Gamma radiation is produced in large tropical thunderstorms(phys.org)
phys.org
Gamma radiation is produced in large tropical thunderstorms
https://phys.org/news/2024-10-amount-variety-gamma-large-tropical.html
135 comments
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.
Such a non-chalantly delivered diss. I found the lowering of ground strike lightning during the tornado interesting.
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&
[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07378
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o66AYhEIsU&
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
What about guitar pedal velcro tape?
[0] "Correlation between nanosecond X-ray flashes and stick–slip friction in peeling tape" (2008) https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07378
> Triboluminescence is a phenomenon in which light is generated when a material is mechanically pulled apart, ripped, scratched, crushed, or rubbed (see tribology). [...] Triboluminescence is often a synonym for fractoluminescence (a term mainly used when referring only to light emitted from fractured crystals). Triboluminescence differs from piezoluminescence in that a piezoluminescent material emits light when deformed, as opposed to broken. These are examples of mechanoluminescence, which is luminescence resulting from any mechanical action on a solid. [...] See also:
> - Earthquake light: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_light
- re: gold from earthquake-induced piezoelectricity in quartz: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41442489
- re: sustainable alternatives to quartz countertops: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36857929 :
> [...] make recycled paper outdoor waterproof vert ramps, countertops, siding, and flooring; but not yet roofing FWIU?
> - Sonoluminesence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence
[0] "Correlation between nanosecond X-ray flashes and stick–slip friction in peeling tape" (2008) https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07378
> Triboluminescence is a phenomenon in which light is generated when a material is mechanically pulled apart, ripped, scratched, crushed, or rubbed (see tribology). [...] Triboluminescence is often a synonym for fractoluminescence (a term mainly used when referring only to light emitted from fractured crystals). Triboluminescence differs from piezoluminescence in that a piezoluminescent material emits light when deformed, as opposed to broken. These are examples of mechanoluminescence, which is luminescence resulting from any mechanical action on a solid. [...] See also:
> - Earthquake light: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_light
- re: gold from earthquake-induced piezoelectricity in quartz: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41442489
- re: sustainable alternatives to quartz countertops: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36857929 :
> [...] make recycled paper outdoor waterproof vert ramps, countertops, siding, and flooring; but not yet roofing FWIU?
> - Sonoluminesence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence
You don't even need a vacuum to get a decent amount of xrays. Two drills going through a roll of scotch, reel to reel, will generate enough x-rays to take a rudimentary xray image of a hand.
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.
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.
What is holding the tape to itself, what is making it sticky, if not chemistry?
For pressure-sensitive-adhesive tape (cellophane tape) it's mainly fuzzy static cling--wetting and van Der Waal's forces [1]. Wetting is when two substances (even solids) intermingle at their interface. van Der Waal's force is when a negatively-charged area of one molecule lines up the a postively-charged area of another.
[1] https://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/everyday-innova...
[1] https://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/everyday-innova...
I see, so you're saying static cling "at a distance" is different to the interaction of positive and negative charges in a chemical reaction?
IANAChemist, but to extend the cheesy analogies chemical bonds are like joint custody in a divorce; two atoms share one or more electrons. If it's split more or less evenly then it's called a covalent bond. If it's stacked in one atom's favor then it's called ionic. If it's kind of in a gray area in the middle then its called a polar covalent bond. [1]
Adhesion, even due to electrostatic or van Der Waal's forces, doesn't cause an electron to be shared [2].
To switch up the analogy (again, IANAC): as I understand it chemical bonds are like a couples thing; if you invite one you have to invite the other, and if you are interested in replacing a chemical bond with one of the atoms you need to first tear the couple apart. That's because chemical bonds share an electron; to share a particular electron with a new atom you need to stop sharing with the first one. (Sort of. I believe it's a lot more complicated than that, with group marriages and such.)
Adhesion is more like a friendship thing. You might hang out together, but there's no intimiate involvement. The electronic bonds are still available, so each each substance can do its normal chemical reaction thing with other atoms.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionic_bonding
[2] Despite my previous cheesy analogy, electrostatic adhesion is the real static-cling force, not van Der Waal's. (But electrostatic adhesion isn't what makes sticky tape sticky, van Der Waals is.) The former is between entire molecules or groups of molecules, one group having a total positive charge compared to the other. van Der Waal's is pin-point attraction between local differences in molecular charge distribution, and each molecule in total might be electrically neutral. For example, a neutral water molecule has two highly-positive areas near the Hydrogen atoms and a highly-negative region away from them.
Adhesion, even due to electrostatic or van Der Waal's forces, doesn't cause an electron to be shared [2].
To switch up the analogy (again, IANAC): as I understand it chemical bonds are like a couples thing; if you invite one you have to invite the other, and if you are interested in replacing a chemical bond with one of the atoms you need to first tear the couple apart. That's because chemical bonds share an electron; to share a particular electron with a new atom you need to stop sharing with the first one. (Sort of. I believe it's a lot more complicated than that, with group marriages and such.)
