[HN Gopher] Gamma radiation is produced in large tropical thunde...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Gamma radiation is produced in large tropical thunderstorms
        
       Author : wglb
       Score  : 145 points
       Date   : 2024-10-03 02:17 UTC (20 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (phys.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (phys.org)
        
       | cperciva wrote:
       | _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?
        
         | mhog_hn wrote:
         | I agree in giving flak for using the term AA batteries in this
         | context.
        
           | ctoth wrote:
           | Shots fired!
        
           | doodlebugging wrote:
           | 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.
        
           | shrubble wrote:
           | Subtly played!
        
         | throwaway314155 wrote:
         | Familiarity with the unit is important to gauge scale.
        
           | madars wrote:
           | 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!)
        
             | BobaFloutist wrote:
             | That's fair but the average person kinda knows how much
             | (work/light/heat) a single AA battery can do/produce, but
             | not what a substation can do.
        
               | samplatt wrote:
               | I would posit that no person on earth has personal
               | experience of 100 million AA batteries in a single
               | circuit.
        
               | lazide wrote:
               | How many have personal experience with 150 MV?
        
               | varjag wrote:
               | Approximately the same but now you at least use units
               | that make sense.
        
               | lazide wrote:
               | Can you convert that to marathons per fortnight for me?
        
               | Denvercoder9 wrote:
               | It's about 102 kiloTesla marathons squared per
               | forthnight. Dimensions are weird.
        
               | benjijay wrote:
               | Well, now I have a goal!
        
               | varjag wrote:
               | However voltage does not tell you how much work a battery
               | can produce.
        
               | iszomer wrote:
               | *Release
        
               | varjag wrote:
               | It releases energy, and energy performs work. The OP
               | however wrote produce.
        
             | lazide wrote:
             | They need to write for an (average) 6th grade reading level
             | - maximum. So think 4th grade most of the time.
             | 
             | How many 4th graders have any clue what a mega volt is? How
             | many do you think have personal experience with 150 mega
             | volts?
        
               | SAI_Peregrinus wrote:
               | 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.
        
           | calmbonsai wrote:
           | True, but at least get the units right.
           | 
           | 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.
        
         | amateurCoder5 wrote:
         | That's as strong as 175,000 electric eels!
        
           | amateurCoder5 wrote:
           | Connected in series, obviously.
        
             | addaon wrote:
             | Not paralleel?
        
               | eru wrote:
               | You might enjoy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywaTX-
               | nLm6Y
        
               | amelius wrote:
               | Was hoping for an "Eelnado" movie.
        
             | shrubble wrote:
             | There might be quite a difference depending on whether
             | connected in serieel or paralleel I suppose.
        
           | analog31 wrote:
           | 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.
        
             | fecal_henge wrote:
             | Thus we have proved that the electric field is
             | dimensionless
        
               | pxndxx wrote:
               | what about the eelectric field?
        
               | fecal_henge wrote:
               | Solid gold comment
        
               | 867-5309 wrote:
               | poorly conducted
        
         | tourmalinetaco wrote:
         | 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.
        
           | idontwantthis wrote:
           | A voltage is not a unit of power.
        
         | sneak wrote:
         | Nobody outside of the industry knows how much a megavolt is.
         | 
         | Megavolts are actually the obscure unit, for normal people.
        
           | SoftTalker wrote:
           | Most people don't even really understand "million" and
           | "billion" other than as "a lot".
        
             | nozzlegear wrote:
             | They certainly understand that billion is "a lot" more than
             | million.
        
         | labster wrote:
         | If all of those 100M AA batteries were laid out flat, they
         | would cover over 13 football fields (70000 sq m), including the
         | Chargers home stadium.
        
           | lazide wrote:
           | How heavy do you think they'd be in elephants and/or
           | Volkswagen beetles (up to you to pick 70's era or newer).
        
           | k4rli wrote:
           | Square meters yet surely you mean American football here.
           | Further confusion ensues.
        
