Velocity Reviews > A Striking Photo

A Striking Photo

AnOvercomer 02
Guest
Posts: n/a

cambium
Guest
Posts: n/a

 02-26-2005
That is a striking photo - I wonder how much energy is shown there...

"AnOvercomer 02" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> http://www.pbase.com/image/32625287
>
>
>
>
> Cody,
>
> http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Cr/1Cr013.html
>
>

AnOvercomer 02
Guest
Posts: n/a

 02-26-2005

Note: Steven Noyes shot this photo, not I, the photographer can be found

Cody,

William Graham
Guest
Posts: n/a

 02-26-2005

"cambium" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:zdPTd.509011\$8l.50405@pd7tw1no...
> That is a striking photo - I wonder how much energy is shown there...
>
>
> "AnOvercomer 02" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/image/32625287
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Cody,
>>
>> http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Cr/1Cr013.html
>>
>>

>
>

It appears to be impractical to utilize lightning energy, as illustrated in
this section. Each cloud-to-ground lightning flash involves an energy of
the order of 109 J. This is approximately equal to the energy required to
operate five 100-W light bulbs continuously for one month:
5 x 100 W x 3600 s x 24 x 30 = 1.3 x 109 J

or about 360 kilowatt-hours (1 kW-hr = 3.6 x 106 J), probably comparable to
the monthly energy consumption of an average household. Even if it were
possible to capture all flash's energy (the bulk of this energy is not
delivered to the strike point since it is lost to heating the air and
producing thunder, light, and radio waves), one would need to attract 12
flashes to the energy storage facility in order to operate these five light
bulbs for one year. The probability of lightning strike to a given point on
ground is very low. For example, a 1 m2 area in Florida is struck by
lightning on average, once in 105 years. A grounded structure protruding
above earth's surface is more likely to be struck by lightning. A 60-m
tower located in Florida is expected to be struck by lightning once every
other year. Thus, one needs 24 such towers covering a large area of 1 km2
or so to operate five 100-W light bulbs, which appears rather impractical.
Most of the U.S. experiences a factor of 2 to 3 lower lightning activity
than in Florida. As a result, the number of lightning capturing towers
needed to operate only five 100-W bulbs in areas of moderate lightning
activity would be 48 to 72. Thus the two main problems with the utilization
of lightning energy can be formulated as follows:

(1) The power associated with a lightning flash is very high, but it is
released in pulses of short duration (of the order of 10-4-10-5 s). As a
result, lightning energy, the integral of high power over a short period of
time, is rather moderate, comparable to the energy consumption by a typical
household (the integral of relatively low power over a long period of time).
This energy is equivalent to that released in the burning of 20 to 30 kg of
oil.

(2) The capturing of lightning strikes would require the use of a large
number of tall towers, which is rather impractical.

Additionally, as noted above, not all the lightning energy is delivered to
the strike point. Using a typical measured value of energy per unit
resistance (action integral) for negative lightning of 105 A s2 and an
assumed range of effective resistances at the strike point of 10 to 100 Ohm,
we estimate a range of the lightning energy delivered to the strike point to
be from 106 to 107 J, which is only 10-2-10-3 of the total energy.

Crownfield
Guest
Posts: n/a

 02-26-2005
William Graham wrote:
>
> It appears to be impractical to utilize lightning energy, as illustrated in
> this section. Each cloud-to-ground lightning flash involves an energy of
> the order of 109 J.

way, way too small.

last I heard, A joule was 1 amp for 1 second.

from http://www.meteo.slt.lk/light.html

"Therefore the energy of a lightning flash
bringing 5 coulombs to ground is about 500 million Joules"

jean
Guest
Posts: n/a

 02-26-2005
Awsome pictures!

Jean

"AnOvercomer 02" <(E-Mail Removed)> a écrit dans le message de
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> http://www.pbase.com/image/32625287
>
>
>
>
> Cody,
>
> http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Cr/1Cr013.html
>
>

m II
Guest
Posts: n/a

 02-26-2005
William Graham wrote:

> (1) The power associated with a lightning flash is very high, but it is
> released in pulses of short duration (of the order of 10-4-10-5 s).

I'd think it would be a lot shorter if they lasted, say...10^-4 or 10^-5

Your numbers, 10-4-10-5 equal MINUS 9 seconds, which means the lightning is not
only moving backwards in time, but is also as slow as molasses on a winter's day.

<g>

mike

Mark²
Guest
Posts: n/a

 02-26-2005

"AnOvercomer 02" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> Note: Steven Noyes shot this photo, not I, the photographer can be found
>
>
>
> Cody,

Why do you always post this separately from the first post with the link???
You always mention that it's not yours AFTER the fact.
Why don't you just include that to begin with?
-Not that it's terribly offensive, or anything... I just notice that you almost always
mention it later. If you're going to mention it at all, then why not initially?

Weasel^2
Guest
Posts: n/a

 02-26-2005

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message

>
> Why do you always post this separately from the first post with the
> You always mention that it's not yours AFTER the fact.
> Why don't you just include that to begin with?
> -Not that it's terribly offensive, or anything... I just notice that you
> almost always mention it later. If you're going to mention it at all,
> then why not initially?
>\

I notice you are always putting other people down. Do you do this because
you need company at your level? Not that it's terribly offensive or
anything, just curious why you think you are the biggest **** in the sand
box? Best to use to old world rule, if you do not have something nice to
say, then shut the hell up. I will now shut the hell up.

Charles Schuler
Guest
Posts: n/a

 02-26-2005

"Crownfield" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> William Graham wrote:
>>
>> It appears to be impractical to utilize lightning energy, as illustrated
>> in
>> this section. Each cloud-to-ground lightning flash involves an energy of
>> the order of 109 J.

>
> way, way too small.
>
> last I heard, A joule was 1 amp for 1 second.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule