On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:27:02 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I think the height of the object relative to it's surroundings, and
it's ability to stream mean more than anything.

Hi Mark,

There's another angle to be observed here. Globally, there is a
potential difference between earth and sky that runs to several
hundred volts per meter, with a current flow on the order of
femtoAmperes per square cM. Not much locally, but for the full
surface area of earth it is the electron conveyor belt charging the
clouds through dust migration.

At this potential and current, absolutely everything is a short
circuit that penetrates the voltage isoclines raising earth towards
the clouds.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark" wrote
...
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:27:02 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I think the height of the object relative to it's surroundings, and
it's ability to stream mean more than anything.

Hi Mark,

There's another angle to be observed here. Globally, there is a
potential difference between earth and sky that runs to several
hundred volts per meter,

The Earth has the excess of electrons. The Earth produce the electric field
about one hundred volts per meter. In a suuny day the electrons migrate up
with the heavy ions (aggregates of H2O molecukes).

with a current flow on the order of
femtoAmperes per square cM. Not much locally, but for the full
surface area of earth it is the electron conveyor belt charging the
clouds through dust migration.

This "electron conveyor belt" charge the air. Next the air becomes cooler
and the condensation take place. Clouds appear. The condensation cause the
voltage rise. All types of sparks jump.
Under clouds the electric field has the opposite direction and thousands
volts per meter.


At this potential and current, absolutely everything is a short
circuit that penetrates the voltage isoclines raising earth towards
the clouds.

The high voltagi in the clouds is lowered by the "electron conveyor belt"
and the lightning.

The "electron conveyor belt" is more effective if the Earth have many sharp
needle.
So there are the two possibilities:

1. If "The intention is to PREVENT a direct lightning strike," - many sharp
needle is used,

2. If the intention is to CATCH a direct lightning strike and conduct a
strike to ground - a polished big ball is used.
S*

In message , Szczepan Bialek
writes

"Richard Clark" wrote
.. .
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:27:02 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I think the height of the object relative to it's surroundings, and
it's ability to stream mean more than anything.

Hi Mark,

There's another angle to be observed here. Globally, there is a
potential difference between earth and sky that runs to several
hundred volts per meter,

The Earth has the excess of electrons. The Earth produce the electric field
about one hundred volts per meter. In a suuny day the electrons migrate up
with the heavy ions (aggregates of H2O molecukes).

with a current flow on the order of
femtoAmperes per square cM. Not much locally, but for the full
surface area of earth it is the electron conveyor belt charging the
clouds through dust migration.

This "electron conveyor belt" charge the air. Next the air becomes cooler
and the condensation take place. Clouds appear. The condensation cause the
voltage rise. All types of sparks jump.
Under clouds the electric field has the opposite direction and thousands
volts per meter.


At this potential and current, absolutely everything is a short
circuit that penetrates the voltage isoclines raising earth towards
the clouds.

The high voltagi in the clouds is lowered by the "electron conveyor belt"
and the lightning.

The "electron conveyor belt" is more effective if the Earth have many sharp
needle.
So there are the two possibilities:

1. If "The intention is to PREVENT a direct lightning strike," - many sharp
needle is used,

2. If the intention is to CATCH a direct lightning strike and conduct a
strike to ground - a polished big ball is used.
S*

In the early days of lightning conductors, I believe that the French
didn't like the nasty pointy things which the British had installed.
Instead, they decorated theirs with fancy balls at the top - with
sometimes disastrous results.
--
Ian

"Ian Jackson" wrote
...
In message , Szczepan Bialek
writes

"Richard Clark" wrote
. ..
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:27:02 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I think the height of the object relative to it's surroundings, and
it's ability to stream mean more than anything.

Hi Mark,

There's another angle to be observed here. Globally, there is a
potential difference between earth and sky that runs to several
hundred volts per meter,

The Earth has the excess of electrons. The Earth produce the electric
field
about one hundred volts per meter. In a suuny day the electrons migrate up
with the heavy ions (aggregates of H2O molecukes).

with a current flow on the order of
femtoAmperes per square cM. Not much locally, but for the full
surface area of earth it is the electron conveyor belt charging the
clouds through dust migration.

This "electron conveyor belt" charge the air. Next the air becomes cooler
and the condensation take place. Clouds appear. The condensation cause the
voltage rise. All types of sparks jump.
Under clouds the electric field has the opposite direction and thousands
volts per meter.


At this potential and current, absolutely everything is a short
circuit that penetrates the voltage isoclines raising earth towards
the clouds.

The high voltagi in the clouds is lowered by the "electron conveyor belt"
and the lightning.

The "electron conveyor belt" is more effective if the Earth have many
sharp
needle.
So there are the two possibilities:

1. If "The intention is to PREVENT a direct lightning strike," - many
sharp
needle is used,

2. If the intention is to CATCH a direct lightning strike and conduct a
strike to ground - a polished big ball is used.
S*

In the early days of lightning conductors, I believe that the French
didn't like the nasty pointy things which the British had installed.
Instead, they decorated theirs with fancy balls at the top - with
sometimes disastrous results.

Now everywhere are "the nasty pointy things" but most people do not know why
and if they PREVENT or CATCH.
S*

On Oct 21, 2:49*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:


1. If *"The intention is to PREVENT a direct lightning strike," - many sharp
needle is used,

Good luck.

2. If the intention is to CATCH a direct lightning strike and *conduct a
strike to ground - a polished big ball is used.
S*

Good luck.

wrote
...
On Oct 21, 2:49 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:


1. If "The intention is to PREVENT a direct lightning strike," - many
sharp
needle is used,

Good luck.

2. If the intention is to CATCH a direct lightning strike and conduct a
strike to ground - a polished big ball is used.
S*

Good luck.

