Cold Heat from Canada, a documentary.

[Electrodynamic]

In reply #235, picture #2 in a yellow border you outline a cell/microwave tower yet in the original picture #3 of the ball lightning [...] ball lightning [...] ball lightning.

You are doing it again: assuming the phenomenon is ball lightning without questioning it. If you want to be taken seriously you need to be much more neutral and do less of the blind acceptance. The current state of the science is:

1/ We don't know for sure that ball lightning exists as a real physical phenomenon, although there is anecdotal and photographic evidence in support of its existence.

2/ If ball lightning does exist as a physical phenomenon, it appears to display features which cannot be reconciled with our current understanding of physics. Examples of currently unexplainable features are: maintaining a ball shape over time; sustaining itself for up to 90 seconds with no apparent source of energy; the reported ability to pass through solid materials such as glass and metal.

So clearly we need to be much more circumspect about making assumptions.

I see the ball lightning problem as being similar to the problem of rouge waves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_wave. The problem is the rarity of the events which many often confuse with a lack of proof or existence. In some cases of rouge waves, the Ucluelet wave, the odds of the event are once every 1300 years or 16–18 lifetimes. Here were talking about the odds of observing a rare event being on par with winning the lottery.

If you want to be taken seriously you need to be much more neutral and do less of the blind acceptance

In my opinion, “Conformity is the last refuge of the uncreative.”, Oscar Wilde. “Conformity is the death of innovation.”, Albert Einstein. It's weird, many would suppose we should be more normal or neutral or average but it basically guarantees we will never do anything of consequence that matters imo. So I like to go out on a limb, not because I believe anything without reservations, more so to make the argument against normalcy. Not because I think I'm smarter or better more so to learn. I always disagree just to see what happens.

[paul cotter]

" I always disagree just to see what happens"
does that make you a disagreeable character?

[SteveThackery]

In my opinion, “Conformity is the last refuge of the uncreative.”, Oscar Wilde. “Conformity is the death of innovation.”, Albert Einstein. It's weird, many would suppose we should be more normal or neutral or average but it basically guarantees we will never do anything of consequence that matters imo. So I like to go out on a limb, not because I believe anything without reservations, more so to make the argument against normalcy. Not because I think I'm smarter or better more so to learn. I always disagree just to see what happens.

What a ridiculous argument. The people you accuse of conformity (eg me, and presumably several others) are not conforming to anything. Take me, for example: I am sceptical. Scepticism is one of science's superpowers; it ensures that evidence must meet a high bar before being embraced. This is a Good Thing.

Most scientific progress is made by scientists - people who are trained in the scientific method and apply it rigorously.

You continually betray your own psychology with these silly arguments. You seem desperate to be "different" or "interesting", and certainly you strive to appear "highly accomplished", but in reality your limitations are all too evident.

You are not "non-conforming": you are gullible and credulous. Others on this thread are not "conforming", they are sceptical and rigorous.

[Electrodynamic]

SteveThackery
We can agree to disagree, I just found your argument lacking.

1/ We don't know for sure that ball lightning exists as a real physical phenomenon, although there is anecdotal and photographic evidence in support of its existence.

I'm pretty sure the people who actually observed ball lightning think it exists. For example, in 2012 researchers in China captured a lightning strike which hit the ground produced a glowing, 5-meter-wide sphere that floated for roughly 1.6 seconds. The researchers recorded the rare phenomenon using high-speed video cameras and spectrographs. The spectrometers provided crucial evidence for its physical composition by revealing high levels of silicon, iron and calcium also present in the ground. Which begs the question, how much evidence is required?.

2/ If ball lightning does exist as a physical phenomenon, it appears to display features which cannot be reconciled with our current understanding of physics. Examples of currently unexplainable features are: maintaining a ball shape over time; sustaining itself for up to 90 seconds with no apparent source of energy; the reported ability to pass through solid materials such as glass and metal.

This is the most common objection but I find the reasoning backwards. First, we know the phenomena is caused by a large lightning strike which is a high energy plasma event. As such we know where the energy to create and maintain the plasma ball comes from. Second, Researchers have also produced glowing plasma spheres from HV discharges in materials which is well documented. So we can say with a great deal of certainty the only thing which has changed is that the plasma spheres in question are much larger and last longer than expected. Which should be no mystery because the energy input from a large lightning strike is magnitudes greater than that produced in a lab. In effect, what the critics are claiming is that the plasma science we already know cannot happen on larger scales.

On the reported ability to pass through solid materials such as glass and metal this is an outlier. Why would we discount all the demonstrable plasma science we already know just because a few people claimed to see something weird?.

[SteveThackery]

This is the most common objection but I find the reasoning backwards. First, we know the phenomena is caused by a large lightning strike which is a high energy plasma event. As such we know where the energy to create and maintain the plasma ball comes from.

We don't - we assume. But a sustained phenomenon leads to complications. We need to explain: a/ how a short-lived pulse of energy can sustain the plasma over a minute or so - energy storage and release is necessary; or b/ another energy source that is continuously available for the duration of the "plasma" ball.

