JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 113, D17205, doi:10.

1029/2007JD009036, 2008

A brief review of the problem of lightning initiation and a hypothesis

of initial lightning leader formation
Danyal Petersen,1 Matthew Bailey,1 William H. Beasley,2 and John Hallett1
Received 1 June 2007; revised 17 March 2008; accepted 9 April 2008; published 10 September 2008.

[1] A brief review of hypothesized mechanisms of lightning initiation is presented, with

the suggestion that these mechanisms provide an incomplete picture of lightning
initiation. This is followed by two ideas: (1) a combination of previously hypothesized
lightning initiation mechanisms as a means for local intensification of the thundercloud
electric field, and (2) a process for the formation of a hot lightning leader channel that is
analogous to the space leader phase of the laboratory negative stepped leader. Thundercloud
electric field observations have consistently yielded peak values that are an order of
magnitude weaker than the dielectric strength of air. Various mechanisms have been
proposed to explain how lightning can initiate in such weak electric fields, including
hydrometeor-initiated positive streamers and cosmic ray-initiated runaway breakdown. The
historically favored positive streamer mechanisms are problematic due to requiring electric
fields two to three times larger than peak observed fields. The recently favored runaway
breakdown mechanisms appear capable of developing in conditions comparable to peak
observed fields although it is not clear how these diffuse discharges can lead to creation of a
lightning leader. This paper proposes a solution whereby runaway breakdown and
hydrometeor-initiated positive streamer systems serve to locally intensify the electric field.
Following this local field intensification, it is hypothesized that formation of the initial
lightning leader channel is analogous to the formation of a space leader in a laboratory
negative stepped leader.
Citation: Petersen, D., M. Bailey, W. H. Beasley, and J. Hallett (2008), A brief review of the problem of lightning initiation and a
hypothesis of initial lightning leader formation, J. Geophys. Res., 113, D17205, doi:10.1029/2007JD009036.

1. Introduction and Griffiths, 1976] implying that Loeb’s funneling mech-

[2] One of the more puzzling questions about lightning is
the fact that it is somehow initiated in storm clouds in which
the observed electric fields are an order of magnitude too weak.
Observational evidence has consistently yielded peak thun-
dercloud electric fields that are an order of magnitude weaker
than the dielectric strength of air [Marshall et al., 1995]. It may
be the case that the strongest electric field regions are compact
and have simply eluded sampling. It may also be the case that
there exist prelightning breakdown processes that are capable
of developing in weaker field conditions and that lead to
formation of the lightning leader system.
[3] Loeb [1966] first suggested that positive streamers
could be initiated on polarized raindrops in high electric
field regions and could develop into branching systems
capable of funneling and concentrating the diffuse negative
space charge of the thundercloud, leading to the initiation of
a negative stepped leader. However, the electrical conduc-
tivity of positive streamer tails falls off rapidly in time due
to electron attachment and recombination processes [Phelps
1
Atmospheric Sciences, Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nevada, USA.
2
School of Meteorology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma,
USA.
Copyright 2008 by the American Geophysical Union.
0148-0227/08/2007JD009036
anism cannot occur. A variation on Loeb’s idea was intro-
duced by Phelps [1974], who found that positive streamers
developing in strong electric fields undergo intensification
whereby they increase their net positive charge while
depositing the excess negative charge in their wake. Phelps
suggested that this deposition of negative charge by an
intensifying positive streamer system could serve as an
effective ‘‘funneling’’ mechanism, and that a series of such
systems traversing the same volume could lead to signifi-
cant retrograde movement of negative charge thus creating a
strong local intensification of the electric field at the
collective streamer system origin. Griffiths and Phelps
[1976] developed a simple computer model of this mecha-
nism and found that a series of less than 10 overlapping
positive streamer systems, each initiated as a corona on a
nearby hydrometeor, may be capable of locally intensifying
the electric field by up to an order of magnitude. However,
the electric fields required for this mechanism to produce
significant electric field intensification appear to be at least
a factor of two larger than the strongest observed thunder-
cloud electric fields.
[4] It is possible that there exist compact regions of
electric field in thunderclouds that are sufficiently strong
and extensive to support the positive streamer system
mechanism. Such regions may occur when small parcels
of oppositely charged hydrometeors approach each other

D17205 1 of 14
D17205 PETERSEN ET AL.: PROCESSES OF LIGHTNING INITIATION
due to turbulent motions, possibly near the updraft/down-
draft interface region where charge separation occurs. It is
also possible that such regions may occur due to discharge
processes based on the runaway breakdown mechanism.
Gurevich et al. [1992] proposed that runaway breakdown
could explain the ability of lightning to initiate in the
otherwise weak background electric field. It turns out that
the electric field strength necessary for a runaway break-
down discharge corresponds approximately to peak ob-
served thundercloud electric fields [Marshall et al., 1995],
although distances on the order of a kilometer are required
for a significant discharge to develop. Gurevich et al. [1999]
hypothesized that a large quantity of seed relativistic elec-
trons, generated in an extensive cosmic ray shower, could
lead to a significant runaway breakdown event capable
creating a large volume of cool plasma. This plasma,
although rapidly immobilized by attachment to neutrals,
could be capable of some degree of polarization that could
generate strong electric fields at its extremities. It is sug-
gested that the core of the polarized plasma, characterized
by the largest ion densities, might structurally resemble the
tip of a streamer and therefore be capable of making a direct
transition to a streamer discharge and perhaps lightning.
Dwyer [2005] suggested that this mechanism may not be
viable due to the lateral spreading of a runaway avalanche
and corresponding dilution of the resulting plasma, but
maintained that continued runaway avalanches in the same
volume, sustained by feedback processes, could result in a
zone of locally intense electric field near the propagating
discharge boundary. It is suggested that this locally intense
electric field could attain values in excess of 1 MV
m1 at
sea level pressure and thus support ‘‘conventional’’ break-
down processes.
[5] In this paper two distinct phases of lightning initiation
are discussed. The first concerns the mechanism(s) whereby
the weak thundercloud electric field may be locally inten-
sified. The hydrometeor-initiated positive streamer system
and cosmic ray-initiated runaway breakdown mechanisms
are briefly reviewed, after which it is suggested that a serial
combination of these processes may provide a better means
for local electric field intensification. In this combination
scenario it is suggested that a runaway breakdown event first
generates a region of locally intensified electric field. This
field need only be strong enough to support the generation
of positive streamers on nearby hydrometeors and their
subsequent development into positive streamer systems.
The positive streamer systems result in ‘‘funneling’’ nega-
tive charge back toward the streamer system origin, further
intensifying the electric field at the origin by an order of
magnitude or more. This combination of processes takes
advantage of both the lower electric field requirements for
runaway breakdown and the local electric field amplification
property of a series of overlapping positive streamer sys-
tems. It is proposed as a more favorable solution over
runaway breakdown or positive streamer systems alone
because it relaxes the requirement that runaway breakdown
directly support lightning leader formation while offering a
means to jumpstart the positive streamer system mechanism
of further electric field intensification.
[6] The second phase of lightning initiation that is dis-
cussed is the creation of the initial lightning leader system.
2 of 14
D17205
If we assume that the thundercloud electric field can be
locally intensified by processes such as runaway breakdown
and/or positive streamer systems (or even that such local
electric field regions may already exist by more ordinary
means), then we are left with the problem of how the
existence of an intense electric field can transition into a
hot lightning leader system. Most, if not all, literature
dealing with lightning initiation, including those works
referenced in this paper, typically explain the final step of
leader formation by reference to a presumed ‘‘convention-
al’’ process. Other than the positive streamer system mech-
anism of local electric field intensification, we are unaware
of the details of a ‘‘conventional’’ lightning initiation
process and posit that none more detailed than the positive
streamer mechanism has actually been hypothesized. We
therefore present as a candidate the idea that the initial
lightning leader may form in a manner analogous to the
‘‘space’’ leader element of the laboratory negative stepped
leader. While this claim is largely hypothetical, we argue for
its plausibility based on known properties of laboratory
space leaders and the hypothesized properties of the hydro-
meteor-initiated positive streamer system.
2. Mechanisms of Locally Intensifying the
Thundercloud Electric Field
2.1. Branching Positive Streamer System
[7] The fundamental mechanism of dielectric breakdown
in a gas is the electron avalanche. In a gas of number density
N subject to an electric field E, free electrons are acceler-
ated, and if E is sufficiently strong, cause a net increase in
free electrons by impact ionization of neutral gas particles.
A net ionization coefficient a0 can be defined as
a0 ¼ a  h ð1Þ
where a and h are functions of E/N and represent
production and removal, respectively, of free electrons per
unit distance along a path s parallel to E. The number of free
electrons Ne changes along s according to
dNe ¼ Ne a0 ds ð2Þ
Integration of equation (2) over the distance Ds (= sf  so)
parallel to E yields
2 sf 3
Z


Ne sf ¼ Ne ðso Þ exp4 a0 ds5 ð3Þ
so
For a0 > 0, Ne increases exponentially with distance forming
an ‘‘avalanche’’ of electrons. In air a0 = 0 at E/N  1.24 
1019 V
m2 [Bazelyan and Raizer, 1998], yielding a
threshold breakdown value or ‘‘dielectric strength’’ of
Eb = 3 MV
m1 for air at STP.
[8] Localized regions of strong E near highly curved
electrodes can result in localized discharges called ‘‘coro-
nas’’. In a corona discharge, free electrons that are acceler-
ated by E in the region where a0 > 0 yield electron
avalanches. For the anodic case in air, the avalanching
D17205 PETERSEN ET AL.: PROCESSES OF LIGHTNING INITIATION D17205

Figure 1. Formation of a positive streamer in the intensified electric field near a curved anodic
surface. Electron avalanches near the anode (where a0 > 0) deposit a region of positive space charge
protruding from the anode surface. The electric field is intensified ahead of this space charge region,
resulting in more electron avalanches that deposit positive space charge further into the electrode gap
while neutralizing the previously generated positive space charge. In a sufficiently strong intergap
electric field E, this process can continue unabated, effectively propagating positive space charge
across the electrode gap.

electrons are quickly collected by the anode, leaving behind
a relatively immobile positive space charge around the
anode that alters the local electric field. If electron ava-
lanches occur uniformly across the anode surface, the
resultant positive space charge tends to be smoothly dis-
tributed causing an overall reduction of electric field
strength near the anode. If, however, a local nonuniformity
of positive space charge develops, a localized region of
intensified electric field will exist around it (Figure 1). New
electron avalanches that develop in this intensified electric
field will expose more positive space charge, effectively
extending the positive space charge region into the electrode
gap. If the background electric field in the electrode gap is
strong enough, the positive space charge region can contin-
ue to extend into the electrode gap.
[9] An anodic discharge that continues to propagate in the
manner described above is called a ‘‘positive streamer’’
[Meek, 1940]. Dawson and Winn [1965] modeled a positive
streamer as an electrically isolated volume of positive space
charge tailed by a net-neutral plasma tail of negligible
conductivity. They estimated the net positive charge and
density required for propagation to be around 108 positive
ions concentrated in a sphere of 30 mm radius. Phelps and
Griffiths [1976] described the streamer plasma tail as
initially conductive, becoming rapidly nonconductive due
to attachment and recombination processes. Effective con-
ductive lengths of the plasma tail were estimated to be on
the order of centimeters. Allen and Mikropoulos [1999]
empirically determined the minimum electric field neces-
sary for the stable propagation of a positive streamer in air,
or the ‘‘stability field’’(Est), as


 h  11g
m3
Est ðd; hÞ ¼ 497kV
m1  1 þ d ð4Þ
100g
m3
where h is the absolute humidity in grams per cubic meter
and d is the ratio of the local air density to the density of air
at STP. For a standard atmosphere at water saturation and
an altitude of 5 km, d  0.74 and h  1.6 g/m3 yielding
Est  330 kV/m. They also empirically determined positive
streamer velocities vstr in ambient electric fields Ea as
 3

 Ea
vstr ðEa ; Est Þ ¼ 1:25  105 m
s1  ð5Þ
Est
where Ea is greater than Est.
[10] Just as electric charge has two polarities, so does the
streamer discharge. Cathodic streamer discharges, called
negative streamers, are very similar to positive streamers,
with the primary difference being the orientation of the
electron avalanches relative to the streamer head. In the case
of positive streamers the electron avalanches are directed
toward the streamer head, while for negative streamers they
are directed outward. The electric field required to sustain
negative streamers is about twice that of positive streamers
due to the self-diffusing nature of the discharge [Bazelyan
and Raizer, 1998]. Because of this larger electric field

3 of 14
D17205 PETERSEN ET AL.: PROCESSES OF LIGHTNING INITIATION D17205

Figure 2. Schematic of a simple model of an intensifying positive streamer system. Prior to the nth step,
the system is represented by the solid line portions extending out from s = 0 to the thick solid line A (the
thin lines represent deposited negative charge and the thick line A represents the propagating positive
charge). Following the nth step, the system is represented by the propagation forward of the thick solid
line A to the position denoted by the thick dashed line C (hence the removal of A) and the additional
deposition of negative charge at the thin dashed line B. (reproduced from Griffiths and Phelps [1976]).

requirement, negative streamers are much less likely to
occur than are positive streamers given the same conditions.
This asymmetry between positive and negative streamers
leads to the favoring of positive streamers as the most likely
streamer discharge in weak thundercloud electric fields.
[11] Phelps [1974] studied the behavior of positive
streamers when subjected to electric fields in excess of
Est, and found that they increase in positive charge and
radius with distance and deposit negative charge in their
wake equal to the positive charge gained. Phelps con-
structed a simple analytical model describing a system of
intensifying and branching streamers by extending the
streamer model of Dawson and Winn [1965] where a
streamer is represented as a propagating compact volume
of positive space charge (the ‘‘tip’’) followed by a tail of
negligibly conducting plasma. For a single positive streamer
propagating in the direction s of the ambient electric field
Ea, the streamer energy budget is formulated as
du
¼ qðEa  Est Þ ð6Þ
ds
where q is the net positive charge carried in the streamer tip,
u is the potential energy stored in the streamer tip, Ea is the
ambient electric field strength, and Est is the electric field
strength required for stable propagation of positive
streamers (the ‘‘stability’’ field). This model is extended
to a system of N intensifying and branching positive
streamers, each streamer characterized by a potential energy
hui and a tip charge hqi, propagating in the direction of E.
For simplicity, a static equilibrium is assumed between
continuous growth of individual streamers (increasing hui
and hqi) and streamer branching (decreasing hui and hqi),
allowing hui and hqi to be formulated as constants. A
further simplifying assumption is made that assumes the
electrostatic potential energy between the positively charged
streamer tips and the deposited negative charge to be
negligible in comparison to the potential energy stored in
the streamer tips. Under these simplifying assumptions, the
total streamer system potential energy can be defined as U =
Nhui and the total streamer system charge as Q = Nhqi,
yielding the final energy budget equation:
dU
¼ QðEa  Est Þ ð7Þ
ds
Substituting U = (hui/hqi)Q, rearranging and integrating
over a distance Ds = sf  so yields
2 3
Zsf
hq i
Qf ¼ Qo exp4 ðEa  Est Þds5 ð8Þ
hui
so
where Qo and Qf are the initial and final charges of the
system ‘‘front’’. It can be seen that when Ea > Est, Q
increases exponentially with distance. Since the individual
positive streamers are assumed to have a constant charge
hqi, the exponential growth of Q is manifest as an
exponential increase in the number N of positive streamers
comprising the streamer system. More interestingly, charge
conservation requires that a quantity of negative charge is
deposited in the wake of the system with the total charge
equal to the quantity (Q  Qo).
[12] Griffiths and Phelps [1976] formulated a discrete
approximation to this model as a basis for a computer
simulation, including a potential energy term to account
for the electrostatic interaction of the positively charged
streamer tips and the deposited negative space charge. A
schematic of their discretized model is shown in Figure 2,
showing a conical geometry characterized by a forward
stepwise propagation of a growing disk-shaped streamer
front and the deposition of negatively charged disks in the
passed cone volume. In this computer simulation, an addi-
tional feature is added whereby multiple streamer systems

