Nitrogen dioxide slowly converts to Nitric acid on contact

[Loose}{Cannon]

Oh, I gotta see this.   

[Loose}{Cannon]

 

[Loose}{Cannon]

Nigel

I think we may agree on more then you realize.  I believe its a strong possibility that some type of toxic gas set in motion a series or 'chain' of unfortunate events.  I'm just not convinced the source for said gas was ball lightning.   

[Nigel Evans]

Nigel

I think we may agree on more then you realize.  I believe its a strong possibility that some type of toxic gas set in motion a series or 'chain' of unfortunate events.  I'm just not convinced the source for said gas was ball lightning.   

Glad we agree on something!
The source isn't ball lightning but ionisation produced by the snowstorm creating microwave energy in a favourable terrain/cloud structure (swirling oscillating air).
This results in visual objects such as ball lightning = fire orbs, objects in Semyon's photos and microwaves creating nitrogen oxides which drift downwind as a hot poisonous/intoxicating mist.
As for the source being a man made object like a rocket instead of a natural phenomena, it's possible but more of a stretch.

[Loose}{Cannon]

Ok so your saying.....     

ionisation produced by the snowstorm leads to microwave energy wich produces two things. 

#1 visual light phenomena
#2 nitrogen oxides which drift downwind as a hot poisonous/intoxicating mist.

[Nigel Evans]

Ok so your saying.....     

ionisation produced by the snowstorm leads to microwave energy wich produces two things. 

#1 visual light phenomena
#2 nitrogen oxides which drift downwind as a hot poisonous/intoxicating mist.

Almost :-ionisation produced by the snowstorm leads to

#1 visual light phenomena (discharging ion streams such as plane1, plane2).
#2 microwave energy producing nitrogen oxides which drift downwind as a hot poisonous/intoxicating mist.
#3 cloud to cloud and cloud to ground lightning producing ball lightning (fire orbs).
That snow storms create ionisation is well understood - checkout thundersnow.
#2 and #3 are within the orbit of conventional science, the paper from Prof Wu published in the magazine Nature discusses these points.

Not sure how much #1 is accepted but i've posted what seems to be good empirical evidence (e.g. quebec object).

[sarapuk]

Nigel. You say and I quote  ''I can't be certain. But the theory has an explanation for these things (unlike most theories which can't explain half of them...).''  Thats fair enough, but would still not be enough to convince a JURY in a Court Of Law in England, thats for sure. The Jury would struggle with the notion of FIRE ORBS ie what exactly are they  1 ?  Still no scientific definition.

Ball lightning attracts theories from eminent physicists...

But attracting theories from eminent physicists is not a scientific definition in any way whatsoever.

[sarapuk]

Ok so your saying.....     

ionisation produced by the snowstorm leads to microwave energy wich produces two things. 

#1 visual light phenomena
#2 nitrogen oxides which drift downwind as a hot poisonous/intoxicating mist.

Almost :-ionisation produced by the snowstorm leads to

#1 visual light phenomena (discharging ion streams such as plane1, plane2).
#2 microwave energy producing nitrogen oxides which drift downwind as a hot poisonous/intoxicating mist.
#3 cloud to cloud and cloud to ground lightning producing ball lightning (fire orbs).
That snow storms create ionisation is well understood - checkout thundersnow.
#2 and #3 are within the orbit of conventional science, the paper from Prof Wu published in the magazine Nature discusses these points.

Not sure how much #1 is accepted but i've posted what seems to be good empirical evidence (e.g. quebec object).

And neither is this a scientific definition of anything.  This would not stand up in an English Court Of Law.

[Nigel Evans]

And neither is this a scientific definition of anything.  This would not stand up in an English Court Of Law.

I wasn't aware that science had to stand up in an English Court of Law.

[Nigel Evans]

Nigel. You say and I quote  ''I can't be certain. But the theory has an explanation for these things (unlike most theories which can't explain half of them...).''  Thats fair enough, but would still not be enough to convince a JURY in a Court Of Law in England, thats for sure. The Jury would struggle with the notion of FIRE ORBS ie what exactly are they  1 ?  Still no scientific definition.

Ball lightning attracts theories from eminent physicists...

But attracting theories from eminent physicists is not a scientific definition in any way whatsoever.

Correct, ball lightning is currently poorly understood. A full understanding is for the science of the future, possibly not in the lifetime of anyone reading this. But that does not mean that it doesn't exist.

