Enlightening Physics

The Physics of lightning

T.H.M. Arts
Dr. W.K. Kegel
13-09-2002
Van 't Hoff laboratory for Physical and Colloid Chemistry,
Debye Institute,
Utrecht University
Enlightening Physics
Table of contents

1. INTRODUCTION 3

2 WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR A GOOD DESCRIPTION OF LIGHTNING? 5

3. LIGHTNING 7

3.1 FAIR-WEATHER FIELD 7

3.2 CLOUD GROWTH 9
3.3 OVERALL CHARGE DISTRIBUTION 11
3.4 CHARGING MECHANISMS 13
3.4.1 The precipitation charging processes 14
3.4.2 The convective charging process 19
3.4.3 Models of the electrification of thunderstorms 22
3.4.4 The present atmospheric electricity paradigm and its anomalies 25
3.5 THE LIGHTNING FLASH 27
3.5.1 Cloud lightning 27
3.5.2 Ground lightning 27
4. A COLLOIDAL REPRESENTATION OF LIGHTNING 33

5. CONCLUSIONS 35

REFERENCES 37

Table of contents 1
Enlightening Physics 2
1. Introduction

Lightning has always been both a frightening and fascinating phenomenon to mankind. In early
times lightning and thunder were thought to be acts of angry gods. When people started to study
natural philosophy, they attempted to find more rational explanations for thunder and lightning.
Aristotle suggested that they were caused by the interaction of moist and dry exhalations of the
clouds. As clouds condensed and cooled the dry exhalation was forced out and struck other
clouds, thus producing thunder. Lightning was the burning wind produced by the impact of the
dry exhalation on other clouds. In the 1600s Descartes thought that thunder was caused by the
resonance of air between clouds when one cloud descended on another [1].
The first time the connection between lightning and electricity was noted was in 1708 by William
Wall. He noted the similarity between lightning and the crackling sparks produced by the rubbing
of amber. Many more scientists after him started to recognise and investigate the electrical nature
of lightning among which was Benjamin Franklin. As always the progressive thinkers were
hindered by the established scientific world. The first two papers Franklin wrote to the Royal
Society in England were received with laughter by the leading experts on electricity [2].
The first experiment to prove the electrical nature of lightning was proposed by Franklin and
carried out by a French naturalist DAlibard. He proved that clouds are indeed electrically
charged. A few weeks later, Franklin, unaware of the success of DAlibard, performed his famous
kite experiment. By doing this he not only proved that clouds are electrically charged, but also
that they are negative at the base and positive at the top, a concept introduced by Franklin, and
still in use today.
Now we are at the stage that more precise equipment is developed every day and our
understanding of thunderstorms is increasing at a rate these early pioneers would not have held
possible. Mathematical models are now being developed to describe the evolution of
thunderclouds and the production and separation of charge, both on the micro- and macro-scale.
With our growing understanding of the processes of lightning and charge separation in clouds it is
now possible to use this knowledge in other fields of research. This paper is meant to investigate
the possibility of using the fundamental understanding of the lightning process for colloidal
research or vice-versa.
First an overview of the entire process, from the fair weather field to the eventual event of the
lightning flash will be presented. After this examples will be presented to show how this
knowledge can be used in the field of colloidal science.

Introduction 3
Enlightening Physics 4
2 What is necessary for a good description of lightning?

To describe lightning we will first have to realise what it is and what the mechanisms are
behind the lightning stroke. The light we see and the thunder we hear are a result of the
explosion of the air in the lightning channel as a consequence of the vast amounts of electrical
energy going through the channel in a very short period of time. The return stroke, the
lightning stroke we see, travels at a speed of one third of the speed of light.
Lightning is the electrical discharge between large positive and negative regions in a
thundercloud or at the earths surface. There are two different forms of lightning that will be
discussed in this paper; Cloud lightning; the electrical discharge between positive and
negative regions within a cloud, and Ground lightning. The second class of lightning is the
one that attracts most attention in research because it is the most dangerous and intriguing to
mankind. The physical properties of both kinds of lightning are almost identical, so they will
be treated as the same in the rest of the paper.
In order to understand lightning it is necessary to know where the large charged regions are
which cause the lightning and how these regions are charged. Several different micro- and
macro- scaled mechanisms and models for the production and separation of charges in
thunderstorms exist in science today and they will be discussed later.
Before all these properties of thunderstorms can be dealt with, first the formation of clouds
and thunderstorms has to be elucidated.

What is necessary for a good description of lightning? 5

Enlightening Physics 6
3. Lightning

In this chapter the understanding of the development of lightning will be built from the clear
blue sky it originates from (the fair weather field).

3.1 Fair-weather field

Clouds are the most highly charged objects in the atmosphere, but even when no clouds are
present, the earths atmosphere is charged, with the surface of the earth being negative and the
atmosphere positive. This is almost entirely due to the excess of positive over negative ions in
the atmosphere, which can be best understood if we assume that the earths surface has
absorbed a certain number of negative ions, leaving the atmosphere slightly positively
charged. More than 90% of the charge and potential are confined to an altitude below 3 km
and follows the concentration of other constituents of the atmosphere, for instance Radon, a
radioactive gas which is constantly being emitted by the earths surface (figure 1).

Figure 1: the distribution of positive ions throughout the atmosphere follows the distribution of other substances,
such as radon gas, which implies that convection and eddy currents are responsible for the fair-weather field.

Lightning 7
 Figure 2: The world can be represented as a spherical capacitor.

The electric system can be modelled as a spherical capacitor with the two conducting shells
being the ionosphere (or electrosphere) and the earth [2]. In between these two there is the
lightly conducting atmosphere. A charge of roughly 5 *105 C resides on both shells [1].
Because air is slightly conducting, there is a leakage current which would discharge the
capacitor in about 10 minutes. Thats why there has to be a mechanism that charges the
system continuously.

Figure 3: A simplified model for the generator function of thunderstorms for the global electric current.

As early as 1920 Wilson published the hypothesis that the fair weather electric field is caused
by the worldwide activity of thunderstorms [3]. Strong evidence for this hypothesis is the
correlation coefficient of 0.94 which is found if the daily variations in the fair weather
potential gradient are compared to the total thunder area around the world a (see figure 4) [4].

a) b)
Figure 4: a) Diurnal variation of fair weather potential gradient at the ocean surface from two research ships
b) Diurnal variation of worldwide thunder over land. The world curve is a composite of all other curves.

Enlightening Physics 8
 3.2 Cloud growth

At the border between land and sea a situation can occur where cold humid sea-air flows over
land, where it is heated by the radiation of the earth. When this situation occurs there is a
temperature gradient of increased instability, which means that the temperature decreases
more rapidly with height than in the normal situation. Warm air will then rise into the cooler
and dryer air above, where it will expand due to the lower air pressure. This is accompanied
by a decline in temperature. A parcel of air will continue rising as long as it is warmer than
its surroundings [5].

Stratosphere

Dry air
Sea Land

Figure 5: Cold, humid sea-air is transported over land and heated. The air rises into a dry air layer where it forms
clouds.