Adhesion is more like a friendship thing. You might hang out together, but there's no intimiate involvement. The electronic bonds are still available, so each each substance can do its normal chemical reaction thing with other atoms.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionic_bonding
[2] Despite my previous cheesy analogy, electrostatic adhesion is the real static-cling force, not van Der Waal's. (But electrostatic adhesion isn't what makes sticky tape sticky, van Der Waals is.) The former is between entire molecules or groups of molecules, one group having a total positive charge compared to the other. van Der Waal's is pin-point attraction between local differences in molecular charge distribution, and each molecule in total might be electrically neutral. For example, a neutral water molecule has two highly-positive areas near the Hydrogen atoms and a highly-negative region away from them.
No. "Gamma rays" in modern scientific usage has a specific meaning: radiation coming from the nucleus or from annihilation reactions (electron + positron is considered a gamma source despite not involving a nucleus), not from the electrons. The energy bands actually overlap, you can't always tell whether a given photon is without understanding it's source. (The lowest energy gamma rays actually fall in the UV part of the spectrum.)
And what they're saying is the energy of the lightning is acting as a particle accelerator. aka atom smasher. And there's a surprising level of atom smashing going on in the big thunderclouds.
And what they're saying is the energy of the lightning is acting as a particle accelerator. aka atom smasher. And there's a surprising level of atom smashing going on in the big thunderclouds.
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?
Or put another way, 150 MV. What's with this media obsession with using obscure non-SI units?
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...
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...
> 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.
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!)
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.
Then how the fuck am I reading this let alone replying?
Then how the fuck am I reading this let alone replying?
> 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 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 while back I disabled JS in my browser. I think I even disabled image loading. This resulted in a vastly improved experience. You'd think mere adblock would get you most of the way there, but the difference is staggering.
That's been my way of browsing for a while now and I agree it works for the most part. I have no intention of going back.
It's especially nice to have JavaScript disabled by default, so I can enable one script at a time until it becomes readable. But not so many scripts that it becomes unreadable again.
It's especially nice to have JavaScript disabled by default, so I can enable one script at a time until it becomes readable. But not so many scripts that it becomes unreadable again.
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.
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.
Do you still use telnet?
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.
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.
Good, so you understand perfectly the reasons for us all attempting to abolish use of port 80.
I think everybody understands the benefits of HTTPS, there is no need to discuss that. But the fact remains that forcing everybody to move, even old static websites where potential impersonation and MITM attacks matter little, turned out not so painless as the advocates had proclaimed.
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.
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
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
> 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.
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.
The number is being reported accurately, but with only one digit of significance. Rounding 39 to 40 isn't lying and isn't deceitful.
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.
> 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.
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.
The Register also have one: https://www.theregister.com/Design/page/reg-standards-conver...
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_stand...
https://www.theregister.com/2007/08/24/vulture_central_stand...
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...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unusual_units_of_measu...
That's as strong as 175,000 electric eels!
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.
Thus we have proved that the electric field is dimensionless
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Connected in series, obviously.
Not paralleel?
You might enjoy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywaTX-nLm6Y
Was hoping for an "Eelnado" movie.
There might be quite a difference depending on whether connected in serieel or paralleel I suppose.
[deleted]
Familiarity with the unit is important to gauge scale.
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!)
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.
I would posit that no person on earth has personal experience of 100 million AA batteries in a single circuit.
[deleted]
How many have personal experience with 150 MV?
Approximately the same but now you at least use units that make sense.
Can you convert that to marathons per fortnight for me?
It's about 102 kiloTesla marathons squared per forthnight. Dimensions are weird.
[deleted]
Well, now I have a goal!
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?
How many 4th graders have any clue what a mega volt is? How many do you think have personal experience with 150 mega volts?
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.
Plenty of AA batteries around. And AAA for that matter. At the low end the fancy battery packs can easily be more expensive than what they're powering. Li-Ion is choose only one: cheap or safe.
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.
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.
I agree in giving flak for using the term AA batteries in this context.
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.
Subtly played!
Shots fired!
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.
Thus we arrive at a new unit: electric-football-fields
Square meters yet surely you mean American football here. Further confusion ensues.
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.
That little bit of trivia makes this extra funny. For me anyway.
> 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.
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.
How heavy do you think they’d be in elephants and/or Volkswagen beetles (up to you to pick 70’s era or newer).
[deleted]
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.
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!
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.
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.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYqfVE-fykk
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
[deleted]
How many tesla superchargers is that?
How many libraries of Congress could you light with that power?
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).
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.
Lightning takes tens of microseconds, bomb - couple hundred microseconds, so about 10 times difference power-wise.
kWh
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.
A voltage is not a unit of power.
Florida units.
I mean, you can screw it up using SI units too! Eg https://x.com/HaydenDonnell/status/1503916925713547264
> A strapping newborn baby boy is understood to have set a New Zealand record, weighing in at a whopping 6.85kg (15lb 1oz) - the equivalent of nearly seven 1kg blocks of cheese.
I mean, the kilogram is an SI unit, but uh, I do not know if clarity has been added here.
