Mekhatronic (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Mekhatronic

Yeah, sure...lightning is comprised of particles(physics)--free electrons that are jumping between molecules (gases and large particles(like dust). So you could use EM to guess the speed of an electron through a vacuum, and subsequently the atmosphere. Afterall, its something that has already been calculated and known by the TV industry...see cathode ray tube. —Will research for food (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Triboelectricity

At present this article doesn't explicitly mention the (supposed) role of triboelectricity in the formation of the electrical potential needed for lightning. But there appear to be several scholarly sources that discuss it. Could this be covered please, along with a discussion regarding potential controversies? Thank you.—RJH (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think controversies need to be discussed in here, as typically they may not be encyclopedic. But you are right tribo isn't discussed, but it would need supporting evidence for it to be a part of this article...not trashing any possibilities... —Will research for food (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Article is "C class" rated

"Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study." - C class rating

Doesn't meet all, but some of the B-class rating. Needs lots more work. —Will research for food (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

lightening

why does lightening appear in different colors? (such as blue, red, green, pink, and white) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.235.38 (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the article for Visible spectrum to see why you see those different colors. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If the article(s) do not answer, try WP:REFDESK.  Chzz  ►  18:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed on part about lightning being causes by hail

I tried to add a citation needed tag to the following text: "Lightning can initially be formed by condensed water in clouds freezing into hail, then being blown by wind. The wind smashes the hail together, separating positive and negative charges. When enough negative charges build up, lightning is formed and strikes the tallest object near it." but the article is protected. This text makes several assumptions and doesn't fit the rest of the article. Can someone make this edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.219.61.20 (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; does seem out of place; marked as {{fact}}.  Chzz  ►  18:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done

Copy Edit donation from Severe weather

Once sufficiently tall clouds have formed, the downdrafts present in the cumulonimbus cloud causes the remaining water molecules to freeze into solid states of ice and hail. The ice particles, containing a positive charge is separated by the updrafts, while the hail particles that contain a negative charge is moved by the downdrafts. This basically separates the differently charged particles. During the thunderstorm, the Earth's surface is composed of a positive charged. Because opposites attract, the negative charged particles on the lower cloud (caused by the downdraft) tries to contact the positive particles upon land. The negative charges, once strong enough to resist against air resistance flows downwards towards the Earth. This is called a stepped leader. The positive particles, being attracted to the stepped leader climbs up elevated objects of trees and other objects and contacts the negative particles. Once this happens, a strong electrical current inputs the positive charges into the cloud. This creates a return stroke of lightning.

This section on lightning formation was trimmed from severe weather but may be of value to your article. Respectfully Bullock ✉ 20:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Amount of energy in lightning

See the diff.

While a single bolt of lightning carries a very little amount of energy,

While a single bolt of lightning carries a relatively large amount of energy,

So, high or low?

Thanks.
David Latapie (✒ | @) — www 13:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on what follows in the section, I think the amount of energy is relatively small in the context of power generation, in spite of its very brief intensity. Tapatio (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is the bottom part of the article labeled as applying only to the U.S.?

Does someone really think that lighting in the U.S. is different from lighting in other parts of the world? What is especially strange is to see no explanation on this Talk page of the reason for this labeling.

If there is some good reason for this, could someone please state it here? If there is no good reason for this, could someone please remove this bizarre labeling of the latter part of the article? (I am a lightning ignoramus, so the someone should not be me.)

Many Americans don't believe that there is a world outside their country's borders.JohnC (talk) 08:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

In the section of culture - use of the term mythology

Just a thought while reading the article- it talks of Finnish "mythology", Norse "mythology", Slavic "mythology"...but when Jewism and Islam are referred to there is no mention of the word...as if all the others are just "myths" but Islam and Judaism are the true faith. Just a trifle unfair, isn't it?

217.33.222.130 (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)Sancho

Lightning actually does strike twice, I think?

The article states that lightning has a very low probability of striking twice. But in fact, lightning takes the path of least resistance. In a short time span, this path might not change much so lightning could strike the same location many times in a brief moment. For example, look at the following YouTube video which clearly shows lightning hitting the same location about ten times all within one second (it's slowed down by 300x). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haW6-sQfMdw&feature=player_embedded. 67.243.140.144 (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)particle25

Once a low resistance path is created by the electric current superheating the air to create a highly conductive plasma, lightning may strike (current may flow) repeatedly along the same path until the local potential difference (voltage) is insufficient to maintain current flow.

More importantly perhaps, is that lightning may strike the same structures (water towers for example) or protection devices (rods, or static wires strung between utility poles) innumerable times during their lifespan. Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 04:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Medicine

Do we have a page on the medical aspects of lightening strike? Can someone drop me a note regarding this issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

http://firstaid.webmd.com/lightning_strike_treatment_firstaid.htm Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 04:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Pliny

Hi, I think it is OK that Pliny the Elder died in 79 b.C., but Pliny the Younger had then time to write about the phenomenon (and his uncle's death). 212.92.1.124 (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Emmy

30 kA in 30 microseconds = 5 coulombs?

The section "Properties" seems to contradict itself. It states:

"An average bolt of negative lightning carries an electric current of 30,000 amperes ("amps") — 30 "kiloamps" (kA), and transfers five coulombs of electric charge....and the stroke lasts for about 30 millionths of a second — 30 "microseconds"."

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that 1 amp of current = 1 coulomb of charge carriers per second. So, for example, to transfer 2 coulombs in 1 second requires a current of 2 amps, and 1 coulomb in 0.1 seconds requires a current of 10 amps. Thus the current required to transfer 5 coulombs in 0.00003 seconds (30 microseconds) = 5 × 1/0.00003 = 166,667 amps. Or in the other direction, a 30,000 amp current, i.e., a current that can transfer 30,000 coulombs in 1 second would, in 0.00003 seconds, transfer 30,000 × 0.00003 = 0.9 coulombs.

Perhaps both figures are within the range of what lightning strikes can carry, but the figures are given as averages and should be consistent. DaveDaytona (talk) 07:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Dead link

Reference 110, concerning cows being killed by lightning, is a dead link. 70.101.94.179 (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

More definition, less astonishing facts and figures

I visited the article to remind myself how lighting works. The lede could use more of a straight definition and basic explanation. I'm too stupid to put it into words, but it could use that stuff about the imbalance between positive and negative charges, the stepped leader, and the flow of electricity between the ground and cloud, and the direction. It goes up, right?

