Something Different
John
DalienX
> If you have ever wanted a wood computer or a wood laptop
>
> http://www.gostyle.com/
seen something like this elsewhere, the only thing that worries me is
woods lack of earthing ablility.
SG1
"DalienX" <some...@earth.com> wrote in message
news:gd6gf.22668$Hj2....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
That's what people are for????????
Mark Harriss
Wood will conduct lightning!, what are you
worried about!!.
The Real Andy
Bazil
Tell that to the 3 or 4 people who got fried under an old wooden
bandstand in Geelong some years ago...
Bryan
MC
Put enough volts across it and it certainly will.
The Real Andy
Its not the wood thats doing the conducting.
Rod Speed
Yes it is.
Mark Harriss
>
> Its not the wood thats doing the conducting.
>
Oh, I'm sorry, it must be the carbon ions forming
a conductive plasma as the cellulose is explosively
vapourised.Either you know something about dielectric
physics you aren't telling us or you are being a
nitpicking dickhead.
Bazil
So pray tell what it is that does the conducting?
And don't say electrons, because by that logic metals wouldn't be
considered conductors.
Me thinks you should go back to physics and chem 101. Or maybe better,
go back and start in say... year 10 or 11.
Bryan
McGrath
"Rod Speed" <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3ug4tbF...@individual.net...
You'll find it was the water that was the conductor, not simply the wood.
Keith
There aren't too many laptop cases with any earthing ability anyway. I don't
think that the plastic case on my Dell would conduct too much.
Anyway, if you're that worried, you could just hammer a nail or two into it.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> The Real Andy <will_get_back_to_you_on_This@> wrote
>>> Its not the wood thats doing the conducting.
>> Yes it is.
> You'll find it was the water that was the conductor, not simply the wood.
Wrong with dry wood.
McGrath
Dry wood is an insulator - not a conductor. For the purpose of earthing -
which is where this started, wood has NO conducive conductive abilities.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed" <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> McGrath <no@email> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> The Real Andy <will_get_back_to_you_on_This@> wrote
>>>>> MC <M...@nonexistant.place> wrote
>>>>> Its not the wood thats doing the conducting.
>>>> Yes it is.
>>> You'll find it was the water that was
>>> the conductor, not simply the wood.
>> Wrong with dry wood.
> Dry wood is an insulator - not a conductor.
Depends entirely on the level of voltage
applied, just like with any insulator.
> For the purpose of earthing - which is where this started,
Irrelevant to where it diverged to.
> wood has NO conducive conductive abilities.
Pity about the situation that it diverged to.
FruitLoop
"Mark Harriss" <bi...@blartco.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4382e5c9$0$23385$61c6...@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.c
om.au...
Lets see , Carbon is used in low voltage batteries , wow with only 1.5 volts
present . TTL is 5 volts .
Man , now Im worried !!!
Colin Ž
"FruitLoop" <Hyper...@fruitloop.net> wrote in message
news:0zSgf.1399$ea6...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Lets see , Carbon is used in low voltage batteries , wow with only 1.5
> volts
> present . TTL is 5 volts .
> Man , now Im worried !!!
<NITPICK>
And you should be. Carbon is used in some cells. With carbon/zinc or
alkaline you get the 1.5 V you sprout about.
A battery is a number of cells connected in series and / or parallel
How you manage to get from the voltage of a lightning strike to a
carbon/zinc cell is quite a step.
</NITPICK>
ps still think a file is created when cloning a disk ???
McGrath
> McGrath <no@email> wrote
> > Rod Speed" <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >> McGrath <no@email> wrote
> >>> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >>>> The Real Andy <will_get_back_to_you_on_This@> wrote
> >>>>> MC <M...@nonexistant.place> wrote
>
> >>>>> Its not the wood thats doing the conducting.
>
> >>>> Yes it is.
>
> >>> You'll find it was the water that was
> >>> the conductor, not simply the wood.
>
> >> Wrong with dry wood.
>
> > Dry wood is an insulator - not a conductor.
>
> Depends entirely on the level of voltage
> applied, just like with any insulator.
Well in the context of grounding a laptop, wood is useless and would act as
an insulator. In the context of the 'bandstand' incident, water was the
conductor - NOT wood.
In both instatnces wood was/is not a conductor.
> > For the purpose of earthing - which is where this started,
>
> Irrelevant to where it diverged to.
Somehow we diverged to the Geelong incident. The lightning was conducted by
water from the thunderstorm - not the wood.
> > wood has NO conducive conductive abilities.
>
> Pity about the situation that it diverged to.