> A strapping newborn baby boy is understood to have set a New Zealand record, weighing in at a whopping 6.85kg (15lb 1oz) - the equivalent of nearly seven 1kg blocks of cheese.
I mean, the kilogram is an SI unit, but uh, I do not know if clarity has been added here.
Nobody outside of the industry knows how much a megavolt is.
Megavolts are actually the obscure unit, for normal people.
Megavolts are actually the obscure unit, for normal people.
Most people don't even really understand "million" and "billion" other than as "a lot".
They certainly understand that billion is "a lot" more than million.
[deleted]
tempodox(1)
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...
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...
On lightning and safety and electrostatics: "Answer to Is there a device that attracts lightning when storms are near? How can I make a lightning rod to do experiments with lightning?" (202_ yrs ago) https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-device-that-attracts-lightn... :
Electrostatics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatics
The Photoelectric effect that supports the Particle-Wave duality > History: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect :
> Einstein theorized that the energy in each quantum of light was equal to the frequency of light multiplied by a constant, later called the Planck constant. A photon above a threshold frequency has the required energy to eject a single electron, creating the observed effect. This was a step in the development of quantum mechanics. In 1914, Robert A. Millikan's highly accurate measurements of the Planck constant from the photoelectric effect supported Einstein's model, even though a corpuscular theory of light was for Millikan, at the time, "quite unthinkable". [47] Einstein was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics for "his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect", [48] and Millikan was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1923 for "his work on the elementary charge of electricity and on the photoelectric effect".[49]
Electrostatics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatics
The Photoelectric effect that supports the Particle-Wave duality > History: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect :
> Einstein theorized that the energy in each quantum of light was equal to the frequency of light multiplied by a constant, later called the Planck constant. A photon above a threshold frequency has the required energy to eject a single electron, creating the observed effect. This was a step in the development of quantum mechanics. In 1914, Robert A. Millikan's highly accurate measurements of the Planck constant from the photoelectric effect supported Einstein's model, even though a corpuscular theory of light was for Millikan, at the time, "quite unthinkable". [47] Einstein was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics for "his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect", [48] and Millikan was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1923 for "his work on the elementary charge of electricity and on the photoelectric effect".[49]
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.
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.
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...
https://earthsky.org/earth/definition-what-are-lightning-spr...
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)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprite_(lightning)
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
Pecos Hank, the best storm chaser on Youtube, has recorded beautiful video of sprites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGPQ5kzJ9Tg
I wonder if this is in any way responsible for the increased biodiversity there - maybe a slightly higher mutation rate?
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
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
> 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 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.
So, I guess you don't have a biology background but: species diversity is usually judged by 16s rna diversity, which generally doesn't get swapped around.
And until recently, the dogma was that there were more insect species than bacteria species (it could make sense, as insects reproduce sexually so there's more opportunity for genetic drift), but hoo boy were we wrong (we now know from DNA panning experiments, our estimates on bacteria were low because it was mostly only culturable bacteria we were counting).
And until recently, the dogma was that there were more insect species than bacteria species (it could make sense, as insects reproduce sexually so there's more opportunity for genetic drift), but hoo boy were we wrong (we now know from DNA panning experiments, our estimates on bacteria were low because it was mostly only culturable bacteria we were counting).
No, and while I worked for molecular neurobiologists for two years at one point in my life, that just taught me that I don't have the slightest clue how DNA works.
You're missing my point though: you replied to someone who talked about biodiversity with a remark about genetic diversity (probably without realizing it, which would be a classic case of attribute substitution[0]). Even I know that biodiversity is not limited to genetic diversity, as a quick trip to Wikipedia will confirm[1].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribute_substitution
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity
You're missing my point though: you replied to someone who talked about biodiversity with a remark about genetic diversity (probably without realizing it, which would be a classic case of attribute substitution[0]). Even I know that biodiversity is not limited to genetic diversity, as a quick trip to Wikipedia will confirm[1].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribute_substitution
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity
What metric do you want. In any metric up to and including ecosystem roles, microorganisms will be more diverse than macro.
Oh did you want size? Yep. Microorganisms make colonial hyphae which are bigger than any living organism except maybe some colonial trees.
Oh did you want size? Yep. Microorganisms make colonial hyphae which are bigger than any living organism except maybe some colonial trees.
Are you willfully ignoring my earlier point that pointed that out and concluded that therefore sneakily comparing megafauna to microbes is disingenous?
Interesting thought, but you'd have to extract the effect from all the environmental factors like abundant water, a warm climate, soils, etc...
Makes sense. Isn’t this one method that new crops are made, by radiating seeds and seeing what new diversity arises.
Atomic gardens!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_gardening
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_gardening
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.
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.
No, insignificant
Is diverse because there is more biomass
/? is the genetic mutation rate higher in the presence of gamma radiation:
https://www.google.com/search?q=is%20the%20genetic%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.
- "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.
No, insignificant
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.
So the fictional radiation storms in Fallout 4 are kinda spot on.
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