4 of 14
D17205 PETERSEN ET AL.: PROCESSES OF LIGHTNING INITIATION D17205

Figure 3. Plot of the effective frictional force on a free electron moving through air at STP as a function
of electron kinetic energy relative to the air. The solid curve is due to inelastic scattering of the electron
with air molecules, while the dashed curve includes bremsstrahlung effects. The solid horizontal line eE
represents the accelerating force on an electron subject to an electric field E. Runaway electrons occur
when an electron has a kinetic energy K between about 0.1 keV and 103 keV and is subject to a force eE
that is greater than F. Ec is the critical electric field strength for which all free electrons will run away,
and Eth is the minimum electric field strength capable of sustaining runaway electrons (graph taken from
Dwyer [2004]).

are propagated through the same volume in a serial fashion.
Each streamer system passage alters the local electric field
environment due to the associated charge separation, setting
the stage for the next streamer system pass. This feature
allows for investigation of the cumulative effect of multiple
streamer systems on the overall electric field, especially at
the streamer system origin. Results from their model runs
yielded two results of interest:
[13] 1. After the passage of a small number of streamer
systems, typically less than 10, an order-of-magnitude
intensification of the electric field is generated near the
streamer system origin over a distance scale of a few meters.
[14] 2. The majority of streamer system intensification
occurs over the first few meters of development, along with
the associated electric field intensification.
[15] The first result suggests that a sequence of positive
streamer systems propagating through the same volume
can significantly intensify the electric field over a region
spanning a few meters, perhaps to the level of direct
dielectric breakdown. The second result suggests that the
size scale across which this mechanism operates may be
on the order of tens of meters or less, requiring that such
regions of high ambient electric field may be quite
compact. One of the primary concerns with this mecha-
nism is the fact that the streamer stability field as given
by equation (5) appears to be about a factor of two larger
than observed peak thundercloud electric fields for a
given altitude. It may be the case that the necessary
regions of high electric field do exist by ordinary means
but, due to being compact, have simply eluded observa-
tion. It may also be that such regions are rapidly created
by the more exotic discharge mechanism known as
runaway breakdown.
2.2. Runaway Breakdown
[16] When a free electron moves through a material
medium such as a gas, it undergoes elastic and inelastic
collisions that result in an effective frictional force. A graph
of this frictional force as a function of electron kinetic
energy K is given in Figure 3. Up to electron energies of
about 0.1 keV, this frictional force is a rapidly increasing
function of electron energy. An electron in this energy regime
that is subject to an electric field less than Ec will remain in
this regime, continually gaining energy from the electric field
and losing it due to collisions. However, between about
0.1 keV and 1 MeV, the frictional force is a decreasing
function of electron energy. In this energy regime, if the
force on the electron due to the electric field is greater
than the frictional force due to collisions, the electron will
gain energy and accelerate. Such an electron will continue
to gain energy and accelerate as long as it exists in the
state where the energy gained from the electric field is
larger than the energy lost due to friction. As the electron
approaches relativistic energies, the friction once again
becomes an increasing function of electron energy and
the electron eventually reaches equilibrium where energy
gained from the electric field is equal to energy lost due to
friction. These electrons are termed ‘‘runaway’’ electrons,
and are characterized by relativistic energies on the order
of 1 MeV. C.T.R Wilson [1924, 1925] first suggested that

