Re: lightning rod question
From: Steve Harris sbharris_at_ROMAN9.netcom.com (sbharris_at_ix.netcom.com)
Date: 10/24/04
- Next message: Jeffrey Salzberg: "Re: THE DEMOCRAT WAY!!!"
- Previous message: Uncle Al: "Re: Small request for those who are tired of people like eleaticus and retchier."
- In reply to: Edward Green: "Re: lightning rod question"
- Next in thread: Rich Grise: "Re: lightning rod question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 24 Oct 2004 12:15:31 -0700
spamspamspam3@netzero.com (Edward Green) wrote in message news:<eca320d0.0410240616.72e8e767@posting.google.com>...
> timothy42b@aol.com (TimR) wrote in message news:<87af0be7.0410240256.5ea16ad6@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Back in engineering school one of the professors was famous for
> > studying lightning. I recall him saying #10 wire was perfectly
> > adequate, that we had to remember the wave form. A lightning stoke is
> > a damped sinusoid, it is not like trying to pass 30,000 Amperes DC
> > through a wire.
>
> That comment doesn't make much sense to me. What's waveform got to do
> with it? What matters is power dissipation.
>
> Or I guess that's what you are suggesting: the pulse is short enough
> that much higher instantaneous powers can be tolerated than at steady
> state. Why didn't you just come out and say that!? ;-)
COMMENT:
Yes. The waveform is "damped sinusoid." In this case it's the first
descriptive word that's important, not the second <g>.
SBH
- Next message: Jeffrey Salzberg: "Re: THE DEMOCRAT WAY!!!"
- Previous message: Uncle Al: "Re: Small request for those who are tired of people like eleaticus and retchier."
- In reply to: Edward Green: "Re: lightning rod question"
- Next in thread: Rich Grise: "Re: lightning rod question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
