Hey,

Does anyone out there know if this is possible or is this just a
crock? I've never heard of anything that could repel lightning! See
what I'm talking about here: http://www.matchrockets.com/earth/lightning.html.

Thanks in advance,
K

geo.nova@hotmail.com wrote:
Hey,

Does anyone out there know if this is possible or is this just a
crock? I've never heard of anything that could repel lightning! See
what I'm talking about here:
http://www.matchrockets.com/earth/lightning.html.

Thanks in advance,
K

Other than the nonsense about preventing a nearby lightning strike by
dissipating static electricity, where do you see anything about
"repeling" lightning?

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote news:42rgk4-if7.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
geo.nova@hotmail.com wrote:
Hey,

Does anyone out there know if this is possible or is this just a
crock? I've never heard of anything that could repel lightning! See
what I'm talking about here:
http://www.matchrockets.com/earth/lightning.html.

Thanks in advance,
K

Other than the nonsense about preventing a nearby lightning strike by
dissipating static electricity, where do you see anything about
"repeling" lightning?

"The detector does NOT attract lightning, it repels it." - The detector is
so small that in practice it does not attract or repel.
"the same principle used in static discharge arrays that protect tall
structures like antennas and windmill towers." It seems to be true not a
nonsense. "The dissipation theory states an alteration in the potential
difference (voltage) between the structure and the storm cloud, miles above,
theoretically reduces, but not eliminates, the risk of lightning strikes".
What is your opinion?
S*
.

"Szczepan Bia?ek" <sz.bialek@wp.pl> wrote:

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote
news:42rgk4-if7.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
geo.nova@hotmail.com wrote:
Hey,

Does anyone out there know if this is possible or is this just a
crock? I've never heard of anything that could repel lightning! See
what I'm talking about here:
http://www.matchrockets.com/earth/lightning.html.

Thanks in advance,
K

Other than the nonsense about preventing a nearby lightning strike by
dissipating static electricity, where do you see anything about
"repeling" lightning?

"The detector does NOT attract lightning, it repels it." - The detector
is
so small that in practice it does not attract or repel.
"the same principle used in static discharge arrays that protect tall
structures like antennas and windmill towers." It seems to be true not a
nonsense. "The dissipation theory states an alteration in the potential
difference (voltage) between the structure and the storm cloud, miles
above,
theoretically reduces, but not eliminates, the risk of lightning
strikes".
What is your opinion?
S*
.

That the whole thing is rather muddled.

Disipation devices such as wicks are generally used to prevent a local
charge from building to the point where you get a local arc somewhere.


As such, they would increase the potential difference between clouds
as they tend to put the structure at ground potential.

Lightning rods are meant to provide a path of least resistance so that
the lightning strikes the rod as opposed to the structure and the
energy is (hopefully) fully shunted to ground through the rod ground
cable.

Hey,

Does anyone out there know if this is possible or is this just a
crock? I've never heard of anything that could repel lightning! See
what I'm talking about here:
http://www.matchrockets.com/earth/lightning.html.

Thanks in advance,
K

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote news:5aiik4-nn3.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
"Szczepan Bia?ek" <sz.bialek@wp.pl> wrote:

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote
news:42rgk4-if7.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
geo.nova@hotmail.com wrote:
Hey,

Does anyone out there know if this is possible or is this just a
crock? I've never heard of anything that could repel lightning! See
what I'm talking about here:
http://www.matchrockets.com/earth/lightning.html.

Thanks in advance,
K

Other than the nonsense about preventing a nearby lightning strike by
dissipating static electricity, where do you see anything about
"repeling" lightning?

"The detector does NOT attract lightning, it repels it." - The detector
is
so small that in practice it does not attract or repel.
"the same principle used in static discharge arrays that protect tall
structures like antennas and windmill towers." It seems to be true not a
nonsense. "The dissipation theory states an alteration in the potential
difference (voltage) between the structure and the storm cloud, miles
above,
theoretically reduces, but not eliminates, the risk of lightning
strikes".
What is your opinion?
S*
.

That the whole thing is rather muddled.

Disipation devices such as wicks are generally used to prevent a local
charge from building to the point where you get a local arc somewhere.


As such, they would increase the potential difference between clouds
as they tend to put the structure at ground potential.

