RE: Teslas Ball Lightning

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: "David Thomson" <dwt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi Brett,

> No one is sneering here, it is okay if I (and other rational
> minds) believe ball lightning may be just a rumor.  That is
> healthy to the learning process, you will find it throughout
> the history of science.  I can criticise an idea, without
> criticising an individual.

An idea is an hypothesis or a theory.  A first hand account is
neither, it is data.  It is merely a report.  And since the data
in this case are based upon the visual and auditory sensations of
individuals, any comment like "Saying you sa[w] a beachball or
basketball sized luminous orb float around, pass through a door
or wall and then later dissolve with a 'bang' is a pretty
outrageous claim," is sneering at the person who gave the report.
We should not treat the report as though it didn't happen.  We
should treat it as though it *did* happen and reserve judgment of
what actually occurred until we have the science to quantify and
explain the reports.  If people don't give their reports, how
will we know about such phenomena?

>  > It's called a hypothesis.
>
> A hypothesis is what Terry came up with.

I agree.

> You are talking about a vague notion based on heresay.

Absolutely wrong.  We are talking about first hand accounts of
members of this list, given by the people who actually witnessed
the event.  There is no vague notion based on hearsay at all.
These first hand accounts are valid data.  They are not
outrageous claims.

> It could turn out to be a real phenominon, however,
> it is perfectly fine for me to lament a lack of evidence.

There is no lack of evidence.  These are first hand, witnessed
accounts.  A report by a witness counts as evidence.  The more
witnesses there are, the greater value the first hand accounts
have.

> If you noticed, I supported Terry's optimism and ideas for
> ball lightning lab research.

I did notice.  I also noticed other things in your comments.  I'm
hoping to spare others the embarrassment of sharing their first
hand accounts only to have them blown off by other people's
unscientific and personal opinions.  This list is about Tesla
coil related science, not sneering at someone because they share
a report of something they actually saw.

>  > Since there
>  > are numerous visual witnesses of ball lightning, we  can
>  > properly  hypothesize that the phenomenon does exist.
>
> That's not true at all...especially since the statements
> "ball lightning" and "phenomenon" mean nothing taken alone.
> As someone else on the list (was it Matt?) pointed out, you
> have quantified nothing.

The objects were reported to be spherical (a geometrical
observation that quantifies the surface structure), bright (a
relative quantification of the luminosity), and they moved slowly
through the air and other objects (a relative quantification of
their velocities).  True, these quantifications need to become
more precise, but they are quantities of the phenomenon,
nonetheless.

> People saw some stuff.  What was it?  The accounts differ
> greatly.  What you have is an "urban legend", not a hypothesis.

No, you have data, not urban legends.  Urban legends are based
upon hearsay, which these accounts are not.

> I am not sure what you mean by "discount", but if personal
> observations serve as the inspiration (which we all need) to
> perform serious scientific work (such as what Terry proposed,
> attempts by the Corums, and what Bill Beaty mentioned with
> the microwave) then they  have served a useful purpose.
> However, anecdotal evidence is not worth much alone.

First hand accounts of ball lightning are worth a lot.  The
moderator clearly stated this.  Unless I have missed something,
it is the moderator who determines what evidence has worth on
this list.  And how is it you feel qualified to reduce the
evidence from "first hand account" to "anecdotal?"

> Well, we can hardly study something that we can't harness or
> reliably observe, however, we are free to continue
> speculating as to its method of production and whether or not
> it can be harnessed in the lab, which is the hot subject
nowadays.

Ah, but you seem to have missed the fact that the first hand
reports had led Terry to propose a means for replicating and
testing the phenomenon.  Terry's suggestions, of course, have
been replicated by Jean Naudin and others with microwave ovens.
Kiril Chukanov has actually built machines that generate large
specimens of ball lightning type effects using microwaves.  Kiril
has been working independently on ball lightning for several
years that I am aware of.
http://www.chukanovenergy.com/index.php?action=view_gallery&id=11
&module=imagegallerymodule

I must qualify that I have read Kiril's theories concerning ball
lightning (and physics in general) and disagree with some of his
theories.  But that does not detract from the fact he has built
machines that actually produce ball lightning type effects, or
made some valid observations concerning the phenomena.

> I'm sorry but it does not work that way, why do you think
> 99.9 percent of ghost encounter reports, alien abductions,
> and fairy sightings go uninvestigated by credentualized
> scientists.  There are very few people who have the time and
> money to run around the globe "disproving" outrageous claims.
> I am not sure why you have the burden of proof system reversed.

Are you placing the guys on this list in the same group as ghost
encounter reports, alien abductions, and fairy sightings?  Are
you, again, saying that the engineers who reported first hand
accounts of ball lightning are making outrageous claims? Correct
me if I'm wrong, but the first hand reports of ball lightning I
read on this list were by qualified engineers who understand the
principles of high potential, high frequency currents.  The
reports I read were qualified in that the reporters questioned
their own physiological experiences, reported contradictions by
other witnesses, and also did not make any claim that we should
accept ball lightning as real.

Having read numerous other first hand accounts of ball lightning,
and having discussed ball lightning with researchers attempting
to replicate it in a controlled setting, I honestly feel that
these accounts are genuine and valuable to our research.
Hopefully, with more first hand accounts of this caliber, we will
eventually solve the mystery of what ball lightning actually is
and understand the physics behind it.

The only burden of proof issue here is whether the reports are
given by honest people.  Since no claims are being made aside
from the fact that they saw what they saw, and I have no reason
to question the integrity of this list's members, they owe no
proof.  It is you who have incorrectly assigned a need for burden
of proof to first hand accounts.  As I mentioned before, a
witness *IS* proof.  Unless you are questioning the integrity of
the witness, there is nothing to prove in a first hand account.

To clarify this further, to say you saw a ghost is data.  To say
that ghosts exist is a theory.  The theory requires data.  The
better the quality of the data, the stronger the theory becomes.
I don't disagree that the data presented is weak data, but it is
data nonetheless.

Dave