             | jfoutz wrote:
             | I don't know what readers are aware of this. American
             | football fields are all the same size, but soccer fields
             | can vary.
             | 
             | That little bit of trivia makes this extra funny. For me
             | anyway.
        
               | Kon-Peki wrote:
               | > American football fields are all the same size
               | 
               | 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.
        
           | xeonmc wrote:
           | Thus we arrive at a new unit: electric-football-fields
        
         | trhway wrote:
         | while the field is strong, the actual energy seems to be not
         | much - a lightning bolt is few billions of Joules, i.e. about
         | 1000 KW/h (100kg gasoline).
        
           | slow_typist wrote:
           | kWh
        
           | sandworm101 wrote:
           | 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.
        
             | trhway wrote:
             | Lightning takes tens of microseconds, bomb - couple hundred
             | microseconds, so about 10 times difference power-wise.
        
         | hinkley wrote:
         | How many libraries of Congress could you light with that power?
        
         | consf wrote:
         | The media seems to do this in an attempt to make the concept
         | relatable.. maybe
        
         | liversage wrote:
         | In my neck of the woods it's called "journalist units": three
         | soccer fields, five blue whales etc.
         | 
         | Somebody even created a website to facilitate conversion but
         | unfortunately the TLS certificate has expired and Cloudflare
         | now blocks access.
         | 
         | Article in Danish: https://ing.dk/artikel/lynch-nu-kan-ogsaa-
         | journalister-faa-s...
        
           | BurningFrog wrote:
           | 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.
        
             | beAbU wrote:
             | 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
        
             | throwanem wrote:
             | 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.
        
             | nkrisc wrote:
             | > If you print "40 millions", and it turns out to be 39,
             | you've lied
             | 
             | That's not what lying is. To tell a lie is to intentionally
             | state as fact something you _know_ to be false.
             | 
             | Being wrong isn't lying.
        
               | lazide wrote:
               | What about being so negligent in checking your facts that
               | any reasonable person would _know_ they're wrong, but
               | continuing forward anyway?
        
               | not2b wrote:
               | The number is being reported accurately, but with only
               | one digit of significance. Rounding 39 to 40 isn't lying
               | and isn't deceitful.
        
             | Denvercoder9 wrote:
             | > 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.
        
           | benterix wrote:
           | > 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.
        
             | andai wrote:
             | 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!)
        
               | sneak wrote:
               | 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.
        
               | benterix wrote:
               | > 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.
        
             | Vampiero wrote:
             | 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.
             | 
             | It's just a part of life.
        
             | sneak wrote:
             | Do you still use telnet?
        
               | benterix wrote:
               | No, it's no longer practical for any purpose. I mostly
               | use openssl instead, e.g. for testing if my SMTP server
               | is up and has a valid cert:
               | 
               | openssl s_client -connect myhost.com:25 -starttls smtp
               | 
               | Telnet stopped being useful a long time ago, is no longer
               | shipped by default, and there are better tools to do
               | things it was used for decades ago.
        
           | rsynnott wrote:
           | The Register also have one:
           | https://www.theregister.com/Design/page/reg-standards-
           | conver...
        
             | dr_orpheus wrote:
             | 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."
             | 
             | https://www.theregister.com/2007/08/24/vulture_central_stan
             | d...
        
           | ahazred8ta wrote:
           | There was a children's book, 'Half A Giraffe', which led to
           | that phrase being used in size comparisons.
           | https://old.reddit.com/r/HalfAGiraffe/
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unusual_units_of_measu.
           | ..
        
         | beAbU wrote:
         | How many tesla superchargers is that?
        
         | teeray wrote:
         | "Americans will use anything but the metric system"
        
           | DCH3416 wrote:
           | And there's nothing wrong with that. Pick the best unit for
           | the job and move on.
        
         | thanatos519 wrote:
         | 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!
        
         | nickpsecurity wrote:
         | 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.
        
           | jajko wrote:
           | 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.
           | 
           | [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYqfVE-fykk
        
         | aithrowawaycomm wrote:
         | 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.
        