Which was the situation where water was the main conductive substance - NOT
the wood.
You said wood was doing the conducting - it wasn't.
FruitLoop
"Colin Ž" <toby...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:4%Sgf.1420$ea6...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Its an option
>
>
Colin Ž
>
> Its an option
That you had it completely wrong is immutable fact - not an option.
FruitLoop
In Law Enforcement an image or clone file is created FYI .
Its an exact sector copy of the entire hard drive and there are loads of 3rd
party apps that do the same and reproduce this on an identical physical or
logical drive .
How did I have it wrong ? , I think your wrong in your conclusions . Have
another go on this most basic of topics .
>
>
The Real Andy
wrote:
It is if the wood is wet. Take a look at any photo of a lab strike to
a dry peice of timber. The lighning travels around the outside of the
timber. Put a piece of plastic next to the piece of wood, and the
plastic will also produce the same effect. I beleive the term is
called flashover. The same phenomena affects ceramic insulators.
The Real Andy
wrote:
I thought air was a good insulator too. How does ligning travel
through air? I beleive the term is called ionisation.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> McGrath <no@email> wrote
>>> Rod Speed" <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> McGrath <no@email> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>> The Real Andy <will_get_back_to_you_on_This@> wrote
>>>>>>> MC <M...@nonexistant.place> wrote
>>>>>>> Its not the wood thats doing the conducting.
>>>>>> Yes it is.
>>>>> You'll find it was the water that was
>>>>> the conductor, not simply the wood.
>>>> Wrong with dry wood.
>>> Dry wood is an insulator - not a conductor.
>> Depends entirely on the level of voltage
>> applied, just like with any insulator.
> Well in the context of grounding a laptop,
The thread had diverged from that.
> wood is useless and would act as an insulator.
> In the context of the 'bandstand' incident,
> water was the conductor - NOT wood.
> In both instatnces wood was/is not a conductor.
Irrelevant to the general question about whether
wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.
>>> For the purpose of earthing - which is where this started,
>> Irrelevant to where it diverged to.
> Somehow we diverged to the Geelong incident. The lightning
> was conducted by water from the thunderstorm - not the wood.
Irrelevant to the general question about whether
wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.
>>> wood has NO conducive conductive abilities.
>> Pity about the situation that it diverged to.
> Which was the situation where water was the
> main conductive substance - NOT the wood.
Irrelevant to the general question about whether
wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.
> You said wood was doing the conducting - it wasn't.
Irrelevant to the general question about whether
wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.
Rod Speed
Irrelevant to the general question about whether
Rod Speed
> Colin Ž <toby...@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>> FruitLoop <Hyper...@fruitloop.net> wrote
>>> Colin Ž <toby...@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>>>> ps still think a file is created when cloning a disk ???
>>> Its an option
>> That you had it completely wrong is immutable fact - not an option.
> In Law Enforcement an image or clone file
No such animal.
> is created FYI .
> Its an exact sector copy of the entire hard drive and
> there are loads of 3rd party apps that do the same and
> reproduce this on an identical physical or logical drive .
> How did I have it wrong ? ,
You claimed that an image file is always involved. You are wrong.
> I think your wrong in your conclusions .
Nope, as I proved with the example of an almost full hard drive being
cloned to the same sized drive, there is nowhere to put the image file.
> Have another go on this most basic of topics .
Its you that need to do that.
The Real Andy
wrote:
The point being dickhead? Its not the material that is conducting the
lightning, it is only assisting it. It is ionised air that conducts.
So the answer is no, the wood is not conducting electricity.
Mark Harriss
> I thought air was a good insulator too. How does ligning travel
> through air? I beleive the term is called ionisation.
>
Here: http://wvlightning.com/trees.shtml
"Electricity seeks the path of least resistance, and the moisture (sap
and water) inside a tree is a much better conductor than air. The
result: a tree provides a preferred path for lightning to reach ground."
Now for the trick question: what contains the sap and moisture?
The answer starts with a "w" and ends with a "d" and has four letters.
I expect you'll now try to play with definitions about wood moisture
content or something.
Bazil
I was gunna opt out of this thread but I have to clarify a point or two.
The people under the bandstand were covered by the roof. Now it may have
been that the strike ionised the air all around, and inside, but I
guarantee that the wooden structure (mostly dry - it had a roof
remember) was also a path.
Have you ever seen a large tree split in half by lightning? What has
happened? Think about what forces are occurring in that tree to
literally blow it apart. What is it that has passed through the wood, to
cause, I assume, a large build up of gas?
I get the feeling that a few otherwise intelligent engineers, techs etc,
don't quite appreciate just how powerful lightning is...
Bazil
> Here: http://wvlightning.com/trees.shtml
>
> "Electricity seeks the path of least resistance, and the moisture (sap
> and water) inside a tree is a much better conductor than air. The
> result: a tree provides a preferred path for lightning to reach ground."
>
> Now for the trick question: what contains the sap and moisture?
> The answer starts with a "w" and ends with a "d" and has four letters.
some one's grey matter?
FruitLoop
> FruitLoop <Hyper...@fruitloop.net> wrote
> > Colin Ž <toby...@yahoo.com.au> wrote
> >> FruitLoop <Hyper...@fruitloop.net> wrote
> >>> Colin Ž <toby...@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>
> >>>> ps still think a file is created when cloning a disk ???
>
> >>> Its an option
>
> >> That you had it completely wrong is immutable fact - not an option.
>
> > In Law Enforcement an image or clone file
>
> No such animal.
Check out * encase * dickhead . Its the only software used in courts in the
US .
You sure havnt got a clue fool .
>
> > is created FYI .
>
> > Its an exact sector copy of the entire hard drive and
> > there are loads of 3rd party apps that do the same and
> > reproduce this on an identical physical or logical drive .
>
> > How did I have it wrong ? ,
>
> You claimed that an image file is always involved. You are wrong.
Its an option and it * depends * on the software used . You only use True
Image , sure its does on the fly cloning but thats only one small option for
cloning drives , there are 50 products out there and your speaking about 1
thats not used by the professionals . Why take an image if its not a backup
and repeatable on the deployment .Also a file is much easier to audit for
backup retrieval , rather than a physical drive . This argument is typical
homeboy stuff.
FruitLoop
"Bazil" <nos...@spamzfree.net> wrote in message
news:dm1o8r$jt2$1...@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...
Green Electricity generation , your on to something here ralph .
Rod Speed
Wrong, as always.
> It is ionised air that conducts.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it aint.
> So the answer is no, the wood is not conducting electricity.
Wrong, as always.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> FruitLoop <Hyper...@fruitloop.net> wrote
>>> Colin Ž <toby...@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>>>> FruitLoop <Hyper...@fruitloop.net> wrote
>>>>> Colin Ž <toby...@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>>>>>> ps still think a file is created when cloning a disk ???
>>>>> Its an option
>>>> That you had it completely wrong is immutable fact - not an option.
>>> In Law Enforcement an image or clone file
>> No such animal.
> Check out * encase * dickhead .
Dont need to, the term 'clone file' isnt commonly used.
> Its the only software used in courts in the US .
Irrelevant to the use of that term, fuckwit.
>>> is created FYI .
>>> Its an exact sector copy of the entire hard drive and
>>> there are loads of 3rd party apps that do the same and
>>> reproduce this on an identical physical or logical drive .
>>> How did I have it wrong ? ,
>> You claimed that an image file is always involved. You are wrong.
> Its an option
Nothing like what you originally pig ignorantly claimed.
> and it * depends * on the software used .
Wrong, as always. There is no image file involved with a clone
of an almost full hard drive to a drive of the same size when using
Drive Image, Ghost, True Image, xxcopy, xxclone, etc etc etc.
> You only use True Image ,
Wrong, as always.
> sure its does on the fly cloning
So does Drive Image, Ghost, True Image, xxcopy, xxclone, etc etc etc.
> but thats only one small option for cloning drives ,
Its the ONLY option possible when cloning an almost
full hard drive to a drive of the same size because
there is nowhere to put the image file, fuckwit.
> there are 50 products out there
Duh.
> and your speaking about 1 thats not used by the professionals .
Pity its also true of Drive Image, Ghost, True Image, xxcopy, xxclone,
etc etc etc when cloning an almost full drive to another of the same size.
> Why take an image if its not a backup and repeatable on the deployment .
What matters is whether its FUNCTIONALLY identical.
There are significant downsides with sector by sector clones,
most obviously that the two physical drives need to be identical.
That is NOT the situation in which most cloning is done. Its MUCH
more often done when upgrading the boot drive to a new bigger
drive and a sector by sector clone wont work in that case
because the clone will be the same sized as the original, stupid.
> Also a file is much easier to audit for backup
> retrieval, rather than a physical drive.
Pity that the most common use of cloning doesnt need any audit.
> This argument is typical homeboy stuff.
Couldnt bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag even
if its pathetic excuse for a 'life' depended on it.
Clockmeister
There was no general question, it was in relation to a specific incident.
