May 17, 1976 Number 20

Thunder is good, thunder is impressive; but it is

lightning that does the work. --Mark Twainl

Lightning has always terrified and fascinated people. It has also in-

spired many myths and much superstition. For example, some misin-formed people righteously assert that lightning never strikes twice in thesame place. Actually, the odds for lightning hitting twice in the same spotare excellent. The conditions that attracted it in the first place--a protni-nence in a flat area, for example--are likely to attract it again.

The Greeks and Remans thought thunderbolts were weapons of thegods. Since scientists have now explained ordinary streak lightning as ahigh-voltage electrical discharge, people’s fascination has been trans-ferred to the other forms of lightning: sheet lightning, in which no singlebolt is visible; St. Elmo’s fire, a glow emitted by charged objects such asairplane wings; and ball lightning (also called ‘‘Kugelblitz’ ‘). Ball lightn-ing is usually described as a moving, luminous sphere which lasts a fewseconds and then dies out, either silently or explosively. Ball lightning isprobably the most mysterious lightning phenomenon because scientistshave utterly failed to explain it. Many researchers have viewed reports ofball lightning with the kind of skepticism and distaste usually reserved forreports of psi phenomena and UFOS. Until recently, scientists even

debated the existence of ball lightning--explaining it as hallucination,optical illusion, or observer hysteria. The only evidence for it was anec-dotal, mainly from amateur sightings.

But reports of ball lightning have appeared in the scientific press for

over a century. In 188S, science published this account by a ship’s captainnamed Waters: “All at once a large mass of fire appeared over the

vessel, completely blindlng the spectators; and, as it fell into the sea

some fifty yards to leeward, it caused a hissing sound, which was heardabove the blast, and made the vessel quiver from stem to stem.”2 In1930, an anonymous account in Nature reported that “a number of globes

of light were seen of the size of billiard balls, extending from a few inchesabove the surface to a height of 7-8 feet. They slowly rose and fell

479

(..J71

N- ENERGY

CAMPANOLOGY

-REBUTTAL

“BALL-LIGHTNING” CITATION MAP

Articles are shown as circles containing author and year.Adjacent words describe main theme of articles.

480

vertically, sometimes within a few in-ches of the observers but always elud-ing the grasp.”3

It is always pleasant for me to de-monstrate the creative use of informa-tion retrieval. The ball lightning phe-nomenon, with its combination ofmystery and possible utility, is justsuch an opportunity. I hope that thenew generation of science teacherswill use the information retrieval tech-niques described here to get studentsinterested in tracing the history ofother scientific discoveries. By usingthe Science Citation tndefl in thisway, students can feel the excitementof discovery as the threads of scien-tific cloth are unraveled.

According to the results of a searchby my versatile colleague, A.E.Cawkell,4 an article with the incredLble title “Thunderbolts as theX-Weapon” appeared in November1%2 in the now defunct journal Dis-eavery. The paper, by C. M. Cade,contained this account of an attemptto calculate the energy of ball lightn-ing: “A fireball ‘the size of a largeorange’ which was observed in Dor-stone, Hereford, on October 3rd,1936, fell into a water butt containingabout four gallons of water, whichtilled for some minutes, and 20minutes later was still too hot for thehuman hand. From this data, Profes-sor B.L. Goodlet has calculated thatthe minimum energy of this fireballwas 3,800 kilowatt-seconds....”5 Un-fortunately, the author supplies nofurther reference for the mysteriousProfessor Goodlet. So the detectivework begins.

As it turns out, we were unable tofind anyone who had ever citedCade’s paper, at least within the 15years we’ve compiled the SCF’ . Butas I’ve often repeated, a name ms,y beall one needs to begin an SCI search.

Goodlet’s papers in the J LEE werecited in 1970 by M.D. Altschuler ofthe National Center for AtmosphericResearch, Boulder, Colors@ in 1971by E. Argyle of the Dominion RadioAstrophysical Observatory, BritishColumbia; and again in 1971 byP.C. W. Davies of the Institute ofTheoretical Astronomy, Cambridge,England. This is shown in the figureopposite, in which we have provided aselected portion of the now extensiveball lightning literature.

