Lightning protection

You have the frequency spectrum chart for lightning. Each frequency is AC current. Each frequency contains some of the energy from CG lightning.

How were radio transmitters created only from DC batteries? A spark gap created AC from DC. Not very efficient. But like lightning, the discharge through a non-linear medium (the spark gap) puts energy into the AC regions - as demonstrated by that frequency spectrum chart.

If lightning were only DC, then capacitors (ie. open switches rated to exceed the breakdown voltage) would be sufficient to block lightning. Lightning cannot be stopped. Even if the breakdown voltage is not exceeded, still some current passes through the switch due to AC components of that lightning strike. If lightning were only DC, then long wires to earth would easily ground lightning. Again, it is the AC components of lightning that causes telcos to put their switching computers up to 50 meters after the surge protector AND put their surge protector right on earth ground. Wire impedance of lightning puts significant energy in AC components - as demonstrated by that frequency spectrum chart.

Either energy can be transferred by DC, or energy can be transferred by AC. Clearly much of the energy from lightning is found in AC (radio frequencies).

Wire has impedance. A sharp bend is the equivalent of increasing that inductance (and therefore impedance) by factors such as 6 times - a ballpark number. To 60 hz electricity, this impedance is trivial and irrelevant. But lightning is different electricity. We are talking about

10,000 amps with a rising edge of 8 microseconds. Anything that increases wire inductance (such as splices, sharp bends, routing through metallic conduit, etc) means a lightning transient will seek alternative paths inside the building.

One trick in commercial radio stations to make lightning seek earth ground is to feed the antenna through a coiled wire or ferrite bead. That ferrite bead may be trivial to a radio transmitter. But to lightning, that ferrite bead encourages lightning to take earth ground at the antenna base rather than find earth through the adjacent transmitter shed. Again, it is the sharp rise time of that pulse combined with the massive (and short) currents that make low impedance ground wire so important to lightning protection. Generally increasing the wire gauge provides little benefit. Decreasing wire length (and therefore wire inductance) provides a much better improvement.

To provide numbers as example: the 50 feet of 20 amp electric wire may be less than 0.2 ohms resistance. That same wire could be 120 ohms impedance to lightning. Voltage difference be between a wall receptacle and earthed breaker box if a plug-in protector were earthing a tiny 100 amp surge? Less than 12,000 volts. That 0.2 ohms resistance is not the problem. That 120 ohms impedance is just another reasons why plug-in protectors are not properly earthed at wall receptacles.

To reduce wire impedance, some installations use flat ribbon wire instead of solid copper. However other problems such as weather and corrosion must also be considered which is why solid wire is often used for earthing. Military facilities are suppose to inspect this earthing system every 5 years or less. How often does the home owner do his inspection? Many home owners don't even know an earth ground exists or is necessary. Just another reason why we make compromises between lower impedance wire and corrosion resistant solutions.

Many reasons for keeping a lightning rod earth ground wire outside the building involves factors beyond the scope of this discussion. But one reason why: once inside the building, then a destructive transient has a building is chock full of conductors. The building concrete. The heating system. Linoleum tile. Etc. The point is once lightning is inside the building, then the building has too many conductive paths to create destructive and induced transients. This is but another reason why we earth transients before transients enter the building.

Analysis and elimination of those so many conductive paths inside a building is just too expensive and complicated. Earth lightning outside the building and a majority of destructive transients are eliminated. Keep lightning outside the building so that protective circuits inside appliances are not overwhelmed. Earth a transient through an adjacent plug-in protector - even a trivial 100 amp transient and the protector is something less than 12,000 volts relative to ground - ineffective protection.

BTW, we earth to accomplish two goals. First we conduct lightning to earth by the most conductive path possible. But realities say we cannot do that well enough. So we attempt to make earth beneath the building equipotential using concepts such as single point ground, Ufer or halo grounds, etc. However we can never make earth equipotential enough. So we make the earthing connection more conductive.

Effective protecti> Isn't the definition of AC electricity whose current changes direction?

Reply to
w_tom
Loading thread data ...

The telegraph operator was not transmitting DC. Equation for AC power transmitted by the telegrapher is demonstrated in a famous equation (as taught in electromagnetic wave theory): Telegrapher's Equation. For example voltage is defined by two natural exponentials to the power of a positive and negative imaginary number (for length of the wire) times Gamma (a function of wire resistance, inductance, leakage resistance and capacitance). You need not learn this equation. Even telegraphers, using a battery and a code key, were not transmitted DC electricity. They were transmitting AC electricity that made learning the Telegrapher's equation necessary.

Your example assumes some erroneous parameters. Length of that pulse alone is not significant. A sharper rise time means more energy ends up in higher frequencies. Start with the rise and fall times of that pulse. For lightning, this is modeled at 8/20 microseconds - not a 0.001 second pulse. Furthermore the pulse is driven by a current source - not by a voltage source. Voltage will increase as necessary so that a given current will flow. Give lightning a low impedance path to earth and the millions of volts in lightning appears elsewhere - not inside the structure. CG Lightning is defined in terms of current because CG lightning is driven by a current source; not a voltage source.

Furthermore, a 20 ohm earth ground assumes electricity at 60 hz 120 volts is same as electricity that even creates plasma. Resistance is not c> w_tom wrote:

Reply to
w_tom

Once again, you miss the point in favor of arguing and trying to prove that your perspective is superior. Your use of the terminology "made of sine waves" was incorrect, he called you on the matter and you continued to maintain that postition and argue the point. My point was not to argue that a wavelet analysis was better, only that sine waves are only on choice for decomposing a signal. Once again, you are the one that looks like a yo yo.

