Lightning

On Aug 21, 4:13 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing <em....RemoveThis@swsportsremove.org>
wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:09:55 -0400, "Eisboch" <r....RemoveThis@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >"Richard Casady" <richardcas....RemoveThis@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >news:48bf6d66.415281265@news.east.earthlink.net...
>
> >> You evidently think a lightning rod will somehow increase the danger,
> >> but such has been proven by long experience not to be the case. BS in
> >> other words. The lightning rod doesn't know or care what is under it.
> >> It prevents strikes in a 90 degree cone under it. Works equally well
> >> for buildings, boats, and powerlines.
>
> >I think we are talking two different concepts here.
>
> >A lightning rod is designed to be "the" point of strike, should one occur
> >and equipped with sufficiently sized conductors to discharge the strike to
> >ground.
> >.
> >I am talking about making the building, boat, or whatever less favorable to
> >the strike.
>
> >It has to do with the positive column .... based on the static charge that
> >builds on the ground point.
>
> Having some experience with lightning after constructing and using two
> hundred foot and one 120 foot radio towers in the back yard, it's not
> always height that affects possibilities.
>
> My towers actually took fewer hits over the years than the Beverage I
> had running out through the woods for 5,000 feet which was seven feet
> off the ground and covered by tree branches.
>
> Also, something that I didn't realise until about ten years ago, the
> damage is done not on the air-ground strike but the ground-air return
> strike. - there is more power going that way.
>
> I took a trauma course back when I was still active in the vollies and
> I was surprized to find that with injuries, it's actually better to be
> closer to the actual strike rather than five/ten feet away.

My neighbors below surface well has been hit 3 times even though none
of it protrudes above ground, it is a really good ground I guess.
Mine has been hit once.
 >> Stay informed about: Lightning 

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:27:06 -0400, gfretwell DeleteThis @aol.com wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:01:04 -0700 (PDT), ohara5.0 DeleteThis @mindspring.com
>wrote:
>
>>In another thread some mentioned lightning protection. There seem to
>>b e several schools of thought on the topic ranging from preventing a
>>strike to dissipating it when it happens. I really do not think there
>>is much you can do to prevent a strike on a sailboat except to be in
>>proximity to other tall objects. When you consider the voltages
>>involved, everything becomes a conductor which is why a tall tree gets
>>hit as often as a tower of the same height. I also do not think that
>>lightning dissipators work. In fact, they may make you more
>>susceptible to a strike by increasing the E field in its vicinity.
>>Given that the water is so murky on the subject of protection,, I
>>favor getting rid of it after a strike and attaching a small conductor
>>to your hull isnt the best way. You may end up with a hole in your
>>hull. Instead, I have a 2'X2' copper plate soldered and bolted to 00
>>gage tinned battery cable 20' long with an eyelet on the other end.
>>When in a storm, I throw the plate over the side and attach the eyelet
>>to the mast up high so as to minimize bends in the cable. I want to
>>have the current go through the cable while having the shrouds help
>>protect us inside them.
>>I once did a calculation on the probability of a lone sailboat getting
>>hit if out in a storm and came up with a number that seemed too high
>>yet when compared with insurance statistics turned out to be
>>reasonable. Basically, you should avoid being the only tall thing
>>under such a storm. Being one of many tall things is ok
>
>I am always curious about how a boat takes a hit but I do have some
>experience with a lightning rod. I put a 3' copper rod over my weather
>station with a pointy stainless steel tip, connected to 2ga copper
>wire and terminated in a ground rod (connected to my extensive house
>grounding system)
>It has been hit twice that I know of and I was about 30' away during
>one of them. A mexican laborer was pretty much under it, plastered
>against my garage door. Other than the poop reflex we were totally
>unaffected.. The steel garage door he was plastered to is bonded to
>the same grounding system as the lightning rod as is the wet concrete
>driveway I was standing on.
>We were fine. The weather station ... not so much ... either time.

000 wire and a ten foot long grounding rod, is the customary practice
with lightning rods.

Casady
 >> Stay informed about: Lightning 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Lightning 

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:09:55 -0400, "Eisboch" <rce DeleteThis @nowhere.com> wrote:

>I think we are talking two different concepts here.
>
>A lightning rod is designed to be "the" point of strike, should one occur
>and equipped with sufficiently sized conductors to discharge the strike to
>ground.
>.
>I am talking about making the building, boat, or whatever less favorable to
>the strike.
>
>It has to do with the positive column .... based on the static charge that
>builds on the ground point.