5 of 14
D17205 PETERSEN ET AL.: PROCESSES OF LIGHTNING INITIATION
Figure 4. Diagram of a proposed mechanism of local
electric field intensification by a runaway discharge. In
addition to generating new relativistic electrons, a runaway
discharge generates numerous thermal electrons. Since the
relativistic electron population is maximal near the end of
the discharge path, the density of thermal plasma is also
maximal. Gurevich et al. [1999] and Gurevich and Zybin
[2001] has suggested that rapid polarization of this plasma
can generate a strong local intensification of the electric
field near its extremities.
energetic electrons in Earth’s atmosphere could become
runaways under the influence of a strong thundercloud
electric field, and that they could generate additional
runaway electrons via ionizing collisions with neutrals.
Gurevich et al. [1992] suggested that runaway electrons
could precipitate a runaway avalanche and that if seeded in
the optimal location in a thundercloud by a highly ener-
getic cosmic ray shower, could result in a significant
electrical breakdown of the thundercloud environment.
They termed this discharge ‘‘runaway breakdown’’ to set
it apart from the ordinary types of electrical breakdown
that are characterized by low-energy electron avalanches.
In addition, they suggested that runaway breakdown may
be a crucial process in the initiation of lightning.
[17] The population of energetic (MeV) electrons in a
runaway avalanche can be characterized as:
Nre ¼ No eL=l
ð9Þ
where L is the length traversed by the runaway avalanche, l
is the characteristic avalanche length, No is the initial
quantity of runaway electrons and Nre is the final quantity of
runaway electrons. On the basis of computer simulations,
Dwyer [2003] has estimated l as
l ¼ 7200 kV  ð E  Erb Þ1 ð10Þ
6 of 14
D17205
and Erb, the minimum electric field necessary to support a
runaway avalanche, as
kV
Erb  275 d ð11Þ
m
where d is the ratio of the local air density to the density of
air at STP. The values of Erb given by equation (11) are
comparable to the maximum observed thundercloud electric
fields [Marshall et al., 1995, 2005], suggesting that
runaway breakdown may be an important form of electrical
breakdown in thunderclouds. However, the values of l
given by equation (10) are on the order of tens of meters or
more for the strongest observed thundercloud electric fields,
suggesting that runaway avalanches require distances on the
order of a kilometer for a significant increase in runaway
electrons.
[18] An important feature of runaway breakdown is the
generation of large quantities of low energy (<100 eV)
electrons produced in the discharge wake by inelastic
collisions of runaways with neutrals. Gurevich et al.
[2002] has estimated that the ionization of air by a runaway
electron ranges from 30 to 50 ions per centimeter of travel
under typical atmospheric conditions. These ions form a
nonLTE (local thermodynamic equilibrium) plasma that is
characterized by rapid electron attachment with character-
istic attachment times on the order of 107 s [Gallimberti,
1979]. During this short free-electron lifetime, polarization
of the plasma may be induced by the thundercloud electric
field as illustrated in Figure 4. Gurevich et al. [1999], and
Gurevich and Zybin [2001] have suggested that a large
runaway discharge, initiated by a powerful cosmic ray
shower (K > 1015 eV), could result in polarization of this
plasma sufficient to induce a significant local intensification
of the electric field at the plasma extremities. It is further
suggested that the core of this plasma could be polarized
sufficiently to mimic the structure of a streamer tip, perhaps
then developing into a lightning leader. Dwyer [2005] has
argued against this possibility, suggesting that the seed
electrons produced by a cosmic ray shower should encom-
pass a large lateral extent thereby producing a relatively
diffuse runaway avalanche. Dwyer hypothesized another
form of runaway breakdown, whereby positron and gamma
ray feedback spread and sustain a runaway discharge event
until collapsing the large-scale electric field to subrunaway
strength. Dwyer’s simulations suggest that a linearly com-
pact but significant intensification of the electric field may
form at the boundary of the discharge region, perhaps
enough to support the ‘‘conventional’’ processes of light-
ning initiation.
2.3. Hybrid Scenario for Locally Intensifying the
Thundercloud Electric Field
[19] Based on the outcome of the positive streamer
system model of Griffiths and Phelps [1976], it appears
that the positive streamer system mechanism is capable of
boosting the electric field by up to an order of magnitude
over a distance of a few meters. Such a boosting, however,
requires an initial background electric field about 2 times
larger than observed maximum electric fields. Even more
important, a seed streamer must be provided in order to
initiate the streamer system. The best candidate for the
D17205 PETERSEN ET AL.: PROCESSES OF LIGHTNING INITIATION
creation of a seed streamer is a corona streamer from a
nearby hydrometeor.
[20] Since both the solid and liquid phases of water are
electrically conductive, hydrometeors tend to polarize in
electric fields causing enhancement of the electric field
around their extremities. Observations have shown that,
under the proper conditions, this local electric field en-
hancement is sufficient to support various corona processes,
including positive streamers. Early studies of corona on
hydrometeors focused on water drops, because of their
presence in regions of known lightning development. When
subject to strong electric fields, water drops are observed to
deform into elongated shapes, with the elongated ends
extending and disrupting into a spray of droplets. Richards
and Dawson [1971] investigated corona on water drops of
radius >2 mm that were falling through air at 1000 mb
pressure while subject to positive vertical electric fields.
They reported discharge threshold electric field values for
positive corona to be around 950 kV
m1 for uncharged
water drops and 550 kV
m1 for highly positively charged
water drops. Griffiths and Latham [1972] investigated
corona on water drops of radius 2.7 mm falling through
air at 1000 mb and 500 mb pressure and subject to
horizontal and positive vertical electric fields. At an air
pressure of 1000 mb, threshold electric field values for
positive corona on were around 900 kV
m1 for positive
vertical electric fields and around 630 kV
m1 for horizon-
tal electric fields. At an air pressure of 500 mb, field values
changed to 550 kV
m1 for positive vertical electric fields
and 690 kV
m1 for horizontal electric fields. Crabb and
Latham [1974] investigated corona on pairs of colliding
water drops in air pressure of 1000 mb and subject to
electric fields, using drops of radius 2.7 mm and 0.65 mm
that traveled toward each other at a velocity of 5.8 m
s1.
The collisions were often observed to produce temporary
elongations of the interacting drop pairs in the form of water
filaments up to 20mm in length, with the longer water
filaments resulting from more glancing collisions. Thresh-
old electric field values for positive corona ranged from
about 500 kV
m1 for water filaments of length 10 mm,
down to about 200 kV
m1 for water filaments of length
20 mm. The measurements of Crabb et al. represent the
lowest corona threshold values for known individual and
interacting hydrometeors. Coronas from ice hydrometeors
have been less extensively studied, with the most important
work done by Griffiths and Latham [1974]. In their exper-
iment, they studied various habits of ice hydrometeors with
lengths ranging from 4 to 25 millimeters in length. They
found that the electric field required for positive streamer
emission for vapor-grown ice crystals ranged from 600 –
800 kV
m 1 at sea level pressures down to about
400 kV
m1 at 500 mb. Hailstones provided only slightly
lower electric field requirements, with a 25 mm long
hailstone yielding threshold fields of 500 kV
m1 at
1000 mb down to about 360 kV
m1 at 500 mb. In one
of their oft-quoted findings, they found that continuous
corona currents could be induced on ice crystals only at
temperatures above 18°C. This finding is often taken as
evidence that ice crystals cannot contribute to streamer
production at colder temperatures such as occur in the upper
regions of thunderclouds. However, if we consider that a
positive streamer system requires only a single seed streamer
7 of 14
D17205
and that less than 10 systems may create an order-of-
magnitude increase in the local electric field, it may only
be necessary for an ice crystal to produce a small number of
positive streamers to be viable for lightning initiation. A more
recent study by Petersen et al. [2006] showed that individual
positive streamers can indeed be generated from ice crystals
at temperatures as low as 38°C, in contrast to the misun-
derstood result of Griffiths and Latham.
[21] Based on the available studies, it appears that the
electric fields required for positive streamer generation on
hydrometeors exceeds the electric fields required for the
positive streamer mechanism of local electric field intensi-
fication hypothesized by Griffiths and Phelps [1976]. If we
assume that a small population of hydrometeors is capable
of going into corona at around 400– 500 kV
m1, then it
follows that the emerging seed streamer will immediately
develop into an intensifying positive streamer system and
possibly lead to a local intensification of the electric field.
[22] As is well known, observations of thundercloud
electric fields suggest that no such strong electric fields
exist in thunderclouds. It could well be that such regions do
exist by ordinary means, and that they have simply eluded
observation due to being quite compact. Alternatively, such
regions may be formed by action of the runaway breakdown
mechanism. Evidence in support of the runaway breakdown
hypothesis includes, among other things, a close match
between runaway breakdown electric fields and maximum
observed thundercloud electric fields. Indeed, runaway
breakdown may be one of many viable mechanisms for
locally boosting the thundercloud electric fields.
[23] We propose a hybrid mechanism of local thunder-
cloud electric field intensification that takes advantage of
both runaway breakdown and hydrometeor-initiated posi-
tive streamer systems. This mechanism could equally well
conform to the notion of preexisting yet undetected local
pockets of strong electric field, with such regions replacing
the role of runaway breakdown in the sequence. One
scenario begins with an extensive cosmic ray shower seed-
ing a runaway breakdown event that proceeds to generate a
region of cool plasma in the high electric field region of the
thundercloud. Before attachment renders the plasma non-
conductive, the plasma polarizes and creates a local inten-
sification of the electric field that reaches or exceeds the
value required for coronas on nearby hydrometeors. A
nearby hydrometeor then goes into corona, generating a
single positive streamer. This streamer rapidly develop into
a positive streamer system, quickly filling the newly formed
high-field region of the polarized plasma and further inten-
sifying the electric field near the streamer system origin
(Figure 5). The positive feedback on the electric field at the
streamer system origin leads to a continued succession of
positive streamer systems, rapidly boosting the electric field
near the streamer system origin. With the propagation
velocity of positive streamers being around 105 m
s1 and
the length scale of interest being around 10 m, the timescale
of this process would be on the order of a millisecond.
[24] Another scenario involving runaway breakdown
involves the mechanism of Dwyer [2005]. In this case,
when the background thundercloud electric field exceeds
the runaway threshold, positive feedback on the runaway
breakdown creates a forward-propagating region of inten-
sified electric field at the runaway breakdown discharge
D17205 PETERSEN ET AL.: PROCESSES OF LIGHTNING INITIATION D17205

Figure 5. Diagram of the positive streamer mechanism of local electric field intensification. A positive
streamer is generated on a hydrometeor in the intensified electric field near runaway-generated polarized
plasma, and develops further into a branching positive streamer system. This creates a further
intensification of the electric field near the streamer system origin that may initiate another positive
streamer system. A series of positive streamer systems may result in an order-of-magnitude
intensification of the local electric field.