The higher amount of water vapour in the warmer air condenses as the temperature of the air
parcel is lowered below the temperature of saturation and forms clouds (figure 6-a). Because
of this condensation a lot of heat is released into the rising air parcel and the updraught is
accelerated (figure 6-b). This lengthens the channel of warmer air normally up to the
tropopause, where it ceases due to the newly arrived layer with an increasing temperature
upwards (the lower edge of the stratosphere) (figure 6-c). At this level, the top of the cloud
stretches out, forming the anvil (figure 6-d) [6]. A shower or thunderstorm occurs only when
there is a sufficient decline of ambient temperature with height in a deep layer [5].

Stratosphere
troposphere

a) b) c) d)
Figure 6: The growth of a thundercloud

Lightning 9
This describes the formation of a single storm cell, a structure of a few kilometres in diameter,
which can produce all lightning phenomena. A large thunderstorm can contain numerous cells
which successively become active for a period of about 30 minutes, the lifetime of a cell.
It can readily be seen from figure 7 that most of the thunderstorms in the world occur over
land around the equator in the tropics. There are much more thunderstorm days in those
regions than in any other region in the world. This coincides with a region where moist sea-air
and high temperatures over land occur.

Figure 7: Annual Number of Thunderstorm days [5]

Enlightening Physics 10
3.3 Overall charge distribution

In the first approximation a thundercloud can be described as a vertical positive dipole as is

shown in figure 8. The charge on the earths surface directly below the cloud tends to be
much higher and of opposite sign compared to the fair-weather field. Point discharges and
corona from the grass and trees beneath thunderstorms charges the area just below and inside
the cloud base positive.

Figure 8: The dipole moment in thunderclouds

Often small areas of positive charge (Lower Positive Charge Centres) are also found near the
clouds base (see Figure 8). On top of these three charge centres there is a fourth. A negative
screening layer surrounds the upper positive charge.
The main negative charge region usually is horizontally distributed in the storm at a height
where the temperature is between 10 and 25 C. As the cloud grows vertically, the upper
positive charge moves along with the cloud top to temperatures of 30 to -60C, but the main
negative charge remains at the same level.
The total, simplified, picture of the charge distribution in a thundercloud is displayed below.

Figure 9: The total, simplified picture of the charge distribution in a thundercloud

Lightning 11
The charge distribution in real thunderstorms is much more complicated than the picture just
described. It is only a simple description of the minimum number of vertically stacked charge
centres needed to match the most prominent features of electrical field measurements in the
vicinity of thunderclouds.
Recent evidence suggests that even this tripole representation is not correct for the modelling
of thunderstorms. In-cloud measurements by Marshall and Rust [7] and laboratory studies by
Jayaratne [8] reveal a much more complicated electrical structure, with up to six different
horizontally layered charge centres (Figure 10).

Figure 10: Schematic drawing of the basic charge structure in the convective region of a thunderstorm [9]

Enlightening Physics 12
3.4 Charging mechanisms

When lightning is produced from thunderclouds these clouds have a typical distribution of
charge. From the earliest days of lightning research, right after Franklin discovered the
similarity between the noisy, luminous phenomena in thunderstorms and frictional
electrification, the assumption was made that thunderclouds produced electricity by a similar
frictional charging mechanism [10]. Even now almost all theories concerning cloud
electrification and charge separation are based on particle interactions, so called precipitation
charging processes. In 1947 Grenet [11] published a new cloud electrification theory, in
which convection, not falling precipitation, provides the energy. These convective theories
have until recently attracted but little attention.
The various charging mechanisms that have been proposed as possible contributors to the
electrification of thundercloud particles can be divided into two major classifications [12].
1. Precipitation mechanisms requiring particle interactions with subsequent space-charge
separation by gravitational sedimentation
2. Ion attachment to cloud or precipitation particles and then charge separation by either
gravitational settling or by atmospheric convection.
In the following part different mechanisms and models, which explain the production and
separation of charge in the cloud, will be discussed.

Lightning 13
3.4.1 The precipitation charging processes

Despite the considerable efforts that have been made in recent years to solve the problem of
thunderstorm electrification, there are still outstanding problems with the interpretation of
laboratory data and finding the active charge transfer mechanism(s). Here some of the charge
transfer processes will be discussed.

The inductive process

The induction (or polarization) charge separation mechanism was originally suggested as a
method of charge separation in thunderclouds by Elster and Geitel [13] for water drops, and
was later developed for ice particles [14, 15]. The essence of the theory lies in the suggestion
that a cloud particle colliding with the underside of an uncharged precipitation particle
polarized in an electric field should separate charge of magnitude proportional to the field
strength, and of such sign that separation of the particles under gravity will serve to reinforce
the field [16] see figure 11. The efficiency of this charge separation depends on the bounce
probability and the angle of contact of the rebounding particles () [17].

- -
- - +
E E - - E
+ +
+ + +

Figure 11: The Inductive charging process

Because it is likely that water droplet-raindrop collisions result in permanent coalescence,

interactions involving the ice phase seem to be the most likely candidates [16]. The
effectiveness of ice-ice collisions also still is subject of debate because the low conductivity
of ice causes the relaxation time of the distribution of the charge to be shorter than the contact
time of two colliding particles [18]. A possible solution for this problem is the presence of a
small liquid-like or riming layer on the surface of the colliding particles, which has a higher
surface conductivity than that of dry ice [19]. There are strong doubts about the ability of the
mechanism to act as the primary thunderstorm charging mechanism since it is unable to
account for the observed charges in the early stages of thunderstorms when no ice is present.
It seems more likely that it acts as a contributory mechanism in the later stages of
electrification, although there is disagreement about its capacity to contribute significantly to
the total charge between the thundercloud models that include it [20].

Enlightening Physics 14
Charging by ion attachment
Another inductive mechanism, proposed by Wilson [21] is the selective ion capture
mechanism. When a precipitating hydrometeor, a cloud droplet or ice particle, becomes
polarized in an electric field and falls relative to ions moving under the influence of wind and
the electric field, ions of the same sign as the bottom of the hydrometeor are repelled and ions
of the opposite sign ate attracted and captured (see figure 12). In this way the particle is
charged with the same sign as the charge field it is falling towards and thus increases the
charge of that region.

- -
- - - -
+ + E + + E
+ +

- +
Figure 12: The selective ion capture model

Most investigators have suggested that ion capture by hydrometeors is unlikely to produce
thunderstorms in the absence of other mechanisms, because the fair weather ion densities are
too small to electrify a thunderstorm within the lifetime a storm cell [1].

Non-inductive charge-transfer processes

Non-inductive charge-transfer processes occur during particle collisions in which charge is
transferred independently of the local electric field strength [19]. Electrochemical or
thermoelectric properties of the colliding hydrometeors lead to the charge separation [22].

Laboratory work and in-situ measurements in thunderclouds point out that the largest charge
transfers occur during the interactions of small, vapour grown ice crystals with graupel
pellets, larger ice crystals that grow from collisions with small water droplets, in the presence
of supercooled water droplets [19]. The presence of water droplets is a requirement for
substantial charge transfer [23] and also in the case of the absence of ice crystals no charge
separation takes place [24]. Experiments by Reynolds et al. [24] showed that ice spheres,
representing falling graupel pellets, became negatively charged while the colliding crystals
removed positive charge. In a thunderstorm, this leads to the observed vertical dipole when
the oppositely charged particles separate under gravity [19].

Lightning 15
Takahashi [25] found that above 10C ice spheres charge positively during collisions and
that at lower temperatures the sign of the charge depended on the liquid water content. Below
-23C the ice spheres are always charged negatively. Which is in good agreement to the
tripole model of a thunderstorm (see figure 13). These are experimental findings, there is up
till now no good theoretical explanation as to why this reversal of charge takes place at
precisely this temperature range.