Because it is a long article, getting to the point of what it is and how it works should be easy to find. This article gets to the point. Even the sections of this article are dominated by figures and stats. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It's the same problem we have in many of our good and featured articles. Suffice it to say, we have articles written for editors, not readers. Viriditas (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Darn tootin'! So, is there anybody watching? Anybody? Could somebody with a brain please spend 5 min on the lede? I can't. I don't get lightning and such phenomena. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

A storm is brewing

Again, this is an important article and 293 editors watch it, so I know you're reading this. I again respectfully request that somebody fix the (beginning of the) lead, or I will, and you don't want that because I have no idea what I'm doing. My suggestion is to remove the figures and make it more understandable to the article's 4,000 visitors a day. I suggest a simple sentence for each of the following:

• A basic definition of what it is
• The event
• What precipitated it
• What happens to a golfer when...
• The immediate effects

That's it. Simple.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Super lightning

POSSIBLE NEW SUB-SUBJECT isn't there a phenom called super lightening? to my vague memory it occurs mostly at sea and is at least an order of magnitude larger than ordinary lightening * almost first notice was from weather satelites recording flashes that occupied entire pixels, and were hence originally dismissed * 184.74.68.140 (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC) grumpy

Page formatting

This page looks awful on 1024x768 resolution. I don't know exactly what is the reason of this formatting issue and - while I don't have experience with wiki editing - I hope that someone will fix this. Thank you and sorry if I wrote this in an innapropiate section. Ovidiu Niţan (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

- Fixed this, there was a unclosed style tag on one of the images. Amelie (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Superbolts

Wikipedia has surprisingly little information on superbolts (high-intensity, long-duration lightning). I'd like to change this, but don't know whether to add a section here or create a separate page. Right now I'm leaning towards a separate page, but I'm relatively new here, so open to suggestions. I think the phenomenon is worth writing about given its relationship to the Vela Incident, recent observations on Saturn/Jupiter, and the fact that it's an oft-cited "explanation" for conspiracy theories.

Thoughts?

-nstannik (talk) 09:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Culture section

A small number of fairly well-written popular culture references (unfortunately unsourced) to the impact of lighting was added to the culture section on August 4th and was removed shortly thereafter. It seems that a small quantity such items as the ones removed adds to the article, if a culture section is included at all. Perhaps one or two of these, along with an appropriate literary reference to the significance of lightning could be re-added. If they shouldn't be there, then should we remove the entire "culture" section? I reviewed Wikipedia:Handling trivia and didn't seem to find any blatant violation of its principles here. Jim Grisham (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Bead lightning Brisbane, Australia Nov 2006.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Bead lightning Brisbane, Australia Nov 2006.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Did Franklin ever do the kite experiment?

In the book Science Secrets, Alberto A. Martinez, https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1/m/ScienceSecrets.html, argues that there is no evidence Franklin ever did any experiment relating to lightning.Mauricev (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Harvesting lightning energy

This section first states that a single bolt of lightning carries a large amount of energy, and then later mentions that it carries a very small amount of energy. Could it be that the first statement is referring to a large amount of power rather than energy?

This section cites two sources stating that lightning carries two different amounts of energy:

1. "a single bolt of lightning carries a relatively large amount of energy (approximately 5 billion joules[121])."

2. "According to Northeastern University physicists Stephen Reucroft and John Swain, a lightning bolt carries a few million joules of energy."

It seems that both statements cannot be correct unless, of course, those two sources discuss different concepts. Can this be expanded upon? 188.116.3.163 (talk) 09:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

"positive lightning"

In the section Cloud to ground lightning, there is a likk to the article "Positive Lightning" which does not exist, and redirects back to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.133.223 (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

"Positive Lightning", "Cloud-to-Ground Lightning" and "Cloud-to-Cloud" Lightning

The description of "Ground-to-Cloud Lightning" applies to the least common (one tenth the incidence of the most common) of the two forms of Cloud-Ground Lightning; it might be helpful to state this in the "Ground-to-Cloud Lightning" section.

In general, descriptions of directionality and charge polarity in the sections entitled "Cloud-to-Ground Lightning", "Ground-to-Cloud Lightning" and "Cloud-to-Cloud Lightning" are consistent with the literature, but citations and/or clarifications may be helpful in these sections. For example: a broad and detailed view, rigorous nomenclature, and quantitative distinctions regarding (a) types of lightning, (b) directionality and (c) charge polarity, which can resolve existing "citations needed" flags and similar items that have not been flagged, can be found in "Lightning: Physics and Effects" (Rakov and Uman, 2003, Cambridge Press). For example, Section 1.2 of "Lightning: Physics and Effects" (Rakov and Uman, 2003) alleviates some abiguity by adhering to a generally accepted nomenclature describing the four types of cloud-ground lightning as: downward negative, upward negative, downward positive and upward positive. Section 1.2 of "Lightning: Physics and Effects" (Rakov and Uman, 2003) also provides minimized ambiguity by adhering to a generally accepted nomenclature describing cloud-cloud discharges. Finally, Section 1.2 of "Lightning: Physics and Effects" references (potentially helpful) detailed descriptions of all of the above-mentioned types of lightning, within "Lightning: Physics and Effects" and elsewhere. Jplesa (talk) 09:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Jplesa I would agree with you, I believe this page needs a little work over and possible reorganization. I would also agree the Rakov and Uman literature is probably the best source to work from. I am currently working on putting together a "Lightning Protection Systems" page, wherein I am looking for other pages to comprise a good portion of it, instead of having multiple pages saying different things. On this page, what I see it needing are the following:

1. Establishing industry/scientifically accepted names and using them consistently throughout the article to replace ambiguous or old naming practices, i.e., "strike" = (whic part: flash, stroke, termination, etc.), "thundercloud" = "storm cell", etc. I've compiled a "glossary" in my sandbox that would probably be a good basis.
2. Applying more emphasis on Cloud-to-Ground Flashes as this is what primarily affects humans & their property. I would agree there is too much focus on both lesser percentage variations and anomalies, and this confuses the understanding of the primary concern of people, CG.
3. This would allow for more clarity in the discussion of Flash formation & discharge, which if it isn't completed here, I will need to do on the other page. I would prefer that discussion to be here.