I am not sure what you have in mind, but lightning rods work, and are
about as complicated as a pool ball, hence reliable. However, the 000
wire is not cheap. Every powerline has lightning protection, a
grounded wire above the power conductors. What does every electric
utility know? None the less lightning does hit powerlines. A long wire
lacks sharp points, if that makes a lot of difference.

Casady
 >> Stay informed about: Lightning 

"Richard Casady" <richardcasady.DeleteThis@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:48b4871d.421858515@news.east.earthlink.net...
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:09:55 -0400, "Eisboch" <rce.DeleteThis@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>I think we are talking two different concepts here.
>>
>>A lightning rod is designed to be "the" point of strike, should one occur
>>and equipped with sufficiently sized conductors to discharge the strike to
>>ground.
>>.
>>I am talking about making the building, boat, or whatever less favorable
>>to
>>the strike.
>>
>>It has to do with the positive column .... based on the static charge that
>>builds on the ground point.
>
> I am not sure what you have in mind, but lightning rods work, and are
> about as complicated as a pool ball, hence reliable. However, the 000
> wire is not cheap. Every powerline has lightning protection, a
> grounded wire above the power conductors. What does every electric
> utility know? None the less lightning does hit powerlines. A long wire
> lacks sharp points, if that makes a lot of difference.
>
> Casady

We still aren't connecting here, Richard. I agree with everything you are
saying, if you *want* to design something that is more likely to take the
strike instead of another nearby object or surface.

I am talking about trying to make the strike less likely in that area. I
sorta agree with the point ohara made .... they are probably too small to
have a significant affect.

But .... here's one type that is marketed:

http://www.lpsnet.com/ALS.asp

Ok .... we've beat it to death.

Eisboch
 >> Stay informed about: Lightning 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Lightning 

On Aug 21, 7:45 pm, "Eisboch" <r... RemoveThis @nowhere.com> wrote:
> "Vic Smith" <thismailautodele... RemoveThis @comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:dnura4plcmml99ngdgpdi73r32o7ep9pkf@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > That isn't a school of thought in the scientific community.
> > It's been pretty well debunked, but will live on, like Bigfoot.
> > We could argue about it, but I have the feeling it would be endless no
> > matter how many cites I come up with.
> > Of course I'm not a scientist, but can google like crazy.
> > If you have NFPA approved lightning protection the addition
> > of devices of "the other school" will do no harm.
> > But IMO the "other school" alone is Voodoo - and dangerous.
> > The danger part is why I feel compelled to answer your post.
>
> > --Vic
>
> Hey, I never said it worked.
>
> Eisboch (in his best Harry impersonation)

Every effin day in summer we have lightning shutting stuff down here.
I come in after lunch and power surges have shut down both electron
microscopes. At home during a storm I was sitting 4' from my computer
and a huge spark jumped from the cable modem to the power outlet, the
computer survived. Last week it was my well getting fried by
lightning. I use cordless phones cuz I am terrified of a strike to
the phone lines (another neighbor had that happen to him).
 >> Stay informed about: Lightning 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Lightning 

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:09:52 -0400, "Eisboch" <nothere.TakeThisOut@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>
><ohara5.0.TakeThisOut@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:006a82c8-45e8-467a-b447-055be0126f79@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>> On Aug 20, 7:57 pm, Vic Smith <thismailautodele....TakeThisOut@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> This is the best thing I've seen on lightning, and think it pretty
>>> well hits the mark on what you can do on a boat.
>>> It's geared toward sailboats, but the principles are there.
>>> For electronics gear, I would do the same as I do at home with my
>>> computer and other electronic gear if I anticipate lightning:
>>> unplug it. An insulated non-conducting case might be appropriate
>>> for a radio when at sea.http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/SG/SG07100.pdf
>>>
>>> --Vic
>>
>> That is a good article.
>>
>> Thanks
>
>
>It is a good article in terms of what happens when you get hit and how to
>design for a hit.
>
>The other school of thought is a design to minimize your chances of getting
>hit in the first place.
>
That isn't a school of thought in the scientific community.
It's been pretty well debunked, but will live on, like Bigfoot.
We could argue about it, but I have the feeling it would be endless no
matter how many cites I come up with.
Of course I'm not a scientist, but can google like crazy.
If you have NFPA approved lightning protection the addition
of devices of "the other school" will do no harm.
But IMO the "other school" alone is Voodoo - and dangerous.
The danger part is why I feel compelled to answer your post.