10 km -40C

+ -+
7 km
_ -20C

+-
+
4 km 0C

Figure 13: A schematic representation of graupel-ice-crystal charge transfer above and below the reversal
temperature in a thunderstorm [19].

According to Saunders et al. [23] these results are consistent with the idea of two competing
mechanisms whose relative success depends on the temperature and liquid water content.
Positive graupel charging occurs when the graupel surface grows from the vapour. If a drop of
supercooled water freezes on an ice surface the latent heat, which is released when the drop
freezes, causes the drop to partly evaporate. This vapour then freezes on the ice surface
creating negatively charged ice fibres on the surface. According to the temperature gradient
theory of Latham and Mason [26] this negative charging is due to the higher mobility of
protons in ice compared to negative ions (roughly an order of magnitude [1]), the protons
move more rapidly from the warmer fibre tip towards the cooler ice particle. The colliding
crystals remove these ice fibres and thus remove negative charge from the particle. An
alternative to the idea of temperature gradients along ice fibres is the possibility of
temperature gradients in the surface itself [23]. This is due to depositing molecules warming
the whole surface relative to the bulk of the ice beneath: the surface then has a negative
charge and incident crystals will become negatively charged, leaving the target particle
positive.

Enlightening Physics 16
Negative graupel charging occurs when the surface growth effect is swamped by freezing
droplets, which create either a negative contact potential with which the crystals interact, or
a positive surface charge which is removed during glancing crystal interactions. This positive
surface charge is due to dislocations in the rime ice, the less dense ice which grows from the
collision, and subsequent freezing of supercooled water droplets on the falling ice crystal.
Caranti and Illingsworth [27] reported that riming an ice surface caused it to develop a
negative contact potential compared with the unrimed surface, which indicates that in the
event of a collision with an ice crystal positive charges (protons) flow from the rime surface
into the ice, leaving the rimed target negatively charged. Another possible mechanism for the
negative charging of graupel was proposed by Keith and Saunders [28]. Negative point
defects will migrate towards these trapped positive charges in the bulk of the ice, leaving the
surface positively charged, which could lead to charge transfer during ice crystal collisions.
The density of dislocations in rime ice is dependent on the droplet freezing rate and hence
there is a link with the temperature, the droplets freeze faster at lower temperatures, producing
more dislocations. Ice crystals grow slower from vapour and so have a low concentration of
dislocations. This results in a charge density difference across the rime/ice-crystal interface,
which would drive the charge transfer [23].
Next to the temperature and liquid water content, Berdeklis and List [29] found a third and
dominant effect on charge transfer in graupel/ice-crystal collisions, the relative humidity.
High relative humidity promotes stronger negative charging, and low relative humidity
promotes weaker negative or stronger positive charging. Air velocities also play a role in the
charging process [29].
It is obvious from the vast amount of literature [1, 12, 19, 22-60] on the subject of non-
inductive charging that it is a mechanism that still is subject of debate and study. Much is
already known on the subject, but more still remains a mystery.

Lightning 17
Combination of the inductive and non-inductive charging mechanisms
Numerical calculations by Kuettner et al. [22] indicate that both inductive and non-inductive
charging alone cannot account for the electrification of thunderclouds. For these calculations
they used a simplified two-dimensional vortex circulation model, a whirl stream, with and
without vertical wind shear, incorporating the microphysical processes of particle growth and
simultaneous electrification. A combination of both mechanisms is necessary to achieve the
breakdown potential, leading to the first lightning stoke, and the correct polarity of the cloud.
The inductive theory can reach the breakdown potential, but only after a very slow initial field
growth with quickly varying charge distributions of often inverted polarity. The non-inductive
mechanism produces a rapid growth of the electric field in the early stages of cloud
electrification but tends to level out at a stable value considerably below the breakdown
potential. Only the combination of both mechanisms achieves realistic thunderstorm
conditions. It appears that the non-inductive mechanism controls the charge distribution and
its polarity, and the inductive mechanism the field strength [22].

Enlightening Physics 18
3.4.2 The convective charging process

According to Williams [61] the stable layered character of positive and negative charge
regions is qualitatively more consistent with large-scale charge separation by differential
particle motions than by convective overturn, but there are also facts that do not support the
particle charging processes as the sole contributor to the charging of thunderclouds. For
instance the lack of evidence for systematic generative particle motions. The scaling
behaviour of cloud electrification, the long recognized association between vertical air motion
and lightning activity and the energy requirements of electrically active clouds all support an
important role for convective air motions in large-scale charge separation.

There are two different models based on convection. The first theory by Grenet [11] and
Vonnegut [62] suggests that natural positive space charge is brought in from below the cloud
and carried to the top by convective flows. The positive charge in the top of the cloud then
attracts a negative screening layer, which is carried down with downdraft currents to the base
of the cloud and to the clouds interior. As this process continues the negative charge in the
cloud base will attract more positive charge created by coronae at the ground under the cloud
and the build-up of the electric field is intensified. Coronae are eruptions of, in this case,
positive ions from sharp objects on the ground under influence of the strong electro-magnetic
field that is created between the cloud and the earth. The air just around the tip of a sharp
object becomes more conductive due to this high field and positive ions can escape more
easily. Variations to this theory, according to which the charges responsible for lightning
come to the cloud from its environment, have been proposed by Wilson [63], and
Philips[64].

Figure 14: The convective charging process by Grenet.

Lightning 19
One objection to this theory is that it is difficult to understand that the updraft and downdraft
currents can distinguish between negative and positive ions and there are several other issues
concerning specific details of the mechanism [1]. First the fact that the space charge density in
air drawn into the updraft often is too small to account for observed thunderstorm charge
densities. Measurements suggest that the fair weather space charge density is large enough to
provide for mountain thunderstorms, but because the fair weather space charge decreases
rapidly with height above ground the mechanism cannot account for the electrification of
high-based thunderstorms that form over a stable layer of the lower atmosphere. Secondly the
time and electric field distribution required by convective transport to establish a typical
thunderstorm charge distribution appear to be incompatible with the rapid increase of the
maximum electric field magnitude observed at middle levels of many storms a few minutes
before they produce the first lightning flash. Thirdly it seems unlikely that much charge on the
upper cloud boundary would be transported to the lower part of the cloud because during the
transportation process entrainment, evaporation and diffusion would greatly reduce the
negative charge. Tracer measurements of entrainment found that the upper cloud boundary
was mixed into the central region of the upper part of the cloud. Furthermore for the
mechanism to transport enough charge to achieve observed charge densities and charging
rates in small thunderstorms, the electrical field between the inner positive charge and the
negative screening layer must be large enough to cause lightning between them. Observations
of lightning high up in the clouds suggests that this indeed can be the case. Finally the
mechanism has no process for forcing negative charge to be in a similar temperature range
from storm to storm, as has been observed. Even if sufficient negative charge survived
transport down the side of the cloud, it still would be necessary for the negative screening
layer charge to be folded into the storm at precisely the height that would lead to the observed
charge distributions in storms. Wind patterns and the distribution and types of precipitation
and cloud particles vary too much relative to the height of temperature isotherms for
systematic transport of much of the cloud surface into a particular temperature range to be
plausible [1].
For all these reasons it seems unlikely that this mechanism is universally able to produce the
major features of most thunderstorms, but it does not rule out the mechanism entirely. It may
still play a major role in the electrification of some storms, but more work is needed to see if
that is possible. Up till now no known electrification mechanism can provide a universal
explanation of the electrification of all thunderstorms that have been observed.

