Hajossy et al (1999 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 32 1058) alleged that the break of a
short circuit is preceded by the ignition of an arc because they estimated the
relative field strength to be high enough for this to occur. This assertion
has proven inconsistent with measured data. In particular, the typical sudden
change from progressively rising to sharply dropping voltage contrasts with
the alleged gradual commutation, but rather points to a detonation across the
isthmus. Concerning the confinement of metal vapour due to inertia, the
comment refers to Hess (1991 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 24 36-40). There are several
substantiated reasons why the minimal diameter of the bridge and also the
voltage, required for a bypassing ignition, are actually larger than the
values estimated by Hajossy et al, and why the bridge does not simply
vanish. Somewhat misleading observations are blamed for the fallacies. The
established wire explosion model of re-ignition is certainly valid, even in
general. For that reason, there is no hope that the alleged premature ignition
could be used for avoidance of the spatter-causing explosion.