Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] lightning & trees

To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] lightning & trees
From: doc <kd4e@verizon.net>
Reply-to: kd4e@verizon.net
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:32:16 -0500
List-post: <mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
Im my mind the laws of physics are predictable else they are not
laws.  I believe that the physical universe is balanced and
orderly, even if there remain many facets we have yet to
comprehend due to the complexities of inter-related variables.

While the variables may be multiple and difficult to identify
and to predict they are nonetheless available to identification
and predictability.

My questions go to whether scientists yet understand them or
if this is one of the areas where they are still learning.

It would logically follow that knowing the how of streamers
would provide the building blocks upon which mitigation techniques
may be developed.

Postulating that lightning and related elements (e.g. streamers)
are unknowable (and/or random) sounds more like mysticism than
science and that is what has been making me uncomfortable.

;-) doc

Kelly Taylor wrote:
> Hi Doc,
> 
> I'm no expert, but it seems to me that charges build up where they do, be it
> near a tree or some other structure or not.
> 
> As soon as it reaches arc potential, it's going to arc. And because of
> variations in the path, that can happen sooner or it can happen later.
> 
> Consider an HF amp with arcing problems. The loading capacitor has flat
> plates that are always the same distance from their neighbour when meshed or
> partially meshed. Why does an arc choose one spot to arc over one time and a
> different spot the next?
> 
> And, why does it arc at 3 kv potential one time and 2.5kv the next?
> 
> 73, kelly
> vext
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "doc" <kd4e@verizon.net>
> To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 9:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] lightning & trees
> 
> 
> 
>>Earlier today I was showing our college math teacher the "Physics for
>>Criminal Justice Majors" course materials from 1974 when I attended
>>Northeastern University.
>>
>>As we thumbed through the mimeographed pages (no textbook existed at
>>the time) I observed that I had no idea what the formulas meant,
>>even though some were written in my handwriting on the note pages!
>>
>>Although I passed the course I remain a physics-challenged Ham.
>>
>>That said, I think I may have a better sense of the issues now.
>>
>>The multiple-variable point is well-taken such that the best path
>>is a moving target.
>>
>>As for the resistance/potential issue I was speculating as to
>>best path without intending to isolate resistance as a decisive
>>factor -- wondering aloud just what it is that at any moment makes
>>one object versus others more prone to send out streamers and thus
>>become at least momentarily more attractive.
>>
>>It is reasonable to postulate that conductivity-of-the-moment causes
>>energy to move through an particular object (or assorted elements in
>>conductive moisture in the air) more so than another?
>>
>>doc
>>
>>
>>>It seems to me the answer lies in the unpredictability of the "best
> 
> path."
> 
>>>You have to look at that equation in four dimensions: co-ordinate
> 
> geometry
> 
>>>set against time.
>>>
>>>Variations in humidity and wind currents mean that at any given second,
> 
> the
> 
>>>"best path" may not be what it appears to be ** at that moment **.
>>>
>>>As well, if a charge builds up 10 feet from a tree, adding the ground
>>>resistance to the tree's resistance may mean that moving through the
> 
> ground
> 
>>>to the tree and into the air isn't the path of least resistance, just
> 
> going
> 
>>>straight into the air may be.
>>>
>>
>> > I'd like to know some physical reason why a change in resistance
>>would > make the cloud to tree potential change. That's what doesn't make
>> > sense to me.
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e
>>
>>           |_|___|_|
>>           | | & | |
>>              {|
>>      /\      {|
>>     /  \     {|
>>    /    \    {|
>>   /   @  \   {|
>>   |   |~_|~~~~|
>>   |   -| |    |
>>============\ #    West Central Florida
>>     KD4E     ==============================
>>http://bibleseven.com/steelhouse1.html
>>Ham PC = 100% Linux Novell-Suse 9.2
>>Halli, Heathkit, Homebrew, MFJ, TenTec, Yaesu
>>Radio Life: http://www.gospelcom.net/twr/
>>Linux-Incompatible hardware is defective!
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>See: http://www.mscomputer.com  for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless
> 
> Weather Stations", and lot's more.  Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any
> questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
> 
>>_______________________________________________
>>TowerTalk mailing list
>>TowerTalk@contesting.com
>>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e

           |_|___|_|
           | | & | |
              {|
      /\      {|
     /  \     {|
    /    \    {|
   /   @  \   {|
   |   |~_|~~~~|
   |   -| |    |
============\ #    West Central Florida
     KD4E     ==============================
http://bibleseven.com/steelhouse1.html
Ham PC = 100% Linux Novell-Suse 9.2
Halli, Heathkit, Homebrew, MFJ, TenTec, Yaesu
Radio Life: http://www.gospelcom.net/twr/
Linux-Incompatible hardware is defective!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_______________________________________________

See: http://www.mscomputer.com  for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather 
Stations", and lot's more.  Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions 
and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.

_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>