Enlightening Physics 20
It appears that Wilson currents or upper level downdrafts have the capacity to carry charge
down from the stratosphere into the troposphere and upper boundary of thunderclouds. It is
uncertain, however, what happens to these downdrafts in the lower part of the cloud and how
they interact with the low-level downdrafts created by precipitation. Williams [65] questions
whether they would be capable of carrying charge down into the lower part of the cloud as
required by convective mechanisms of cloud electrification [66].
The second convectional theory is the electrochemical charging mechanism by Wahlin [67].
In this mechanism convection currents simply bring ions of both signs from outside the cloud
and ventilate them through the drop population of the cloud. However, the negative ions
attach themselves to drop surfaces at the bottom of the cloud, and the positive ions attach to
drops in the upper regions. This system can easily be modelled in a laboratory by blowing
ions through a system of two electrically insulated sections of steel wool, the negative ions
attach to the first section, and the positive ions attach to the second section [2].

+ + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ + + + +

++ + + + +
+ + + + +
+ + + + +

- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
+ - -+ + - +-+ + - -+ + - + -+ + - -+ + - +-+
+ + + + + +
+- - -+ - +- - -+ - +- - -+ -
+ + + + + + + + +
- -+ - +- - -+ - +- - -+ - +-
+ + + + + + + + +

Figure 15: The Electrochemical Charging mechanism

Some of the objections raised at the previous mechanism also apply for this mechanism, such
as the absence of high amounts of ions beneath the clouds base, which are necessary for this
mechanism to work. Secondly the mechanism cannot account for the charge-free zone
between the upper positive and lower negative charge centres as well as for the lower positive
charge centre frequently found in thunderstorms.
Very interesting about this method is that since its publication in 1973 no references to the
article have been made; it seems to be ignored or overlooked by science.

Lightning 21
3.4.3 Models of the electrification of thunderstorms

During the last century many theoretical models of the electrification of thunderstorms have
been developed to test the effectiveness of hypotheses about the charging of cloud particles.
Four different kinds of cloud models are presented here; parallel-plate models, one-
dimensional models, two-dimensional models and three-dimensional models. All models
described are numerical studies of the properties of thunderstorms.

The validity of any thunderstorm model is determined by its ability to simulate observed
features. The problem with this is that there is no such thing as a typical thunderstorm because
there is a large natural variation in the processes in thunderclouds. It is possible, however, to
list some commonly observed features, which can be used as general criteria for such
comparisons [68].
1. The average duration of precipitation and electrical activity from a single cell is about 30
minutes.
2. The average electric moment destroyed in a lightning flash is about 100 C.km, the
corresponding charge being 20 to 30 C.
3. In a large, extensive thundercloud, this charge is separated in a volume bounded
approximately by the 5 and - 40C levels and has an average radius of 2 to 3 km.
4. The negative charge resides at altitudes just above the 5C isotherm. It is observed that the
negative charge transferred by lightning originates from regions between 10 and -17C,
independent of the height above ground. The main positive charge is situated several
kilometres higher. Another small positive charge may also exist near the cloud base, centred
at or below the 0C level.
5. The charge-separation processes are closely associated with the development of
precipitation.
6. Sufficient charge must be separated to supply the first lightning flash within 12 to 20 min
from the appearance of precipitation particles of radar-detectable size (d 200 m).

Enlightening Physics 22
Parallel-Plate models
Parallel-plate models are the simplest models of cloud electrification. They completely ignore
the contribution of the air motions and focus on the microphysics. However, even in this area
they consider only a small fraction of the microphysical processes that take place. To simplify
things, they assume that any charge separated in the charging volume is accumulated on two
parallel plates, simulating the centres of charge of the space charges in the cloud. Therefore
these models cannot predict the vertical structure of the charges in the cloud. The cloud is
assumed to consist of raindrops alone, ice crystals and hail pellets, or a combination of those.
The models do not describe the cloud on the scale of the particles, but take into account the
chance of particle collisions and the chance of charge separation per collision. All these
models tested the effectiveness of the inductive process only [12].

One-dimensional models

Horizontally infinite parallel-plate models overestimate the electric field development because
they lack a finite horizontal extent for the cloud. Illingworth and Latham [69] constructed a
simple one-dimensional model in which precipitation ice particles descended from the cloud
top downward and interacted with smaller ice crystals. During these interactions charge was
separated by either inductive or the non-inductive processes. They found that a combination
of both mechanisms gave the best representation of realistic cloud circumstances. One of the
important results of this simple model is its ability to predict the vertical dipole in the cloud
and even the small positive pocket at cloud base. Tzur and Levin [70] developed a much more
detailed one-dimensional model. They found that charge separation is not likely to be
effective both in the low, liquid section and near the cloud top because of the absence of ice
crystals and water drops respectively. In the intermediate region of the cloud, between -10C
and -25C they found the charging to be very effective, due to the presence of both ice
crystals and water drops. One of the limitations of the one-dimensional models is their poor
simulation of the air circulation within the cloud and the entrainment of air from the
environment on the sides and top of the cloud [12].

Lightning 23
Two-dimensional models

Several two-dimensional models were developed to improve the simulation of the macroscale
dynamics and its effect on the charge distribution and electrical development of a cloud. A
series of models, starting very simple, but steadily growing more complicated were
developed. Kuettner et al. [22] developed a model superimposing a kinematic flow model,
including particle growth, on an electrical charge separation model. This model, too, found
that a combination of inductive and non-inductive mechanisms could simulate both a proper
charge distribution and a rapid growth of the electric field. In agreement with the other two-
dimensional models, this model found that both strong horizontal and vertical fields could be
produced by charge separation mechanisms that depend on precipitation, a property that could
not be found using one-dimensional models.
In an attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of the convective charging process other two-
dimensional models were developed [71, 72]. These models show that convective
electrification alone cannot explain the strong electrification in thunderclouds. However the
models used for testing the convective theory ignore the terms that are highly variable with
time such as the rate of charge build up. In addition the dynamics used in convective models
is parameterised and may not be realistic enough to simulate the real convective charging
process, which is highly dependent on cloud dynamics [12].
Still other two-dimensional models are being developed [73-79] improving the models
mentioned above.

Three-dimensional models

To the knowledge of the author only one tree-dimensional, time-dependent model of an

electrical cloud has been developed [80]. With this model Rawlins tested the effectiveness of
various electrical processes, such as inductive and non-inductive processes and found roughly
the same results as the above-mentioned models, although he did not find the small positive
charge centre near the clouds base.