front. Dwyer’s simulation suggests that the electric field in 2002]. The issue of importance in the formation of a leader is
this front can exceed 430 kV
m1 at around 7000 m above the means whereby the leader channel is heated and prop-
sea level, corresponding to around 1 MV
m1 at sea level agated forward. Figure 6 illustrates the anatomy of the active
pressure and about 500 kV
m1 at 500 mb. An important region of a typical positive laboratory leader. This region
issue with this scenario is the speed with which the consists of the terminal end of the highly conductive leader
discharge front propagates. It is suggested that a well- channel, the growing tip of this channel, and the surrounding
developed discharge front may attain speeds up to about streamer zone. Because of the high conductivity of the
106 m
s1, with the region of electric field exceeding conductive leader channel, it acts as an anode and generates
500 kV
m1 at 500 mb having a linear extent of around a very intense electric field ahead of the tip. This intense
100 m. The local residence time in this field would be about electric field exceeds the dielectric strength of air near the
0.1 milliseconds, somewhat smaller in magnitude than the
estimated time for development of hydrometeor-initiated
positive streamer systems. However, it may be possible
that this short duration is sufficient to support a brief burst
of positive streamer activity that is itself sufficient to
support further positive streamer system development
and associated local electric field intensification well after
the runaway discharge front has passed.

3. Leader-Type Discharges, and a Possible

Connection to Lightning Initiation
3.1. Positive Leader
[25] Various studies have characterized the initiation of
positive and negative leaders from conducting electrodes
[Gallimberti, 1979] as well as initiation of leaders from long
(>1 m) conductors floating in electrode gaps [Castellani et
al., 1998; Lalande et al., 2002]. Leaders, both in the Figure 6. Schematic of the active region of a propagating
laboratory and in nature (lightning), consist primarily of a positive leader. The conductive leader channel acts as an
channel of air that is electrically conductive due to thermally anode, generating a strong electric field in the vicinity of the
driven electron detachment and ionization processes. Labo- tip. Copious amounts of positive streamers are produced at
ratory investigations have indicated a minimum temperature the tip, with the concentrated streamer electron current
for sustained electrical conductivity to be in the range of heating the air just ahead of the leader tip and extending it
1000 – 2000 K [Aleksandrov et al., 2001; Gallimberti et al., forward.

8 of 14
D17205 PETERSEN ET AL.: PROCESSES OF LIGHTNING INITIATION
Figure 7. Schematics of the active region of a propagating
negative leader. (A) Negative streamers are generated in the
strong electric field near the main negative leader tip in much
the same way as positive streamer generation in front of a
positive leader tip. Due to vigorous streamer development,
various regions along the negative streamer tracks are heated
and retain excess positive space charge. These regions are
called space stems (B) A series of pilot discharges are
generated at the space stems, resulting in both retrograde
positive streamers that feed into the main negative leader tip
and new forward-propagating negative streamers. (C) A
space leader forms when a downstream pilot feeds positive
streamers to an upstream pilot that, in turn, feeds positive
streamers to the main negative leader tip. The space leader is
heated by the positive streamer current until it becomes
electrically conductive, causing it to extend linearly in a
manner consistent with bipolar leader growth. (D) The space
leader continues to extend in both directions until its anodic
end attaches to the main negative leader channel. This
attachment is accompanied by a surge of current and rapid
equalization of potential along the space leader channel,
resulting in an effective stepwise forward motion of the main
negative leader channel.
tip, resulting in the formation of positive streamers that
rapidly propagate away from the tip over a distance of a
few meters. As the streamers exit the tip, they produce a
concentrated current in and around the tip that further heats
the tip and propagates it forward. The quantity of streamers
9 of 14
D17205
necessary for continued positive leader development is con-
strained to a range of intermediate values. If a leader does not
produce enough streamers, it cannot adequately heat the
leader tip and channel and thus cannot extend. If the leader
produces too many streamers it becomes shrouded in a field-
choking positive space charge. This constraint can be quan-
tified as a streamer charge production per unit length of leader
development, or Q/L, with laboratory results indicating it to
be on the order of 50 mC
m1 [Gallimberti et al., 2002]. The
electric field required for stable positive leader propagation at
sea level air pressure varies from 100 – 200 kV
m 1
for laboratory leaders down to about 10 – 50 kV
m 1
for lightning leaders, and the propagation rate of positive
leaders varies from 104 m
s1 for laboratory leaders up to
3  105 m
s1 for lightning leaders [Lalande et al., 2002].
3.2. Negative Leader
[26] The active region of a negative laboratory leader has
the same general anatomy as a positive laboratory leader,
consisting of a leader channel, tip and streamer zone. There
is, however, a significant addition to the negative laboratory
leader extension process, illustrated in Figure 7. In the
negative laboratory leader case, an initial burst of negative
streamers is emitted from the main leader tip and propagates
through the strong local electric field for a few meters. As
illustrated on Figure 7a, this results in the creation of small
heated and positively charged stems along the negative
streamer paths corresponding to regions of vigorous stream-
er intensification and/or branching [Reess et al., 1995]. As
illustrated on Figure 7b, the positive space charge in these
regions leads to the rapid formation of a retrograde positive
streamer that propagates back to the main negative leader
tip. If the positive streamer emission is energetic enough, a
compensatory quantity of negative charge is deposited back
into the space stem, resulting in a forward-propagating
negative streamer. This discharge sequence is called a
‘‘pilot’’, and often occurs in a repetitive forward-propagating
series with a repetition period of tens of nanoseconds and a
propagation velocity on the order of 105 m/s. Pilots serve as a
continuous source of retrograde positive streamers that feed
into the main negative leader tip. This coupling of pilots to
the main negative leader tip provides the majority of the
electric current that heats and extends the main negative
leader tip.
[27] The situation can arise whereby two or more pilots
may exist simultaneously in a linear series in front of the
main negative leader tip. This situation is of great interest
because it creates the condition whereby one of the pilots
may transition into a hot bipolar leader segment [Ortega et
al., 1994]. Figure 7c illustrates a linear series of two pilots,
with the outer pilot generating positive streamers that are
fed into the inner pilot. By being fed current from an
upstream pilot and in turning feeding that current down-
stream to the main negative leader channel, the inner pilot