Leonard

Reply to
Leonard Caillouet

If Leonard Caillouet had a better way to answer the question, then he would have posted it. However everytime a reply from Leonard Caillouet arrives, it is routinely another 'attack the messenger' post rather than an answer to a technical question. Leonard remains consistent. Post personal attacks rather than attack the question with facts. Where did he even once try to answer the posters question? That would be a pleasant and unnatural surprise.

Le> Once again, you miss the point in favor of arguing and trying to

Reply to
w_tom

There you go again. Linoleum and concrete aren't very good conductors.

See that rebar protruding beneath the pad?

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam.  Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
Reply to
CJT

You continue to confuse mathematical analysis with physical reality.

Define DC. Has there ever in the history of mankind been anything that qualifies under your definition? Could there be? Would the current flowing in a flashlight that's turned on, then off, be "DC?"

How do you account for the discussion at the Web page you cited earlier of positive and negative lightning?

Lightning is AC electricity - at numerous radio

Interesting. Since you didn't provide a Web cite for context, I had to look for one. The closest I could find was this, at pages 77-80 +/-:

formatting link

It's clear why they say to avoid loops, since inductance in the path could lead to the result they describe -- sharp bends less so. Query how sharp a bend you can put in #2 (or even #4) wire, anyway.

It's also interesting (to me) that they separately fuse the surge protectors. It seems to me a fuse could present more of a discontinuity than a sharp bend, and could also contribute some potentially significant resistance (relative to copper wire).

As I recall you did say it shouldn't have a coil around it. Girders could comprise a series of shorted one turn coils.

I only said the

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam.  Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
Reply to
CJT

The current discussion was whether your statement that lightning is made of sine waves was correct. I charitably pointed out that the basis for may of your posts is correct but your application of ideas often takes tangents and you refuse to accept that there is anything out of context in what you say. I do not claim to have superior knowledge to anyone on the matter and do not feel compelled to attempt to demonstrate how much I know. You consistently demonstrate a great deal of knowledge, but applying it in a manner that is at best condescending and pedantic and at worst contextually inappropriate and misleading. Your obvious preference for verbosity and debate make your posts less useful than they would be if you were trying to be helpful.

It is a shame that your ego gets in the way of your ability to provide useful information.

Leonard

Reply to
Leonard Caillouet

It helps to have EE knowledge and a few decades of experience before making blanket statements (without any supporting facts or numbers) about concrete conductivity. CJT did not even understand the basic math and AC nature within impulses (a spectrum of sine waves during the impulse). Now he just knows concrete is not conductive? And we should agree because CJT posts no supporting facts, numbers, or citations?

An Ufer ground is described in:

formatting link
[TowerTalk] UFER Ground???

For some reason, CJT has decided that concrete is not a good conductor of lightning only because it is not as good a conductor to car batteries and 60 Hz utility electricity. He uses classic junk science reasoning to support his feelings. He provides not one supporting fact for his speculations. He just knows and therefore we should know he is correct.

Lurkers who would learn and prosper from long proven technical knowledge have numbers for concrete conductivity, and a description of why concrete is so effective:

formatting link

Which do we believe? A blanket statement made without supporting facts to promote speculations and rumors. Or the science that says concrete is a good conductor as demonstrated in virtually every town, cited even in the National Electrical Code (NEC), and is demonstrated by numbers. I guess CJT will next be writing a letter demanding the NEC correct their standards. CJT denies concrete is conductive because somehow he just knows. His personal knowledge is sufficient. Next he will accuse ME of being patronizing?

Dem> There you go again. Linoleum and concrete aren't very good

Reply to
w_tom

I'll let the visitors to this forum judge for themselves which of us has the better understanding of what a Fourier analysis really means.

That, after all, was what brought me to this thread -- your apparent misunderstanding of the difference between an analysis technique and reality.

Now

I didn't say it wasn't conductive. I said it wasn't a _good_ conductor -- like copper, steel (e.g. rebar), etc. It's apparently a better conductor than dirt, which earns it a place in this discussion.

You don't want to address my points, so you attempt to redirect the discussion on these tangents.

And we should agree

Better than dirt, anyway (probably mostly because it retains water better) ...

For some reason, w_tom seems to think concrete is a better conductor of lightning than it is of other electricity. He gets excited about small increases in impedance caused by bends in copper wire, but then apparently thinks concrete is a great conductor in comparison.

He

Odd, isn't it, how much of that article's focus is on the rebar in the concrete?

I'll let the visitors to this forum decide whether you have a patronizing attitude.

Apparently you advocate throwing away all plug-in surge protectors, which, after all, rely on Romex grounds that might have sharp bends and might exceed 10 feet, and prefer instead the purity of concrete grounding pads for all.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam.  Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
Reply to
CJT

CJT knows things despite no supporting facts, numbers, nor industry citations. Provided were supporting numbers and sources that CJT doesn't even challenge. He just ignores what industry professional have long been saying.

Pulses are chock full of frequencies. Described in simple terms to be easily understood by those without sufficient math: pulse is sine waves with boundary conditions. CJT's replies are decrees without any supporting facts or numbers. He arbitrarily declares in one and two sentence replies that all those industry professionals, well proven experience, and scientific concepts must be wrong. No reason why. He just decrees. He even denies that concrete is a good conductive material. Somehow he just knows so much better than Ufer and other professionals who recommend this good conductor solution. Somehow he even ignored the numbers so that he can say concrete is not a good conductor.

CJT knows better than science. Nothing more can be said if one arbitrarily knows better than the professionals and generations of experience. We are done. CJT just knows better.

Meanwhile, those who want effective protecti> I'll let the visitors to this forum judge for themselves which

Reply to
w_tom

Sputter away, small man.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam.  Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
Reply to
CJT

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.