You diverged from what was being discussed and now you claim that your
divergence is right.
In context, you are wrong.
The Real Andy
wrote:
>The Real Andy wrote:
I beleive i have already quoted elsewhere a 'dry' piece of timber. I
beleive that the article you suggest also specifies 'sap and water'?
BTW. I have seen the results of dry, seasoned timber in lab lightning
tests. I can assure you that a 'dry' peice of timber will not conduct
any better than a piece of ceramic.
The Real Andy
wrote:
>The Real Andy wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 21:42:19 +1100, "Rod Speed" <rod_...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Irrelevant to the general question about whether
>>>wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.
>>>
>> The point being dickhead? Its not the material that is conducting the
>> lightning, it is only assisting it. It is ionised air that conducts.
>> So the answer is no, the wood is not conducting electricity.
>
>I was gunna opt out of this thread but I have to clarify a point or two.
>
>The people under the bandstand were covered by the roof. Now it may have
>been that the strike ionised the air all around, and inside, but I
>guarantee that the wooden structure (mostly dry - it had a roof
>remember) was also a path.
>
>Have you ever seen a large tree split in half by lightning? What has
>happened? Think about what forces are occurring in that tree to
>literally blow it apart. What is it that has passed through the wood, to
>cause, I assume, a large build up of gas?
I have also seen lab tests on dry timber.
>
>I get the feeling that a few otherwise intelligent engineers, techs etc,
>don't quite appreciate just how powerful lightning is...
Some recent research has suggested that the rare positive ground
strikes can be upto 6 times more powerful than is commonly believed.
Likewise, the sprites from positive CG strikes have only been really
discovered in the last ten or so years, and a sprite projects 90km up
into the atmosphere. That's about 60-70km above the higher clouds. not
bad when you consider the average ground strike is only around 10km
max.
I was watching a doco that other night that made a suggestion that
space shuttle columbia crash may have been a result of a positive CG
strike.
Mark Harriss
Plenty of dry wood in a thunderstorm.
The Real Andy
John
> If you have ever wanted a wood computer or a wood laptop
>
> http://www.gostyle.com/
They're pretty pricey too
Rod Speed
There can be plenty of dry wood between metal
that gets the strike and the ground in buildings etc.
Clockmeister
Doesn't mean it becomes a conductor. For instance ionisation will bridge the
gap and the wood simply burns because of the temperatures involved with a
strike.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>> The Real Andy wrote
>>>>>> I thought air was a good insulator too. How does ligning travel through
>>>>>> air? I beleive the term is called ionisation.
>>>>> Here: http://wvlightning.com/trees.shtml
>>>>> "Electricity seeks the path of least resistance, and the moisture
>>>>> (sap and water) inside a tree is a much better conductor than air.
>>>>> The result: a tree provides a preferred path for lightning to
>>>>> reach ground." Now for the trick question: what contains the sap
>>>>> and moisture?
>>>>> The answer starts with a "w" and ends with a "d" and has four
>>>>> letters. I expect you'll now try to play with definitions about
>>>>> wood moisture content or something.
>>>> I beleive i have already quoted elsewhere a 'dry' piece of timber.
>>>> I beleive that the article you suggest also specifies 'sap and water'?
>>>> BTW. I have seen the results of dry, seasoned timber in lab
>>>> lightning tests. I can assure you that a 'dry' peice of timber
>>>> will not conduct any better than a piece of ceramic.
>>> Plenty of dry wood in a thunderstorm.
>> There can be plenty of dry wood between metal
>> that gets the strike and the ground in buildings etc.
> Doesn't mean it becomes a conductor.
Wrong, as always.
> For instance ionisation will bridge the gap and the wood simply burns because
> of the temperatures involved with a strike.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
No wonder you only ever get to crash cars.
FruitLoop
At least * HE CAN * . You probably dont have a licence due to being
suspended or failing the initial test .
I take it your jealous of people who drive cars . Just shows again your
either a liar ( having never stacked or scratched a car ) or dont drive
enough or have the exposure to be involved in a accident whether it was
caused by you or the other person.
The other possiblity is your 15 years old and going by your posts thats even
a bit old .
dmm
I recently saw that Bunnings has some adhesive backed veneers for about $15 a sheet
(about 450mm x 900mm) teak, jarrah, tasmanian oak, etc.
The Real Andy
Relax dude, Ol Rod is the best post diverger i have ever seen. See the
humour in it! If you watch him long enough, it becomes quite humerous.
Rod Speed
FruitLoop <Hyper...@fruitloop.net> wrote
just the pathetic excuse for a troll that
any 2 year old could leave for dead.