[sarapuk]

And neither is this a scientific definition of anything.  This would not stand up in an English Court Of Law.

I wasn't aware that science had to stand up in an English Court of Law.

If you are bringing into Court evidence of a scientific nature then of course it has to stand up.

[Nigel Evans]

And neither is this a scientific definition of anything.  This would not stand up in an English Court Of Law.

I wasn't aware that science had to stand up in an English Court of Law.

If you are bringing into Court evidence of a scientific nature then of course it has to stand up.

I don't think the opinion of a Court of Law was very important to the DPI group that fateful night....

[Star man]

And neither is this a scientific definition of anything.  This would not stand up in an English Court Of Law.

I wasn't aware that science had to stand up in an English Court of Law.

If you are bringing into Court evidence of a scientific nature then of course it has to stand up.

I don't think the opinion of a Court of Law was very important to the DPI group that fateful night....

Question: if this snow storm created ionisation and that in turn created nitrogen oxides, and ball lightning, why don't we see these effects more often?  What was so special about the snow storm on Kholat Syakhl that night?

To create a toxic nitrogen oxide mist capable of driving the group away from the camp, what is the mechanism?

[Nigel Evans]

And neither is this a scientific definition of anything.  This would not stand up in an English Court Of Law.

I wasn't aware that science had to stand up in an English Court of Law.

If you are bringing into Court evidence of a scientific nature then of course it has to stand up.

I don't think the opinion of a Court of Law was very important to the DPI group that fateful night....

Question: if this snow storm created ionisation and that in turn created nitrogen oxides, and ball lightning, why don't we see these effects more often?  What was so special about the snow storm on Kholat Syakhl that night?It's not just the snow storm that was special but the location and wind direction AND wind strength. Both the DPI and Chivruay seemed to have happened in extremely high winds (50m/s = 112mph at Chivruay). So it maybe that there are few locations that fit the requisite profile and these locations very rarely have humans passing through them precisely at the right (or wrong) time. But there could be a significantly larger number of dead mountains where nothing seems to live....

To create a toxic nitrogen oxide mist capable of driving the group away from the camp, what is the mechanism?https://www.nature.com/articles/srep28263Plus the ufo links i've posted showing orange/brown clouds.

[Nigel Evans]

And neither is this a scientific definition of anything.  This would not stand up in an English Court Of Law.

I wasn't aware that science had to stand up in an English Court of Law.

If you are bringing into Court evidence of a scientific nature then of course it has to stand up.

I don't think the opinion of a Court of Law was very important to the DPI group that fateful night....

Question: if this snow storm created ionisation and that in turn created nitrogen oxides, and ball lightning, why don't we see these effects more often?  What was so special about the snow storm on Kholat Syakhl that night?It's not just the snow storm that was special but the location and wind direction AND wind strength. Both the DPI and Chivruay seemed to have happened in extremely high winds (50m/s = 112mph at Chivruay). So it maybe that there are few locations that fit the requisite profile and these locations very rarely have humans passing through them precisely at the right (or wrong) time. But there could be a significantly larger number of dead mountains where nothing seems to live....

To create a toxic nitrogen oxide mist capable of driving the group away from the camp, what is the mechanism?https://www.nature.com/articles/srep28263Plus the ufo links i've posted showing orange/brown clouds.

Also - https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.4996790?journalCode=jap

[Star man]

And neither is this a scientific definition of anything.  This would not stand up in an English Court Of Law.

I wasn't aware that science had to stand up in an English Court of Law.

I have read the paper in the attached link and on the face of it it seems like a reasonable theoretical consideration of the phenomenon of ball lightning.  However it is interesting that it provides a typical range of sizes for the ball and the duration of their stability. Typically up to 50cm diameter and 1 to 5 seconds duration.  Although it is credible that these balls of standing microwave energy can produce acrid fumes of ozone and nitrogen dioxide I doubt that sufficient quantities could be produced to generate a large toxic gas cloud?  Nitrogen dioxide would be localised to the region around the ball.

It one of these ball lightning phenomena entered the tent then it would certainly cause a stir and scare those inside to rush out in fear or even maybe cut the tent, but I can’t see how it would cause them all to leave the camp and head down the slope without their shoes?
If you are bringing into Court evidence of a scientific nature then of course it has to stand up.

I don't think the opinion of a Court of Law was very important to the DPI group that fateful night....

