This somehow reminds me of the fact that you can produce (surprisingly high-quality) x-rays by unrolling scotch tape in a vacuum chamber[0][1]. I wonder if it turns out to be related in any way. Thunderstorms aren't a vacuum of course, but I dunno, maybe all that frozen hail being thrown around can bumping into each other still involves a similar underlying mechanism somewhere.
It was suprising to me when I heard it. How could we not know it would happen before hand? Doubt explanation of it needs new laws of physics, item is common place and yet we were all caught off-guard. Wonder who different other planets even in our own solar system are, even if we know all the laws of physics and chemistry that guide those reactions; never mind planets in other solar systems
When objects collide or are separated, aren't we really just witnessing tiny chemical reactions, all involving the absorption and/or release of energy?
I think that's a reasonable question, but no, I wouldn't say that that is the case. A chemical reactions is by definition the kind that involves changing the chemical composition of the molecules involved (yes, that's a bit handwavy, I'm not a chemist).
The process that causes tape to produce to x-rays when peeled in a vacuum in this example does involve a change of energy states, but not in a way that we'd consider a change in chemical composition.
Andrew Hall has hypothesized that plasma flow has a large part to play in thunderstorm formation and tornados. These surprising gamma rays mentioned in the article would seem to support Hall's hypothesis.
Hall's theories are well outside of the mainstream and I don't know his credentials, if any, and cannot speak to his hypothesis's veracity. I'm not a scientist. Would any actual scientists care to comment?
Positively charged particles end up at the top of the storm while negatively charged particles drop to the bottom, creating an enormous electric field that can be as strong as 100 million AA batteries stacked end-to-end.
Or put another way, 150 MV. What's with this media obsession with using obscure non-SI units?
> Somebody even created a website to facilitate conversion but unfortunately the TLS certificate has expired and Cloudflare now blocks access.
This is one of the main arguments I was using in discussions with people advocating unconditional use of HTTPS everywhere. Yes, in theory it's a good thing. Yes, in theory it should be a solved problem and you wouldn't see any broken websites anymore. In practice, we lost a small part of the Web.
Yesterday I considered writing a web scraper completely from scratch (just sockets). Without HTTPS, this is trivial. Of course, you lose out on much (most?) of the web, but I have a feeling most small / interesting sites would still be accessible.
I have found that, given a random sampling of web content, an extremely small fraction of it is interesting or useful to me (nor indeed is hardly any of it what I would consider high quality enough to use as the basis for the future governors of mankind!)
Even if you moved the entire TLS web to non-TLS, this is no longer trivial. The web requires Javascript to render, full stop. Fetching and parsing HTML alone is totally insufficient.
> The web requires Javascript to render, full stop.
A small correction: some parts of the new web require JavaScript to render.
That's why on many websites teh experience is better without JS. To be more specific, several paywalled websites can be accessed just by turning the JS off. You could even say the opposite is true in these cases: JS is being used to prevent text rendering.
A small part of the web that was either archived already, or wasn't interesting enough to be archived in the first place.
I get your sentiment but at some point you have to let go. Many websites die every day not because of obsolescence but because the author eventually stops renewing the domain or paying their hosting provider.
The worst are the money units! Instead of writing "40 millions dollars", they often omit the number, like "millions of dollars".
This means they only use three values: millions, billions, and thousands.
My best guess for why is that it's a way to not be wrong. If you print "40 millions", and it turns out to be 39, you've lied, which is considered far more bad than being vague.
In a local publication I follow they always round up or down to make the article easier to read. Sometimes they'll prefix the number with an "about" or "roughly" or "nearly" or whatever.
The actual number (if it's available as a fact) will be printed in the article somewhere, but headings, pull quotes and other call-outs will have some rounded number.
For example, recent article's first paragraph:
"Justice Minister Thembi Simelane took a loan of more than half a million rand from a company that brokered unlawful investments into VBS Mutual Bank by the Polokwane Municipality while she was mayor of the city in 2016. Pauli van Wyk explains what happened."
Further down in the article the "half a million rand" is revealed to be R575,600
> My best guess for why is that it's a way to not be wrong.
It's also often used to make things seem better or worse than they actually are. "Thousands of dollars" sounds like it's far more than for example $2,108.