Mark Harriss
When I see this standard canned message,
I always get a mental picture of some hapless fool
hiding behind a PC as the whistle of large bore
mortar rounds (usenet postings) falls all around
them as they wonder "What the F*&% did I do to
deserve this?".
The Real Andy
wrote:
>Rod Speed wrote:
What amuses me, is that it bears an uncanny resemblance to a guy i
used to work with called greg. I often wonder....
McGrath
>
> > You said wood was doing the conducting - it wasn't.
>
> wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.
Sorry mate, but that 'general question' was never part of the thread.
It's simple. In this context of this thread, wood is NOT a conductor.
Clockmeister
"FruitLoop" <Hyper...@fruitloop.net> wrote in message
news:8Vyhf.3484$ea6...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Rod scraped the Alfa he once owned.
Clockmeister
"The Real Andy" <will_get_back_to_you_on_This@> wrote in message
news:muvdo1h7ub6ubd0i1...@4ax.com...
What sort of car did he drive?
T.T.
"McGrath" <no@email> wrote in message
news:43871bec$0$10828$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
>
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> McGrath <no@email> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> McGrath <no@email> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed" <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>> McGrath <no@email> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> The Real Andy <will_get_back_to_you_on_This@> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Its not the wood thats doing the conducting.
>>>>>>>> Yes it is.
>>>>>>> You'll find it was the water that was
>>>>>>> the conductor, not simply the wood.
>>>>>> Wrong with dry wood.
>>>>> Dry wood is an insulator - not a conductor.
>>>> Depends entirely on the level of voltage
>>>> applied, just like with any insulator.
>>> Well in the context of grounding a laptop,
>> The thread had diverged from that.
>>> wood is useless and would act as an insulator.
>>> In the context of the 'bandstand' incident,
>>> water was the conductor - NOT wood.
>>> In both instatnces wood was/is not a conductor.
>> Irrelevant to the general question about whether
>> wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.
>>>>> For the purpose of earthing - which is where this started,
>>>> Irrelevant to where it diverged to.
>>> Somehow we diverged to the Geelong incident. The lightning
>>> was conducted by water from the thunderstorm - not the wood.
>> Irrelevant to the general question about whether
>> wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.
>>>>> wood has NO conducive conductive abilities.
>>>> Pity about the situation that it diverged to.
>>> Which was the situation where water was the
>>> main conductive substance - NOT the wood.
>> Irrelevant to the general question about whether
>> wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.
>>> You said wood was doing the conducting - it wasn't.
>> Irrelevant to the general question about whether
>> wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.
> Sorry mate, but that 'general question' was never part of the thread.
Wrong, as always. It became part of the thread when you
made a spectacular fool of yourself when you claimed that
it wasnt the wood that conducted. Sometimes it is indeed.
> It's simple. In this context of this thread, wood is NOT a conductor.
Wrong, as always. Just like with ANY conductor, its ALWAYS
possible to exceed the breakdown voltage and get it to conduct.
Most obviously when the wood isnt that thick and you have the
lightning hitting metal on the weather side, and then the wood
CAN break down even when it isnt wet.
Rod Speed
Mark Harriss <bi...@blartco.co.uk> wrote
just the puerile shit thats all it can ever manage.
The Real Andy
wrote:
The only time this can happen is when there is no possible way for the
lightning to find ground. What happens in this situation is that it
usually 'punches' or burns a hole in the material. Once again, the
material itself is not doing the conducting.
Lightning still follows the path of least resistance, and considering
that air breaks down at a much lower voltage than timber, the air will
always win.
Bazil
>
> The only time this can happen is when there is no possible way for the
> lightning to find ground. What happens in this situation is that it
> usually 'punches' or burns a hole in the material. Once again, the
> material itself is not doing the conducting.
Boffins claim a special camera filmed Mr Lightning getting around with
boxing gloves, matches and a tin of kero.
> Lightning still follows the path of least resistance, and considering
> that air breaks down at a much lower voltage than timber, the air will
> always win.
They want to put him in jail for breaking the rules.
Rod Speed
>>>>>>>>>> Yes it is.
>>>>>>>> Wrong with dry wood.
Wrong, lightning aint that predictable or reliable.
And irrelevant to the pig ignorant claim that wood cant conduct anyway.
> What happens in this situation is that it usually
> 'punches' or burns a hole in the material. Once
> again, the material itself is not doing the conducting.
Wrong again, its the conducting that punches the hole,
stupid. Basically that energy is what frys the wood that
used to be where the hole ends up being.