Comments, suggestions, etc. Borealdreams (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Lightning bolt slow motion.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Lightning bolt slow motion.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Lightning bolt slow motion.gif) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Queries about lightning discharge

In the 'discharge' section of the page, "Lightning", it is written: "When the electric field becomes strong enough, an electrical discharge (the bolt of lightning) occurs within clouds or between clouds and the ground. During the strike, successive portions of air become a conductive discharge channel as the electrons and positive ions of air molecules are pulled away from each other and forced to flow in opposite directions." But I want to know in which directions the electrons flow and the positive ions flow. The electrons flow from the negatively charged basal portion of the cloud to the ground through the conductive discharge channel.Then does the positive ions flow towards the cloud?

Nandi.abir (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Lighning

Lightning is electricity it is caused by positive and negative charges in the cloud. And when they mix they create a bolt of lightning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axebutt77 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ambigous or conflicting descriptions of positive lightning

See this section The much rarer positive lightning originates mainly in the "anvil" of cumulonimbus clouds near the top of the typical thunderstorm, where a high positive charge (electron deficient) often resides. "Positive lightning" that forms in this region has a descending stepped leader that will carry an apparent positive charge as electrons rush to the top of the cloud leaving positive charged molecules behind. When this "positive pulse" reaches the ground electrons will flow from the ground to cloud--the opposite of the usual electron flow. Positive lightning is particularly dangerous since it originates in the upper levels of a storm cloud several kilometers higher than a typical lightning strike.[9] The amount of air the strike must "burn through" to reach the ground requires a much stronger electric field.

calling positive lighting much rarer

See this section

Positive lightning See also: High voltage#Lightning

This is the best known and second most common type of lightning. Of all the different types of lightning, it poses the greatest threat to life and property since it strikes the ground. Cloud-to-ground (CG) lightning is a lightning discharge between a cumulonimbus cloud and the ground. It is initiated by a leader stroke moving down from the cloud.

where its called best known and second most common. See the following descrying cloud to cloud

Observation by satellite show that about 75% of all lightning strikes are cloud to cloud with only

Gary johnson 53 (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The implication that positive lightning is synonymous with cloud-to-ground lightning is an error introduced by 24.4.47.82 on July 13. I'll add some cleanup tags to the top of the article and try to correct it later. Melchoir (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thunder

"Consequently, a lightning strike observed at a very close distance will be accompanied by the sound of a tremendous snap, the smell of ozone (O3) and possible death."

I think a citation is needed for the "death" part. Skaizun (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Since the section is about thunder, and I doubt thunder has ever caused death, I deleted that portion of the sentence for lack of relevance.Boneyard90 (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I am this article's reckoning

There's so much clutter that the only way to save this article is to burn it to the ground split most of its content into daughter articles per Wikipedia:Summary style. I also intend to clarify the roles of the Thunderbolt and Lightning strike articles. More to come! Melchoir (talk) 08:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I've done a precis of the lead - only a draft but I think it's at least readable. Of course if you/others change the article then the lead will need revisiting. Good luck Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Section to be merged (if useful)

The following section was tagged as disputed and overlapping too much with the rest of the article. I've therefore moved it here. If you find anything in it you want to merge into other sections of the article, please go ahead and do that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

"A typical lightning strike"

Animation, based on high speed photography, depicting cloud to cloud lightning in Toulouse, France.

The turbulent rising moist warm air flow combined with rain drops and ice crystals rising and falling though different temperature zones and electrical fields typical of cumulonimbus clouds may cause different parts of the cloud to accumulate an excess of positive or negative charge. Usually the top of the cloud which may be as cold as -40°C (-40°F) is composed of small ice crystals charged positively with the middle of the cloud charged negative with a possible small zone at the base of the cloud of positive charge. A large accumulation of charge gives rise to strong electrical fields in the clouds and induces fields on the ground of the opposite polarity. Electric fields accelerate charged particles.

this is decent, but technical issues, particularly at the end.... no "fields are induced", rather the negative charged bottom induces a positive charge on the earth's surfaces... which establishes an electric field. I've addressed this in my changes in the new Cloud to Ground layout. Borealdreams (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Air is a great insulator but when this potential difference between either parts of a cloud charged differently or the cloud and ground exceed the local dielectric strength of air (about 2 to 3,000,000 volts/m (2 to 3 MV/m) a inside cloud (IC), cloud to cloud (CC), or cloud to ground (CG), a massive flow of electrons in a lightning stroke may be initiated. Paths in the air with higher electric fields or lower dielectric strength cause the electrons in a lightning strike to go though a tortuous path in the air, changing directions slightly or significantly every few centimeters or inches.

again technical wording issues... it's much more complex than this... you don't address the "pooling" process of the iconic channel that forms the stepped leaders. it's not just exceeding resistance of air... it does this over short distance, which you talk about in the second half. "stroke" is a technical term, not used correctly here... need to establish the ionic channel first. I've addresses this as well. Borealdreams (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Each major stroke of a lightning strike is usually about 50 m (150 ft) long and lasts about 1 to 2 microseconds with a pause of about 50 microseconds as more charge is accumulated before resuming another stroke in a slightly or significantly different direction. The front of a lightning strike is called a stepped leader and may split into many different paths--not all of them reach the ground giving rise to the phrase: forked lightning. The part of the stroke that reaches the ground nearly always carries most of the charge and is seen as the lightning bolt as electrons rush to the newly found highly conductive ionized air and low resistance path. In a typical cloud-to-ground strike, electrons descend from cloud base to ground.