--Vic
 >> Stay informed about: Lightning 

"Vic Smith" <thismailautodeleted.RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dnura4plcmml99ngdgpdi73r32o7ep9pkf@4ax.com...

>>
> That isn't a school of thought in the scientific community.
> It's been pretty well debunked, but will live on, like Bigfoot.
> We could argue about it, but I have the feeling it would be endless no
> matter how many cites I come up with.
> Of course I'm not a scientist, but can google like crazy.
> If you have NFPA approved lightning protection the addition
> of devices of "the other school" will do no harm.
> But IMO the "other school" alone is Voodoo - and dangerous.
> The danger part is why I feel compelled to answer your post.
>
> --Vic

Hey, I never said it worked.

Eisboch (in his best Harry impersonation)
 >> Stay informed about: Lightning 

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:45:04 -0400, "Eisboch" <rce.RemoveThis@nowhere.com> wrote:

>
>"Vic Smith" <thismailautodeleted.RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:dnura4plcmml99ngdgpdi73r32o7ep9pkf@4ax.com...
>
>>>
>> That isn't a school of thought in the scientific community.
>> It's been pretty well debunked, but will live on, like Bigfoot.
>> We could argue about it, but I have the feeling it would be endless no
>> matter how many cites I come up with.
>> Of course I'm not a scientist, but can google like crazy.
>> If you have NFPA approved lightning protection the addition
>> of devices of "the other school" will do no harm.
>> But IMO the "other school" alone is Voodoo - and dangerous.
>> The danger part is why I feel compelled to answer your post.
>>
>> --Vic
>
>Hey, I never said it worked.
>
>Eisboch (in his best Harry impersonation)
>
Works for me (-:

--Vic
 >> Stay informed about: Lightning 

"Vic Smith" <thismailautodeleted.RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dnura4plcmml99ngdgpdi73r32o7ep9pkf@4ax.com...

>>
> That isn't a school of thought in the scientific community.
> It's been pretty well debunked, but will live on, like Bigfoot.
> We could argue about it, but I have the feeling it would be endless no
> matter how many cites I come up with.
> Of course I'm not a scientist, but can google like crazy.
> If you have NFPA approved lightning protection the addition
> of devices of "the other school" will do no harm.
> But IMO the "other school" alone is Voodoo - and dangerous.
> The danger part is why I feel compelled to answer your post.
>
> --Vic


I am not a scientist either, but have an interest in this kind of stuff.
From what I can tell, the operational theory of a "Lightning Dissipater" has
never been scientifically proved .... or disproved.
So, the controversy continues.

However, those that believe it works are in good company.
Nicola Tesla patented it in 1918. He is rumored to know a thing or two
about electricity.
Ol' Ben Franklin even muttered about it.

Eisboch
 >> Stay informed about: Lightning 

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:07:31 -0400, "Eisboch" <rce RemoveThis @nowhere.com> wrote:

>
>"Vic Smith" <thismailautodeleted RemoveThis @comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:dnura4plcmml99ngdgpdi73r32o7ep9pkf@4ax.com...
>
>>>
>> That isn't a school of thought in the scientific community.
>> It's been pretty well debunked, but will live on, like Bigfoot.
>> We could argue about it, but I have the feeling it would be endless no
>> matter how many cites I come up with.
>> Of course I'm not a scientist, but can google like crazy.
>> If you have NFPA approved lightning protection the addition
>> of devices of "the other school" will do no harm.
>> But IMO the "other school" alone is Voodoo - and dangerous.
>> The danger part is why I feel compelled to answer your post.
>>
>> --Vic
>
>
>I am not a scientist either, but have an interest in this kind of stuff.
>From what I can tell, the operational theory of a "Lightning Dissipater" has
>never been scientifically proved .... or disproved.
>So, the controversy continues.
>
>However, those that believe it works are in good company.
>Nicola Tesla patented it in 1918. He is rumored to know a thing or two
>about electricity.
>Ol' Ben Franklin even muttered about it.
>
Actually predates Ben.
This is dense, but readable, and has good historical reference,
http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/Uman_Rakov.pdf

--Vic
 >> Stay informed about: Lightning