That happens with tree sap too where the sap doing the
conducting vaporises and blows a fucking great hole in the tree.
> Lightning still follows the path of least resistance,
Its nothing like that black and white with the DC resistance.
> and considering that air breaks down at a much
> lower voltage than timber, the air will always win.
Not if there aint any air in the path because there is wood there, stupid.
McGrath
>
> >> Irrelevant to the general question about whether
> >> wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.
>
> > Sorry mate, but that 'general question' was never part of the thread.
>
> Wrong, as always. It became part of the thread when you
> made a spectacular fool of yourself when you claimed that
> it wasnt the wood that conducted. Sometimes it is indeed.
I said wood wouldn't conduct as a grounding measure for a laptop case.
Likewise I said wood was not the conductor in the Geelong incident - both
are true, both are correct.
You said wood could be used to ground a wooden laptop and was the conductor
at Geelong - both are false, both are incorrect.
So explain to me me how I made a fool of myself? The fact that wood
'sometimes' is a conductor is irrelevent in this thread.
A pre-school student would be able to understand that - why do you have so
much trouble?
Clockmeister
"McGrath" <no@email> wrote in message
Just let the ignorant old fool have it to shut him up, we all know he is
wrong.
Mark Harriss
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> McGrath <no@email> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> McGrath <no@email> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>> McGrath <no@email> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed" <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> McGrath <no@email> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> The Real Andy <will_get_back_to_you_on_This@> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Real Andy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mark Harriss <bi...@blartco.co.uk> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wood will conduct lightning!,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what are you worried about!!.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, wood doesn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Put enough volts across it and it certainly will.
>>>>>>>>>>> Its not the wood thats doing the conducting.
>>>>>>>>>> Yes it is.
>>>>>>>>> You'll find it was the water that was
>>>>>>>>> the conductor, not simply the wood.
>>>>>>>> Wrong with dry wood.
>>>>>>> Dry wood is an insulator - not a conductor.
>>>>>> Depends entirely on the level of voltage
>>>>>> applied, just like with any insulator.
>>>>> Well in the context of grounding a laptop,
>>>> The thread had diverged from that.
>>>>> wood is useless and would act as an insulator.
>>>>> In the context of the 'bandstand' incident,
>>>>> water was the conductor - NOT wood.
>>>>> In both instatnces wood was/is not a conductor.
>>>> Irrelevant to the general question about whether
>>>> wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.
>>>>>>> For the purpose of earthing - which is where this started,
>>>>>> Irrelevant to where it diverged to.
>>>>> Somehow we diverged to the Geelong incident. The lightning
>>>>> was conducted by water from the thunderstorm - not the wood.
>>>> Irrelevant to the general question about whether
>>>> wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.
>>>>>>> wood has NO conducive conductive abilities.
>>>>>> Pity about the situation that it diverged to.
>>>>> Which was the situation where water was the
>>>>> main conductive substance - NOT the wood.
>>>> Irrelevant to the general question about whether
>>>> wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.
>>>>> You said wood was doing the conducting - it wasn't.
>>>> Irrelevant to the general question about whether
>>>> wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.
>>> Sorry mate, but that 'general question'
>>> was never part of the thread.
>> Wrong, as always. It became part of the thread when you
>> made a spectacular fool of yourself when you claimed that
>> it wasnt the wood that conducted. Sometimes it is indeed.
> I said wood wouldn't conduct as a grounding measure for a laptop case.
Liar, you said nothing of the sort in the quoting
you keep deleting and I keep restoring.
> Likewise I said wood was not the conductor in the Geelong incident -
Irrelevant to whether dry wood does indeed conduct when the
voltage across it is high enough, just like with any insulator.
> both are true, both are correct.
And both are irrelevant to the general statement you made.
> You said wood could be used to ground a wooden laptop
No I didnt.
> and was the conductor at Geelong
No I didnt.
> - both are false, both are incorrect.
Pity I never made either statement.
> So explain to me me how I made a fool of myself?
You clearly said
>>>>>>>>> You'll find it was the water that was
>>>>>>>>> the conductor, not simply the wood.
> The fact that wood 'sometimes' is a
> conductor is irrelevent in this thread.
Nope. I JUST commented on that stupid pig ignorant claim that
>>>>>>>>> You'll find it was the water that was
>>>>>>>>> the conductor, not simply the wood.
That is SOMETIMES true and sometimes it aint.
<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old
could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
Rod Speed
McGrath
> > I said wood wouldn't conduct as a grounding measure for a laptop case.