stem is continuously heated via joule heating. After reach-
ing the critical temperature for sustaining electrical conduc-
tivity, the inner pilot stem begins to lengthen at both ends in
much the same way as the tip of the main negative leader.
This elongating conductive structure is called a ‘‘space
leader’’, and is essentially a floating bipolar leader. As
illustrated in Figure 7d, the lengthening space leader even-
tually attaches to the main negative leader channel. At this
D17205 PETERSEN ET AL.: PROCESSES OF LIGHTNING INITIATION
moment, the space leader is rapidly brought to the potential
of the main negative leader tip. This is accompanied by a
surge of current and luminosity, and is commonly referred
to as a ‘‘step’’.
[28] Typical Q/L values for negative laboratory leaders are
around 100 mC
m1 [Gallimberti et al., 2002]. Ambient
electric fields of 200 – 300 kV
m1 are required for propaga-
tion at sea level air pressure, nearly double that of positive
leaders [Lalande et al., 2002]. The elongation of negative
laboratory leaders typically occurs in step lengths on the
order of 1 m, with a stepping period of 10– 20 ms and velocity
of 1 – 5  105 m
s1. In comparison, negative lightning
leaders have step lengths that can exceed several tens of
meters and velocities that approach 106 m
s1. While it may
superficially appear that the mechanisms of lightning and
laboratory stepped leader extension are identical, debate still
exists due the more extreme nature of lightning and the
apparent lack of sufficiently detailed observational evidence.
3.3. Hypothesis for Lightning Leader Initiation
[29] While most laboratory studies provide insight into
leader initiation on electrodes and large floating conductors,
lightning leader initiation usually occurs in regions devoid
of such structures and is thus not trivially comparable.
Instead of attempting to explain lightning leader formation
in terms of electrode-initiated leaders, it may instead be
more accurate to consider a comparison to the laboratory
space leader as the laboratory space leader shares with
lightning the constraint of being initiated in regions devoid
of conducting electrodes.
[30] We suggest that the local conditions required for the
onset of the pilot process and subsequent formation of a
laboratory space leader may also exist in a thundercloud
environment. Specifically, we suggest that these conditions
may arise in the strong electric field regions that are
hypothesized to result from the positive streamer system
mechanism of Griffiths and Phelps. Figure 8 illustrates the
process as conceived, based on hypothesized properties of
positive streamer systems and know properties of the
laboratory space leader. According to Griffiths and Phelps
[1976], a series of overlapping positive streamer systems
may boost the electric field to levels exceeding 1 MV
m1
over the distance of a few meters. In such conditions,
hydrometeors likely undergo both positive and negative
corona discharges. The positive streamer discharges would
continue to reinforce the positive streamer system effect of
locally intensified electric field, while the negative stream-
ers might create space stems in the same way as in the case
of the laboratory negative leader (Figure 8b). These space
stems could undergo a series of pilot discharges, with the
positive streamers continuing on into positive streamer
systems (supplanting the hydrometeors as initiators of seed
positive streamers). If a small number of pilots becomes
serially connected via positive steamers (Figure 8c), then
the downstream pilot stems could undergo heating until
becoming electrically conductive. These electrically con-
ductive stems could then be further heated by continued
pilot-generated streamer activity, resulting in their extension
into space leaders. Further growth and extension of a
number of serially connected space leaders could lead to
10 of 14
D17205
their attachment, creating a substantially longer space leader
segment (Figure 8d). This attachment process would be
very much analogous to the stepping process of the labo-
ratory negative leader, with the role of the main negative
leader channel as a positive charge drain being taken by the
continuing positive streamer generation on the anodic end.
As the space leader channel continues to lengthen, the
potential gradient along the conductive leader channel
would continue to drop due to continued joule heating,
further intensifying the electric field at the leader channel
extremities. Given that the local electric field at the leader
extremities can sustain continued development, the space
leader should continue to lengthen until emerging as a
lightning leader channel.
[31] In order for this hypothesized lightning initiation
sequence to succeed, a number of constraints must be
accommodated. First, the electric field strength required
for space stem formation must be met. Observations of
laboratory pilot formation have shown that pilots can form
in the outer regions of the streamer zone of a laboratory
negative leader [Ortega et al., 1994; Reess et al., 1995]. It
can be assumed that the electric field in these regions is
comparable to the minimum field required for negative
streamer propagation, around 750 kV
m1 at sea level
pressure [Gallimberti et al., 2002]. This value, adjusted to
500 mb pressure, is less than the field strength hypothesized
to occur near the positive streamer system mechanism.
Additionally, the streamers created by the pilots should
not develop a local space charge shield that reduces the
local electric field and quenches the discharge. In the case of
a laboratory negative leader, this constraint is fulfilled via
removal of positive charge through the highly conductive
leader channel. However, in the case of lightning initiation,
no such conductive channel exists. Instead, positive charge
removal must be carried out by the propagation of positive
streamers away from the pilot. The positive streamer system
mechanism is hypothesized to propagate positive space
charge to distances on the order of 10 m or more, in
addition to further intensifying the electric field at the
system origin due to positive streamer intensification. This
should, in effect, fulfill the role of positive space charge
removal. However, unlike the case of a laboratory negative
leader, the embryonic lightning leader must eventually
develop its positive end in the general direction of this large
deposit of positive space charge. If the accumulated space
charge is too great, it may interrupt the positive leader
development which would end the discharge. One possibil-
ity is that, as the embryonic lightning leader extends out
toward the deposited positive space charge, the reduced
potential gradient inside the lengthening leader channel
results in intensification of the electric field at the positive
leader tip sufficient to overcome the shielding effect.
Another possibility is that the embryonic lightning leader
simply develops around, and thus avoids, the deposited
positive space charge. Finally, the emerging embryonic
lightning leader must be capable of continued development
under the weaker background thundercloud electric field.
This constraint depends primarily on the polarization of the
leader channel upon emergence into the weaker background
field, and is a function of the leader channel length and
conductivity. If the leader channel is able to emerge under
D17205 PETERSEN ET AL.: PROCESSES OF LIGHTNING INITIATION D17205