Question: if this snow storm created ionisation and that in turn created nitrogen oxides, and ball lightning, why don't we see these effects more often?  What was so special about the snow storm on Kholat Syakhl that night?It's not just the snow storm that was special but the location and wind direction AND wind strength. Both the DPI and Chivruay seemed to have happened in extremely high winds (50m/s = 112mph at Chivruay). So it maybe that there are few locations that fit the requisite profile and these locations very rarely have humans passing through them precisely at the right (or wrong) time. But there could be a significantly larger number of dead mountains where nothing seems to live....

To create a toxic nitrogen oxide mist capable of driving the group away from the camp, what is the mechanism?https://www.nature.com/articles/srep28263Plus the ufo links i've posted showing orange/brown clouds.

Also - https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.4996790?journalCode=jap

[Star man]

I have read the paper in the attached link and on the face of it it seems like a reasonable theoretical consideration of the phenomenon of ball lightning.  However it is interesting that it provides a typical range of sizes for the ball and the duration of their stability. Typically up to 50cm diameter and 1 to 5 seconds duration.  Although it is credible that these balls of standing microwave energy can produce acrid fumes of ozone and nitrogen dioxide I doubt that sufficient quantities could be produced to generate a large toxic gas cloud?  Nitrogen dioxide would be localised to the region around the ball.

It one of these ball lightning phenomena entered the tent then it would certainly cause a stir and scare those inside to rush out in fear or even maybe cut the tent, but I can’t see how it would cause them all to leave the camp and head down the slope without their shoes?

[Nigel Evans]

I have read the paper in the attached link and on the face of it it seems like a reasonable theoretical consideration of the phenomenon of ball lightning.  However it is interesting that it provides a typical range of sizes for the ball and the duration of their stability. Typically up to 50cm diameter and 1 to 5 seconds duration.  Although it is credible that these balls of standing microwave energy can produce acrid fumes of ozone and nitrogen dioxide I doubt that sufficient quantities could be produced to generate a large toxic gas cloud?  Nitrogen dioxide would be localised to the region around the ball.

It one of these ball lightning phenomena entered the tent then it would certainly cause a stir and scare those inside to rush out in fear or even maybe cut the tent, but I can’t see how it would cause them all to leave the camp and head down the slope without their shoes?

It's not about ball lightning, it's about ionised air experiencing large amounts of continuous movement - "waves" that produce microwaves that produce nitrogen oxides. I'm simply using the paper by Prof Wu because you asked about the mechanism.
This object is closer to my theory.

http://ufosightingshotspot.blogspot.com/2014/07/bow-hunter-captured-strange-ufo-in.html

It is a standing wave of ionised air with the antinodes generating hot NO2 (black stripes) and as this heavier than air gas drifts down it cools and becomes orange. Think of an electric bar fire hanging in the air powered by the wind.

[Star man]

It is a standing wave of ionised air with the antinodes generating hot NO2 (black stripes) and as this heavier than air gas drifts down it cools and becomes orange. Think of an electric bar fire hanging in the air powered by the wind.

Ok. Need more information. What do you mean by a standing wave of ionised air?

I get that air molecules can be ionised and carry an electrical charge and then when they move they can create a magnetic field but how does this create a standing wave and generate nitrogen dioxide?

[Nigel Evans]

It is a standing wave of ionised air with the antinodes generating hot NO2 (black stripes) and as this heavier than air gas drifts down it cools and becomes orange. Think of an electric bar fire hanging in the air powered by the wind.

Ok. Need more information. What do you mean by a standing wave of ionised air?

I get that air molecules can be ionised and carry an electrical charge and then when they move they can create a magnetic field but how does this create a standing wave and generate nitrogen dioxide?

The standing wave is in the air - http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/pictures/cloudwaves.cfm


https://www.explainthatstuff.com/antennas.html look at the section - How antennas work
"As the electrons (tiny particles inside atoms) in the electric current wiggle back and forth along the antenna, they create invisible electromagnetic radiation in the form of radio waves."

So if the air in the standing wave is ionised and then "wiggled" it will generate radio waves. If the wiggling has the right wavelength then you are creating microwaves. Then you're creating nitrogen oxides yes?

[sarapuk]

It is a standing wave of ionised air with the antinodes generating hot NO2 (black stripes) and as this heavier than air gas drifts down it cools and becomes orange. Think of an electric bar fire hanging in the air powered by the wind.

Ok. Need more information. What do you mean by a standing wave of ionised air?