again wording issues.... you're talking about the "legs" between pools of the ionic channel. "stroke" is the overall channel, once attachment & discharge occurs. Outside of the given numbers and time, which are correct, this is very poorly written as it confuses different parts of the process. addressed below Borealdreams (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Just before the strike leader reaches the ground, the charge in the step leader induces a huge electric potential in objects connected to the ground (some 10's of million volts), that brings up spikes of positive charge flow from high sharp objects, lightning rods, people, trees, etc., connected to the ground or water. After the descending and rising charge paths meet, massive amounts of charge flow in the 1 to 4 cm (.5 to 1.5 in) thick ionized channel of air centered in a lightning bolt channel—this massive flow of charged particles heats the air and gives the brightest part of a lightning strike. The stepped leader of a bolt of lightning may take on average about 20 milliseconds to reach the ground. Occasionally much longer lightning strokes occur which take more time. Once the downward and upward current flow impulses meet—a few metres or tens of metres above earth—a much more conductive connection is established between the cloud and the ground and the front edge of the return stroke electrons zip from the cloud at about 0.3-0.5 times the speed of light, c, on the highly ionized lightning stepped leader stroke path. Return currents may continue for several microseconds with three or more repeat strokes common. Subsequent lightning strokes following the ionized lightning channel are initiated by dart leaders.

again, you're not fully understanding the processes. values are correct, but not understanding streamer formation, attachment, and the discharge process. addressed below Borealdreams (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The return stroke with its much larger current flow produces the highly visible intense main lightning strike as it heats and ionizes the surrounding air in the lightning channel to about 30,000 degrees C (54,000 degrees F). This fast and massively heated ionized air in the lightning channel “explodes” creating the shock waves that within a few yards decay to loud sound waves we hear as thunder. Thunder, under ideal conditions, can be heard from over 20 km or 12 miles away. The relatively slow speed of sound (~340 m/s) and the extended length (5-6 km) of a typical lightning strike extends the sound of thunder over several seconds.

decent attempt... technical wording consistency is needed. use of words like plasma would help. It would be better approached by explaining the Discharge process... as it cycles back & forth (I believe the average is about 7 times) and further describe this. A second paragraph about "thunder" would then be wise, showing it is a result of the cycling discharge process. Also note, "rumbling" is not necessarily from this discharge cycling, it has more to do with the 3D nature of the stroke channel in relation to the person hearing it.... the strike termination might be 1 mile away, but the origin in the cloud may be 5 miles away... so the shockwave generated at each portion of the stroke channel reaches the person at different times. Borealdreams (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Multiple return strokes over the highly conductive ionized channel to different local charge locations about 0.5 km (0.3 mi) away from the original sources in the cloud may be needed to establish a larger volume of charge equilibrium. Sometimes return strokes take long enough to recur that they cause the lightning to flicker. A typical lightning flash has four return strokes spaced a few tens of milliseconds apart but over 30 return strokes have been observed. Although resolvable with high speed photography and other instruments a typical lightning strike occurs much faster than the human eye can see it so it appears as a single bright flash of lightning lasting a few tenths of a second.

decent, but again technical wording is substituted with ambiguous words that sound better for reading. "four return strokes" can't you substitute this with "4 cycles"? And then you use "a typical lightning strike", "a typical lightning flash" interchangeably, when flash is a technical term (is it not the entire process?) and then use "bright flash" in a non technical manner to describe it. See again, word choice matters. Borealdreams (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Dependent on the location and time of year about 5 to 10% of lightning is positive lightning that originates mainly in the "anvil" of cumulonimbus clouds near the top of the typical thunderstorm, where a high positive charge (electron deficient) often resides. "Positive lightning" that forms in this region has a descending stepped leader that will carry an apparent positive charge as electrons rush to the top of the cloud leaving positive charged molecules behind. When this "positive pulse" reaches the ground electrons will flow from the ground to cloud—the opposite of the usual electron flow. Positive lightning is particularly dangerous since it originates in the upper levels of a storm cloud several kilometers higher than a typical lightning strike.

I don't know if I'd try to describe the process again, other than noting it comes from higher in the cloud, is a much rarer occurrence, "charge" flow happens in the opposite direction as negative lightning. And although positive lightning is far more dangerous, and you mention this, but why just because it comes from higher is it more dangerous??? Borealdreams (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The amount of air the strike must "burn through" to reach the ground requires a much stronger electric field. The current flow is typically much stronger than a negative strike. Its flash duration is longer, and its peak charge and potential can be ten times greater than a negative strike; as much as 300,000 amperes and well over several billion volts. Positive lightning, though typically rarer, can be the dominate type of cloud-to-ground (CG) lightning during the winter months and in the last stages of a thunderstorm. Positive lightning typically strikes at the edge of a storm but can strike up to 10 km (6 mi) from a storm. The positively charged upper parts of the cumulonimbus cloud has been identified as a major source of the recently discovered sprites, elves, blue flashes and other lightning like phenomena observed well above the clouds, 30 to 95 km (20 to 60 mi) in altitude, well above the parent thunderstorm clouds which typically stop at about 15 km.

High speed photographs of a lightning storm show the step wise development of lightning strikes.

Stages of a thunderstorm's life. Most lightning usually occurs in the mature stage with positive lightning possible in the dissipating stage.

An average bolt of negative lightning carries an electric current of about 30,000 to 100,000 amperes (30-100 kA) at a voltage of over a billion volts.

The current in a lightning strike can raise the temperature of sand high enough to fuse the silica in it into glass channels known as fulgurites, which are normally hollow and can sometimes extend as much as several meters into the ground. Water in trees can be heated enough to cause them to explode and/or set the tree on fire--a leading cause of forest fires.

the above are properties of lightning, which I agree are not addressed very well anywhere in the wikisphere but are important. these should be in their own section imho. Borealdreams (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The most lightning deaths occur to people exposed in an open field or on water where they are the highest local object and most likely to attract a lightning strike. Lightning hitting a tree with people under it is the second leading cause of lightning deaths. Isolated trees are typically the highest object around and attract lightning--the danger in a forest of trees is reduced. The safest places to be if lightning threatens are inside a building with metal plumbing and wiring which conduct the electricity away from you, or inside a metal-bodied and metal-roofed vehicle which acts as a faraday cage. Cars are usually safe because lightning induced current and voltage stay outside the metal surrounding the typical passenger compartment and do not penetrate inside--the skin effect that makes Faraday cages work. The rubber tires on a motorcycle, etc. or the fabric topped convertible offer no protection. If Lightning Roars Stay Indoors.