Enlightening Physics 24
3.4.4 The present atmospheric electricity paradigm and its anomalies

All areas of science have a paradigm, a recognized scientific achievement that for a time,
often for generations, provides model problems and solutions to a community of practitioners.
The paradigm is acknowledged to supply the foundation for its further practice [10]. In the
scientific field of atmospheric electricity the present paradigm consists of the following
elements:
1. Lightning is caused by a charge separation process that takes place within the cloud,
which in the beginning is electrically neutral.
2. The dominant charge separation process responsible for lightning is collisions between
large and small ice particles. By this mechanism, charge of one sign is transferred to
the larger particles and an equal opposite charge to the smaller ones.
3. When the faster-falling larger precipitation particles fall away from the small cloud
particles, a large-scale charge separation process results, giving rise to intense and
extensive electric fields that eventually bring about dielectric breakdown and
lightning.
4. The electrical energy responsible for lightning is derived from the fall of charged
precipitation particles under the influence of gravity.
5. The negative charge residing on the surface of the earth in fair weather is the result of
the action of the many thunderstorms continuously in progress over the earth.
6. Fair-weather electrical phenomena are without significant influence on thunderstorm
electrification or on other meteorological phenomena.
7. Except for the chemical effects produced by lightning, thunderstorm electricity is
without significant influence on processes taking place in the lower atmosphere.
8. The effect of lightning is to neutralize the charged particles responsible for the
electrification of the cloud.

As Kuhn has noted [81], a paradigm benefits a scientific community in several ways. For
example it provides a criterion for choosing problems that can be assumed to have solutions.
Furthermore, By focussing attention upon a small range of relatively esoteric problems, the
paradigm forces scientists to investigate some part of nature in a detail and depth that would
otherwise be unimaginable.

Lightning 25
The paradigm of atmospheric electricity has served well, having prompted a variety of
worthwhile investigations, and given credible, qualitative explanations for the occurrence of
lightning under many circumstances. It is possible that the present paradigm will continue to
serve for centuries to come. It is to be expected, however, from the history of other sciences,
that eventually it will change. Lightman and Gingerich [82] have shown that such changes are
sometimes heralded by anomalies, observations or ideas that are difficult to fit into the
existing conceptual framework. Some of these anomalies will be listed hereafter [10].
1. The very large influence lightning could have on the distribution of charged particles
has been almost entirely ignored.
2. In the present paradigm there is no explanation for the recent finding that the ratio of
the total lightning flash rate to the Wilson conduction current, which flows from the
upper atmosphere to the cloud top, is almost constant.
3. As yet the paradigm has not satisfactory dealt with the question of how the motions of
the charged particles are affected by the complicated, convective structure in the
cloud.
4. The fact that in some thunderstorms there is lightning without precipitation, or heavy
precipitation without lightning, is hard to see in agreement with the statement that the
charge separation is caused by precipitation particles.
5. If one kind of collision between ice particles leaves a positive charge in the big
particle while another kind leaves a negative charge, it is not clear why in a
thundercloud either one or the other polarity always clearly predominates. It is to be
expected that in some storms the two opposing processes might cancel each other, so
that little or no lightning would result.

In spite of all potential anomalies, common to all paradigms, it is clear that the research on the
charge carried by falling precipitation should be continued for many years to come. There can
be no doubt that this is an important component of cloud electrification phenomena. Even if it
is found that electrified precipitation particles do not carry the major portion of electric charge
in a storm, they may still be of great importance [10].

Enlightening Physics 26
3.5 The lightning flash

After discussing the build-up of the cloud and the charge separation inside the cloud, it is now
time for the discussion of the most obvious part of lightning, the flash itself. There are two
major groups of lightning that will be discussed from hereon, cloud lightning, and ground
lightning

3.5.1 Cloud lightning

Cloud lightning is, as the name indicates, a form of lightning that never reaches the earth [1].
From the two different groups of lightning this is the one with the highest occurrence (well
over half of all lightning flashes are cloud flashes [83]) but the one into which least research
has been done. This is because ground lightning is a far more dangerous form of lightning for
mankind. There are many different types of cloud flashes such as intracloud lightning, a
lightning flash that never leaves the boundaries of the cloud, but propagates between the
upper positive charge centre to a lower negative centre [84]. Cloud-to-cloud lightning, and
cloud-to-air lightning are other examples. A cloud-to-air discharge is a cloud flash with
visible channels that propagate out into the air around the storm, but does not strike the
ground. A newer term is spider lightning, which refers to long horizontally propagating
flashes that are often seen on the underside of storm clouds [1].

3.5.2 Ground lightning

The other form of lightning, ground lightning, can be divided into two groups; negative and
positive ground lightning after the type of charge they bring to the earth. Normally negative
charge is brought to ground by lightning that originates from the lower section of the cloud.
However as successive lightning bolts to ground drain more and more negative charge, the
more the positive charge in the upper half of the dipole becomes dominant. The imbalance of
the dipole will eventually cause a positive discharge to appear from the upper region of the
cloud to the ground. The ratio of positive to negative ground strokes is about 1 to 10, but a
positive discharge from the upper regions of the cloud is as a rule ten times more powerful
and carries ten times more charge than negative ground lightning [2].

Lightning 27
 Ground lightning almost always starts within the cloud with a process that is called the
preliminary breakdown. The location of the preliminary breakdown is not well understood,
but it may begin in the high-field region between the positive and negative charge centres.
After several tens of milliseconds, the preliminary breakdown initiates an intermittent, highly
branched discharge that propagates horizontally and downward and that is called the stepped-
leader. When the tip of the stepped leader gets close to the ground, the electric field just above
the ground becomes very large and causes one or more positive upward discharges to begin
the attachment process. When the upward discharge and the leader meet the first return stroke
begins. After a pause of 40 to 80 milliseconds, most ground flashes produce a new leader, the
dart leader, which propagates downward without steps and initiates a subsequent return
stroke. Most lightning flashes contain two to four return strokes, each affecting a different
volume of cloud charge. In 20 to 40 percent of all flashes the dart leader propagates down just
a part of the previous return stroke channel and then forges a different path to the ground. In
these cases the lightning strikes two places and the channel has the typical forked appearance
[85].

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -+ -- - - - - - - - -
- -
- + - -
+ - -
- - + - - - - + - -
- +
- + - - - - + - - -
-
- - + - - - - + - -
+ -
- + - - - - + - - -
- +
- - - + - - - - + -
- -
- + - - - - + - - -
+ -
- - + - - - - + - -
- +
- + - - - - + - - -
+ -
+ + + + -+ -
+
++-+ + - +
+-++ + -
++-+ + + -
+ -+++ - +
+++ -+ - -
+ -+++ + -
+ + -+ + - +
+-+ ++ + -
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
a) b) + ++ + c) +

Figure 16: a) stepped leader, b) return stroke c) dart leader [84]

Enlightening Physics 28
Stepped leader

The preliminary breakdown between the positive and negative regions of the cloud serves to
mobilize the electronic charges which previously were attached to ice and water particles. The
resulting strong concentration of negative charge within the cloud base would produce electric
fields, which could then cause a negatively charged column of conducting air or plasma to be
propelled about 50 m downwards to earth. Each leader step is luminous within a millisecond,
but during the pauses between the subsequent steps, the channel is not luminous enough to be
recorded [84].
The stepped leader begins with a discharge or step of some 50 meters in length. The discharge
forms a pathway of ionised air or plasma. In a few tens of microseconds, a second discharge
extends from the lower end of the first step and, again, extends more or less toward the
ground. This process is repeated in 30 to 90 meter segments occurring at 20- to 100-
microsecond intervals, and lowers the initial charge to ground (see figure 17). The stepped
leader is too faint either to be seen by the eye or captured on film using ordinary photography.
Because the currents of the leader steps are relatively small, they do not radiate large
electromagnetic fields.