Only a fabrication if it can't be sourced; otherwise, a source was wrong and you run a correction. When you don't have a number you're willing to point to even that far, that's when you leave it out entirely.
Amazing, and so is the associated article: "In a recent piece on red-giant star Mira, we rather foolishly suggested that the "comet-tailed" body was travelling across the heavens at roughly 150,000 times the speed of the average sheep."
The proper units for electric field would be voltage per unit length. Fortunately an electric eel has both a voltage and a length, so it could be eels per eel.
But familiarity gets more remote as you need larger and larger (or, smaller and smaller) multipliers. It's far more illustrative to say "the volume of a typical gas tank" than "the internal volume of hundred million poppy seeds", even though the volumes are in the same ballpark. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(voltage) says that high voltage substations are in 100 kV range and 25.5MV is "The largest man-made DC voltage – produced in a Van de Graaff generator at Oak Ridge National Laboratory" and gives me much better color than a "comparison" with 100 million batteries. (By the way, 100 million batteries stacked together is a bit over the length of one marathon - how many readers could easily tell you that just from the description alone? Much better to measure many lengths in marathons than 10^8's of battery lengths!)
How many have experience with AA batteries these days? How many with 100 million of anything, enough to get an idea of how much bigger that is than one of the thing? Probably all about the same numbers.
A "stack of AA batteries" as described would be a measure of electrical potential (i.e. voltage), not electric field strength (Volts / unit-length in the applicable dimension(s)).
It's been known for quite some time that high density static electric field "break-downs" generate electromagnetic radiation all throughout the spectrum--look at any wide-band antenna's reception next to any spark-gap generator. It doesn't take much--even the piezoelectric igniter on a grill wand will do it.
One can also generate X-rays by rapidly unrolling Scotch tape. It the same phenomena on a _much_ smaller scale. What's "new" here are the two distinct types of gamma discharges indicating (likely) very different field breakdowns--not that these gamma rays themselves are being produced.
They could've made it easier for laymen and laywomen to grok if they simply would've defined the volume of batteries in terms of how many Olympic-sized swimming pools one could fill with all those batteries.
I think they should have said 150MV regardless of the comparison, but some sort of "intuitive" illustrations is useful for non-specialists. But as other commenters have pointed out, millions of batteries is also unintuitive because you're trading an intuitive voltage for a completely unintuitive quantity.
I would have gone a different direction by making the voltages and quantities "almost intuitive" - say the electric field is as strong as hundreds of high-voltage substations (500 or so). Laypeople don't have an intuition on substations' physics but they do have an intuition on the economics (tons of homes and businesses depend on that thing) and therefore at least some appreciation for how powerful that voltage is. Likewise we can't visualize hundreds of anything, but we can (sort of) visualize a 20x20 rectangle and appreciate how many 400 is. So I think 400 HV substations is at least vaguely graspable.
Why use AA batteries? It's so hard to zap yourself with them. At least with a 9V battery you can lick it to get a sense of how much power is in them. Not that you could extrapolate that other than to get the sense that the electric field of the storm could vaporize you!
American American football fields are all the same size. But American Canadian football fields are all the same, different, size. And American Arena football fields are also all the same, different, size.
One form is stating hey, scientific fact that the audience may or may not understand. The other form uses language the audience understands specifically to build up their knowledge. Reducing their confusion also helps them enjoy the article.
So, the journalist are optimizing their writing style For the majority of people to understand and enjoy the writing. That’s probably the best way to write.
Yes, but that's only because societies basically gave up on trying to get better in such ways and laid back very deep in their 'comfort zone' for the lack of better words, laziness and fear of challenge may be another. You know, the place where ossification happens, be it in individuals or in millions.
Sweden switched to right hand driving in 1967, I don't think if they postponed it till today they would still dare (not bashing swedes in any way, happy to be wrong here). Now that's a brave move, and everybody gained from it. Imagine US switching say to left hand side if whole world would be driving like that... nope.
It doesn't matter if metric (of Celzius based on freakin' H2O states for fucks sake) system is vastly simpler, especially the less intelligent/educated one is (since we have 10 fingers in our face 24/7 and we learn counting on them), ego is too big, thus you guys measure in washing machines, football fields etc. You guys even fail to realize that whole US population would benefit, scientists don't care they will use whatever suits them and they are smart enough to not be slowed down by units used or their conversion.