I get that air molecules can be ionised and carry an electrical charge and then when they move they can create a magnetic field but how does this create a standing wave and generate nitrogen dioxide?

The standing wave is in the air - http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/pictures/cloudwaves.cfm


https://www.explainthatstuff.com/antennas.html look at the section - How antennas work
"As the electrons (tiny particles inside atoms) in the electric current wiggle back and forth along the antenna, they create invisible electromagnetic radiation in the form of radio waves."

So if the air in the standing wave is ionised and then "wiggled" it will generate radio waves. If the wiggling has the right wavelength then you are creating microwaves. Then you're creating nitrogen oxides yes?

You keep going over the same old ground adding bits and pieces which are just confusing an already confusing theory with absolutely no scientific proof that this is what caused the Dyatlov Group to evacuate the Tent etc.

[Nigel Evans]

It is a standing wave of ionised air with the antinodes generating hot NO2 (black stripes) and as this heavier than air gas drifts down it cools and becomes orange. Think of an electric bar fire hanging in the air powered by the wind.

Ok. Need more information. What do you mean by a standing wave of ionised air?

I get that air molecules can be ionised and carry an electrical charge and then when they move they can create a magnetic field but how does this create a standing wave and generate nitrogen dioxide?

The standing wave is in the air - http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/pictures/cloudwaves.cfm


https://www.explainthatstuff.com/antennas.html look at the section - How antennas work
"As the electrons (tiny particles inside atoms) in the electric current wiggle back and forth along the antenna, they create invisible electromagnetic radiation in the form of radio waves."

So if the air in the standing wave is ionised and then "wiggled" it will generate radio waves. If the wiggling has the right wavelength then you are creating microwaves. Then you're creating nitrogen oxides yes?

You keep going over the same old ground adding bits and pieces which are just confusing an already confusing theory with absolutely no scientific proof that this is what caused the Dyatlov Group to evacuate the Tent etc.

Something tells me that you are not ready for microwave solitons...

[Loose}{Cannon]

It is a standing wave of ionised air with the antinodes generating hot NO2 (black stripes) and as this heavier than air gas drifts down it cools and becomes orange. Think of an electric bar fire hanging in the air powered by the wind.

Ok. Need more information. What do you mean by a standing wave of ionised air?

I get that air molecules can be ionised and carry an electrical charge and then when they move they can create a magnetic field but how does this create a standing wave and generate nitrogen dioxide?

The standing wave is in the air - http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/pictures/cloudwaves.cfm


https://www.explainthatstuff.com/antennas.html look at the section - How antennas work
"As the electrons (tiny particles inside atoms) in the electric current wiggle back and forth along the antenna, they create invisible electromagnetic radiation in the form of radio waves."

So if the air in the standing wave is ionised and then "wiggled" it will generate radio waves. If the wiggling has the right wavelength then you are creating microwaves. Then you're creating nitrogen oxides yes?

You keep going over the same old ground adding bits and pieces which are just confusing an already confusing theory with absolutely no scientific proof that this is what caused the Dyatlov Group to evacuate the Tent etc.

Dont feed the trolls.   Let the thread die a slow agonizing death. 

[Nigel Evans]

It is a standing wave of ionised air with the antinodes generating hot NO2 (black stripes) and as this heavier than air gas drifts down it cools and becomes orange. Think of an electric bar fire hanging in the air powered by the wind.

Ok. Need more information. What do you mean by a standing wave of ionised air?

I get that air molecules can be ionised and carry an electrical charge and then when they move they can create a magnetic field but how does this create a standing wave and generate nitrogen dioxide?

The standing wave is in the air - http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/pictures/cloudwaves.cfm


https://www.explainthatstuff.com/antennas.html look at the section - How antennas work
"As the electrons (tiny particles inside atoms) in the electric current wiggle back and forth along the antenna, they create invisible electromagnetic radiation in the form of radio waves."

So if the air in the standing wave is ionised and then "wiggled" it will generate radio waves. If the wiggling has the right wavelength then you are creating microwaves. Then you're creating nitrogen oxides yes?

You keep going over the same old ground adding bits and pieces which are just confusing an already confusing theory with absolutely no scientific proof that this is what caused the Dyatlov Group to evacuate the Tent etc.

Dont feed the trolls.   Let the thread die a slow agonizing death.

Will the inquest be in an English Court of Law i wonder..?