Figure 8. Hypothetical schematic of initial lightning leader formation. (A) In locally intense electric
field region of thundercloud, corona on hydrometeor generates seed positive streamer. Positive streamer
develops into intensifying and branching positive streamer system, further intensifying the electric field
near the streamer system origin. (B) Local intensity of electric field now sufficient to generate both
positive and negative streamers on nearby hydrometeors. Positive streamers develop into intensifying
and branching positive streamer systems, while negative streamers develop less but create space stems.
(C) Pilot discharges initiate on space stems, with series connection of space stems allowing inner stems to
heat and develop into space leaders. Streamer activity continues at extremities of space stem system.
(D) Continued heating and elongation of space leaders allows for rapid elongation and attachment into
larger space leader system. Reduction of potential gradient inside the space leader channel further
intensifies the electric field at the space leader extremities. Resulting streamer generation at the
extremities leads to the creation of new space stems at the cathodic end.

11 of 14
D17205 PETERSEN ET AL.: PROCESSES OF LIGHTNING INITIATION
these constraints, it may be properly stated that lightning
has initiated.
4. Summary
[32] For the last few decades, the majority of literature
dealing with the problem of lightning initiation has focused
primarily on two discharge processes: positive streamers
generated from polarized hydrometeors, and relativistic
electron avalanches initiated by cosmic rays. These dis-
charge processes may be capable of occurring in the
relatively weak thundercloud electric fields, but are unlikely
to transform directly into a lightning leader system. Instead,
they appear to offer a means whereby the thundercloud
electric field may be locally intensified. Typically, the
transition from these mechanisms to the onset of the initial
lightning leader is described by general reference to ‘‘con-
ventional’’ breakdown processes which are not clearly
defined. Thus in our estimation, the problem of onset of
the initial lightning leader remains unresolved.
[33] Section 2 includes a brief review of the positive
streamer system and the runaway breakdown mechanisms
of local electric field intensification, and points out some of
the strong and weak points of these mechanisms with
respect to lightning initiation. This is followed by the
hypothesis that a serial combination of such mechanisms
may be more capable of producing a strong local intensifi-
cation of the electric field in the thundercloud environment.
It is suggested that runaway breakdown need not lead
directly to the formation of a thermalized leader channel,
but instead need only generate a moderate local intensifi-
cation of the thundercloud electric field necessary to support
positive streamer discharges from nearby hydrometeors. It is
also mentioned that this moderate intensification may also
result from ordinary action of preexisting thundercloud
space charge, with the lack of observational evidence of
related compact regions of strong electric field being a
consequence of insufficient observational sampling. It is
then suggested that if these mechanisms moderately locally
intensify the thundercloud electric field, the hydrometeor-
initiated positive streamer system mechanism may be capa-
ble of further locally intensifying the electric field to levels
approaching the dielectric strength of air.
[34] Section 3 includes a brief review of some basic leader
discharge processes, with focus on the pilot and space leader
processes of laboratory negative leader extension. This is
followed by a hypothesis that initial lightning leader forma-
tion may be functionally similar to the formation of a
laboratory pilot and space leader sequence. In place of the
main negative leader, it is suggested that hydrometeor-
initiated positive streamer systems may create a similar effect
by generating the necessary strong local electric field and
carrying away the excess positive charge. In addition, given a
sufficiently strong local electric field resulting from positive
streamer systems, it is suggested that negative streamers may
also be generated as coronas on nearby hydrometeors thus
allowing for the creation of the necessary ‘‘space stem’’
regions that are required for the formation of pilot discharges.
[35] One possible means of testing this hypothesis would
be to investigate the electromagnetic radiation emitted
during the initial phase of lightning initiation. We suggest
that this investigation look for evidence of the following
12 of 14
D17205
proposed processes: (1) Moderate local intensification of the
electric field, perhaps via a runaway breakdown event. If
this step involves runaway breakdown, then the initial
radiation should include a strong burst of brehmsstrahlung
radiation resulting from runaway electrons colliding with
atomic nuclei, and an associated pulse of broadband RF
radiation resulting from the large mass of accelerating
charges. (2) A series of hydrometeor-initiated positive
streamer systems. As individual positive streamers are
low-current discharges with conductive lengths on the order
of a few centimeters, they likely do not emit significant
quantities of RF radiation at wavelengths typically associ-
ated with lightning RF emissions. However, during the
more vigorous initial portion of streamer system develop-
ment, the combined electrical currents may be more sub-
stantial and thus may emit measurable RF radiation at
frequencies above 1 GHz. (3) Formation of space stems
and pilots, and the development of pilots into space leaders.
Any RF radiation during this phase would likely resemble
the previously described radiation as the discharge pro-
cesses involved are primarily due to coronas and streamers.
(4) Attachment of a linear array of space leaders, creating an
elongated lightning leader embryo. This stage should be
characterized by a series of longer-wavelength RF pulses due
to current surges associated with attachment of the space
leader segments to each other. As the space leaders are
hypothesized to be relatively small compared to step lengths
of a typical lightning negative leader, and the corresponding
current surges across the channels relatively weak, the
characteristic emission pulses should be much weaker than
typical stepped leader pulses and may lack the longer
wavelength emissions. However, as the embryonic lightning
leader system continues to develop, the RF pulses should
gradually become more powerful until resembling typical
lightning stepped leader pulses.
[36] Further work will involve more accurate investiga-
tion of the ‘‘conventional’’ processes described in this paper.
Work has begun on further developing the Griffiths and
Phelps [1976] model of an intensifying and branching
positive streamer system in order to more accurately assess
the capacity for such systems to locally intensify the
thundercloud electric field. In addition, it is of interest to
further develop the pilot/space leader hypothesis of light-
ning leader formation and to incorporate it into an extended
streamer system model as a more complete picture of
lightning initiation. Finally, observations will be made
of the fine structure of RF emissions during the initial phase
of lightning formation with focus on frequencies above
1 GHz.
Notation
N - Number density of a gas, m3
E - Electric field, V/m
a0 - Net ionization coefficient, m1
a - Ion production coefficient, m1
h - Ion removal coefficient, m1
s - Path of integration, m
Ne - Number of free electrons
Eb - Dielectric strength of air
Est - Stability field of propagating positive streamers
h - Absolute humidity, g/m3
D17205 PETERSEN ET AL.: PROCESSES OF LIGHTNING INITIATION D17205