this does not even address step potential, which kills more than direct lightning strikes themselves. do any of these sources dissect whether it was direct strike or step potential? Borealdreams (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The average peak power output of a single lightning stroke is about one trillion watts — one terawatt (10¹² W), and the stroke lasts for about 30 to 90 microseconds. Most of the energy is dissipated in creating the ionized air channel and thunder.

could be added to the "lightning properties" section. Also, "in creating the ionized air channel and thunder".... technically not right.... the stroke channel has already been created in the stepped leader formation. Thunder is the result of cycling discharge, so this does not dissipate energy, the discharge process DOES. The values are probabaly correct, but the understanding/description is not. Borealdreams (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• overall a decent attempt, but too many technical wording issues Borealdreams (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Simply Summary for all questions regarding direction of flow of cahrges

Thunder can be caused either with
1."cloud positive and earth negative"
2."cloud negative and earth positive"
3."cloud positive and cloud negative"

Most common are 1 and 3. the occurrence of 2 is very rare.
The rest regarding direction of flow of charges and ions follows just like in a Cathode_ray_tube — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsravan4 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"Thunder" is caused by the collapsing ionic channel [plasma] during lightning discharge. All those choices are related to lightning, not thunder. "Current flows" is not correct either, as it flows back and forth in every lightning event, cycling.... and that is why lightning is described more in agreement with alternating current, than direct current.... so your relationships are off again, so I don't know if it has any similarities to cathode ray tube. Borealdreams (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Flash

Is Flash and Lighning the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.17.255.110 (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

No. Spirit469 (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

not very helpful of an answer. :( there are words used by the general public to describe lightning, and then there are specific uses of the words used in the discussion of lightning from a scientific standpoint to describe the different processes.... unfortunately, they are often used interchangeably without understanding of their differences. I have thought about putting together a glossary of terminology related to lightning, but it quickly got ix-nayed when I proposed it for an AfC. Borealdreams (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Dark Lightning

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBOolkHVG_Q . Just want to share this. Could be merged into the article as subsection. --McZusatz (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Reworking this article with regards to Cloud to Ground lightning formation

Lightning#Development_of_Cloud_to_Ground_Lightning - There was decent info in here originally, but much was missing, and technical wording, as pertains to the study of lightning was inserted and maintained....words do have specific meanings, so please refrain from using editorial license in word choice for readability. I really don't want to get involved with other aspects of this page, however I know with a high level of accuracy from direct experience with the subject matter and an extensive amount of research into it. Thanks & more than willing to debate on technical merits. PS there are some minor typos, etc., but I don't have time to address right now, but soon will. Borealdreams (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The section is a good start, but it really needs more references to reliable secondary sources. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, & I agree. I wrote/edited it last night off the cuff, but I know it is "source-able", given it is technically accurate & I'm open to anyone interested in assisting. My comfort level (technically) is only in Cloud to Ground, channel formation & the process of a "bolt of lightning", but that carries thru to all the other types as well. I'm going to add in the next section, "A Glossary of Lightning Related Terminology"... that is partial, but also accurate. I believe, with following these "standards" instead of using "editorial license for word choice", it can greatly improve the quality of this article. Borealdreams (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Terminology of Lightning - Word choice makes a difference, please observe

This is a glossary to help readers AND editors of Wikipedia understand the complexities of lightning important to the field of lightning protection systems. I welcome additions, corrections, etc., it's a work in progress, but it's important given so many technical words are ambiguous with general words associated with lightning. :) Borealdreams (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Air Terminal - A class of devices of various manufacturing and design whose primary function is to be the preferred termination point of a lightning flash. They may influence the establishment of the ionic channel drawing it to a desired location, and by lightning wire or 'building steel conductors, route the strike to earth. Lightning rods are an air terminal.

• Atmospheric Transient - The spatial neutralization of charges on the cloud and ground surfaces during a lightning discharge results in a near instantaneous collapse of the slowly developed, previously existent electric field. This rapid variation in the electric field inducts a momentary electric current in any conductive object within this space, that can travel outward far beyond where the field collapsed, causing damage to any electrical equipment incapable of handling the surge.

• Attachment - The process by which any downward leader "connects" to any available upward streamer. This process is not fully understood, but much research is dedicated to understanding it more fully. Air terminals attempt to influence where this occurs.

• Conductor - Any [generally] metallic object that can be energized to transfer electricity. Wires are primary examples of conductors, however under lightning conditions many objects; rocks, wood, can conduct the discharge as well.

• Cloud-to-Ground (CG) - The primary form of lightning that effects mankind. Often referred to as downward negative as negative charges usually initiate the process. Enormous resources are both dedicated & spent in designing measures to protect structures and other earth bound objects from its effects. Ground-to-Cloud positive is also possible, but the process is similar to CG. Massive positive lightning can also originate in the anvil/top of the cloud. When positive charges are the initiator for leaders, the discharges are called positive lightning.

• Discharge - The neutralization of two oppositely charged areas when a conductive pathway has been established between them. On the small scale it is called a spark, on the large it is what we commonly know as lightning. In relation to lightning, the conductive pathway through the air is a visible channel composed of free electrons and ionized air - a plasma.

• Dissipation - The act of dispersing a concentrated substance, i.e., smoke, heat, charge. It is often used interchangeably in contradiction to itself within LPS discussions.

• Dissipate a strike termination - Providing a direct path to ground where the enormous amount of energy can be dispersed to earth in a very short period of time. (Air to the ground)... ground grids & ground rods provide a contact to the "dirt" of the earth... the larger the surface area, the lower the effective impedance. Although, too much can be "wasteful" as each has a zone of influence & they may overlap, reducing their cost to effect efficiency.
• Dissipation of surface charge - The slow release of induced charge on a surface through point ionization in an electric field. (Ground to air) In this form, it is used to describe moving charge from earth to the atmosphere, corona discharge and St. Elmo's fire are examples.

• Earth Current Transient - The surface charge that rushes through the Earth towards the termination point during the lightning discharge, commonly referred to as ground current, results in electric field fluctuation across any buried conductors; cables, wires or metallic pipes. As with atmospheric transients, these voltage surges can cause permanent damage to the insulation within the cables and to unprotected electrical devices attached to either end of the subsurface conductors.

