Re: Lightning & Bathtubs

On Jun 6, 10:47 pm, dnoyeB <as...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
Thats incorrect. And blunt rods being better would be some remarkable new
science.
...
If you discharge the static electricity, then you can stop lightning. So
the claim that discharging the clouds/ground will stop lightning is 100%
scientific and correct. The flaw is that you can't guarantee that you can
discharge it fully, or continuously or fast enough.

We may share the same resonings because what I state is based on the laws
of physics. So my statements are true.

Your statements are based in popular myth - with no basis in laws of
physics. Is it knowledge because the urban myth is popular? That
same lesson (flawed but popular reasoning) also proved Saddam's
mythical WMDs. A fact does not exist due to popular belief.

First, the myth is that sharp (pointed) rods are better. Science and
numbers say blunt rods make better lightning rods. From a 1999 paper
in Journal of Applied Meteorology by Moore, Rison, Mathis, and Aulich
(published May 2000):
Following tradition, however, sharp-tipped Franklin rods are
widely installed despite evidence that, on occasion, lightning
strikes objects in their vicinity. In recent tests of various
tip configurations to determine which were preferentially struck
by lightning, several hemispherically tipped, blunt rods were
struck but none of the nearby, sharper rods were "hit" by
lightning.

Second: myth that a lightning rod dissipates static charges also was
repeatedly criticized as junk science. From Wikipedia:
Lightning dissipators have been widely discredited and
criticized by lightning researchers over the last 30 years.

Numerous peer reviewed papers also discredit that "discharge the
static electricity, then you can stop lightning" theory. Again, NFPA
was quite blunt about it. There exists zero supporting facts or
research for this "discharge the static electricity" myth. None.
NFPA said:
Accordingly, based on the Bryan Panel Report and the record
before it, the Council, in its most recent consideration of the
question whether to issue a standard for the ESE systems,
concluded, as it had in the past, that there was no basis for
the Council to issue a standard for ESE lightning protection
systems, and that given the lack of validation of the primary
claims made for the ESE technology, renewed standards development
activities for ESE systems was not appropriate.

Even worse, that 'discharge the air' theory creates a human safety
risk. From Hartono and Robiah entitled "A Long Term Study on the
Performance of Early Streamer Emission ...":
The failure of the ESE air terminals to intercept nearby
lightning strikes posed an unacceptable risk to public safety.
Furthermore:
The case studied submitted to the NFPA provided indisputable
evidence that lightning do strike the buildings after they
were installed with the ESE air terminals. ... the presence
of several ESE air terminals ... still resulted in lightning
strikes on one or more of those buildings. ...
The case studies highlight the very close proximity of some
lightning strikes to the ESE air terminals, shoring that
they are unable to protect buildings as claimed by their
manufacturers.

If those ESE terminals discharged air, then why so many lightning
strikes even near the ESE air terminals? Because air terminals that
discharge static are based in junk science reasoning.

Not only was the NFPA roundly critical of that 'discharge the air'
myth. NFPA also cited numerous studies (ie Hartono and Robiah) that
showed "discharge the static electricity" devices provided NO
protection. Speculation that lightning rods protect by discharging
the air is only junk science and is not found in science. We learned
this same lesson from history: Saddam's WMDs. Popular belief does not
create fact. Facts come from learning the science. Static
discharging does not provide protection.

How many sources completely discredit this 'discharge the air'
myth? Science (laws of physics and experiments) says blunt rods are
superior. Discharging inches of air around a lightning rod neither
stops nor averts nor reduces lightning strike frequency. Lightning
strikes are made irrelevant by connecting / diverting / channeling /
conducting that inevitable lightning strike into earth. Protection is
about dissipating that energy harmlessly in earth. That energy must
be dissipated somewhere. Inside a building (destructively) or inside
earth? Discharging static charges is the same logic that also proved
"Saddam's WMDs" - junk science reasoning promoted by popularity. How
many science sources need be quoted?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Lightning & Bathtubs
    ... science. ... If you discharge the static electricity, then you can stop lightning. ... the myth is that sharp rods are better. ...
    (alt.home.repair)
  • Re: Lightning & Bathtubs
    ... new science. ... If you discharge the static electricity, then you can stop lightning. ... the myth is that sharp rods are better. ...
    (alt.home.repair)
  • Re: Lightning & Bathtubs
    ... And blunt rods being better would be some remarkable ... If you discharge the static electricity, then you can stop lightning. ... The point of rods is to provide a relatively safe place for lightning to strike. ...
    (alt.home.repair)
  • Re: Does electrostatic charge keep a cloud up?
    ... The discharge phenomenon occurs not always with sparks. ... Nature use sparks (lightning) in the extremal ... The electrostatic force repulse cloud droplets towards the sky. ...
    (sci.geo.meteorology)
  • Re: Lightning Damage
    ... Lightning is not DC where you worry about the resistance but a complex waveform that requires a low inductance and is treated as a R.F. problem. ... Some of the early work on lightning protection came from measuring the rise time on strikes to the Empire State Building with low bandwidth cathode ray tube oscilloscopes. ... In a metal building lightning rods may not offer additional protection as the building itself is the lowest impedance structure. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)