>
> Liar, you said nothing of the sort in the quoting
> you keep deleting and I keep restoring.
"Dry wood is an insulator - not a conductor. For the purpose of earthing -
which is where this started, wood has NO conducive conductive abilities."
So where did I get the above from? I keep deleting to save myself having to
scroll through 'reams of puerile shit' - not to hide the facts :)
> > Likewise I said wood was not the conductor in the Geelong incident -
>
> Irrelevant to whether dry wood does indeed conduct when the
> voltage across it is high enough, just like with any insulator.
Which has nothing to do with this thread - which was originally about the
earthing on a wooden laptop case and somehow spread to the Geelong deaths.
> > both are true, both are correct.
>
> And both are irrelevant to the general statement you made.
"You'll find it was the water that was the conductor, not simply the wood."
So where did I get the above from? I made no general statements, I replied
to the thread. Maybe you should re-read what has been posted? You continue
to make general statements stating wood is a conductor if the voltage is
high enough. Well buddy, in the context of this thread *that* is irrelevant.
> > You said wood could be used to ground a wooden laptop
>
> No I didnt.
Yes you did.
> > and was the conductor at Geelong
>
> No I didnt.
Yes you did.
> > - both are false, both are incorrect.
>
> Pity I never made either statement.
Better re-read the thread.
> > So explain to me me how I made a fool of myself?
>
> You clearly said
>
> >>>>>>>>> You'll find it was the water that was
> >>>>>>>>> the conductor, not simply the wood.
Which was correct. 'More fool you' :)
> > The fact that wood 'sometimes' is a
> > conductor is irrelevent in this thread.
>
> Nope. I JUST commented on that stupid pig ignorant claim that
>
> >>>>>>>>> You'll find it was the water that was
> >>>>>>>>> the conductor, not simply the wood.
>
> That is SOMETIMES true and sometimes it aint.
Pity that the thread was about the grounding of a laptop using a wood case.
In this instance wood is not a conductor.
> <reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old
> could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
So why do you keep re-posting the stuff I cut? Bit hypocritical, isn't it.
McGrath
"Clockmeister" <no-...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4387...@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>
> Just let the ignorant old fool have it to shut him up, we all know he is
> wrong.
I should, but I've got a couple of days off and nothing better to do :)
Clockmeister
Prove it or shut up about it.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> McGrath <no@email> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> McGrath <no@email> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>> McGrath <no@email> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> McGrath <no@email> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed" <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> McGrath <no@email> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Real Andy <will_get_back_to_you_on_This@> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> MC <M...@nonexistant.place> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Real Andy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mark Harriss <bi...@blartco.co.uk> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wood will conduct lightning!,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what are you worried about!!.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, wood doesn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Put enough volts across it and it certainly will.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Its not the wood thats doing the conducting.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes it is.
>>>>>>>>>>> You'll find it was the water that was
>>>>>>>>>>> the conductor, not simply the wood.
>>>>>>>>>> Wrong with dry wood.
>>>>>>>>> Dry wood is an insulator - not a conductor.
>>>>>>>> Depends entirely on the level of voltage
>>>>>>>> applied, just like with any insulator.
>>>>>>> Well in the context of grounding a laptop,
>>>>>> The thread had diverged from that.
>>>>>>> wood is useless and would act as an insulator.
>>>>>>> In the context of the 'bandstand' incident,
>>>>>>> water was the conductor - NOT wood.
>>>>>>> In both instatnces wood was/is not a conductor.
>>>>>> Irrelevant to the general question about whether
>>>>>> wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.
>>>>>>>>> For the purpose of earthing - which is where this started,
>>>>>>>> Irrelevant to where it diverged to.
>>>>>>> Somehow we diverged to the Geelong incident. The lightning
>>>>>>> was conducted by water from the thunderstorm - not the wood.
>>>>>> Irrelevant to the general question about whether
>>>>>> wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.
>>>>>>>>> wood has NO conducive conductive abilities.
>>>>>>>> Pity about the situation that it diverged to.
>>>>>>> Which was the situation where water was the
>>>>>>> main conductive substance - NOT the wood.
>>>>>> Irrelevant to the general question about whether
>>>>>> wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.
>>>>>>> You said wood was doing the conducting - it wasn't.
>>>>>> Irrelevant to the general question about whether
>>>>>> wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.
>>>>> Sorry mate, but that 'general question'
>>>>> was never part of the thread.
>>>> Wrong, as always. It became part of the thread when you
>>>> made a spectacular fool of yourself when you claimed that
>>>> it wasnt the wood that conducted. Sometimes it is indeed.
