# A Striking Photo

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by AnOvercomer 02, Feb 25, 2005.

1. ### AnOvercomer 02Guest

AnOvercomer 02, Feb 25, 2005

2. ### cambiumGuest

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

"AnOvercomer 02" <> wrote in message
news:...

cambium, Feb 26, 2005

3. ### AnOvercomer 02Guest

AnOvercomer 02, Feb 26, 2005
4. ### William GrahamGuest

"cambium" <> wrote in message
news:zdPTd.509011\$8l.50405@pd7tw1no...
> That is a striking photo - I wonder how much energy is shown there...
>
>
> "AnOvercomer 02" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>
>

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.

William Graham, Feb 26, 2005
5. ### CrownfieldGuest

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"

Crownfield, Feb 26, 2005
6. ### jeanGuest

Awsome pictures!

Jean

"AnOvercomer 02" <> a écrit dans le message de
news:...

jean, Feb 26, 2005
7. ### m IIGuest

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

m II, Feb 26, 2005
8. ### Mark²Guest

"AnOvercomer 02" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> 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?

Mark², Feb 26, 2005
9. ### Weasel^2Guest

"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 shit 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.

Weasel^2, Feb 26, 2005
10. ### Charles SchulerGuest

"Crownfield" <> wrote in message
news:...
> 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

Charles Schuler, Feb 26, 2005
11. ### Rudy BennerGuest

"Charles Schuler" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> "Crownfield" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> 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
>

1 joule = 1 watt for 1 second.

Rudy Benner, Feb 26, 2005
12. ### Charles SchulerGuest

I knew a scientist who once researched lightning for Westinghouse, in
Pittsburgh, Pa. They had a laboratory set up at the top of the Cathedral of
Learning. They used to invite lightning strikes so as to measure current.
One night, their lab was wiped out by a particularly robust strike. He told
me that substantial copper bus bars were vaporized and that the University
of Pgh. and Westinghouse mutually agreed to abandon the project.

Charles Schuler, Feb 26, 2005
13. ### William GrahamGuest

"m II" <> wrote in message news:fGVTd.6568\$TB.5736@edtnps84...
> 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.
>

Yes.....I simply cut & pasted a google reference to the original email
message I sent....I did not proof read it too carefully. - It is not my
original paper.....Sorry for the errors.....

William Graham, Feb 26, 2005
14. ### Alan BrowneGuest

Charles Schuler wrote:

> "Crownfield" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>
>>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

If the prior poster had said 1V @ 1A for 1 s, then it would be 1 joule (1 W-s).

As to lightning, there are a variety of estimates here, but the energy content
is unstated. But you can guestimate from the figures assuming very short durations.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/BrookeHaramija.shtml

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Alan Browne, Feb 27, 2005
15. ### BubbabobGuest

"Charles Schuler" <> wrote:

> I knew a scientist who once researched lightning for Westinghouse, in
> Pittsburgh, Pa. They had a laboratory set up at the top of the
> Cathedral of Learning. They used to invite lightning strikes so as to
> measure current. One night, their lab was wiped out by a particularly
> robust strike. He told me that substantial copper bus bars were
> vaporized and that the University of Pgh. and Westinghouse mutually
> agreed to abandon the project.
>
>
>

They do this all the time at the Langmuir Lab here in NM. Rockets trailing
wire and creates a nice metal plasma for the main strike. The labs are
under a large amount of concrete.

Bubbabob, Feb 27, 2005
16. ### JerGuest

Bubbabob wrote:

> "Charles Schuler" <> wrote:
>
>
>>I knew a scientist who once researched lightning for Westinghouse, in
>>Pittsburgh, Pa. They had a laboratory set up at the top of the
>>Cathedral of Learning. They used to invite lightning strikes so as to
>>measure current. One night, their lab was wiped out by a particularly
>>robust strike. He told me that substantial copper bus bars were
>>vaporized and that the University of Pgh. and Westinghouse mutually
>>agreed to abandon the project.
>>
>>
>>

>
>
> They do this all the time at the Langmuir Lab here in NM. Rockets trailing
> ground wires are fired into thunderheads. The leader strike vaporizes the
> wire and creates a nice metal plasma for the main strike. The labs are
> under a large amount of concrete.

decided of these people are incredibly smart or incredibly crazy. Or both.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Jer, Feb 27, 2005
17. ### BubbabobGuest

Jer <> wrote:

> Bubbabob wrote:
>
>> "Charles Schuler" <> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I knew a scientist who once researched lightning for Westinghouse, in
>>>Pittsburgh, Pa. They had a laboratory set up at the top of the
>>>Cathedral of Learning. They used to invite lightning strikes so as
>>>to measure current. One night, their lab was wiped out by a
>>>particularly robust strike. He told me that substantial copper bus
>>>bars were vaporized and that the University of Pgh. and Westinghouse
>>>mutually agreed to abandon the project.
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>
>>
>> They do this all the time at the Langmuir Lab here in NM. Rockets
>> vaporizes the wire and creates a nice metal plasma for the main
>> strike. The labs are under a large amount of concrete.

>
> yet decided of these people are incredibly smart or incredibly crazy.
> Or both.
>

I almost had a job there, 15 years or so back. I was picked for the
position but the Air Force pulled funding at the last minute and it all
fell apart. Would have been great fun but it also would have meant living
in Socorro, which I could do without.

Bubbabob, Mar 1, 2005
18. ### OwamangaGuest

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 18:54:22 -0000, Bubbabob
<rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote:

>"Charles Schuler" <> wrote:
>
>> I knew a scientist who once researched lightning for Westinghouse, in
>> Pittsburgh, Pa. They had a laboratory set up at the top of the
>> Cathedral of Learning. They used to invite lightning strikes so as to
>> measure current. One night, their lab was wiped out by a particularly
>> robust strike. He told me that substantial copper bus bars were
>> vaporized and that the University of Pgh. and Westinghouse mutually
>> agreed to abandon the project.
>>
>>
>>

>
>They do this all the time at the Langmuir Lab here in NM. Rockets trailing
>wire and creates a nice metal plasma for the main strike. The labs are
>under a large amount of concrete.

I saw a program on the rocket-method of seeding strikes. Apparently
when the lightening hits the ground, a small piece of artwork is left
behind in the sand - a hollow tunnel or forked shape of melted glass,
maybe a few inches long up to a couple of feet. They are called
'Fulgurites' and are worth some cash to collectors.

You can see some small ones here:
http://www.sciencemall-usa.com/fulgurites2.html

--
Owamanga!

Owamanga, Mar 1, 2005
19. ### Alan BrowneGuest

Owamanga wrote:

> I saw a program on the rocket-method of seeding strikes. Apparently
> when the lightening hits the ground, a small piece of artwork is left
> behind in the sand - a hollow tunnel or forked shape of melted glass,
> maybe a few inches long up to a couple of feet. They are called
> 'Fulgurites' and are worth some cash to collectors.
>
> You can see some small ones here:
> http://www.sciencemall-usa.com/fulgurites2.html

There was chick-flick a few years back (I have to suffer such to maintain good
relations with my SO) had an artist putting spikes in the sand on the beach
before a storm approached. His "Fulgurites" were large (IIRC 1 - 3 or more feet
in height).

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Alan Browne, Mar 1, 2005