I think , despite some details, LENr and ball Lighning are very different. BL started from laymen observation, in uncontroled environment. My dad talk me about that, and for him is was known fact, linked to lignting on wet organic structures (wood, roofs). He have indirect witnessing of people who were victim of it, wre tracked by it, or escaped by not moving (it was clear for him that it was real, following wires and pipes, attracted by moving and wind)... I was prudent about his claims, and I am always about non mainstream claims.
I did not know it was fringe science, since for me, in the 1950s it was simply ununderstood phenomena, like "Branly's coherer", Bermuda triangle, Zone 51, like before Germanium conduction (PN!) anomalies, germs, genetics, ... Cold Fusion/LENR is very different. It is a lab experiment, replicated, validated, whose many faced have been observed through many instruments. The only commonality is the collective denial. For BL it seems easy to understand since the only evidence are non scientists, or at least hard to call... no machine could attract ball lightning... for LENR is is very different. It is clearly a political effect launched by few influential people, and maintained by terror against dissenters, and by easy minds enough incompetent not to see the arguments (like the 3 miracles) were void (in lattice- every MSc in microelectronics can judge it). 2013/8/27 <[email protected]> > It's interesting to note that the still unexplained and controversial > phenomenon of ball lightning is derided as mass delusion, e.g., -- > > Is Ball Lightning Just a Shared Hallucination? > > http://www.universetoday.com/64560/is-ball-lightning-just-a-shared-hallucination/ > > - despite that probable ball lightning has also deluded video cams, e.g., > > "UFO" Shoots Missile with beams - Vandenberg Air Force Base > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO4FhJ3mjrE > > Challenging established orthodoxy endangers reputation, career, income, ... > > This recent (open source) paper -- > > Interrelation between ball lightning and optically induced forces > http://iopscience.iop.org/1402-4896/88/3/035402 > > -- begins with the observation - > > "The phenomenon of ball lightning (BL) remains unresolved > up to the present moment. No satisfactory explanation of > enigmatic natural phenomena (observed and examined by > scientists for many centuries) has been found up to now. > More than 200 different BL theories are known, and their > systematization and classification have been carried out. > However, neither of them can even approximately explain the > enigmatic and intriguing behavior of BLs, which to a certain > degree reminds one of the behavior of some highly organized > matter. Physicists cannot imagine an object, submitting to > conventional physical laws, whose properties coincide with > BL properties. This is something perfectly new." > > It seems that the same laws of social psychology are operating > to discourage investigations of BL and LENR. > > BTW, the following paper -- > > Tracks of Ball Lightning in Apparatus? > J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 2 (2009) 13–32 > http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LewisEtracksofba.pdf > > - speculates that micro-BL might explain the topography of > pock-marked, streaked, ..., metal surfaces seen in LENR. > > Any opinions on the reality of ball lightning? > > -- Lou Pagnucco > > >