The step potentials created by ground currents during the discharge process are responsible for more injuries or death than direct lightning strikes themselves.

• Flash – The sum total of all the complex processes of a single lightning event, including both what is invisible and what is visible or discernible to the human eye. It is the everything of a lightning. The strokes, stepped leaders, restrikes, dart leaders, ion channels, streamers, the bright light, flicker, branches, discharge, etc.

• Flash Density - Scientific recording of lightning thru detecting properties of the flash using satellites and ground based detector systems. The Democratic Republic of the Congo is the worldwide leader of strikes per area, in the United States, central Florida has the highest probability for lightning terminations.[1]

• Franklin System - A common name in the industry for a lightning protection system using lightning rods for air terminals.

• Ground - As relates to electrical conductor's interface to Earth through an electrode.

• Ground Rise Potential - When lightning terminates to earth it creates a spike in the local electric potential of the earth relative to more distant grounded points. This mechanism can have adverse effects on facilities that are physically far apart, with separated ground systems but are interconnected via signal and/or power cables. The spike in electric potential on the earth caused by lightning strike to one facility will cause the voltage potential the ground system to spike as well. Since the ground system of one facility is connected indirectly to the other facility’s ground system through the signal and/or power wires, electricity will naturally flow from one ground system to the other in an attempt to equalize the electric potentials. The electric transient current flow through the unintended paths of the signal and/or power wires may cause damage to the electrical equipment along the way.

Its affect may be referred to as earth potential rise and is similar in nature to man-made hazards (fault current) common to electrical substations.

• Induction (electrostatic)- The redistribution of electrical charge in an object, caused by the influence of nearby electrical charges. Electrostatic induction was discovered by British scientist John Canton in 1753 and Swedish professor Johan Carl Wilcke in 1762. Electrostatic induction creates oppositely charged regions underneath charged clouds and may also be involved in cloud electrification processes. Electrostatic induction should not be confused with electromagnetic induction.

• Induction (electromagnetic) - The principle based on Faraday's Law of Induction that a conductor exposed to a moving magnetic field will experience voltage of varying but predictable degrees. In LPS, this may be the result of an atmospheric Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) generated by a lightning flash or ground current passing by long lengths of conductors and creating a transient voltage, commonly referred to as a surge.

• Isokeraunic Number - A mapping system similar to a topographic map used to represent the average number of strikes a given area, not a specific object, will receive in a year. This was based on whether "thunder was heard" or "lightning was seen" prior to satellite & land based detection systems. It was crude, but it had its value for many years. Flash density detection's accuracy has replaced using Isokeraunic Number calculations for the most part.

• Lightning - In the industry, used commonly to discuss CG or GC strikes, flashes, strokes or lightnings. It is slightly ambiguous, but for commonspeak people understand it. Lightning protection systems are mostly used to protect physical structures on the Earth's surface, therefore discussion of other lightning forms, i.e., Cloud-to-Cloud or sprites are often not relevant. Airplanes and avionics being the notable exception.

• Lightning ElectroMagnetic Pulse (LEMP) - The lightning stroke channel, with its very high magnitude currents that rapidly change direction in a very short period of time, is a concentrated, mainly linear flow of electrons similar to a high voltage transmission line. The near instantaneous dynamics results in a circular magnetic field being generated that follows the "right-hand rule", propagating outward from all the flash channels that can induce transients on nearby conductors. [link to IEC:2010 62305-1 3.34]

• Lightning Protection System - LPS for short, this covers all forms of systems used to protect structures and property. It is not exclusive to lightning rod systems only, and covers surge protection devices, grounding, charge transfer systems, etc. [link to IEC:2010 62305-1 3.41-2]

• potential – The difference in oppositely charged areas across a space. Akin to a battery. Not to be confused with probabilities.

• rolling sphere model - A "theory" derived through scientific research and trial & error, that appears to model effectively the behavior of lightning in the areas of termination. It is used to design lightning protection systems, of all forms, to protect buildings and property. Due to infinite variety of protected structures and the nature of lightning itself, the rolling sphere model has eluded the abilities of researchers to prove indisputably, however it is the accepted standard used in the industry for designing LPS.

The Rolling Sphere Method is a geo-spacial representation used to model years of trial and error applications of air terminals as the preferred collection point. An expansion of the original concepts studied by Franklin, the standards exemplified by the RSM are as equally based in scientific understanding of lightning as they are to outside influences such as insurance industry concerns about lightning-caused damages.

• stepped leader, downward - It is a dimly visible channel composed of ions and free electrons that initially forms in the clouds and heads toward the earth. Its intensity determines ultimately its route, however it acts relatively predictably by shooting out in one direction, pooling, shooting out again, 2nd pool, shooting out again, pool, repeat in so it propagates in a series of steps. For simplicities' sake, it can be thought of as a wire hanging from the clouds, but not touching the earth. It is "searching" for a upward streamer, and once a connection is made, the flash is initiated.

• streamer, upward - This is a conductive plasma channel that forms from the ground up, similar to a downward leader, however much shorter. It usually originates from elevated pointed objects that may already be exhibiting localized electrical breakdown, commonly referred to as St. Elmo's fire. When the electrical field at these points increases (from the presence of descending stepped leaders), the corona evolves into longer "fingers" of plasma (streamers) that point upwards as they are attracted to the approaching downward leader(s). Once a leader "attaches" to a streamer, a full-fledged lightning discharge is initiated.

• strike - Common nomenclature for a CG flash termination to earth, or a GC flash that was initiated by a very high structure or landmass and terminated in the clouds.

• stroke – Electrical discharge components of a single lightning flash, it is characterized as the current flow, which continues (often over a series of transient pulses, until charge neutralization has occurred. The repetitive pulses are responsible the visible stroboscopic effect often seen in lightning.

• surge protection device (SPD) - General & specific name for wide variety of products used to minimize the damage to electronics and electrical devices as a result of both direct termination and induced transient voltages within conductors. Lightning arrestors, data line protectors and transient voltage surge suppressors are all examples.

• Termination – The physical location at which a lightning flash makes contact with a solid object. Also referred to as a strike or lightning strike.