In 1971, Argyle drew parallels be-tween ball lightning and visual after-images: “The behavior and apparentproperties of the positive afterimageare strikkgly similar to those of balllightning. Its shape wiU be the sameas that of the exciting source, and itwill commonly be described as aball . . . . Positive afterimages last 2-10seconds, depending on circumstances,and most lightning balls are reportedto have a duration in the same range.Positive afterimages dkappear rathersuddenly, as do lightning balls.”6Argyle dismissed Goodlet’s reportthat water in a rain barrel had beenheated by ball lightning as ‘‘unreli-able. ”

Each explanation advanced for theball lightning phenomenon is unsatis-factory in some respect. Early expla-nations held that ball lightning isformed by the combustion of materialreleased by a lightning stroke on itsimpact with the ground. This materi-al, either particles or gases, might beconfined by a vortex, in the samemanner as a smoke ring. Edward Hillof the University of Minnesota modi-fied this theory to suggest that when alightning stroke produces a separationof charges in such a ball of material,miniature lightning strokes occurwithin the ball.7 T. Neugebauerpostulated that ball lightning consists

4a I

of dense plasma containing largenumbers of free electrons and positive

ions.8 Altschuler and his colleaguessuggested that ball lightning may be anuclear phenomenon involving theproduction of radioactive products,whose beta-decay would cause a glowin surrounding air molecules.9

A bizarre but not implausible the-

ory was discussed in the same 19

March 1971 issue of Nature in whichArgyle’s “optical illusion” article waspublished. An article by D. E.T.F.Ashby and C. Whitehead of theUnited Kingdom Atomic Energy Au-thority suggested that ball lightning iscaused by antimatter meteorites

which annhilate normal matter, creat-ing a luminous ball.lo Actually, thisidea was first proposed by Ahschuler,

who wrote in 1969 that “the hypothe-sis of antimatter meteorites is intrigu-

ing. lf a significant amount of anti-matter does exist in the universe, it ispossible that tiny grains of antimattermight penetrate our galaxy and col-lide with the earth’s atmosphere. En-tering at high speeds, the grain mightsurvive until it reached the tropo-sphere. A fraction of a microgram ofantimatter would destroy an equalmass of matter and release manymegajoules of energy, perhaps creat-ing luminous spheres.”11 The anti-matter theory was supported whenAshby and Whitehead, using radia-tion detectors, observed four ‘‘unusu-al” radiation events. They concluded

that, “The radiation events are con-

sistent with the proposed existence ofmicron-sized particles of antimatterand their duration is similar to that ofball lightning; however, the correla-tion with thunderstorms is uncer-tain.”lo

As the ball lightning phenomenon

became more scientifically respect-able, two particular “events” began

to be discussed by many authors. Thefirst was Jennison’s (University ofKent) 1969 report of a lightning ballpassing down the central aisle of anaircraft. Since the plane was a tankerwith a full load of aviation fuel, onecan imagine the observer’s reliefwhen the yellow-white lightning ball““danced out over the right wing” anddisappeared into the night. 12 The se-cond event was Covington’s (NationalResearch Council of Canada) 1970 ob-servations of a drifting lightning ballwhich demolished the pile of a wharf,and of another lightning ball whichemerged from the fireplace in a lake-side house, traveled across the room,and passed through a closed doorwithout causing any damage. Is

The two articles by Argyle and Ash-by were cited in several letters tojournals in 1971. Argyle’s idea thatball lightning is an optical illusion wasrebutted by authors who cited theirown and other observers’ well-documented sightings. Ashby’s anti-matter notion had a mixed reception.

The UFO phenomenon entered theball lightning story via AkschuIer’s1969 article in the Condon UFO re-port, which explained some UFOsightings as ball lightning. 11 Thechapter was cited by several authors.

As an exercise in demonstratingthat all phenomena and disciplinesare somehow connected to one an-other, the ball lightning story has fewequals. In 1973, for example, A.J. P.Blair of Germany used a novel methodto calculate the magnetic energy in alightning ball as 1S0 gauss. Naturecarried the report, which stated, “Inthe parish of Samford-Courtney inDevon on October 7, 1811, a suddendarkness came on, and a tire ball fellin the vicinity of the church. The ring-ers in the belfry, ringing at the time,declared that they never knew the

482

bells go so heavy, and were obliged todesist ringing. Looking down from thebelfry into the church, they perceivedfour fire balls, which suddenly burst,and the church was fdled with fire andsmoke, some of which ascended to thetower, where a large beam, on whichone of the bells was hung, wasbroken, and the gudgeon breaking,the bell fell to the floor. ” 14

There is also a connection to nu-clear fusion in the ball lightning story.In a well-cited 1955 article, 15 the Rus-sian physicist Peter Kapitsa proposedthat ball lightning results from astanding wave system in the electro-magnetic field which accompaniesthunderstorms. Windows and chim-neys, through which ball lightning isoften reported to have travelled,would act as waveguides for thesestanding waves. Elements of this ideawere later used in a Soviet experi-mental fusion reactor, and stable ballsof plasma were produced. 16

Another theory involves focusedcosmic-ray particles, and still anotherpostulates that ball lightning is pro-duced by the decay of ordhary light-ning in the presence of large amountsof water.

The theoretical situation regarding

ball lightning still is rather confused.It has not vet been determined whe-ther ball lightning is a single phe-nomenon or a series of phenomenawith diverse origins. No one has suc-ceeded in producing ball lightning inthe laboratory, although a few photo-graphs have been reported.

Just a year ago, in a search for pho-tographic evidence of ball lightning,two researchers at the University ofWyoming examined over 10,000Prarie Meteorite Network photo-graphs which contained images ofover 100,000 lightning strokes. Theyreported tindlng six ball lightning

‘‘caddate” events. “In all of theball candidate events the scenario isthe same: an ordinary appearinglightning stroke ends above groundand what appears to be a ball (pro-ducing a sequence of images) falls outof it and goes to earth. ” 17

More recently, photographic evi-dence of an object “which may besimilar to some varieties of balllightning” was reported in September1975 by three French authors,R. F;eux and C. Gary of Electricity deFrance, Direction des Etudes et Re-cherches, and P. Hubert of Commis-sariats 2 l’Energie Atomique, Serviced’Electronique Physique, Centred’Etudes Nuc16aires de Saclay. 18 In akind of reenactment of BenjaminFranklin’s kke-and-key lightning ex-periment, they launched rockets withwires attached into the atmosphere.This technique was developed, theysaid, “in the hope of perhaps shed-ding new light on the controversialsubject of ball lightning, since accord-ing to published statistics ball lightn-ing is mentioned in more than 40% ofthe cases in which an observer de-scribes a nearby lightning stroke. ”Although these researchers did notobserve anything “comparable withthe more remarkable tales of balllightning folklore,” they did observeand photograph the appearance ofluminous “beads” during the decayof triggered lightning. “The beadsgenerally have an initial diameter ofthe order of 40 cm which decreasesgradually with a total lifetime of 0.3sat most. During long-lasting strokes,the initially straight channel adopts ona progressively more tortuous shapeand the biggest beads occur wheretortuousness is a maximum. Sincethere is a positive correlation betweendiameter and lifetime, it follows thatat the end of the decay there are one

483

The death of professor G. W, Richmunn of St, Petersburg m 1753 ha been asm”bed to the firstexperiment which succeeded- -accidentally- -in producing artajictil ball lightnrng. According toStanlej Singer,23 as Richmann observed the effect of a thunderstorm on a devi?e for measun”ngatmospheric electricity, lsghtning struck a rod connected to his apparatus, causing a l&htningball to traveljrom the device to Richmann >forehead. The fatal experiment was m“tnessed bya fn’end of Richmunn, an engraver of the Royal Academy of St. Petersburg.

484

or two luminous balls only. In generalthese objects have an upward motionof 1 or 2 m s -1, which gives an overallpicture consistent with the hypothesisof a gradually cooling spheroid of hotgas. ”

In the same paper, the authors lendsupport to the early theory involvingcombustion of material released fromthe ground. They note that “lightemission occurred at the foot ofwooden posts” in the test area. “Thelight-emitting region was stationary,in contact with the ground at the placewhere the post enters the earth. Itsshape seems roughly spherical with adiameter of about 25 cm . ...” Theycomment, “It is not surprising thatsome underground outgassing occursand that the gasses escape at thepoint where the posts puncture the

uPPer layer. It remains to be decidedwhether the light comes from hotgases only or from a combustion in-volving hydrogen or methane, for in-stance, or from a localized electricdischarge mechanism. ”

Just a few weeks ago, MarkStenhoff of the Physics Department ofRoyal Holloway College reported acase in which a woman touched andwas injured by ball lightning. Stenhoffreported in Nature that on 8 August1975, the woman, who lives in theMidlands area of England, was in herkitchen during a thunderstorm “whena sphere of light appeared over thecooker. The ball twas z 10 cm acrossand surrounded by a flame-coloredhalo; its color was bright blue to pur-ple. The ball moved straight towardsthe witness at an estimated height of95 cm from the ground. Burning heatwas felt, and there was a singeingsmell. A sound something like a“rattlewas heard.”19

The woman herself reported that,“The ball seemed to hit me below the

belt, as it were, and I automaticallybrushed it from me and it just dis-appeared. Where 1 brushed it away

there appeared a redness and swell-

ing on my left hand. It seemed as ifmy gold wedding ring was burninginto my finger. ” The lightning ballproduced a hole in the woman’s dressand underwear at the point where itstruck her. Her legs became red andnumb. The woman, who had neverbefore heard of ball lightning, feltthat the ball exploded just as shetouched it.

Commenting on this report in a Na-ture editorial, P.C. W. Davies notesthat progress in ball lightning re-search is hampered by the lack of pre-cise, reliable observational data. Hesuggests that, “The present unsatis-factory situation would be greatly im-proved if the aura of mystery and su-perstition surrounding unusual aerialevents were dispelled. Good, detailedeye-witness reports of luminous ballsare frequently made by competent ob-,servers such as airline pilots, but arerarely passed on to scientists. Instead,many of them find their way into miii-tary tiles, where they are shrouded ina ridiculous secrecy. (Incredibly, theBritish Ministry of Defence continuesto deny scientists access to their ac-counts of these events. ) With propercooperation between scientists andthe public, particularly the localpress, and the civil aircraft authori-ties, it would be possible to follow upball lightning reports rapidly, enabl-ing tests for radioactivity and so forthto be carried out. “20

To help clarify the situation, a fewindividuals have turned their energiesto collecting ball lightning rep&-ts.One of these is William Corliss ofGlen Arm, Maryland, a consultant toNASA who has compiled Strange Phe-nomena, Zf a ‘‘sourcebook” which

485

contains abstracts of 75 ball lightningreports. Also notable is the balllightning bibliography compiled byJ.D. Barry of the US Air Force’sSpace and Missile Systems Organiza-tion, Los Angeles. This bibliography,copies of which are available from theauthor, cites over 1,100 ball lightningreports and references spanning 3S0years.22 Another excellent source ofinformation on the scientific history ofball lightning is a book published in1971, The Nature of Ball Lightning byStanley Singer, director of AthenexResearch Associates, Pasadena, Cali-fomia.23 According to Singer,Faraday felt that any relation betweenball lightning and streak lightning was“more than doubtful, ” and Lord Kel-vin held that ball lightning was noth-ing more than an optical illusion. Theselected ball lightning bibliographywhich follows is intended to stimulate

12

3.4.

5.

6.

7.8.

9.10,

11.

12.

19.

14.

15

16

17

18,

mscusslon, ana possIfJly research, orthis centuries-old but still fascinating

subject.Returning to the 1962 article by

Cade, we’ve been unable to find anyother articles about “X-Weapons.”Maybe the idea was impractical--ormaybe the work was so successfulthat it was classified. What surprisesme most about the ball lightning storyis the failure of any leading Americanor Soviet journal to present a compre-hensive discussion of this area of re-search. The state of the literature onball lightning is similar to Shakes-peare’s description of Romeo andJuliet’s love:

It is too rash, too unadvis ‘d,too sudden:

Too like the lightning; which clothcease to be

Ere one can say it lightens. 24.-

PREFERENCES

Twain M. Letter to an unidentified pawn. 1908.

Anon. Maas of fire falls into sea. Scirnce 5:24’2, 20 March 1885,

Anon. Electrical phenomena near Weymouth. Nature 1~262, 16 August 1990.

Cawkell A E. Personal communication, 4 February 1976,Cade C M. Thunderbolts as the Xweapon. Dticovery 2S:23, November 1962.Argyle E. Ball lightning as an optical illusion. Nature 2S0: 179.80, 1971,Hill E L. Ball lightning. American Scierrtid 58:479, 1970.

Charman N. The enigma of ball lightning. New Scientist 566 S2-35, 1972.

Altschuler M D. Is ball lightning a nuclear phenomenon? Nature 228:545.46, 1970.Ashby D E T F. & Wbitehead C. Is ball lightning caused by antimatter mcteorim?

Nature 230:180.82, 1971.

Altschuler M D. Atmsopheric electricity and plasma inte~retations of UFOS, In: Scienh~icstudyof unidentified Jfying obJ”ects,cd. by E.U. Con&n (New York: E.P. Dutton,1969), Chapter 7. pp. 72 S-55.

Uman M A. Some comments on ball lightning. J ,4tmosph Ten Phys 301245-46,1968.

Cttvington A E. Ball lightning. Nature 226:252.55, 1970.Blair A J F. Magnetic fields, ball lightning, and campanology. Nature 243:512, 1973.Kapiras P L. [The nature of globe lightning.] Dokl. Ahud. Nauk SSSR 101:245, 1955.

Kapitaa P L. A thermonuclear reactor with a plasma filament freely floating in a hi~h-frequcncy fteld. Sou. Phys JETP 31:199, 1970.

Tompkhas D R Jr., Rodney P F & Goading R. A theory of ball lightning, Bull.Amer Phys. Sot. 20:659, 1975

Fieux R, Gary C k Hubert P. Artificially triggered lightning atmve land.Nature 257:212.14, 1975.

486

19. Stenhoff M. Ball lightning. Nature 2~5552):596-97, 15 April 1976.

20. Davies P C W. Ball lightning. Nature 260(5552) :57S, 15 April 1976.$!1. Corlh W R. (compiler) Stra~e PhenomenaGlen Arm, Maryland: Corliss, 1974.

22. Barry J D. Bibliography of ball lightning rcpsa. f Atmo#sh. Terr. Phys. S&1577, 1974.

23. Singer S. The nature OJ ball Itj@tnsisg (New York: Plenum Prcra, 1971) 169pp.

24. Shakespeare W. Romeo andJtdiet Act 2, Scene 2.

BALL LIGHTNINGA SELECTED BIBLIOG~PHY

1. Alexander W H. A poseible case of ball lightning.Monthly Weather RevieuJ 36S10, July 1907.

2. Altschuler M D. Atmospheric electricity and plasma interpretations of UFOS. [n:3cientt~ic study oj um”denttjied flying objects, ed. by E.U. (lsndon (New York:E.P. Dutton, 1969), Chapter 7, pp. 72 S-55.

S. Altachtsler M D. Is ball lightning a nuclear phenomenon? Nature 228:545-46, 1970.

4. Andemert W H. Energy source for ball lightning. J. Geophys. Res. 7q6): 1291, 1%5.

5. Artdermn F J k Freier G D. Report on ball lightning.J. Geo#shyr. Res. 77(21 ):S928, 1972.

6. Arago M. On thunder and lightning. Edsisburgh New Philosoph. J. 2681-144, 18S8.

7. Argyle E. Ball lightning as an optical illusion. Nrsture 230179.80, 1971.

8. Ashby D E T F. 1s baU lightning caused by antimatter meteorites?Nature 280180-82, 1971.

9. Barry J D. Ball lightning. Thesis, California State College, 1966.

10. Barry J D. Ball lightning. J. Atmosph. Terr. Phy&s 29(9): 1095, 1967.

11. Barry J D. Laboratory ball lightning. J. Atmosph, Terr, Phyo”rs 30(2):S19, 1968,

12. Barry J D. Bibliography of ball lightning reports.J. Atmosph. Terr. Physics 36(9):1577, 1974.

1 S. Barry J D. A comprehe~”ve bibliographyOJball @htnirtg reparts. Technical ReportAFAL-TR-73-348, January 1974. Air Force Avionics Laboratory, Air Force Sys-tems Command, Wright- Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Mimeographed; v,28 pp. – – This bibliography is divided into two lists of ‘verified’ and ‘unverified’references, Unfohunately neither lii gives titles of the cited works, only firstauthors and journal or book title in abbreviated form.

14. Bencdicke C. Theory of the lightning balls and its application to the atmospheric

phenomenon called “flying saucers.”’ Arkiv for Geofj.ril 21, 1954.

15. Bergcr K. [Ball lightning and lightning research.] Natum”i.trnschoften 60( 11 ):485, 1973.

16. Blair A J F. Magnetic fields, ball lightning and campanology. Nature 24 S:512-13, 1975.

17. Botley C M. Ball lightning. Nature 126919, 1930.

18. Brew W. A peeufiar discharge of lightning. Nature 48 S70, 189S,

19. Bromley K A. Ball lightning. Nature 226253, 1970.

20. Cade C M. Thunderbolts as the X-weapon. Discooery 23:23, November, 1962.

21. Cecchini S. Dicoceo G & Mandolesi N. Positron annihilation in EAS and ball lightn-ing. Nature Z5&6S7-S8, 1974.

22. Charman W N. After images and ball Iigbtning. Nature 230576, 1971.

~9. Charman W N. Perceptual effects and reliability of ball lightning reports.J. A#mo.ph. Terr. Physic. 33(12):197S, 1971.

