Protection from induction

[Gymy Bob]

Forget the trying with this guy. He apparently doesn't understand the
difference between power and energy.

 

[m II]

Forget the trying with this guy. He apparently doesn't understand the
difference between power and energy.

"w_tom" <[email protected]> wrote in message

Amazing how Mr. w_tom shows up just in time to try to save your sorry
backside, 'Bob'. This has all the hallmarks of sock puppetry.




mike

 

[w_tom]

Demonstrated is why m II just knows things - numbers be
damned. Look at a tree split by a lightning strike. Picture
of a tree is sufficient to replace numbers? Its called Dr
Suse reasoning.

Similar example. Required is energy on the size of a
backhoe to push a nail into wood. OR we hit it suddenly and
violently with a 20 oz hammer. Does that prove the human arm
has as much energy as a backhoe? Of course not. It simply
proves how little energy is required IF energy is applied
judiciously. Junk scientists must deny the numbers.
Specifically exampled is m II . This discussion is no longer
about lightning and protecting photovoltaic cells. Protection
has been properly answered by Gymy Bob and Calvin.
Remaining is to expose and vet the myths from m II .

m II . I did not write numbers for lightning energy are
small. Others with extensive knowledge in physics and
experience with lightning (ie Don Kelly) are teaching you.
However as long as you find what you want to worship by
reinterpreting Google searches, then yes, you too can prove
the moon is made of green cheese.

Little hint. Where did energy come from to split those
trees? From lightning - or from high energy sugars ignited by
that lightning? Using Dr Suse reasoning, then we have just
proven energy in an automobile spark plug is sufficient to
move that car at 50 MPH. Classic junk science reasoning in
the tradition of m II .

Thank you m II for making yourself the poster boy of junk
science.

 

[John Beardmore]

Little hint. Where did energy come from to split those
trees? From lightning - or from high energy sugars ignited by
that lightning?

Well you tell us !

But if the energy came from sugars, please tell us the chemical reaction
in question and how all the reagents got to be in the right place at the
right time !


Little hint. How much air is there in the middle of a tree relative the
amount of carbohydrate / hydrocarbon ? Is it a stoichiometric
mixture ? Or even close ?


J/.

 

[Gymy Bob]

Look at the damn picture. It rotted and fell down.

 

[Sylvan Butler]

Amazing how Mr. w_tom shows up just in time to try to save your sorry
backside, 'Bob'. This has all the hallmarks of sock puppetry.
mike

Mike, if you had been paying attention for a few years, or if you had
bothered to search past history (google), you would know that 'w_tom'
likes to hop into the middle of pretty much any newsgroup when the topic
of lightning or electrical surge arises. He's been around awhile.

I have no idea who Gymy Bob is, but his writing style seems very
different from w_tom's.

sdb

 

[w_tom]

w_tom only arrived when junk science reasoning was being
promoted for science fact - followed by insults. This
discussion is no longer about the accurate posts of Calvin
and Gymy Bob. They properly answered the OP. It is about
denials of m II . Bottom line: where this discussion has
gone. m II never posts technical numbers. His picture of a
tree is numerical proof of so much energy in lightning. All
those nails driven in wood by a hammer also proves the human
arm creates as much energy as a backhoe? To avoid exposing
his reasoning, m II pretends that 'driven nail' example was
not posted.

Now that he is being exposed from multiple posters, m II
tries to deceive others into thinking Gymy Bob and w_tom
are same person. Hopefully we will forget his
unsubstantiated posts about lightning being high energy.
w_tom instead remembers the myth by m II and the insults he
posted towards Gymy Bob. That's right m II. Your insults
of a technically accurate and responsible poster were the last
straw. In other posts, you do not insult when you don't have
to prove technical and supporting prove. Why do you do it
when you answered without first learning?

m II does not post facts, but just knows only because
lightning made a big boom when it struck a tree. Junk science
is alive and well thanks to people such a m II. Notice how m
II posted. First he provides no numbers - but knows science
anyway. That alone should even make Sylvan Butler angry. m
II then insulted Gymy Bob. Why do others not start on m II
for his unjustified insult of Bob's backside as well as
posting lies about lightning? m II is the lightning rod that
attracted my replies. He demonstrates the bad side of
newsgroups - when he does not have facts, he then mocks other
posters and starts nonsense about superior top posting.

 

[Calvin]

Hi all,

I'm afraid I'll have to back w_tom - this discussion has now degenerated into a
pointless slanging match - and I think most reading here would be far happier if
it drew to a speedy close !

Calvin.

 

[daestrom]

Little hint. Where did energy come from to split those
trees? From lightning - or from high energy sugars ignited by
that lightning?

A couple of points. Most of the damage done to trees from lightning is from
the explosive boiling of the sap, not burning of sugars. In fact, most
trees damages have only small burns at the entry point.

'Gymy Bob's numbers regarding the amount of energy in lightning are wrong.
But so are m II 's. The energy is on the order of a few kwh (as Don Kelly
had pointed out several years ago, and verifyable on several web-sites, a
typical bolt can have about 50 kwh). 50kwh is enough to run a 25 watt
light-bulb for about 83 days. This is much more than Gymy's numbers, but
still not enough to make collecting such energy practical.