• Thunderstorm - Is the atmospheric phenomena that is responsible for most Cloud-to-Ground lightning terminations. A thundercloud is a singular unit within the general thunderstorm system capable of producing lightning and is an understood reference point in scientific discussions.

Proposal to Merge Articles

This is messy, and the topic has branched into 3 different pages. I propose to merge content from 2 pages, Lightning strike and Thunderbolt, into this one. After that, we can work on improving the overall quality of our coverage of this topic, and clean up the sources. Spirit469 (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Disagree - cleanup and maybe split. the Thunderbolt is based on a theological reference of which all others are derived.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Lightning strike could perhaps be merged here although it's pretty long - this article doesn't talk about strikes much at all, suprisingly. Thunderbolt should stay where it is, as it's more about the symbolic depcition of lightning than the actual phenomenon. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I also agree that maybe lightning strike could be merged with this lightning article. The thunderbolt article appears to be at least partly non-meteorologically based, so I would leave that article separate (with appropriate links between that article & this lightning article here of course). Guy1890 (talk) 07:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with merge completely. Utter redundancy between the three. Shadowjams (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Disagree with merge for good reasons

Can we hold off on the across the board merge, noting the revisions, edits & additions I have made to the lightning page??? I believe "lightning strike" has a stand alone place now as a significant factor when it comes to man, man-made objects and CG/GC lightning to Earth, however it is a subset of the overall phenomenon of lightning itself. I have removed many instances of the word "strike" erroneously used to describe the overall event of a lightning "flash", and see the importance of maintaining this to differentiate between much more common IC & CC lightning and ground based interaction of CG/GC where the word "strike" has contextual meaning. Overall, just looking at "Lightning Strike" briefly, it is in pretty good shape, and could use some minor revisions allowing for it to maintain its stand alone status. Thanks! Borealdreams (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Charge polarity in clouds well established - holding place

Charge polarity occurring in clouds is well established albeit not fully explained. IMHO I think these hypotheses just confuse the explanation of lightning, and would be better discussed [if not already] in the thunderstorm page. Borealdreams (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

There are several hypotheses for the origin of charge separation.

• Cloud particle collision hypothesis

According to this cloud particle charging hypothesis, charges are separated when ice crystals rebound off graupel. Charge separation appears to require strong updrafts which carry water droplets upward, supercooling them to between −10 and −40 °C (14 and −40 °F). These water droplets collide with ice crystals to form a soft ice-water mixture called graupel. Collisions between ice crystals and graupel pellets usually result in positive charge being transferred to the ice crystals, and negative charge to the graupel.

Updrafts drive the less heavy ice crystals upwards, causing the cloud top to accumulate increasing positive charge. Gravity causes the heavier negatively charged graupel to fall toward the middle and lower portions of the cloud, building up an increasing negative charge. Charge separation and accumulation continue until the electrical potential becomes sufficient to initiate a lightning discharge, which occurs when the distribution of positive and negative charges forms a sufficiently strong/high electric field.

• Polarization mechanism hypothesis

The mechanism by which charge separation happens is still the subject of research. A hypothesised mechanism is polarization, which has two components:

1. Falling droplets of ice and rain become electrically polarized as they fall through the earth's magnetic field;
2. Colliding/rebounding cloud particles become oppositely charged.

Sections 1, 2 & 3 Cleanup, Revisions & Additions

I have done some major edits & cleanup of these 3 sections following Wikipedia:Be_bold's principle. Minus some minor typos, it is factually accurate, and there are a few "old lines" out of place that either need new homes for them found or removed all together. Please help me to source these changes versus reverting the edits, as they are out there and I will attempt to do so as well.

I am working on reorganizing other areas as well, but running out of time.

Thanks for your cooperation and input. :)

Can someone add in a header note after the "contradictions/factual accuracy" drawing attention to revisions are currently under way, question accordingly. I know not how to do so. Borealdreams (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

What you require is the {{under construction|section}} tag. I B Wright (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

"Staccato" & DryThunder/Lightning/Storms, I need help on pls

"Staccato"

Everything I am seeing out there is a cut & past from wiki that defines it, and wiki I know is not correct. I see everything from it is rare, to it is the most common, to it is highly branched, to it is a "single flash", which begs the questions; Is it the observer's opinion it is only one "flash" bc the eye cannot discern the multiple flickers being too rapid or is it only a single stroke? 90% of all flashes are 3 or more strokes... meaning Staccato, if it was only one stroke would be a rarity. A highly branched CG flash can be less likely than a more common primary flash channel with minor branches... leading to a "rarity" claim (and again an observer's perception, not more physically based).... but a high elevation, dry climate (say the intermountain western US) CG flash is generally just a primary channel, however on the US plains with separated thunderclouds & open space would have more occurrences of highly branched flashes.

In all reality, this observational vs actual conundrum, is what begs for a "general properties of lightning flashes" section to be added or greatly expanded.

"Dry Lightning"

Multiple pages all related, mostly stubs, but really should be in the Meteorology section, with brief descriptions & links to main article in this article. Anyone willing to take this on?

• Dry lightning - Just CG lightning that may strike outside the rainshadow
• Dry thunderstorm - Observational, see virga below & DL above
• Pyrocumulus - Yes, clouds that may form due to fire or volcanic activity, and lightning happens just like it happens in any other cloud. It doesn't form lightning any differently.
• Virga - Precipitation that doesn't reach the ground, see dry lightning & thunderstorms above. Virga is common in both my examples about Staccato lightning.
• Firestorm - Psuedo related to Pyrocomulus in the non-"as a weapon" sections, as well as Dry Lightning & Thunderstorms.

Borealdreams (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Data from the future

Under "General properties", it says:

World map showing frequency of lightning strikes, in flashes per km² per year (equal-area projection), from combined 1995–2003 data from the Optical Transient Detector and 1998–2015 data from the Lightning Imaging Sensor.

Obviously 2015 is wrong. I'm guessing it is meant to be 2005, but I'm just putting it out there someone more knowledgeable can fix it... Sarysa (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

That was likely a typo introduced by myself when I was cleaning up that section of the article in late March. I fixed it now...sorry. Guy1890 (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, upon further review, that edit was very recently introduced (as vandalism I guess) by User 50.194.119.253. Guy1890 (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Protection?

