Something Different

I should, but I've got a couple of days off and nothing better to do :)
Reply to
McGrath
Loading thread data ...
Prove it or shut up about it.
Reply to
Clockmeister
McGrath wrote
AFTER the thread had clearly diverted to the more general question of whether lightning can indeed be conducted by dry wood.
Its obvious from the quoting that you keep flagrantly dishonestly deleting where that came from.
Lying, again.
Wrong, as always. It has everything to do with the claims made at the top of the quoting.
Originally is completely irrelevant. I chose to comment on your stupid pig ignorant claims about wood and lightning.
Its clear that lightning was being discussed in the quoting you keep flagrantly dishonestly deleting.
And that is just plain wrong with dry wood and lightning.
Plucked it from your arse basically.
What you replied to was the general statement, stupid.
No need.
I wasnt the first one to say, that, MC was.
Wrong, as always. Hariss made that general claim which is clearly just plain wrong.
No I didnt. You cant quote the post where I said that, because I didnt.
No I didnt, I never ever mentioned Geelong at all.
Bazil/Bryan did.
formatting link

No need, someone else said both of those.
Nope, just plain wrong when stated as baldly as that.
Pity the thread had diverged to a more general claim about wood and lightning
You get to like that or lump it.
Pity it can be with lightning.
Because you are flagrantly dishonestly deleting it and claiming that the thread had not diverged to discussing lightning and wood when that is clearly exactly what had happened.
More of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead.
Reply to
Rod Speed
sheet
But this isn't some el cheapo sheet. What they do is strip your pc or laptop and put it into a custom made housing which has wood on the outside
Reply to
John
From the Wikipedia definition for dielectric breakdown:
formatting link

"The maximum electric field strength that it can withstand intrinsically without breaking down, i.e., without experiencing failure of its insulating properties."
IOW when it's insulating properties fail it becomes a CONDUCTOR.
From the Werner PDF file on fibreglass ladders for the electrical industry, some tests on the CONDUCTIVITY of wood and fibreglass ladders:
formatting link

2. DC leakage current(in uA) as related to conditioning for 10" electrode spacing, 80% relative humidity conditioned at 22° C.
Applied Voltage Time Wood Fiberglass Wood Fiberglass As Received 90 KV 90 KV 7.0 1.0 24 hours 50 KV 90 KV 48.0 1.4 48 hours 50 KV 90 KV 67.0 1.9 72 hours 50 KV 90 KV 120.0 2.4
As you can see at 50KV wood begins to CONDUCT, now what part of this concept don't you understand?. Are you aware that lightning is higher in voltage than 50KV?.
Reply to
Mark Harriss
Mark Harriss committed to the eternal aether...:
The voltage in a laptop computer isn't
Reply to
Damien McBain
Pity what was being discussed was lightning, fuckwit.
Reply to
Rod Speed
I *know* wood or any insulator conducts if the voltage is high enough, I wanted to see the evidence from that lazy bullshit artist Rod.
And 50KV is pretty low, really.
Reply to
Clockmeister
You're a parody of yourself.
Reply to
Clockmeister
I once made the mistake of trying to use once inch dia. black rubber tubing to insulate some conductors with 47KV on them: after a few seconds it begans to smoke heavily and start to pop: I assume the rubber had carbon black added to colour it. The stuff was more of a resistor than an insulator at those voltages.
Apparently hot glass is conductive from the sodium ions in it as well : heat some up till it's red and then microwave it to see a lightshow.
Reply to
Mark Harriss
Rod Speed committed to the eternal aether...:
Take a look at the OP, it's clearly about a timber laptop case
Reply to
Damien McBain
Someone posted ----
Those figures show that wood exposed to 80% humidity at 22C for a period of 72 hours is more conductive than the same wood after only 24 hours.
The wood is absorbing moisture so it conducts better - the fibreglass does also but not to the same extent.
The conclusion is that the water in the wood is doing the conducting.
Now, whose argument does that support, if anyones ?
Reply to
Colin ®
Mark Harriss committed to the eternal aether...:
Maybe the wires got hot and burnt the rubber?
Reply to
Damien McBain
The wires were attached to the ends of the 60cm length of rubber tube which was used to space the wires out as they were not rated for HV. The voltage was able to breakdown the 1000V rated insulation and cause enough flow across the rubber to make it start crackling and popping with lots of smoke.
Reply to
Mark Harriss
Ok then, does fibreglass resin absorb water?? as it's also increasing in conductivity. I would go for a breakdown mechanism in the material first. If you want the figure for wet timber then go to that URL as it's figure are on the same page.
Also note that at 50KV and 120uA translates to 6 watts of heating in a 20 cm length of wood, this would tend to slowly drive off moisture.
Reply to
Mark Harriss
Yes... but, this is all in reply to the real andy's assertion that any type of dry wood will not conduct lightning.
Reply to
Mark Harriss
Damien McBain wrote
Completely irrelevant to what the thread diverged to, LIGHTNING, and what we chose to comment on with LIGHTNING.
Do TRY to keep up.
Reply to
Rod Speed
Damien McBain wrote
Unlikely with that sort of voltage on them.
The best insulation for that sort of voltage is one of the thicker coaxs like RG8
Reply to
Rod Speed
I'm on the lookout for x-ray cable if anyone has some lying around the place.
Reply to
Mark Harriss
Dry wood was only part of the tread in relation to a laptop case - in which case the wood is not a good conductor. The thread diverged to the Geelong incident, where the wood was wet and water was the main conductor - again not the wood conducting.
There was never mention of dry wood.
Or maybe the 'flagrantly dishonest' poster is indeed yourself :)
No lies, just the truth - hence why I've cut the thread again.
Again, dry wood as a conductor was only part of the thread in relation to laptop cases - where it's use as a conductor is non existant. Please do try and keep up.
But wood in this discussion was wet - not dry. There was never any mention of dry wood.
Yep, lightning in relation to *wet* wood - as was the case in the Geelong incident. Again there was no mention of dry wood - except for use in the laptop case.
Which is irrelevent to every part of this thread as the wood was *wet* - not dry.
Or, as the case indeed it, from the thread.
But there was no general statement. It's simple really - laptop case: dry wood, not a good conductor. Geelong: wet wood, water was the conductor.
So where does dry wood and lightning come into this?
If there was no need I wouldn't be posting again on this topic.
But you *continue* to say that - which is what I said and which is irrelevant to this thread.
As you posted that wood is doing the conducting. It's not - the water is.
Try here: "> Its not the wood thats doing the conducting. Yes it is."
I think that is fairly clear.
You agreed with the statement.
Both of which you agreed with.
It can't be wrong if it's a direct quote from this thread.
I don't wish to sound arrogant, but maybe you should take your own advice.
Pity in this thread the wood that was struck by lightning was wet.
Reply to
McGrath

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.