Nice summary via great Nate Bargatze in this SNL sketch [1]. Its fun to make fun of but its also sad, because it really is pure ego game, nothing more and those are always childish and immature at their core, throttling the potential for greatness in hard to measure ways.
Well, 100kg of gas along with a similar ammount of oxygen. Even then, burning through 100kg of gasoline in the few microseconds of a lighting bolt would probably be more powerful than any non-nuclear bomb ever dropped.
I assume they wanted a way to make it sound massive when it’s really not. Like, that’s about enough to run the average American household for 10 years, but we have power plants that supply multiples of that daily.
I have studied radio comms at a hobby level and learned that the voltage of a close lightning strike isn't the main danger to equipment, it's also the strong surge of EMI that can overwhelm and fry things, and induce currents where they shouldn't be.
The genetic diversity of rainforests is largely an illusion and/or evo biologists looking for taxpayer funded safari expeditions.
Most of the biodiversity in rainforests is in megafauna and insects, largely because the megaflora are fumigating the shit out of the soil.
If you want a very high degree of biodiversity the place to look is temperate deserts, where the microbial diversity is extremely high -- probably because of intense competition for scarce resources plus boom/bust growth cycles driven by intermittent water and even a high degree of phased ecosystem overlay.
Of course that observation could also be evobiologists who like to go on taxpayer funded hiking junkets
> Most of the biodiversity in rainforests is in megafauna and insects
> If you want a very high degree of biodiversity the place to look is temperate deserts, where the microbial diversity is extremely high
This sounds a bit like that "you have more bacteria in your gut than you have cells in your body" fun fact. Which may be true in terms of individually countable cells, but in terms of weight it's another story.
In the same sense comparing the genetic diversity of megafauna and insects in one region to those of the bacteria in another is a bit disingenuous imo, because that's comparing two different ecosystem "categories".
IIUC, bacteria tend to leak genetic material between each other. Genes get swapped around a lot, and if some combos don't work out, well, there are uncountably other bacterial cells around. Meanwhile, megafauna and insects have much smaller populations that only swap genes through sexual reproduction, which recombines genes a lot more slowly. It's not a fair comparison.
If you dropped a thing through a storm to the water, would it charge the thing, from gamma radiation?
TIL carbon nano yarn absorbs electricity, probably from storm clouds too.
What are the volt and charge observations for lightning from large tropical thunderstorms?
(And why is it dangerous to attract arc discharge toward a local attractor? And what sort of supercapacitors and anodes can handle charge from a lightning bolt? Lightning!)
the phenomenon of "red sprites", massive discharges of electricity upwards into the ionosphere that counter every single lightning strike, are only now being observed and photographed.
these energy ejections are SO powerful, they temporarily cause miniature aurora displays for a split second, by ionizing the same layer of the atmosphere where they appear. it's amazing to see photos of it.
The wikipedia page actually has some incredible images as well, including several from space that show their scale and position in the atmosphere (high up)
yeah, its pretty cool how most of these photos they were trying to take a picture of something else and the red sprites just happened to be in the right place because of a storm front moving in.
Sprites and similar phenomena have been reported for many years by pilots and others, but scientists didn't believe them until recently because it didn't fit their flawed models. It's similar how scientists didn't believe centuries of stories about rogue waves from mariners until one was recorded with a buoy in 1995.
Does this help to explain the genetic diversity of the tropical latitudes; is the genetic mutation rate higher in the presence of gamma radiation?
So many of our plants and flowers (here in North America) originate from rainforests and tropical latitudes, but survive at current temps for northern latitudes.
> Gamma rays have been widely used as a physical agent for mutation creation in plants, and their mutagenic effect has attracted extensive attention. However, few studies are available on the comprehensive mutation profile at both the large-scale phenotype mutation screening and whole-genome mutation scanning.
> These results suggest that carbon ion beams produce complex DNA damage, and gamma-rays are prone to single oxidative base damage, such as 8-oxoguanine. Carbon ion beams can also introduce oxidative base damage, and the damage species is 5-hydroxycytosine. This was consistent with our previous results of DNA damage caused by heavy ion beams. We confirmed the causal DNA damage by mass spectrometry for these mutations.
[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07378
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o66AYhEIsU&
reply