Second, Researchers have also produced glowing plasma spheres from HV discharges in materials which is well documented.

No! (I just knew you would say that.) As of now it is not clear that the short-lived laboratory phenomena have anything to do with ball lightning. They might be linked, but it is wrong (and typical) of you to accept that without question. When a lab experiment is set up to produce a (short-lived) ball of "plasma", it's not that surprising that it produces a short-lived ball of plasma. The evidence linking the two phenomena is definitely not there yet.

So we can say with a great deal of certainty the only thing which has changed is that the plasma spheres in question are much larger and last longer than expected.

Not a great deal of certainty - scientifically speaking it is far too early to use the term "certainty". And you are wrong to say "the only thing which has changed". The reason is that there are several ways of producing glowing balls in a lab, and it isn't clear which, if any, is ball lightning in miniature. Microwave interference in a waveguide; high voltage discharges in a tank of water; glowing nanoparticles; oxidation of vaporised silicon...... All have produced glowing balls (although I don't know which of these are widely reproducible).

On the reported ability to pass through solid materials such as glass and metal this is an outlier. Why would we discount all the demonstrable plasma science we already know just because a few people claimed to see something weird?.

Ah - so we reject evidence just because it is inconvenient?  And no, we aren't discounting "all the demonstrable plasma science we already know". Exactly the opposite: if we embrace the whole of plasma science, we end up unable to explain the spherical shape, the long duration, and the (reported) ability to pass through solid materials.

[paul cotter]

Sure, it's possible to generate a glowing ball of plasma but for how long after the power is turned off? The duration of ball lightning is a huge problem as these plasma effects which are produced in the lab disperse rapidly once the source is turned off. All energetic effects rapidly dissipate unless there is an ongoing energy source.

[Electrodynamic]

SteveThackery

We don't - we assume. But a sustained phenomenon leads to complications. We need to explain: a/ how a short-lived pulse of energy can sustain the plasma over a minute or so - energy storage and release is necessary; or b/ another energy source that is continuously available for the duration of the "plasma" ball.

I don't think it's that complicated, a small energy input in a lab produces a small plasma ball. A massive lightning strike with magnitudes more energy produces a larger plasma ball which lasts longer. There is no need to introduce another energy source only to explain how the energy already present from the lightning is conserved.

No! (I just knew you would say that.) As of now it is not clear that the short-lived laboratory phenomena have anything to do with ball lightning. They might be linked, but it is wrong (and typical) of you to accept that without question. When a lab experiment is set up to produce a (short-lived) ball of "plasma", it's not that surprising that it produces a short-lived ball of plasma. The evidence linking the two phenomena is definitely not there yet.

I'm not accepting anything just pointing out the similarities between plasma balls in nature and those produced in a lab. logically, if we could not produce smaller plasma balls in a lab then the odds of ball lightning would be much lower.

Not a great deal of certainty - scientifically speaking it is far too early to use the term "certainty". And you are wrong to say "the only thing which has changed". The reason is that there are several ways of producing glowing balls in a lab, and it isn't clear which, if any, is ball lightning in miniature. Microwave interference in a waveguide; high voltage discharges in a tank of water; glowing nanoparticles; oxidation of vaporised silicon...... All have produced glowing balls (although I don't know which of these are widely reproducible).

"Chinese researchers, led by Jianyong Cen and Ping Yuan from Northwest Normal University in Lanzhou, captured the first-ever scientific video recording of natural ball lightning. A cloud-to-ground lightning strike hit the dirt, causing a glowing sphere (approximately 5 meters wide) to rise and travel horizontally about 15 meters before vanishing. The spectrograph revealed the ball contained silicon, iron, and calcium—the exact same elements found in the local soil."

The odds of anyone reproducing this kind of event are basically zero which may explain why the events are so rare. I mean, were talking about voltages up to 1 billion volts and currents exceeding 100,000 amperes in a large lightning strike. Temperatures can reach 30,000°C which is roughly five times hotter than the surface of the Sun.

So it's not as if we have no credible evidence of ball lightning imo.

[SteveThackery]

So it's not as if we have no credible evidence of ball lightning imo.

There you go: we don't disagree. There is some evidence for it, some of it quite credible. I think the scientific position is correct: there isn't yet enough objective evidence to declare ball lightning "proved", although that video you referenced definitely helps, and especially there is nothing like enough evidence to determine the exact mechanism for it.

So there we are: an interesting and intriguing phenomenon, with much mystery surrounding it.

[paul cotter]

Steve and Allcanadian not disagreeing? What has happened to the previously predictable world that I had become so comfortable with?

[SteveThackery]

Steve and Allcanadian not disagreeing? What has happened the previously predictable world that I had become so comfortable with?

I'm rather proud of myself - diplomacy doesn't come easily. 😅

[Electrodynamic]

So it's not as if we have no credible evidence of ball lightning imo.

There you go: we don't disagree. There is some evidence for it, some of it quite credible. I think the scientific position is correct: there isn't yet enough objective evidence to declare ball lightning "proved", although that video you referenced definitely helps, and especially there is nothing like enough evidence to determine the exact mechanism for it.