After all, one cup (8oz) of gasoline has about the same energy as three
sticks of dynamite. Certainly three sticks of dynamite can do a lot of
damage under the right circumstances. But collecting one cup of gasoline's
worth of energy, spread out over a wide area and random occuring is probably
not practical either.

But concentrate lightning's energy into an extremely short burst in a tree's
trunk and you vaporize much of the water in the sap. This steam expansion
quickly exceeds the yield strength of the wood and you have a 'shattered'
tree trunk. Or, as often happens, the lightning will trace down the
sap-wood on one side of the tree and the bark is 'exploded' off the trunk on
one side, leaving much of the tree in tact.

daestrom

 

[m II]

A couple of points. Most of the damage done to trees from lightning is from
the explosive boiling of the sap, not burning of sugars. In fact, most
trees damages have only small burns at the entry point.

'Gymy Bob's numbers regarding the amount of energy in lightning are wrong.
But so are m II 's. The energy is on the order of a few kwh (as Don Kelly
had pointed out several years ago, and verifyable on several web-sites, a
typical bolt can have about 50 kwh). 50kwh is enough to run a 25 watt
light-bulb for about 83 days. This is much more than Gymy's numbers, but
still not enough to make collecting such energy practical.

The numbers I posted may have been too large, but the point I was
trying to make was that a lightning bolt has WAY more power in it than
what's required to light a light bulb for ONE SECOND. That
statement bothered me to the point of..well..being bothered...

All is right with the world now, top posters excepted, of course.




mike

 

[Gymy Bob]

Oh...I am fine with that all right ...just as long as M II isn't correct at
all, in any way, shape or form.

....and, oh yeah! I was ***MUCH*** closer to being correct than he was
too...right?


LOL...j/k

 

[Gymy Bob]

OK fine, but I want the last word.


LOL

 

[William P.N. Smith]

OK fine, but I want the last word.

How on earth can someone who top-posts want (or ever get) the last
word?
8*?

 

[w_tom]

Lets assume we tap the direct lightning strike where it
enters a home. Using numbers from ANSI C62.41, the direct
strike would never exceed 6000 volts. A 20,000 amp or much
rarer 50,000 amp direct strike would provide (a classic 28
usec pulse) anywhere from 1800 joules to 4500 joules. Or a 25
watt light bulb for 1 to 3 minutes.

So we install a large expensive 160 m tower to increase that
voltage (and frequency of strikes). The experiment on the
Peissenberg communication tower suffered about 118 direct
strikes over 5 years (while communication equipment had to
keep working uninterrupted due to proper earthing; as
described in posts from Gymy Bob and Calvin). 50% of the
direct strikes were at less than 10.4 Kamps; mean at 22.7
kamps. Using 30 meters as a largest segment (lightning bolts
construct themselves in segments), then ideally the voltage
would not exceed 900,000 volts (and this assumes dry air).
This comes to 300,000 joules or a 25 watt light bulb for less
than 4 hours. Numbers assumes numerous ideal (impossible)
conditions. Where is all this energy?

Returning to Don Kelly's numbers for a tower 3+ kilometers
high so that lightning does not waste energy forming bolts.
That is a 25 watt light bulb for 1 year or 83 days according
to daestrom. Don Kelly's numbers assume ideal conditions for
everything. He assumes even the energy that makes light and
sound is captured. Obviously, just the connection from
lightning bolt to lightning rod loses significant energy.
Bottom line remains no high energy.

Gymy Bob's numbers should have used timings on the tens usec
range; not the .1 usec range. Then his numbers would be 2.7
wH or one 25 watt light bulb for about 21 minutes.

BTW burning sugar inside the tree also provide energy that
creates explosive steam. I don't have a number for it. But
properly explained by daestrom is how steam explodes a tree;
much like a hammer drives a nail into wood. High power and
low energy. That is the point. Maybe m II can describe how
high power can be low energy? This just might be amusing if
he can avoid the insults.

 

[John Beardmore]

BTW burning sugar inside the tree also provide energy that
creates explosive steam.

Where does the oxygen come from ??

I don't have a number for it.

That'll be because there's naff all oxygen available so B.all()
combustion !

But
properly explained by daestrom is how steam explodes a tree;
much like a hammer drives a nail into wood.

From the inside ??

Why resort to analogy when reality is available ?

High power and
low energy. That is the point.

Well, there has to be enough energy to do what gets done.

You can perceive that as 'high' or 'low' to taste.

Maybe m II can describe how
high power can be low energy?

Look at the units. For a start, they aren't the same, and nobody can
help the way anybody else perceives "high" and "low" amounts as though
duration of event and total length of observation period could be
ignored.

This just might be amusing if
he can avoid the insults.

Might get to the truth faster if the insults were left out ?


J/.

 

[wmbjk]

How on earth can someone who top-posts want (or ever get) the last
word?
8*?

That's easy.... he says he ignores bottom posted material, so it's
clear that he's replying to and complaining about stuff he hasn't
read.... which means that it doesn't count. Perhaps he's one of
those MBA types whose exhaustive economic studies concluded that
repeatedly whining about bottom posters is more cost-effective than
buying a hideously expensive scroll-wheel mouse.

Wayne

 

[Gymy Bob]

LOL...very good except for the last few words that I couldn't download due
to length...LOL