[Nigel Evans]

http://ufosightingshotspot.blogspot.com/2017/06/photographer-accidentally-captures.html
Yet another orange cloud

[Star man]

It is a standing wave of ionised air with the antinodes generating hot NO2 (black stripes) and as this heavier than air gas drifts down it cools and becomes orange. Think of an electric bar fire hanging in the air powered by the wind.

Ok. Need more information. What do you mean by a standing wave of ionised air?

I get that air molecules can be ionised and carry an electrical charge and then when they move they can create a magnetic field but how does this create a standing wave and generate nitrogen dioxide?

The standing wave is in the air - http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/pictures/cloudwaves.cfm


https://www.explainthatstuff.com/antennas.html look at the section - How antennas work
"As the electrons (tiny particles inside atoms) in the electric current wiggle back and forth along the antenna, they create invisible electromagnetic radiation in the form of radio waves."

So if the air in the standing wave is ionised and then "wiggled" it will generate radio waves. If the wiggling has the right wavelength then you are creating microwaves. Then you're creating nitrogen oxides yes?

Ok, I see where you are going, but to generate radio waves the charged particles would have to be wiggling at very high frequencies and therefore have a very short wavelength.  The kind of standing wave (air waves) you are talking about don't look like they have very high frequencies?  In a typical radio transmitter that uses modulated inductance and capacitance circuitry they are set up with alternating currents in the region of KHz to MHz.  How would you get such high frequencies In an air standing wave?

Another question: do the microwaves (photons) carry enough energy to initiate the chemical reaction between oxygen and nitrogen?  Microwave energy seems a bit low to me.  I would have thought you would need photons bordering the x-ray ultraviolet region?

[Nigel Evans]

It is a standing wave of ionised air with the antinodes generating hot NO2 (black stripes) and as this heavier than air gas drifts down it cools and becomes orange. Think of an electric bar fire hanging in the air powered by the wind.

Ok. Need more information. What do you mean by a standing wave of ionised air?

I get that air molecules can be ionised and carry an electrical charge and then when they move they can create a magnetic field but how does this create a standing wave and generate nitrogen dioxide?

The standing wave is in the air - http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/pictures/cloudwaves.cfm


https://www.explainthatstuff.com/antennas.html look at the section - How antennas work
"As the electrons (tiny particles inside atoms) in the electric current wiggle back and forth along the antenna, they create invisible electromagnetic radiation in the form of radio waves."

So if the air in the standing wave is ionised and then "wiggled" it will generate radio waves. If the wiggling has the right wavelength then you are creating microwaves. Then you're creating nitrogen oxides yes?

Ok, I see where you are going, but to generate radio waves the charged particles would have to be wiggling at very high frequencies and therefore have a very short wavelength.  The kind of standing wave (air waves) you are talking about don't look like they have very high frequencies?  In a typical radio transmitter that uses modulated inductance and capacitance circuitry they are set up with alternating currents in the region of KHz to MHz.  How would you get such high frequencies In an air standing wave?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave - can be 1 metre wavelength. I'm not religious on it, could be even longer perhaps. "Microwave region"(ish) :)
Another question: do the microwaves (photons) carry enough energy to initiate the chemical reaction between oxygen and nitrogen?  Microwave energy seems a bit low to me.  I would have thought you would need photons bordering the x-ray ultraviolet region?I don't know the theory in detail either i'm just dialing in authoritative statements that it is the case. It's not a reaction but a weak bonding of atoms?

[Star man]

It is a standing wave of ionised air with the antinodes generating hot NO2 (black stripes) and as this heavier than air gas drifts down it cools and becomes orange. Think of an electric bar fire hanging in the air powered by the wind.

Ok. Need more information. What do you mean by a standing wave of ionised air?

I get that air molecules can be ionised and carry an electrical charge and then when they move they can create a magnetic field but how does this create a standing wave and generate nitrogen dioxide?

The standing wave is in the air - http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/pictures/cloudwaves.cfm


https://www.explainthatstuff.com/antennas.html look at the section - How antennas work
"As the electrons (tiny particles inside atoms) in the electric current wiggle back and forth along the antenna, they create invisible electromagnetic radiation in the form of radio waves."

So if the air in the standing wave is ionised and then "wiggled" it will generate radio waves. If the wiggling has the right wavelength then you are creating microwaves. Then you're creating nitrogen oxides yes?