So there we are: an interesting and intriguing phenomenon, with much mystery surrounding it.

I get it and I'm not stuck on any given subject or interpretation. Unknowns are a problem for me and I just want to know how stuff works. It just so happens a lot of fringe stuff falls into this category.

[Chet]

So it's not as if we have no credible evidence of ball lightning imo.

There you go: we don't disagree. There is some evidence for it, some of it quite credible. I think the scientific position is correct: there isn't yet enough objective evidence to declare ball lightning "proved", although that video you referenced definitely helps, and especially there is nothing like enough evidence to determine the exact mechanism for it.

So there we are: an interesting and intriguing phenomenon, with much mystery surrounding it.

Bob Greenyer has proposed his theory/observation that it is toroids within toroids three or four layers deep at least. This, then, deserves (in his opinion) the appellation of "plasmoid" to indicate the conjunction of the two concepts of: toroidal plasma.

In other words, a simple coil wound around a toroidal core or bobbin is not enough. The coil, itself, must also become a toroid. And its coil must also become a toroid so that this multiple of cascading layers of toroids build up a cohesive boundary between itself and its surroundings to achieve a semblance of consistent preservation against its immediate dissipation.

The following image depicts how two hemispheres of energy, which emanate from out of the two sides of the topmost (macro) layer of a composition of multiple toroidal fields, form what looks like a ball of "lightning" but is actually more complicated.

[TimFox]

Toroids all the way down.

[paul cotter]

Oh Gawd, here we go again.

[Xena E]

🤪

[AVGresponding]

The only real mystery here is why anyone continues to respond to these nonsense threads.

[paul cotter]

I can explain: it is simply a matter of having a warped sense of humour- I find this stuff hilariously funny and for years I got my amusement from the free energy/overunity fora, unfortunately now defunct.

[Electrodynamic]

Chet
I found the most interesting part of the video to be the ferrocell. A magneto-optic device that visualizes magnetic fields in real-time. It uses a thin layer of ferrofluid—a liquid containing suspended magnetic nanoparticles.

It's weird that the textbooks still show an outdated magnetic field model based on iron filings and yet when they use much smaller nanoparticles with superior resolution we see all the missing details in the field. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304885318311090 . It makes sense, better tools yield better results imo.

It's also weird that many supposed experts claimed the bloch region was a myth. Yet now, using better tools, we have demonstrable evidence it exists. The bloch region made sense to me because one property cannot just transition into a different property without a region of transition. It's like saying white transitions to black without a line or region dividing the two which is nonsensical. Of course, the transition could be a line or gradient but logically there must be a region of transition.

I first noticed the bloch region around 2010 building hall effect sensor arrays to map magnetic fields. I was looking for ways to measure magnetic fields without any artificial interaction with the field. When we use iron filings the filing becomes polarized along it's length by induced magnetism. So what were actually seeing is the tendency for parallel filings to repel and series filings to attract. In effect, the field model is incorrect and changes with the length of the iron filings. Which is why smaller nanoparticles show much more detail and a different field structure than a large piece of iron.

This is why we need to be careful how we measure things and what we think were seeing in the measurement.

[SteveThackery]

I first noticed the bloch region around 2010 building hall effect sensor arrays to map magnetic fields.

I knew it! Whatever the breakthrough in whatever the field, Allcanadian did it first.

What a guy!

[Xena E]

I first noticed the bloch region around 2010 building hall effect sensor arrays to map magnetic fields.

I knew it! Whatever the breakthrough in whatever the field, Allcanadian did it first.

What a guy!

I can only assume he's talking about the transition boundary between magnetic domains in bulk  ferromagnetic materials which is termed a 'Bloch wall'. The concept has been understood since the early 1930's. It has some of its properties (such as, boundary spin) that the woo woo jockeys like to hang their fantasies on.

[paul cotter]

Indeed Xena, the Bloch wall is real but it occurs at the level of individual domains, NOT AT THE CENTRE OF A MAGNET, a serious misunderstanding that is rife in the free energy/overunity/woo-woo circles. Allcanadian, there is one field running through the magnet and there is no change in polarity- one end of the magnet is viewed with 180 degrees difference from the other end, just like a car approaching you and then departing appears to have changed direction despite having a constant speed. 

[Xena E]

Quite so.
The free energy/overunity/woo-woo clowns think that because words like "boundary spin" are sometimes used in its description, it has the potential to generate energy. The fact that this phenomenon is an almost infinitesimally small region procludes it being any practical use to the quest for a free energy, or whatever.

It's along the same level of absurdity as powering a car from a crystal radio.

[Chet]

Quite so.
The free energy/overunity/woo-woo clowns think that because words like "boundary spin" are sometimes used in its description, it has the potential to generate energy. The fact that this phenomenon is an almost infinitesimally small region procludes it being any practical use to the quest for a free energy, or whatever.

It's along the same level of absurdity as powering a car from a crystal radio.

Probably due to an insufficient frequency?

[Xena E]

Yeah, For sure... that will fix it 🙄

[paul cotter]