The above apply to grounded tower.

For:
" But, is there a difference in strike rate between grounded and
ungrounded towers of the same height. I would think that the difference
would be very small, and smaller as the height gets bigger."

You wrote: "I'd rather have a grounded mast struck every 5 years with no
damage,
vs an ungrounded mast struck every 10 years that led to heavy
damage or even burned the house down.
So worrying about that is kind of silly I think, when you know
an ungrounded mast is big trouble if it ever does get hit."

The grounded tower catch the electrons in form of "electron conveyer belt"
and lightning. If the "belt" is efective enough no lightnings. All local
exces of electrons from the cloud flow without lightning. If no the
lightning appears but it is weak (the sum of electrons is the same).

The strike in the ungrouded tower is always strong.
So You are right.
S*

On Oct 22, 8:40*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
...
On Oct 21, 2:49 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:



1. If "The intention is to PREVENT a direct lightning strike," - many
sharp
needle is used,
Good luck.

2. If the intention is to CATCH a direct lightning strike and conduct a
strike to ground - a polished big ball is used.
S*
Good luck.

The above apply to grounded tower.

For:
" But, is there a difference in strike rate between grounded and

ungrounded towers of the same height. I would think that the difference
would be very small, and smaller as the height gets bigger."
You wrote: "I'd rather have a grounded mast struck every 5 years with no

damage,
vs an ungrounded mast struck every 10 years that led to heavy
damage or even burned the house down.
So worrying about that is kind of silly I think, when you know
an ungrounded mast is big trouble if it ever does get hit."

The grounded tower catch the electrons in form of "electron conveyer belt"
and lightning. If the "belt" is efective enough no lightnings. All local
exces of electrons from the cloud flow without lightning. If no the
lightning appears but it is weak (the sum of electrons is the same).

The strike in the ungrouded tower is always strong.
So You are right.
S*

no, that is not right. a grounded tower can not dissipate enough
charge to reduce the stroke intensity. towers actually attract MORE
high current strokes than the surrounding ground.

Dave wrote:
On Oct 22, 8:40 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
You wrote: "I'd rather have a grounded mast struck every 5 years with no

damage,
vs an ungrounded mast struck every 10 years that led to heavy
damage or even burned the house down.
So worrying about that is kind of silly I think, when you know
an ungrounded mast is big trouble if it ever does get hit."

The grounded tower catch the electrons in form of "electron conveyer belt"
and lightning. If the "belt" is efective enough no lightnings. All local
exces of electrons from the cloud flow without lightning. If no the
lightning appears but it is weak (the sum of electrons is the same).

The strike in the ungrouded tower is always strong.
So You are right.
S*

no, that is not right. a grounded tower can not dissipate enough
charge to reduce the stroke intensity. towers actually attract MORE
high current strokes than the surrounding ground.

Well, Szechuan obviously hasn't figured out which way the belt is
pumping electrons, so it's not surprising he's wrong. He also doesn't
understand anything of the physics involved, either, so none of his
nonsensical answers should be a surprise.

tom
K0TAR*

"tom" wrote
. net...
Dave wrote:
On Oct 22, 8:40 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
You wrote: "I'd rather have a grounded mast struck every 5 years with no
damage,
vs an ungrounded mast struck every 10 years that led to heavy
damage or even burned the house down.
So worrying about that is kind of silly I think, when you know
an ungrounded mast is big trouble if it ever does get hit."

The grounded tower catch the electrons in form of "electron conveyer
belt"
and lightning. If the "belt" is efective enough no lightnings. All local
excess of electrons from the cloud flow without lightning. If no, the
lightning appears but it is weak (the sum of electrons is the same).

The strike in the ungrouded tower is always strong.
So You are right.
S*

no, that is not right. a grounded tower can not dissipate enough
charge to reduce the stroke intensity. towers actually attract MORE
high current strokes than the surrounding ground.

Well, Szechuan obviously hasn't figured out which way the belt is pumping
electrons, so it's not surprising he's wrong. He also doesn't understand
anything of the physics involved, either, so none of his nonsensical
answers should be a surprise.

The atmospheric electricity was described in XIX century. At that time
Armstrong and Kelvin build the High Voltage Generators (steam and drop).
Also the way how the spikes work.
Have you the old books?
S*
S*

"Dave" wrote
...
On Oct 22, 8:40 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

...
On Oct 21, 2:49 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:



1. If "The intention is to PREVENT a direct lightning strike," - many
sharp
needle is used,
Good luck.

2. If the intention is to CATCH a direct lightning strike and conduct a
strike to ground - a polished big ball is used.
S*
Good luck.

The above apply to grounded tower.

For:
" But, is there a difference in strike rate between grounded and
ungrounded towers of the same height. I would think that the difference
would be very small, and smaller as the height gets bigger."
You wrote: "I'd rather have a grounded mast struck every 5 years with no
damage,
vs an ungrounded mast struck every 10 years that led to heavy
damage or even burned the house down.
So worrying about that is kind of silly I think, when you know
an ungrounded mast is big trouble if it ever does get hit."

The grounded tower catch the electrons in form of "electron conveyer
belt"
and lightning. If the "belt" is efective enough no lightnings. All local
excess of electrons from the cloud flow without lightning. If no, the
lightning appears but it is weak (the sum of electrons is the same).

The strike in the ungrouded tower is always strong.
So You are right.
S*

no, that is not right. a grounded tower can not dissipate enough
charge to reduce the stroke intensity. towers actually attract MORE
high current strokes than the surrounding ground.

Grounded towers with the many spikes dissipate more charge then the simmilar
towers with the polished big ball.
That with the many spikes PREVENT (or minimalise), that with the balls CATCH
(high current strokes).