487

24. Charman W N. The enigma of ball lightning. New Se&stUt !i&6S2-95, 1972.

25. Cttarman W N. Ball lightning photographed? New Scientist 69:444-46, 1976.

26. Chattoek A P. Globular lightning discharge. Nature 109:106.7, 1922.

27. &king A. Fireball Nature 30269, 1884,

28. CovingSon A E. Ball lightning. Nature 22&252.53, 1970.

29. Cowgill W. Curious phenomenon in Venezuela, Scient:~ic American 55:389, 1886.

SO. Crawford J F. Antimatter and ball lightning, Nature 2SYS95, 1972.

31. Cumming L. Thunderbolt in Warwickshirc, Noture 48:S41 .42, 1893.

S2. Davies D W & Ssandler R B. Ball lightning Nature 240:144, 1972.

3S. Davies P C W. Ball lightning. Nature 26&573, 1976.

34. Davies P C W. Ball lightning or spts before the eyes? Nature 230:576-77, 1971.

35. Dawaon G A & Jones R C. Ball lightning as a radiation bubble.Pure Afipl. Geophysics 75(4):247, 1969.

S6. Dcwan E M. Eyewitness accounts of Kugelblitz. Air Force Cambridge Research Labora-tories, CRD.25, March, 1964.

37. Dcwan E M. Attempted explanations of ball lightning. Physical Scicnccs Research Paper#67, Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories 64.927, November 1964,

98. Dmitriev M T. Stability mechanism for ball lightning.SOV. Phy.t Techn. Phys. 14(2):284, 1969.

99, Dmitriev M T. Dcryuglin V M & Kalinkcvskii G A. [Optical radiation of ball lightning. ]Zh. Tekhn. Fri. 4~10):2187, 1972.

40, Felaher M. Ball lightning. Nature 227:982, 1970.

41. Fieux R, Gary C & Hubert P. Artificially triggered lightning above land.Nature 257:212.14, 1975.

42. Finkelstein D & Rubinstein J. Ball lightning, Physical Retnew 135:A390, 1964.43. Fleming S j & Aitken M J. Radiation dosage associated with ball lightning,

Nature 252:220.21, 1974.44, Forteacue C. Meteor. Nature 28:541, 1889.

45, Fuller C. Mywerious burnings. Fate 13:18, November 1960.

46. Fuller C. Fireball. Fafe 1522, January 1962.

47. Cold E. The electric phenomena of thunderstorms. Nature 169:561-63, 1952.48. Crmdlct B L. Lightning. J. Inst. Elect. Eng. 81:1, 1937.

49. Cordon A H. Fireball cuts off 2500 TV sets. Weather25:85, 1970.

50. Handel P H. Maser theory of ball lightning. Bull. Amer. Phys. Sot. ~1 ):26, 1975.

51. Hare A T. Globular lightning. Nature 40:415, 1889.

52. Hill CR. Radiation from ball lightning. Natu7e 228:1007, 1970.5S. Hill E. Globular lightning. Nature 56:299, 1897.54. Hill E L. Ball lightning as a physical phenomenon. J Geo#hys. Res. 65:1947.52, 1960.

55, Hill E L. Ball lightning. Amer .$ctentirt 58(5):479, 1970.56. Humphreys W J. Ball lightning. Amer. Philosophicrd Sot. Proc. 76:613.26, 19S6.57. Hunneman M E. A fire-ball. Science 86244, 1937.58. Jenniaon R C. Ball lightning. Nature 224:895, 1969.59. Jenniaon R C. Ball Lightning and after-images. Nature 230:576, 1971.

60. Jennison R C. Can ball lightning exist in a vacuum? Nature 24595, 1973.

61. Jensen J C. Ball lightning. SciktrqficMonthly S7 190-92, 199S.

62. Johnean P O. Ball lightning and self-containing .4cctromagnctic tichh.Amer. J. Phyfi”m 33(2): 119, 1965.

63. Kaiser J. Ball lightning. Science W.29S-94, 1924.64. Kapiraa P L. [The nature of globe lightning.] Do&l. A had. Nauk SSSR. 101:245, 1955.