       | garrettgarcia wrote:
       | 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?
       | 
       | Here is a video where he explains his theory:
       | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU706V0bltc
        
         | dylan604 wrote:
         | From the linked video, "while their search for green tinted
         | lights continue..."
         | 
         | Such a non-chalantly delivered diss. I found the lowering of
         | ground strike lightning during the tornado interesting.
        
       | nelox wrote:
       | Stole Bruce Banner's thunder
        
         | riffraff wrote:
         | the tropical part obviously explains Street Fighter II's Blanka
         | resemblance to the Hulk.
        
       | consf wrote:
       | The sheer amount of energy trapped in our skies. It sounds
       | philosophically
        
       | dschuetz wrote:
       | So the fictional radiation storms in Fallout 4 are kinda spot on.
        
       | houseplant wrote:
       | 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.
        
         | bguebert wrote:
         | Here's an article with some pictures in case anyone else was
         | curious about red sprites like I was.
         | 
         | https://earthsky.org/earth/definition-what-are-lightning-spr...
        
           | dylan604 wrote:
           | that shot with them aligned with Milky Way is spectacular
        
             | bguebert wrote:
             | 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.
        
           | mrguyorama wrote:
           | 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)
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprite_(lightning)
        
         | garrettgarcia wrote:
         | 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.
         | 
         | Pecos Hank, the best storm chaser on Youtube, has recorded
         | beautiful video of sprites:
         | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGPQ5kzJ9Tg
        
       | pavel_lishin wrote:
       | I wonder if this is in any way responsible for the increased
       | biodiversity there - maybe a slightly higher mutation rate?
        
         | davidw wrote:
         | Interesting thought, but you'd have to extract the effect from
         | all the environmental factors like abundant water, a warm
         | climate, soils, etc...
        
         | superbiome wrote:
         | Makes sense. Isn't this one method that new crops are made, by
         | radiating seeds and seeing what new diversity arises.
        
           | pavel_lishin wrote:
           | Atomic gardens!
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_gardening
        
         | throwawaymaths wrote:
         | 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
         | 
         | Fierer, Jackson 2006 if you want a citation
        
           | vanderZwan wrote:
           | > _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.
        
       | westurner wrote:
       | 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.
        
         | idunnoman1222 wrote:
         | No, insignificant
        
         | idunnoman1222 wrote:
         | No, insignificant Is diverse because there is more biomass
        
           | westurner wrote:
           | /? is the genetic mutation rate higher in the presence of
           | gamma radiation: https://www.google.com/search?q=is%20the%20g
           | enetic%20mutatio... :
           | 
           | - "Frequency and Spectrum of Mutations Induced by Gamma Rays
           | Revealed by Phenotype Screening and Whole-Genome Re-
           | Sequencing in Arabidopsis thaliana" (2022)
           | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8775868/ :
           | 
           | > _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._
           | 
           | - "Bedrock radioactivity influences the rate and spectrum of
           | mutation" (2020) https://elifesciences.org/articles/56830
           | 
           | - "Comparison of mutation spectra induced by gamma-rays and
           | carbon ion beams" (2024)
           | https://academic.oup.com/jrr/article/65/4/491/7701037 :
           | 
           | > _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._
        
       | westurner wrote:
       | 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!)
       | 
       | Tardigrades can handle Gamma radiation.
       | 
       | "Researchers create new type of composite material for shielding
       | against neutron and gamma radiation" (2024)
       | https://phys.org/news/2024-05-composite-material-shielding-n... :
       | 
       | "Sm2O3 micron plates/B4C/HDPE composites containing high specific
       | surface area fillers for neutron and gamma-ray complex radiation
       | shielding"
       | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02663...
        
       | vanderZwan wrote:
       | 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.
       | 
       | [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07378
       | 
       | [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o66AYhEIsU&
        
         | abc_lisper wrote:
         | 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
        
         | Andys wrote:
         | When objects collide or are separated, aren't we really just
         | witnessing tiny chemical reactions, all involving the
         | absorption and/or release of energy?
        
           | vanderZwan wrote:
           | 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.
        
       | hn72774 wrote:
       | 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.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-10-03 23:02 UTC)