Figure 17: Sketch of the luminous processes form the preliminary breakdown (b), the stepped-leader (c-e) and
the first return stroke (f) in a cloud-to-ground lightning flash [85].

Lightning 29
It is thought by most investigators that the stepped leader current flows down a narrow
conducting core at the centre of the observed leader, and that the large, slightly luminous
diameter is due to a corona sheath surrounding the core [84] see figure 18.

Figure 18: A schematic overview of a leader at the moment the return stroke begins [60]

Enlightening Physics 30
Return stroke

When the descending stepped leader nears the ground it raises the local potential gradient and
initiates an upward propagating discharge (see figure 19). When the upward and descending
discharges meet, a few tens of meters above the ground, the return stroke begins. This return
stroke is a huge current that rapidly increases, in a few microseconds, to a peak of thousands
of amperes as the stroke travels upward, at about half the speed of light, along the ionised
pathway established by the stepped leader. This is also the moment the thunder is produced,
the huge current, which travels up to the cloud in a fraction of a second, heats the air in and
around the channel to such an extent that it explodes and creates the pressure wave we call
thunder. Although the return stroke appears to move upwards in the direction of the cloud as
though it was positively charged, it is, in fact negatively charged and moving towards the
ground. This is because the mobility of positive ions is extremely low compared to negative
ions [60], because the negative charge is not always carried by ions, but can also be carried by
electrons hopping from ion to ion. Large currents traverse the region between the return-
stroke wave front and the ground as the negative charge deposited on the leader channel is
effectively lowered to earth [84]. It is this very large current that produces the brilliant display
that we see and generates the large radiated electromagnetic field.

Figure 19: Sketch of the luminous processes that occur during attachment of the stepped leader to an object on
the ground [85].

Lightning 31
Dart leader

After the return stroke current has ceased to flow, the lightning flash may be ended. On the
other hand, if additional charge is made available to the top of the channel, the flash may
contain multiple strokes. In general, each successive stroke appears to drain charge from
higher areas in the negative region of the cloud. This charge is made available between
strokes by the action of electric discharges between the top of the previous return stroke and a
higher region of negative charge. If additional charge is made available to the decaying return
stroke channel in a time less than 100 ms a continuous or dart leader will traverse that return
stroke channel down to earth and thus sets the stage for the subsequent return stroke [84].The
dart leader does not necessarily travel down the entire channel of the previous return stroke, it
can also forge a new path to the ground, thus creating a forked lightning stroke [85].

Figure 20: The return stroke channel (a), the development of a lightning dart-leader (b-d) and a second return
stroke (e) subsequent to the first in a Cloud-to-ground lightning flash [85].

After the dart leader a second return stroke lowers the charge down from the cloud to the earth
and another dart leader can again follow the ionised channel down to earth. From two to over
42 additional return strokes may occur along the same ionised pathway, leading to the
flickering appearance of the lightning flash lasting up to two seconds [2].

Enlightening Physics 32
 4. A Colloidal representation of lightning

It is always interesting to see how one field of science can influence and learn from another.
That is the reason why in this chapter a relation is sketched between colloidal science and
atmosoherical electricity. A cloud is a mixture of colloidal and granular particles, consisting
of numerous small ice and water particles up to a few millimetres in size (a colloid is a
particle with a diameter between 1 nm and 1 m, granular particles are particles with a size up
to a few millimetres). As has been mentioned earlier in this paper, from the laboratory
research on atmospheric electrostatics it is clear that this research is already being undertaken,
both on the macro scale an on the colloidal scale (ice-ice collisions etc.).
Colloidal science, however, has not yet looked at lightning research as a viable source of new
ideas for research. Hereafter some examples of possible colloidal experiments will be
sketched for which the lightning research was the source of inspiration.

If colloidal particles can be made with a surface to which both positive and negative particles
can adsorb, these particles can be dispersed in a medium in which a pH gradient is present. If
the pH gradient is chosen as such that the iso-electric point (the pH at which the charge on the
colloid is zero) is in the middle of the pH gradient a charge distribution can be accomplished.
If on top of this experiment an electric field is applied to the solution the charged particles
will be drawn towards the oppositely charged pole and a cloud-like system will be created,
with large positive and negative charge centres separated by a neutral zone. An electric field
will be present between these fields, which counteracts the external electrical field. In this
second experiment the pH gradient would not be necessary.
Iso-electric point Iso-electric point

- + + -- ++ -
- - -
-
+
+ +
+ + - - -- -
+ ++
+ + -
-- +
-- -
+ + +
-
--
- +
+ + +
+ - +
+
- -- -
-
- - - + + + ++
+
- - - + +
+
+ - -- -
+ +
+
-
-
-- --
- + + + ++ -
- + - + +
a) b)

Figure 21: a) Chargeable colloidal distribution in a pH gradient b) as a, but with external electric field

Conclusions 33
Another experiment that can be carried out is the following. A colloidal dispersion of four
different kinds of spheres dispersed in a fluid. Small positively charged spheres, small neutral
spheres (much more than the positive ones), large negatively charged spheres, and large
neutral spheres (much more than the negative ones). If this dispersion is centrifuged, the large
spheres will sediment faster than the small spheres. The large amount of neutral particles
makes sure that the positive and negatively charged particle do not interact. After
centrifugation, charge is separated in the volume of the dispersion.
The same sedimentation-diffusion experiment can be conducted in the presence of an electric
field enhancing the charge separation mechanism. To get the largest charge separation, the
small particles should have a density smaller than the density of the medium, the large spheres
should have a larger density. In this way the small particles will rise to the surface of the
dispersion and the large particles will sediment to the bottom, creating the largest field
possible in this set-up. This separation of charge would go on until the Coulomb energy
equals the gravitational energy. It is possible that the gravitational energy is not enough to
separate the charge, but this does seem to be the case in clouds, so it is a possibility.

b) c)
Figure 22: A sedimentation-diffusion experiment

Enlightening Physics 34
5. Conclusions

From the literature about lightning, which has been reviewed in this paper, some conclusions
can be drawn.
About most of the stages of the process of lightning there is consensus in literature. The only
part that is still in debate is the charging process. Almost all present experimental findings
about the separation of charge in large thunderclouds can be explained by the combined
action of inductive and non-inductive particle charging mechanisms. However convective
mechanisms cannot be ruled out as a possible charging mechanism solely on the fact that they
alone cannot produce the vast electrical fields necessary for lightning to commence.
It can be concluded that lightning and the processes that cause it are fairly well understood.
Theories and possible explanations for phenomena ranging from the fair weather field to the
actual lightning flash in the end have been found and tested. However, there is no single
charging mechanism that on itself can account for all properties of charged thunderclouds and
by the use of new analysis techniques new, unexplained, properties are still being found. It is
therefore clear that research in this field of science still has a long way to go before all
mysteries that surround the lightning flash are understood.
The possibility of using colloidal science in lightning research has long been recognized. A
lot of the physical laboratory studies are being done on a colloidal scale. There are some
colloidal charge separation experiments, however, that can be thought of which use the
knowledge generated with the research into atmospheric electricity.