65. KarpiwaP L. [Ball lightning and radio emission from linear lightning. ]Sov. Phys. Techn. Phys. 13(11):1475, 1969.

66. Kapitaa P L. A chcrrnonuclcar reactor with a plasma filament freely floating in a highfrequency field. Sov. Phys. JETP .31(2):199, 1970,

488

67. Kogan-BeletsM G L [The nature of brdf fightning. ] l+e+oda 471, 1957. –– includedin Ritchie D j, ed. till @tsszhg etc.

68. KOZ1OVB N. [Principles of ball lightning relaxation theory.]Dakl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 221(4):802-04, 1975.

69. Kzummel H. Uber daz Auftreterr von KugeIbfitzcn fsei dent Gewitter am 21 Jufi 1965 inMarquardt bei Potzdam. (Occurrence of baff lightning during the July 21, 1965storm at Marquardt/Potsdam). Zschr. A4eteorol. 1~3/4): 112, 1967.

70. Ladikov Y P. [Magneto-vortex ringz.]Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Mekh. Maschthostroenie 4:7, July/August 1960. –– in-cluded in Ritchie D J. ed. Ball Iigw etc.

71. Lazaridea M. Lightning balls. Nature 2S1: 134, 1971.

72. Lewis H W. Ball lightning. SCiessttyic A rneri.zan 208:106-08 passim, March 1963.

7S. Ldienfeld P. Ball lightning. Nature 22625!l, 1970.74. hteb L B & Andersem W H. Comments on the paper by W.H. Andemers, Energy

source for ball lightning, J. Geo#shys. Rrrs. 71(2):676, 1966.

75. McMillats W G. On the phenomena of the lightning discharge, as ilhuurated by thestriking of a house in Cossipore, Calcutta. Nature 40:295-95, 1889.

76. McNaIly J R Jr. Preliminary report on ball lightning. Paper presented at Amer. Phys.Sot. (Pfosmss Physic$), Second Annual Meeting, Gatlinburg, Tcnn., November2-5, 1960.

77. Marsh O C. Globular lightning. Nature 5S: 152, 1895.

78. Michin C M. A fireball. Sa”ent~ic Amen”can 73:S74, 1895.

79. MWar W J. Fireballs. Nature S0912, 1884.

80. Mills A A. Ball lightning and thermoluminescence.Nuture--Phys. Sci. !28S(42): 131-32, 1971.

81. Mimno H R. Ball lightning. IEEE Tr. Aerosp. & E/ectr. Syst. El AE56(6):846. 1970.

82. Mohr F B. A truly remarkable fly. Sa”snce 151:6S4, 1966.

89. Mott F T. Curious electrical phenomenon. Nature 22:193, 1880.84. Neugebauer T. Zu dem Problem des Kugelblitzes. (On the problem of ball lightning).

Z.rchr. Physik 106:474, 19S7.85. Petrzilk V A. [A possible explanation of ball lightning motions.]

Ceskostou. Casopis Fysiku 19(2):160, 1969.

86. Plunkett G T. Ball lightning. Ersgfilr Mechanic 90140, 1909.87. Powell B. A catalogue of observations of luminous meteors, 1848-1849. Reports OJ the

Brilrih Assocrktion 152-159, 1858,88. Powell J & Domish R. Ball lightning and experimental near-spherical flamee in DC

fields. BuIL Amer. Phys. Sot. 14(1 1): 1026, 1969.

89. Powell J R Et Finkelztein D. Ball lightning. Amer. Sa”entid 58(5):262, 1970.

90. Rayle W D. Ball lightning characteristics. NASA Technical Note D-3188, January, 1966.

91. lUtche D J, ed. Ball lightning, a collection of Soukt research in English translation,New York, Consultants Bureau, 1961.

92. Rodney P F & Tompkins D R. Theory of ball lightning.ErsU Amer. Phys. Sot. ~4):659, 1975.

93. Russell A. Ball lightning. Nature 12&809, 19S0.

94. 8cyhoth R. An instance of ball fightning at sea.Monthly Weather Reusixu ~249-50, June 1901.

95. Shafranov V D. [On magrrctohydrodynamical equilibrium configurations.]Zh. Eks/s. Teoret, Fir. !t7224, 1959. – – Included in Ritchie D J, ed. Balllightning, etc.

96. Shepard C U. On a shooting meteor. Amer. J. Science 2(28):270-76, 1859.

97. 8ilberg P A. Ball lightning and plasmoids. j. Geo#Iys. Res. 67:4941, 1962.