This article needs some type of permanent protection against consistent vandalism, mostly from IP-address Wikipedia users. Guy1890 (talk) 05:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Tall buildings

Should there be some mention of tall buildings in the "Human related" section? I can't make out if tall buildings actually cause more lightning strikes by creating a less conductive path to the clouds or just influence the path of a lightning strike that was going to occur anyway, but the fact that they do influence the path of lightning might be enough for inclusion in the section. (I recall reading years ago that the Empire State Building gets struck by lightning over a thousand times a year, which must be more than that area of ground would be struck if the Empire State Building were not there.)--Wikimedes (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Given that air is actually not a very good conductor of electricity, any tall objects over a given area will be more likely to be struck by lightning than the surrounding ground. That's why you never want to be the tallest object around when lightning is nearby. Guy1890 (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Earth-to-sky lightning?

A few years ago I read in Wikipedia that there were five types of lighting. Now it says three, but it later mentions ball lightning. What's missing is Earth-to-sky lightning. Any idea as to what happened to it? 2601:9:1000:45D:41B7:14CF:4E6B:31A5 (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the article here makes mention of the fact that cloud-to-ground (CG) lightning frequently has many individual strokes that go in both directions (down to the ground & up from the ground) over a very short period of time. Lightning can also go from cloud-to-air as well. Guy1890 (talk) 05:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Guy1890 is correct. I actually "cleaned" it up to three primary types of lighting, as when we look at it scientifically, i.e., how we can measure it with instruments, there are only 3 types with regards to where it it is initiated and where it "terminates"... Cloud to Cloud, Cloud to Ground or Ground to Cloud, where air can be considered "cloud". When you reference "Ball Lightning", the reality of it is, ball lightning is only a human perception limitation result. The flash (the overall event of lightning, both visible and invisible) is one of the three types, the "ball" effect is the perception we can see of different lengths of the flash channel's visibility decaying before your eyes.... the "balls" are the final visible sections of the flash channel illuminated. For the same reason birds can sit on a high voltage wire without problem, (no connection to earth) is the same reason why lightning cannot exist as "a ball". Hope this helps explain. Borealdreams (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Oops, sorry... I messed up myself. Three types IC, CC & CG, where CG is composed of 4 types depending on relative charge & origin; Negative downward, Positive downward, Negative upward, & Positive upward.... where the first, Negative Downward is the most common by far, however Positive Downward tends to have a much higher strength. Any in any of these flash types you could have "ball lightning" depending on decay rates and where the observer is watching from. cheers Borealdreams (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Charge separation

What is known about the mechanism of charge separation giving rise to lightning (however little) should be described on this page. Under "Establishing conditions necessary for lightning" there is a reference to the Thunderstorm page, but charge separation is not explained there either. Or have I missed something?--Wdanbae (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The short answer is...it's a complicated & controversial topic. The longer answer that I remember decades ago from getting my degree in meteorology went something along the lines of...the Earth's surface has an inherent charge to it (I think it's a positive charge?), which somehow induces the opposite charge onto the bottom of clouds. Updrafts within a developing cumulonimbus cloud cause a separation of charge to occur between the top & bottom of the cloud, and when this charge separation becomes large enough...a lightning strike occurs. I might have gotten some of that brief description slightly wrong, but the theory never seemed totally well thought out to me decades ago when I first heard of it. Guy1890 (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, complex and controversial too! To describe the complex process and follow the guidelines of wiki to do it is almost impossible and results in an incomprehensible explanation of the process. I think I snuck in a pretty good "uncited" explanation that seems to have stuck! ;) When it comes to charge separation in the clouds, there is indeed a process (that I'm not fully sure of) but however that process happens, it really has no direct bearing on how lightning forms if we just accept that the charge separation does in fact happen and knowing it can be theoretically modeled to be in different regions, we can then explain the process of lightning flash formation and discharge. Cheers Borealdreams (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Lightning prone places

Id like to include Darwin, Australia in the list of most lightening prone places. Its the most lightening prone city in Australia and has four times the lightening strikes per square kilometre than Florida which rates a mention. The article on Darwin has links to sources for its claim to be a lightening hotspot but I dont know how to either edit an article or link to sources. Is this something anyone else would be able to update please? Ta 58.169.213.78 (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

If you could provide a link that would be great. If you could find something that gives Darwin's Isokerauntic Number or Flash Density that would substantiate or disprove the "claim". Florida gets a mention simply because it is & was a hotbed for research into lightning and much of our understanding of it originates from Florida... think of NASA for a start. The dry peninsula with two warm bodies of water on either side, make it a unique lightning formation area/type. Not diminishing Darwin, just stating the reality. cheers Borealdreams (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a thought...

http://charles794.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/44-lightning.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.17.240 (talk) 09:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 122.151.17.240 (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This talks about potential through the air, but uses non-descript details and is far from "modeling" specific. Upon finishing reading it, understanding how lightning works, I am left with the idea that "discharge" occurs in this massive, 3-dimensional rectangle that comes down from the sky using every water molecule/impurity in the air as the conductive path. We know this is not the case, and in fact the conductor, the flash channel, is an ionized "tube" of sorts only a couple of centimeters in diameter if that. Also, the potential in the air is realitively accurate, however it fails to mention the increases due to a storm cloud passing are significant, and the origin of lightning from a clear sky is non-existant (traveling miles from a storm cloud, the "bolt from a blue", comes from a cloud, not clear sky). PS, it's an unsourced blog at that. Borealdreams (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Computer simulation?

There should probably be a subsection under Scientific study, that is about the computer simulation of lightning. I know too little about it, though, to be able to write such a subsection, but I found a paper about it (Physically Based Animation and Rendering of Lightning) which is at least start. —Kri (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Great Kri! That would be nice, but it is such a complex topic I'm not sure it is worth more than just a reference given the fact this page has in the past become such a tangled mess. Cleaning it up was no easy feat. You would be interested to know, there is a wikieditor here who makes art work based on the understanding written about in this paper. Can't recall his username, but his work is pretty amazing! Borealdreams (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is also something, even though it looks like it is just a student work of some kind: Real-Time Modelling and Rendering of Lightning. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be very much written on the subject. —Kri (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Dark lightning

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)

Path of Least Resistance

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)