People
typically associate lightning with storm clouds, as shown here. But in
some rare instances, earthquakes appear to generate the same electrical
discharge. The big difference: That lightning can occur despite a clear
sky, one free of any clouds.
JCPJR/iStockphoto
13 comments:
I think that this was a great article because it had so many rich details. I think it is interesting how people have sometimes claimed to witness them before or during major earthquakes. I think he did a great experiment when he tipped over a container of flour. And as the grains of flour poured out, a sensor inside the powder registered an electrical signal of roughly 100 volts. It would be interesting to try it yourself, but you have to watch out so that the volts won't hurt you. It would be a great invention if you could find something that protected yourself against volts and lightning. Then we could explore everything more deeply. Overall, I would rate this article a 9 out of 10 because I liked how it had power words, and I liked the picture and the caption. I think what it said in the caption was interesting. It is amazing how lightning can occur with a clear sky and no clouds!
I think that this article is interesting because who would think that an earthquake could cause lightning. I think that this is an amazing discovery because the lighting may warn us about a big earthquake. Unfortunately sometimes it will not warn us because the earthquake lights will be during the earthquake. Also, if there are storm clouds when the earthquake lights happen, how will we know if it is normal lightning or earthquake lights. I think that it is dangerous too because of the high voltage earthquake lights. If someone happened to be standing where the lightning strikes, they may be seriously injured or dead. I think that it is awesome that it could happen with a clear sky and no clouds. I wonder if the earthquake lights will help others to avoid danger and horrid earthquakes.
I think that this article is a great article and will help a lot of people. First, I think that Troy Shinbrot is brillant for testing the experiment. Now, there won't be as many injuries and deaths from a big earthquakes because there could be a sign of lighting that could warn us. I don't know why any other scients has tested this experiment. I would rate this article a 9 out of 10 because Troy discovered an amazing thing that could save people.
I think this article was okay. It was a little bit short, but the topic was really interesting. However, I agree with Kayla that we could basically never use this to predict earthquakes. It is too unpredictable. Yet after reading the results of the experiment, I saw that they definitely were able to have surges of voltage because of the slipping of the earth. Unfortuately, I am a little bit skeptical of how well their experiment worked. In the explanation of the previous experiment, in which he poured flour, he found that he got 100 volts, which can hurt, but is not really a whole lot. On the other hand, he did not mention the results of the second experiment, leading me to believe that he did not get at least 100 volts. Also, I wonder why they chose beads the second time. I was really confused about how he said that static electricity was strange between two same materials. After all, isn't static electricity friction, and hands rubbing together also friction? Are they different types of friction? It turns out that there are four types of friction, static, kinetic, rolling, and fluid. I couldn't tell from what I found if static electricity came for sure from static friction, but I think it probably does. Also, it sounds like rubbing your hands together could be kinetic friction, but I am not sure. Anyway, this is an interesting article, and it would be great if we could someday figure out the mystery behind earthquake lights and prove once and for all that earthquakes can cause friction and voltage.
This was a really interesting article. I myself have never been in a major earthquake and seen a flash, but it must have been really cool! I wonder where the lightning comes from in a cloudless sky. Normal lightning, as far as I know, comes from inside a cloud. The fact that a clear sky can have lightning truly amazes me. I agree with Dhilan, except for the fact that the lightning flash may come a second before the earthquake instead of minutes. I wonder why the same material created electricity. It's clearly not static, and probably not friction, so what is it? Although this article was cool, it still left several questions in my mind.
This article was a little short and did not really have a lot of information. For example: most of the article said that she tried to replicate the earthquake by putting beads under pressure. This might be interesting if she made a point, but the article ended inconclusively: by saying it is some sort fo physics they do not know of. The article's concept seemed to be very interesting, but by ending with a uncertain conclusion is a little bizarre. One of the only things I enjoyed (as said by many people) is how lightning can be triggered with no clouds. Again, interesting concept, but a bd article all in all.
I agree with Brian that this article was lacking the information and counclusion an article should have. It would have been a better article if they included more information about earthquakes and the electricity of the grains used in this experiment. Another reason this article was not great was because of the conclusion. It was not very strong or actually a concluding statement at all. Overall, this article could have been written with more depth and a better conclusion.
I thought this article was very interesting. I had no idea that an earthquake could trigger lightning. It really astounded me, and as the article mentioned, it is a little curious. Earthquakes cause many events to occur, but it is remarkable that lightning is one of them. After reading this article, I formulated a few questions. First, one part of the article said that “a slipping phenomenon could trigger earthquake lights.” The “s” at the end of lights implied to me that more than one different strikes of lightning can occur during one earthquake. If that is true, would a second strike of lightning happen in the same spot as the previous one, or in a different location? In addition, does the lighting strike in a certain spot that has any relation to the epicenter of an earthquake? I was also wondering about thunder. Thunder is caused because of the noise and vibration of the air that is affected because of the lightning strike. Using that logic, it would seem to me that thunder would also be caused after a earthquake lights. Am I right in assuming that? Overall, though I did have a few questions, this article was very informative and engaging, and I really enjoyed reading it.
I am so sorry, but my earlier post had a few grammar mistakes. Here is the correct version:
I thought this article was very interesting. I had no idea that an earthquake could trigger lightning. It really astounded me, and as the article mentioned, it is a little curious. Earthquakes cause many events to occur, but it is remarkable that lightning is one of them. After reading this article, I formulated a few questions. First, one part of the article said that “a slipping phenomenon could trigger earthquake lights.” The “s” at the end of lights implied to me that more than one different strikes of lightning can occur during one earthquake. If that is true, would a second strike of lightning happen in the same spot as the previous one, or in a different location? In addition, does the lighting strike in a certain spot that has any relation to the epicenter of an earthquake? I was also wondering about thunder. Thunder is caused because of the noise and vibration of the air that is affected because of the lightning strike. Using that logic, it would seem to me that thunder would also be caused after earthquake lights. Am I right in assuming that? Overall, though I did have a few questions, this article was very informative and engaging, and I very much enjoyed reading it.
I would actually like to respectfully disagree with Erica. This article was the exact opposite of rich details. It was practically two sentences long, and that is barely enough room to talk about anything. Half the article was composed of power words, and the only thing that I liked about this article was the idea. I never knew that movement and friction of two objects could cause electricity. Part of the reason that the article was so short was because even the scientists were unsure. It was undiscovered territory. I know that if I see a lightning bolt strike right after the earth quake, I can relate it to this article. I do have a couple questions: When there is a large earthquake, is there a single bolt or a lightning storm? Also, have we seen this before, we have had plenty of huge earthquakes. Overall, the articles from this website aren't really meant for us.
I'm not really sure about this concept. Although it was explained, I don't really understand it. The article didn't do a very good job. I wish they explained it better and had a longer article because I don't understand the concept. I think it might be a good topic to do more research on, but as it is the ideas don't really make sense to me. 2.5 out of 5.
I'm not really sure about this concept. Although it was explained, I don't really understand it. The article didn't do a very good job. I wish they explained it better and had a longer article because I don't understand the concept. I think it might be a good topic to do more research on, but as it is the ideas don't really make sense to me. 2.5 out of 5.
Sorry I accidentally posted it twice.
Post a Comment