Conclusions 35
Enlightening Physics 36
References

1. MacGorman D.R. and Rust W.D., The Electrical Nature of Storms. 1998, New York:
Oxford University Press.
2. Wahlin L., Atmospheric Electrostatics. 1989, Boulder: Coultron Research Corp.
3. Wilson C.T.R., Investigations on Lightning Discharges and on the Electric Field of
Thunderstorms. Phil. Trans. A., 1920(221): p. 73-115.
4. Whipple R.C. and Scrace F.J., Point-discharge in the Electric Field of the Earth.
Geophys. Mem., 1936. 7(68): p. 1-20.
5. Kessler E., Thunderstorm Origins, Morphology, and Dynamics, in The earth's
Electrical Environment. 1986, National Academy Press: Washington.
6. Reiter R., Phenomena in Atmospheric and Environmental Electricity. Developments
in Atmospheric Science. Vol. 20. 1992, Amsterdam: Elsevier.
7. Rust W. D. and Marshall T.C., On Abandoning the Thunderstorm Tripole-Charge
Paradigm. Journal of Geophysical Research, 1996. 101(D18): p. 23499-23504.
8. Jayaratne E.R., Possible laboratory evidence for multipole electric charge structures
in thunderstorms. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 1998. 103(D2): p.
1871-1878.
9. Stolzenburg M., Rust W. D., and Marshall T. C., Electrical structure in thunderstorm
convective regions - 3. Synthesis. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres,
1998. 103(D12): p. 14097-14108.
10. Vonnegut B., The Atmospheric Electricity Paradigm. Bulletin of the American
Meteorological Society, 1994. 75(1): p. 53-61.
11. Grenet G., Essai d'Explication de la Charge Electrique des Nuages d'Orages.
Ann.Geophys., 1947. 3: p. 306-307.
12. Levin Z. and Tzur I., Models of the development of the Electrical Structure of Clouds,
in The earth's Electrical Environment. 1986, National Academy Press: Washington.
13. Elster I. and Geitel H., Zur Influenztheorie der Niederschlagselektrizitat. Phys. Z,
1913. 14: p. 1287-1292.
14. Muller-Hillebrand D., Charge generation in Thunderclouds by Collision of Ice
Crystals with Graupel Falling through a Vertical Electric Field. Tellus, 1954. 6: p.
367-381.

References 37
15. Latham J. and Mason B.J., Electrical Charging of Hail Pellets in a Polarising Electric
Field. Proc. Roy. Soc. A., 1962. A266: p. 387-401.
16. Gaskell W., A Laboratory Study of the Inductive Theory of Thunderstorm
Electrification. Quarterlary Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 1981. 106: p.
955-966.
17. Sartor J.D., Induction Charging of Clouds. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 1981.
38: p. 218-220.
18. Illingworth A.J. and Caranti J.M., Ice Conductivity Restraints on the Inductive Theory
of Thunderstorm Electrification. Journal of Geophysical Research, 1985. 90: p. 6033-
6039.
19. Saunders C.P.R., A Review of Thunderstorm Electrification Processes. Journal of
Applied Meteorology, 1993. 32(4): p. 642-655.
20. Brooks I. M. and Saunders C. P. R., An Experimental Investigation of the Inductive
Mechanism of Thunderstorm Electrification. Journal of Geophysical Research-
Atmospheres, 1994. 99(D5): p. 10627-10632.
21. Wilson C.T.R., Some Thundercloud Problems. J. Franklin Inst., 1929. 208: p. 1-12.
22. Kuettner J.P., Levin Z., and Sartor J.D., Thunderstorm Electrification - Inductive or
Non-inductive? Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 1982. 38: p. 2470-2484.
23. Saunders C. P. R., Keith W. D., and Mitzeva R. P., The Effect of Liquid Water on
Thunderstorm Charging. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 1991.
96(D6): p. 11007-11017.
24. Reynolds S.E., Brook M., and Gourley M.F., Thunderstorm charge separation.
Journal of Meteorology, 1957. 14: p. 426-437.
25. Takahashi T., Riming Electrification as a Charge Generation Mechanism in
Thunderstorms. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 1978. 36: p. 2236-2258.
26. Latham J. and Mason B. J., Generation of Electric Charge Associated with the
Formation of Soft Hail in Thunderclouds. Proc. Roy. Soc. A., 1961. 260: p. 537-549.
27. Caranti G. M. and Illingworth A.J., The Contact Potential of Rimed Ice. Journal of
Physical Chemistry, 1983. 87: p. 4125-4130.
28. Keith W. D. and Saunders C.P.R., Further Laboratory Studies of the Charging of
Graupel During Ice crystal interactions. Atmospheric Research, 1990. 25: p. 445-464.
29. Berdeklis P. and List R., The ice crystal-graupel collision charging mechanism of
thunderstorm electrification. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 2001. 58(18): p.
2751-2770.

Enlightening Physics 38
30. Avila, E.E., Varela, G.G.A., and Caranti, G.M., Temperature dependence of static
charging in ice growing by riming. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 1995.
52(24): p. 4515-4522.
31. Saunders, C.P.R., A Review of Thunderstorm Electrification Processes. Journal of
Applied Meteorology, 1993. 32(4): p. 642-655.
32. Williams, E.R., Zhang, R., and Rydock, J., Mixed-Phase Microphysics and Cloud
Electrification. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 1991. 48(19): p. 2195-2203.
33. Caranti, G.M., Avila, E.E., and Re, M.A., Charge-Transfer During Individual
Collisions in Ice Growing from Vapor-Deposition. Journal of Geophysical Research-
Atmospheres, 1991. 96(D8): p. 15365-15375.
34. Dong, Y. and Hallett, J., Charge Separation by Ice and Water Drops During Growth
and Evaporation. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 1992. 97(D18): p.
20361-20371.
35. Berdeklis, P. and List, R., The ice crystal-graupel collision charging mechanism of
thunderstorm electrification. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 2001. 58(18): p.
2751-2770.
36. Avila, E.E., Varela, G.G.A., and Caranti, G.M., Charging in ice-ice collisions as a
function of the ambient temperature and the larger particle average temperature.
Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 1996. 101(D23): p. 29609-29614.
37. Saunders, C.P.R., Thunderstorm Electrification Laboratory Experiments and
Charging Mechanisms. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 1994. 99(D5):
p. 10773-10779.
38. Brooks, I.M. and Saunders, C.P.R., Thunderstorm charging: Laboratory experiments
clarified. Atmospheric Research, 1995. 39(4): p. 263-273.
39. Saunders, C.P.R., Avila E.E., Peck S.L., Castellano N.E., Aguirre Varela G.G.,, A
Laboratory study of the effects of rime ice accretion and heating on charge transfer
during ice crystal/graupel collisions. Atmospheric Research, 1999. 51: p. 99-117.
40. Saunders, C.P.R., Peck, S.L., Varela, G.G.A., Avila, E.E., and Castellano, N.E., A
laboratory study of the influence of water vapour and mixing on the charge transfer
process during collisions between ice crystals and graupel. Atmospheric Research,
2001. 58(3): p. 187-203.
41. Scavuzzo, C.M., Avila, E.E., and Caranti, G.M., Cloud Electrification by Fracture in
Ice-Ice Collisions - a 3d Model. Atmospheric Research, 1995. 37(4): p. 325-342.