98. Singer S. The unsolved problem of ball lightning. Nature 198:745-47, 196S.

99. Singer S. The rzuture of ball lightnz+sg (New York: Plenum Press, 1971) 169 pp.100. Smimov B M. [Analysis of nature of ball lightning.]

LJspekhi Fri. Nauk 116(4) :7 S1-99, 1975.

489

101, Smith W F. Ball lightning. Nature ~2!67, 1880.

102. Stakharsov I P. Concerning nature of ball lightning. JETP Letters l~!l): 114, 1973,

103. Stakhartov I P. [Properties of ball lightning, ] Uspckhi Fir Msrsk 113(2):351 -5S, 1974,

104. Stakhanov I P. [Stability of ball lightning. ] Z/s. Tekhn. Fiz. 44(7): 1379, 1974.105. !knhoff M. Ball lightning. Nature 280:596.97, 1976.

106. Talman C F. Ball lightning, .4rnerikrm Mercury 2669.72, May 1932,

107. Tennant J. A fireball. Nature 24:285, 1881.108. Tompkins D R, Rodney P F & Gooding R. Photographic observations of ball lightning.

Bull. Amer. Phys. Sot. ~4):659, 1975.

109. Urnan M N. Some comments on ball lightning,J, Atmosph. Terv, Physics 301245.46, 1968,

110. Uman M A & Helatrom C W. A theory of ball lightning.J. Geo~hys. Res. 71(8): 1975, 1966.

111. U ,S. Library of Gongres. Science and Technology Division. Ball lrghtning bibliography.1961.

11!2. Voitaekh B V & Voisaekh B B. [Nature of ball lightning.]Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 218(1):77-80, 1974,

113. Wagner G A. Optical and acoustic detection of ball lightning, NafuTe 232187, 1971.

114. Wittmann A. In support of a physical explanation of ball lightning.Nature 232:625, 1971,

115, Wolf K. Nature of ball lightning.Scient~ic A men”can ~Supplement):54 .55, July 24, 1915.

116. Wsmtf R W. Ball lightning. Nature 126:723, 1930.117. Wooding E R. Ball lightning, Nature 199272, 1969.

118. Wooding E R. Laser analoguc to ball lightning. Nature 239:394, 1972.

119. Zaissev A V. [New theory of ball lightning.] Z/t. Tkhn. Fiz 4’2(1):219, 1972.

120. Zimmerman P D. Energy content of Covington’s lightning ball, Nature 228:853, 1970,

121 Anon. Ball lightning in a cloud. Amer. Meteoro/. Sot. Bull. 23:88, 1942.122. Anon. The ball lightning controversy, Chemistry 44:%?.9, June 1971.

123. Anon. The latest conception of “ball lightning.” Current Literature 51:989, 1911.124. Anon. Ball lightning, Literary Dr@f 46177, January 25, 1919.

125. Anon. A new theory of ball lightning. Literary Diged 107:27, October 11, 19!30.

126. Anon. Ball lightning. Monthly Weather Rer.iew 26358, 1898,

127. Anon. Ball lightning. Monthly Weather Retikw 33:409, 1905,128. Anon. Ball lightning at Salina, Kans. Monthly Weather Rerieru 47:728, 1919,129. Anon. Ball lightning. Nature 15:5S9, 1877.130. Anon. Ball of fire. Nature 22466, 1880.

131. Anon. Descent of ball lightning. Nature 24:476, 1881,192. Anon. Fireball rises out of sea. Nature 37:187, 1887.

1 W. Anon. Ball lightning at Alpena, Michigan. Nature 126153, 1930.

134. Anon. Electrical phenomena near Weyrnouth, Nature 126:262, 1930.135. Anon. Weird phantoms of the air. Popular Mechanics 48:979.82, 1927.

136. Anon. Mass of fire falls into sea. Science 5:242, 1885.137. Anon. Ball lightning phenomenon. Science 78(Supp1. 9), October 27, 1933.138. Anon. Ball lightning apparently connected with dust.

Science News Letter 24:323-4, 1939.138. Anon. Ball lightning due to leak in stroke at joint. Science News Letter 85:S92, 1964.

140. Anon. New theoretical model for ball lightning. Science News Letter ~ 199, 1964.

141, Arton. Theories of ball lightning.Scientt~ic Amm”can 88(Supplemcnt):376 .77, 11 December 1909.

142. Anon. Ball lightning at sea. Scient~ic American 86:36, 1902.

490