Ok, I see where you are going, but to generate radio waves the charged particles would have to be wiggling at very high frequencies and therefore have a very short wavelength.  The kind of standing wave (air waves) you are talking about don't look like they have very high frequencies?  In a typical radio transmitter that uses modulated inductance and capacitance circuitry they are set up with alternating currents in the region of KHz to MHz.  How would you get such high frequencies In an air standing wave?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave - can be 1 metre wavelength. I'm not religious on it, could be even longer perhaps. "Microwave region"(ish) :)
Another question: do the microwaves (photons) carry enough energy to initiate the chemical reaction between oxygen and nitrogen?  Microwave energy seems a bit low to me.  I would have thought you would need photons bordering the x-ray ultraviolet region?I don't know the theory in detail either i'm just dialing in authoritative statements that it is the case. It's not a reaction but a weak bonding of atoms?

Yes microwaves have a wavelength of about 1 metre, but they travel at the speed of light, which means to create an electromagnetic wave with a wavelength of 1 metre you need to wiggle your electrons at very high frequency:

F = speed of light/wavelength

This gives about 300MHz

These air waves won't be travelling anywhere near the speed of light which means the wavelength of the air waves would have to be much smaller, even if they were moving at sonic speeds of 330m/s  This would mean that even at sonic speeds the air wave would have to have a wavelength of only 1 micron. This would not be credible given the physical properties of air in terms of turbulent wave formation around another object. 

The ball lightning on the other hand is more credible, but it would not create huge amounts of nitrogen dioxide.

I'm not sure about the photon energy required.  Microwaves seem a bit low and I certainly don't get a cloud of redish brown acrid smoke when I open the door to my microwave oven.  Are there any credible references to microwaves causing nitrogen oxides to form?

[Nigel Evans]

It is a standing wave of ionised air with the antinodes generating hot NO2 (black stripes) and as this heavier than air gas drifts down it cools and becomes orange. Think of an electric bar fire hanging in the air powered by the wind.

Ok. Need more information. What do you mean by a standing wave of ionised air?

I get that air molecules can be ionised and carry an electrical charge and then when they move they can create a magnetic field but how does this create a standing wave and generate nitrogen dioxide?

The standing wave is in the air - http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/pictures/cloudwaves.cfm


https://www.explainthatstuff.com/antennas.html look at the section - How antennas work
"As the electrons (tiny particles inside atoms) in the electric current wiggle back and forth along the antenna, they create invisible electromagnetic radiation in the form of radio waves."

So if the air in the standing wave is ionised and then "wiggled" it will generate radio waves. If the wiggling has the right wavelength then you are creating microwaves. Then you're creating nitrogen oxides yes?

Ok, I see where you are going, but to generate radio waves the charged particles would have to be wiggling at very high frequencies and therefore have a very short wavelength.  The kind of standing wave (air waves) you are talking about don't look like they have very high frequencies?  In a typical radio transmitter that uses modulated inductance and capacitance circuitry they are set up with alternating currents in the region of KHz to MHz.  How would you get such high frequencies In an air standing wave?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave - can be 1 metre wavelength. I'm not religious on it, could be even longer perhaps. "Microwave region"(ish) :)
Another question: do the microwaves (photons) carry enough energy to initiate the chemical reaction between oxygen and nitrogen?  Microwave energy seems a bit low to me.  I would have thought you would need photons bordering the x-ray ultraviolet region?I don't know the theory in detail either i'm just dialing in authoritative statements that it is the case. It's not a reaction but a weak bonding of atoms?

Yes microwaves have a wavelength of about 1 metre, but they travel at the speed of light, which means to create an electromagnetic wave with a wavelength of 1 metre you need to wiggle your electrons at very high frequency:

F = speed of light/wavelength

This gives about 300MHz

These air waves won't be travelling anywhere near the speed of light which means the wavelength of the air waves would have to be much smaller, even if they were moving at sonic speeds of 330m/s  This would mean that even at sonic speeds the air wave would have to have a wavelength of only 1 micron. This would not be credible given the physical properties of air in terms of turbulent wave formation around another object.
There would have to be an intermediate mechanism! Like a natural magnetron?

The ball lightning on the other hand is more credible, but it would not create huge amounts of nitrogen dioxide.The videos and photos i'm posting might prove you wrong?

I'm not sure about the photon energy required.  Microwaves seem a bit low and I certainly don't get a cloud of redish brown acrid smoke when I open the door to my microwave oven.  Are there any credible references to microwaves causing nitrogen oxides to form?https://www.nature.com/articles/srep28263

[Nigel Evans]

Maybe something like a cross field amplifier - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossed-field_amplifier