References 39
42. Brooks, I.M., Saunders, C.P.R., Mitzeva, R.P., and Peck, S.L., The effect on
thunderstorm charging of the rate of rime accretion by graupel. Atmospheric
Research, 1997. 43(3): p. 277-295.
43. Jayaratne, E.R., The Heat-Balance of a Riming Graupel Pellet and the Charge
Separation During Ice Ice Collisions. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 1993.
50(18): p. 3185-3193.
44. Dash, J.G., Mason, B.L., and Wettlaufer, J.S., Theory of charge and mass transfer in
ice-ice collisions. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 2001. 106(D17): p.
20395-20402.
45. Graciaa, A., Creux, P., Lachaise, J., and Schechter, R.S., Charge transfer between
colliding hydrometeors: Role of surface tension gradients. Journal of Geophysical
Research-Atmospheres, 2001. 106(D8): p. 7967-7972.
46. Pereyra, R.G., Avila, E.E., Castellano, N.E., and Saunders, C.P.R., A laboratory study
of graupel charging. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 2000. 105(D16):
p. 20803-20812.
47. Mason, B.L. and Dash, J.G., Charge and mass transfer in ice-ice collisions:
Experimental observations of a mechanism in thunderstorm electrification. Journal of
Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 2000. 105(D8): p. 10185-10192.
48. Scavuzzo, C.M., Masuelli, S., Caranti, G.M., and Williams, E.R., A numerical study of
thundercloud electrification by graupel- crystal collisions. Journal of Geophysical
Research-Atmospheres, 1998. 103(D12): p. 13963-13973.
49. Avila, E., Caranti, G., Castellano, N., and Saunders, C., Laboratory studies of the
influence of cloud droplet size on charge transfer during crystal-graupel collisions.
Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 1998. 103(D8): p. 8985-8996.
50. Avila, E.E. and Caranti, G.M., A Laboratory Study of Static Charging by Fracture in
Ice Growing by Rimming. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 1994.
99(D5): p. 10611-10620.
51. Avila, E.E., Varela, G.G.A., and Caranti, G.M., A laboratory study of static charging
by fracture in ice growing by riming - Reply. Journal of Geophysical Research-
Atmospheres, 1996. 101(D5): p. 9537-9538.
52. Jayaratne, R., Peck, S.L., and Saunders, C., A laboratory study of static charging by
fracture in ice growing by riming - Comment. Journal of Geophysical Research-
Atmospheres, 1996. 101(D5): p. 9533-9535.

Enlightening Physics 40
53. Saunders, C.P.R., Thunderstorm Electrification Laboratory Experiments and
Charging Mechanisms - Reply. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 1995.
100(D1): p. 1507-1510.
54. Williams, E.R., Thunderstorm Electrification Laboratory Experiments and Charging
Mechanisms - Comment. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 1995.
100(D1): p. 1503-1505.
55. Baker, M.B. and Dash, J.G., Mechanism of Charge-Transfer between Colliding Ice
Particles in Thunderstorms. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 1994.
99(D5): p. 10621-10626.
56. Sommer, A.P. and Levin, Z., Charge transfer in convective thunderclouds induced by
molecular interface crossing and free energy reduction. Atmospheric Research, 2001.
58(2): p. 129-139.
57. Saunders, C.P.R., Keith, W.D., and Mitzeva, R.P., The Effect of Liquid Water on
Thunderstorm Charging. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 1991.
96(D6): p. 11007-11017.
58. Saunders, C.P.R. and Brooks, I.M., The Effects of High Liquid Water-Content on
Thunderstorm Charging. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 1992.
97(D13): p. 14671-14676.
59. Beard K.V.K. and Ochs H.T., Charging Mechanisms in Clouds and Thunderstorms, in
The earth's Electrical Environment. 1986, National Academy Press: Washington.
60. Magono C., Thunderstorms. Developments in Atmospheric Science. Vol. 12. 1980,
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
61. Williams E.R., Large-Scale Charge Separation in Thunderclouds. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 1985. 90(D4): p. 6013-6025.
62. Vonnegut B., Possible Mechanism for the Formation of Thunderstorm Electricity.
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 1955. 34: p. 378.
63. Wilson C.T.R., A Theory on Thundercloud Electricity. Proc. Roy. Soc. A., 1956. 236:
p. 297-317.
64. Philips B.B., Convected charge in thunderstorms. Monthly Weather Review, 1967.
95: p. 863-870.
65. Williams E. R., The Tripole Structure of Thunderdtorms. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 1989. 94: p. 13151-13167.
66. Vonnegut B., Role of cumulus downdrafts in stratosphere-troposphere exchange and
in cloud electrification. Atmospheric Research, 1997. 43(2): p. 197-199.

References 41
67. Wahlin L., Title unknown. Foundations of Physics, 1973: p. 459.
68. Mason B. J., The Physics of Clouds. 1971, Cambridge: Oxford University Press.
69. Illingworth A.J. and Latham J., Calculations of Electric Field Growth Within a Cloud
of Finite Dimensions. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 1975. 32: p. 2206-2209.
70. Tzur I. and Levin Z., Ions and Precipitation Charging in Warm and Cold Clouds an
Simulated in One-Dimensional Time-Dependent Models. Journal of the atmospheric
sciences, 1981. 38: p. 2444-2461.
71. Ruhnke L. H., Atmospheric Electron Cloud modelling. Meteorological Research,
1972. 25: p. 38-41.
72. Chiu C.S. and Klett J.N., Convective Electrification of Clouds. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 1976. 81: p. 1111-1124.
73. Helsdon, J.H., Wojcik, W.A., and Farley, R.D., An examination of thunderstorm-
charging mechanisms using a two- dimensional storm electrification model. Journal of
Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 2001. 106(D1): p. 1165-1192.
74. Mazur, V. and Ruhnke, L.H., Model of electric charges in thunderstorms and
associated lightning. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 1998. 103(D18):
p. 23299-23308.
75. Norville, K., Baker, M., and Latham, J., A Numerical Study of Thunderstorm
Electrification - Model Development and Case-Study. Journal of Geophysical
Research-Atmospheres, 1991. 96(D4): p. 7463-7481.
76. Miller, K., Gadian, A., Saunders, C., Latham, J., and Christian, H., Modelling and
observations of thundercloud electrification and lightning. Atmospheric Research,
2001. 58(2): p. 89-115.
77. Stansbery E.K., Few A.A., and Geis P.B., A Global Model of Thunderstorm
Electricity. Journal of Geophysical Research, 1993. 98(D9): p. 16591-16603.
78. Masuelli S., Scavuzzo C. M., and Caranti G. M., Convective electrification of clouds:
A numerical study. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 1997. 102(D10): p.
11049-11059.
79. Masuelli S., Caranti G. M., and Scavuzzo C. M., Axisymmetric numerical study of
convective cloud electrification. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics,
1998. 60(6): p. 573-583.
80. Rawlins F., A Numerical Study of Thunderstorm Electrification using a Three-
Dimensional Model Incorporating the Ice Phase. Quarterlary Journal of the Royal
Meteorological Society, 1982. 108: p. 778-880.

Enlightening Physics 42
81. Kuhn T.S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2 ed. 1970, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
82. Lightman A. and Gingerich O., When do anomalies begin? Science, 1992. 255: p.
690-695.
83. Overvieuw and recomendations, in The earth's Electrical Environment. 1986, National
Academy Press: Washington.
84. Uman. M.A., Lightning. Advanced Physics Monograph Series. 1969, New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company.
85. Krider E.P., Physics of Lightning, in The earth's Electrical Environment. 1986,
National Academy Press: Washington.

References 43