Lightning rods are meant to provide a path of least resistance so that
the lightning strikes the rod as opposed to the structure and the
energy is (hopefully) fully shunted to ground through the rod ground
cable.

I have found such link:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/basics/2000-05-15-lightn-rod-tests.htm
We can say that there are the two ways of preventing a nearby lightning
strike. Atract them by the providing a path of least resistance or by the
dissipating of charge (reducing the potential between clouds and
building).
So we can say that the grounded razor blade repels lightning.
Dissipation DECREASE the potential difference. The ground potential is
history dependent. Dry and hot soil lost electrons during sunny day. The
sharp lightning rods supply electrons to the soil. So lightning strike
rather in the bare soil and not in the sharp rod.
S*

----------------------------
"Szczepan Bia³ek"
I have found such link:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/basics/2000-05-15-lightn-rod-tests.htm
We can say that there are the two ways of preventing a nearby lightning
strike. Atract them by the providing a path of least resistance or by the
dissipating of charge (reducing the potential between clouds and
building).
So we can say that the grounded razor blade repels lightning.
Dissipation DECREASE the potential difference. The ground potential is
history dependent. Dry and hot soil lost electrons during sunny day. The
sharp lightning rods supply electrons to the soil. So lightning strike
rather in the bare soil and not in the sharp rod.
S*


--------------
In general there is little to no hard evidence to indicate that static
discharge devices actually have any real effect on the cloud to ground
potential. I remember being at a conference where someone presented a
paper promoting this (no hard evidence)- the trouble was that the people
present were knowlegable in the area of lightning protection and the
non-engineers there were forestry people who noted that contrary to the
concept, having a lot of pointy spruce or fir trees acting as discharge
points (conductivity is not a big concern in prestrike conditions )did
not mean fewer strikes-and they had the statistics.

Lightning rods also do not affect the overall field but they are not
designed to do so.

They actually are intended to be a preferred target in a limited range for
strokes over a design current level (let the little ones by but catch the
big ones).
The "loss" of electrons in dry soil (if the soil is dry - often not) is
based on what evidence?

Your reference with respect to blunt vs sharp is correct and nothing in
proper lightning protection deals with this factor. The sharp rods will,
due to emission, actually be more likely to appear as ball tipped at a
given field level due to an ionized and conductive region around the tip-
reducing the local field gradients beyond this region. So????

"Don Kelly" <dhky@shaw.ca> wrote news:ztJdi.38888$1i1.27396@pd7urf3no...
----------------------------
"Szczepan Bia³ek"
I have found such link:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/basics/2000-05-15-lightn-rod-tests.htm
We can say that there are the two ways of preventing a nearby lightning
strike. Atract them by the providing a path of least resistance or by
the dissipating of charge (reducing the potential between clouds and
building).
So we can say that the grounded razor blade repels lightning.
Dissipation DECREASE the potential difference. The ground potential is
history dependent. Dry and hot soil lost electrons during sunny day. The
sharp lightning rods supply electrons to the soil. So lightning strike
rather in the bare soil and not in the sharp rod.
S*


--------------
In general there is little to no hard evidence to indicate that static
discharge devices actually have any real effect on the cloud to ground
potential. I remember being at a conference where someone presented a
paper promoting this (no hard evidence)- the trouble was that the people
present were knowlegable in the area of lightning protection and the
non-engineers there were forestry people who noted that contrary to the
concept, having a lot of pointy spruce or fir trees acting as discharge
points (conductivity is not a big concern in prestrike conditions )did
not mean fewer strikes-and they had the statistics.

Yes. Now no hard evidence. Only supposition. I remember being at a glider
training centre where on the top of a hill are buildings and trees but the
south slope is coowered by dry grass. People who lived there noted that
lightbning stroke only in the almost dry slope.
--------

Lightning rods also do not affect the overall field but they are not
designed to do so.

The sharp are to repel, the blunt to attract.
----------

They actually are intended to be a preferred target in a limited range
for strokes over a design current level (let the little ones by but catch
the big ones).
The "loss" of electrons in dry soil (if the soil is dry - often not) is
based on what evidence?

Thermoemission and photoemission. If the surface of the soil is dry it has
higher temperature. The electrons migrate up with water vapour.
-------

Your reference with respect to blunt vs sharp is correct and nothing in
proper lightning protection deals with this factor. The sharp rods will,
due to emission, actually be more likely to appear as ball tipped at a
given field level due to an ionized and conductive region around the tip-
reducing the local field gradients beyond this region. So????

The repelling lightning rod has the two ends. The sharp is to catch
electrons and the second must distributed them in the nearby (and under)
area (in the soil). So it is very important.
The attracting must be designed properly.
---------

"Szczepan Bia³ek"

Lightning rods also do not affect the overall field but they are not
designed to do so.

The sharp are to repel, the blunt to attract.
----------
A cloud charge that is 5Km away or even a leader tip that is
10-100meters away knows the difference?

Mind you, a sharp tip puts on a nicer corona display and hucksters then
point this out and say that it is working to repel lightning.
--------

They actually are intended to be a preferred target in a limited range
for strokes over a design current level (let the little ones by but
catch the big ones).
The "loss" of electrons in dry soil (if the soil is dry - often not) is
based on what evidence?

Thermoemission and photoemission. If the surface of the soil is dry it
has higher temperature. The electrons migrate up with water vapour.
-------
And that would leave a charge separation in the earth so that there will
be a balancing out of the electron density as the earth does conduct.
Thermoemission,etc. -nice try-but no cigar. Even if your claimed effects
are there (have you any data?) they are too miniscule to have any
noticable effect with regard to lightning.

---------

Your reference with respect to blunt vs sharp is correct and nothing in
proper lightning protection deals with this factor. The sharp rods will,
due to emission, actually be more likely to appear as ball tipped at a
given field level due to an ionized and conductive region around the
tip- reducing the local field gradients beyond this region. So????

The repelling lightning rod has the two ends. The sharp is to catch
electrons and the second must distributed them in the nearby (and under)
area (in the soil). So it is very important.
The attracting must be designed properly.
---------
The repelling is nonsense and the design criteria for interception
(attracting) is well established and is not based on the sharpness of
the tips. Grounding and interception are two different things which are
both taken into account in the proper design of lightning protective
systems. Statistical factors also play a role in proper design.

"The detector does NOT attract lightning, it repels it." - The
detector is so small that in practice it does not attract or repel.
"the same principle used in static discharge arrays that protect
tall structures like antennas and windmill towers." It seems to be
true not a nonsense. "The dissipation theory states an alteration in
the potential difference (voltage) between the structure and the
storm cloud, miles above, theoretically reduces, but not eliminates,
the risk of lightning strikes". What is your opinion?
S*
.

designed profesionally.

S*

"Szczepan Bia³ek" <sz.bialek@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:f5apvh$bak$1@node1.news.atman.pl...

-----------snip------------
. But lightning protective systems must be
designed profesionally.

S*


-----------------------
I agree with this part of what you wrote.

"Don Kelly" <dhky@shaw.ca> wrote news:CLHei.50514$NV3.46951@pd7urf2no...
"Szczepan Bia³ek" <sz.bialek@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:f5apvh$bak$1@node1.news.atman.pl...

-----------snip------------
. But lightning protective systems must be
designed profesionally.

S*


-----------------------
I agree with this part of what you wrote.

Operator jay wrote: "The people who manufacture and sell discharge array
systems (DAS) or
charge transfer systems (CTS) say that they work. The NFPA, UL, the
IEEE, the Lightning Protection Institute, NIST, and the courts
disagree"

Which of them are professionalls?
S*

"Szczepan Bia³ek" <sz.bialek@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:f5fttr$a5l$1@node1.news.atman.pl...

"Don Kelly" <dhky@shaw.ca> wrote news:CLHei.50514$NV3.46951@pd7urf2no...
"Szczepan Bia³ek" <sz.bialek@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:f5apvh$bak$1@node1.news.atman.pl...

-----------snip------------
. But lightning protective systems must be
designed profesionally.

S*


-----------------------
I agree with this part of what you wrote.

Operator jay wrote: "The people who manufacture and sell discharge array
systems (DAS) or
charge transfer systems (CTS) say that they work. The NFPA, UL, the
IEEE, the Lightning Protection Institute, NIST, and the courts
disagree"

Which of them are professionalls?
S*



they all are... and you can add the u.s. air force and nasa in on that
list.