see: https://vixra.org/pdf/1805.0307v1.pdf
Leo Vuyk
In this edit a newly-created IP account added text giving Leo Vuyk credit for originating the hypothesis that ball lightning could be caused by miniature black holes. The ref given was "(in 1992, see patent Espacenet; reactor vessel for the purpose of maintaining, enlarging and making commercial use of a small black hole (or ball lightning))", which leads to to an abstract here. Beyond the parenthetical mention, there is no discussion in the abstract of ball lightning. (The full text is in Danish ( no: DUTCH)- not one of my languages.) The patent application, which lapsed on 1994/10/03, states "it is possible to generate a mechanical perpetuum mobile". It sounds to me like Vuyk did not actually go so far as to suggest black holes as a possible explanation for the natural phenomenon (or not) of ball lightning. If his advocate would like to replace such a statement in the article, I would like to first see the passage of the patent were this claim is made. Art Carlson (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry for my late reaction to Art Carlson's quest for more clarity on my claims,
- The translation of the Dutch abstract goes like this:
- Title of the invention:
- The invention relates to a reactor vessel for the purpose of maintaining, enlarging and making commercial use of a small black hole (or ball lightning). An important phenomenon associated with so-called miniature black holes is Hawking radiation. This radiation consists, internally, of an outwardly directed flux of electrons and an inwardly directed flux of antiparticles, the positrons.
- The purpose of the reactor vessel is to exploit the electrical power produced outside the observation horizon of the black hole by conducting the electron flux on the one hand and the positron flux on the other hand in such a way that an inexhaustible D.C. energy can be obtained and utilized. ~~Leo Vuyk~~ Leo Vuyk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.109.180 (talk) 08:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- My comment was based on the English abstract to which I already gave a link. Your comment does not address the problem. Art Carlson (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
YOU WROTE: It sounds to me like Vuyk did not actually go so far as to suggest black holes as a possible explanation for the natural phenomenon (or not) of ball lightning. If his advocate would like to replace such a statement in the article, I would like to first see the passage of the patent were this claim is made. I MADE THE CLAIM BY THE TITLE; "The invention relates to a reactor vessel for the purpose of maintaining, enlarging and making commercial use of a small black hole (or ball lightning). " AND OF COURSE FURTHER IN THE DUTCH TEXT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo Vuyk (talk • contribs) 17:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC) SEE AT PAGE 6 AND 7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo Vuyk (talk • contribs) 17:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC) The words Ball Lightning are in Dutch: "BOL BLIKSEM" ~~LEO VUYK~~
- Leo - your perpetual motion engine is based on the idea of a Kugelblitz, which is not the same phenomenon as is being discussed on this page -- but translates to the same word in English. As a perpetual motion engine, it is also an impossible idea, but you might attempt to suggest it on the ball lightning (astrophysics) page.77.101.47.254 (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Toroids etc.
Removed duplicate section and tried to create cites. Kortoso (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
A plausible explanation is completely ignored, why?
Er, there's a lot of high-powered physics speculation here, but isn't it entirely possible that "ball lightning" is not a distinct phenomenon at all? So far as I can tell, the evidence consists of a grab-bag of anecdotal reports. It's quite plausible that these are just an assortment of garbled descriptions, misinterpretations, fantasies, hoaxes, and so forth. This article more or less presumes that there is a physical phenomenon called ball lightning and then attempts to speculatively explain it. Isn't that premature? 99.249.153.25 (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- I might add that the very large number of reports of ball lightning is, paradoxically, evidence against the idea that it is a distinct phenomenon. Video recorders of all kinds are now ubiquitous. If it were that the vast majority of ball lightning reports were not false, we would have a recording of the phenomenon by now. But if we know that the vast majority of the reports are false, then it becomes more plausible that all are false. Although I guess the above wouldn't apply to claims that it is a distinct neurological phenomenon (although I regard those as fairly speculative on their own terms.) 99.249.153.25 (talk) 02:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- "Plausible" does not constitute proof one way or the other. It would seem (at least to me) that the article needs to treat the subject as neutrally as possible; whatever the various accounts and so forth mean or do not mean, they do exist, and the article should mention them (and any other theories on the subject) while emphasizing that no scientifically-verifiable evidence or proof of this phenonemon has been forthcoming up to the present time. That is just my opinion. - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)