d - Ratio of the local air density to the density of air at
STP
vstr - Velocity of a positive streamer, m/s
Ea - Ambient electric field
q - Net positive charge stored in a positive streamer tip
hqi - Average value for q in a positive streamer system
Q - Net positive charge stored in a positive streamer
system
u - Potential energy stored in a positive streamer tip
hui - Average value of u in a positive streamer system
U - Potential energy stored in a positive streamer system
K - Electron kinetic energy, eV
Kth - Electron kinetic energy threshold for runaway
breakdown, keV
Ec - Critical electric field strength for which all free
electrons will run away
Eth - Minimum electric field needed to produce runaway
electrons
L - Length traversed by a runaway avalanche
l - Characteristic runaway electron avalanche length
No - Initial quantity of runaway electrons
Nre - Final quantity of runaway electrons
Erb - Threshold electric field for a runaway avalanche
Glossary
Ambient electric field: Background thundercloud elec-
tric field.
Electron attachment: Process whereby free electrons
become attached to neutral molecules, forming negative
ions.
Long spark: A leader discharge.
LTE: Acronym for ‘‘local thermodynamic equilibrium’’.
Refers to a plasma in which all particles such as ions and
free electrons are in thermodynamic equilibrium.
Negative streamer: Corona-type discharge character-
ized by effective advancement of a negative space charge.
Negative leader: Leader system that propagates nega-
tive electric potential.
Negative stepped leader: Distinct from a typical
positive leader due to an additional extension process called
’stepping’.
Pilot: A series of positive and negative streamers
initiated on a compact region of space charge that is
subjected to a strong ambient electric field.
Plasma: A state of matter characterized by a gaseous
mixture of electrically charged particles.
Positive streamer: Corona-type discharge characterized
by effective advancement of a positive space charge.
Positive leader: Leader system that propagates positive
electric potential.
Relativistic electron avalanche: An electron avalanche
mechanism that is distinct from the Townsend electron
avalanche due to the extremely high energy of the free
electrons. This avalanche can develop in ambient electric
fields that are 1/10th as strong as those required for the
Townsend electron avalanche. Requires an initial supply of
relativistic electrons and large propagation distances for
significant development.
Runaway breakdown: Electrical discharge process
based on the relativistic electron avalanche.
Runaway electron: Free electron with a large kinetic
Electron recombination: Process whereby electrons are
recombined with positive ions.
Bipolar leader: Leader system containing simulta-
neously developing positive and negative ends.
Conventional discharge: Reference to an electrical
discharge based on the Townsend electron avalanche
mechanism.
Cool plasma: Plasma whose temperature is such that it
cannot maintain appreciable electrical conductivity due to
rapid electron attachment and recombination processes.
Cosmic ray: High energy particle of extraterrestrial
origin.
Cosmic ray shower: Shower of elementary particles
and high-energy photons that results from collision of a
cosmic ray nuclei with the nuclei of an air molecule.
Embryonic lightning leader: Initial stage of a lightning
leader characterized by short length and large electrical
resistance.
Hydrometeor: General term for a water-based particle
suspended in Earth’s atmosphere, such as a cloud droplet,
raindrop or ice crystal.
Leader discharge: A specific type of electrical dis-
charge in a gas, characterized by an extending filament of
hot, highly electrically conductive gas that is preceded at its
leading tip by copious coronal discharge activity.
Leader channel: The hot, highly electrically conductive
filamentary channel of a leader discharge.
Leader tip: The terminal end of the leader channel
where coronal discharges are generated.
Lightning leader: A leader discharge that forms in or
around a thundercloud.
13 of 14
energy (100 eV), accelerated by an ambient electric field
such that energy losses to the environment are a decreasing
function of kinetic energy and are less than energy gains
from the electric field.
Space charge: A collection of electrical charges that are
distributed in a volume of space.
Space leader: A bipolar leader that typically forms in
the streamer zone of a negative stepped leader and whose
attachment to the main negative leader channel results in a
‘stepwise’ extension of the main negative leader channel.
Space stem: A compact region of space charge in the
streamer zone of a negative leader that serves as a starting
point for a pilot.
Stability field: Threshold electric field for stable
propagation of a streamer.
Stepping: Primary process involved in extension of a
negative leader, characterized by discrete events of forward
propagation of the leader tip.
STP: Acronym for ‘‘standard temperature and pres-
sure’’. Defined as 1 atmosphere of pressure and 0° C.
Streamer tip: Active zone of a streamer, where Town-
send electron avalanches occur. Propagates forward as an
ionization wave.
Streamer tail: Cylinder of cool plasma behind the
streamer tip, characterized by rapid loss of electrical
conductivity due to electron attachment and recombination.
Streamer zone: Region ahead of a leader tip character-
ized by streamer activity.
Thermal electron: Free electron with kinetic energy
typically less than a few tens of eV in air. Distinct from a
D17205 PETERSEN ET AL.: PROCESSES OF LIGHTNING INITIATION
relativistic electron whose energy is typically much greater
than 100 eV.
Thundercloud: Meteorological term for a cloud char-
acterized by lightning discharges.
Townsend electron avalanche: When a strong ambient
electric field is present, free electrons are accelerated to
energies in excess of a few eV allowing for impact
ionization of neutral atoms and molecules. When the
average number of electron impact ionization events
exceeds the average number of electron attachment and
electron recombination events, the number of free electrons
increases exponentially.
[37] Acknowledgments. This work was supported by NSF-EPSCoR
grant EPS-0082725 through the Physical Meteorology Program, National
Science Foundation, Arlington, VA, USA.
References
Aleksandrov, N. L., E. M. Bazelyan, and A. M. Konchakov (2001), Plasma
parameters in the channel of a long leader in air, Plasma Phys. Rep.,
27(10), 875 – 885.
Allen, N. L., and P. N. Micropoulos (1999), Dynamics of streamer propa-
gation in air, J. Phys. D Appl. Phys., 32, 913 – 919.
Bazelyan, E. M., and Y. P. Raizer (1998), Spark Discharge, CRC Press,
Boca, Raton, Fla.
Castellani, A., A. Bondiou-Clergerie, P. Lalande, A. Bonamy, and
I. Gallimberti (1998), Laboratory study of the bi-leader process from an
electrically floating conductor. part I: General results, IEE Proc.-Sci.
Meas. Technol., 145(5), 185 – 192.
Crabb, J. A., and J. Latham (1974), Corona from colliding drops as a
possible mechanism for the triggering of lightning, Q. J. R. Meteorol.
Soc., 100, 191 – 202.
Dawson, G. A., and W. P. Winn (1965), A model for streamer propagation,
Zeit. Phys., 183, 159 – 171.
Dwyer, J. R. (2003), A fundamental limit on electric fields in air, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 30(20), 2055, doi:10.1029/2003GL017781.
Dwyer, J. R. (2004), Implications of x-ray emissions from lightning, Geo-
phys. Res. Lett., 31, L12102, doi:10.1029/2004GL019795.
Dwyer, J. R. (2005), The initiation of lightning by runaway air breakdown,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L20808, doi:10.1029/2005GL023975.
Gallimberti, I. (1979), Mechanism of the long spark formation, J. Phys.
Colloq., 40(C7), 193 – 250, Suppl. 7.
Gallimberti, I., G. Bacchiega, A. Bondiou-Clergerie, and P. Lalande (2002),
Fundamental processes in long air gap discharges, Phys. C. R., 3, 1335 –
1359.
Griffiths, R. F., and J. Latham (1972), The emission of corona from falling
drops, J. R. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn., 50, 416 – 422.
Griffiths, R. F., and J. Latham (1974), Electrical corona from ice hydro-
meteors, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 100, 163 – 180.
Griffiths, R. F., and C. T. Phelps (1976), A model for lightning initiation
arising from positive corona streamer development, J. Geophys. Res.,
81(21), 3671 – 3676.
14 of 14
D17205
Gurevich, A. V., and K. P. Zybin (2001), Runaway breakdown and electric
discharges in thunderstorms, Phys.-Uspekhi, 44(11), 1119 – 1140.
Gurevich, A. V., G. M. Milikh, and R. Roussel-Dupre (1992), Runaway
electron mechanism of air breakdown and preconditioning during a thun-
derstorm, Phys. Lett. A, 165, 463 – 468.
Gurevich, A. V., K. P. Zybin, and R. A. Roussel-Dupre (1999), Lightning
initiation by simultaneous effect of runaway breakdown and cosmic ray
showers, Phys. Lett. A, 254, 79 – 87.
Gurevich, A. V., L. M. Duncan, Y. V. Medvedev, and K. P. Zybin (2002),
Radio emission due to simultaneous effect of runaway breakdown and
extensive atmospheric showers, Phys. Lett. A, 301, 320 – 326.
Lalande, P., A. Bondiou-Clergerie, G. Bacchiega, and I. Gallimberti (2002),
Observations and modeling of lightning leaders, C. R. Phys., 3, 1375 –
1392.
Loeb, L. B. (1966), The mechanism of stepped and dart leaders in cloud-to-
ground lightning strokes, J. Geophys. Res., 71(20), 4711 – 4721.
Marshall, T. C., M. P. McCarthy, and W. D. Rust (1995), Electric field
magnitudes and lightning initiation in thunderstorms, J. Geophys. Res.,
100(D4), 7097 – 7103.
Marshall, T. C., M. Stolzenburg, C. R. Maggio, L. M. Coleman, P. R.
Krehbeil, T. Hamlin, R. J. Thomas, and W. Rison (2005), Observed
electric fields associated with lightning initiation, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
32, L03813, doi:10.1029/2004GL021802.
Meek, J. W. (1940), A theory of spark discharge, Phys. Rev., 57, 722 – 728.
Ortega, P., P. Domens, A. Gibert, B. Hutzler, and G. Ruquel (1994), Per-
formance of a 16.7 m air rod-plane gap under a negative switching
impulse, J. Phys. D Appl. Phys., 27, 2379 – 2387.
Petersen, D., M. Bailey, J. Hallett, and W. Beasley (2006), Laboratory
investigation of positive streamer discharges from simulated ice hydro-
meteors, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 132, 263 – 273, doi:10.1256/qj.03.217.
Phelps, C. T. (1974), Positive streamer system intensification and its pos-
sible role in lightning initiation, J. Atmos. Sol. Terr. Phys., 36, 103 – 111.
Phelps, C. T., and R. F. Griffiths (1976), Dependence of positive corona
streamer propagation on air pressure and water vapour content, J. Appl.
Phys., 47(7), 2929 – 2934.
Reess, T., P. Ortega, A. Gibert, P. Domens, and P. Pignolet (1995), An
experimental study of negative discharge in a 1.3 m point-plane air
gap: The function of the space stem in the propagation mechanism,
J. Phys. D Appl. Phys, 28, 2306 – 2313.
Richards, C. N., and G. A. Dawson (1971), The hydrodynamic instability of
water drops falling at terminal velocity in vertical electric fields, J. Geo-
phys. Res., 76(15), 3445 – 3455.
Wilson, C. T. R. (1924), The electric field of a thundercloud and some of its
effects, Proc. Phys. Soc. London, 37, 32D – 37D, doi:10.1088/1478-7814/
37/1/314.
Wilson, C. T. R. (1925), The acceleration of b-particles in strong electric
fields such as those of thunderclouds, Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., 22,
534 – 538.

M. Bailey, J. Hallett, and D. Petersen, Atmospheric Sciences, Desert
Research Institute, 2215 Raggio Parkway, Reno, NV 89512, USA.
(danyal@dri.edu)
W. H. Beasley, School of Meteorology, University of Oklahoma, 120
David L. Boren Boulevard, Suite 5900, Norman, OK 73072-7307, USA.