>>> I said wood wouldn't conduct as a
>>> grounding measure for a laptop case.
>> Liar, you said nothing of the sort in the quoting
>> you keep deleting and I keep restoring.
> "Dry wood is an insulator - not a conductor. For the
> purpose of earthing - which is where this started,
> wood has NO conducive conductive abilities."
AFTER the thread had clearly diverted to the more general
question of whether lightning can indeed be conducted by dry wood.
> So where did I get the above from?
Its obvious from the quoting that you keep flagrantly
dishonestly deleting where that came from.
> I keep deleting to save myself having to scroll through
> 'reams of puerile shit' - not to hide the facts :)
Lying, again.
>>> Likewise I said wood was not the conductor in the Geelong incident -
>> Irrelevant to whether dry wood does indeed conduct when the
>> voltage across it is high enough, just like with any insulator.
> Which has nothing to do with this thread
Wrong, as always. It has everything to do
with the claims made at the top of the quoting.
> - which was originally about the earthing on a wooden laptop case
Originally is completely irrelevant. I chose to comment on
your stupid pig ignorant claims about wood and lightning.
> and somehow spread to the Geelong deaths.
Its clear that lightning was being discussed in the
quoting you keep flagrantly dishonestly deleting.
>>> both are true, both are correct.
>> And both are irrelevant to the general statement you made.
> "You'll find it was the water that was
> the conductor, not simply the wood."
And that is just plain wrong with dry wood and lightning.
> So where did I get the above from?
Plucked it from your arse basically.
> I made no general statements, I replied to the thread.
What you replied to was the general statement, stupid.
> Maybe you should re-read what has been posted?
No need.
> You continue to make general statements stating
> wood is a conductor if the voltage is high enough.
I wasnt the first one to say, that, MC was.
> Well buddy, in the context of this thread *that* is irrelevant.
Wrong, as always. Hariss made that general
claim which is clearly just plain wrong.
>>> You said wood could be used to ground a wooden laptop
>> No I didnt.
> Yes you did.
No I didnt. You cant quote the post where I said that, because I didnt.
>>> and was the conductor at Geelong
>> No I didnt.
> Yes you did.
No I didnt, I never ever mentioned Geelong at all.
Bazil/Bryan did.
http://groups.google.com/group/aus.electronics/msg/6d0b1228eef7cd77
>>> - both are false, both are incorrect.
>> Pity I never made either statement.
> Better re-read the thread.
No need, someone else said both of those.
>>> So explain to me me how I made a fool of myself?
>> You clearly said
>>>>>>>>>>> You'll find it was the water that was
>>>>>>>>>>> the conductor, not simply the wood.
> Which was correct.
Nope, just plain wrong when stated as baldly as that.
>>> The fact that wood 'sometimes' is a
>>> conductor is irrelevent in this thread.
>> Nope. I JUST commented on that stupid pig ignorant claim that
>>>>>>>>>>> You'll find it was the water that was
>>>>>>>>>>> the conductor, not simply the wood.
>> That is SOMETIMES true and sometimes it aint.
> Pity that the thread was about the grounding
> of a laptop using a wood case.
Pity the thread had diverged to a more
general claim about wood and lightning
You get to like that or lump it.
> In this instance wood is not a conductor.
Pity it can be with lightning.
>> <reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old
>> could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
> So why do you keep re-posting the stuff I cut?
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.
> Bit hypocritical, isn't it.
More of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead.
John
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
Mark Harriss
>
> Prove it or shut up about it.
>
>
>
From the Wikipedia definition for dielectric breakdown:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_strength
"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:
http://www.wernerladder.com/catalog/files/rc81.pdf
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?.
Damien McBain
The voltage in a laptop computer isn't
Rod Speed
Pity what was being discussed was lightning, fuckwit.
Clockmeister
"Mark Harriss" <bi...@blartco.co.uk> wrote in message
news:43880546$0$23379$61c6...@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
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.
Clockmeister
You're a parody of yourself.
Mark Harriss
>>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
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.
Damien McBain
Take a look at the OP, it's clearly about a timber laptop case
Colin Ž
Someone posted ----
>> From the Werner PDF file on fibreglass ladders for the electrical
>> industry, some tests on the CONDUCTIVITY of wood and fibreglass
>> ladders:
>> http://www.wernerladder.com/catalog/files/rc81.pdf
>>
>> 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?.
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 ?
Damien McBain
> Clockmeister wrote:
Maybe the wires got hot and burnt the rubber?
Mark Harriss
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.
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.
Mark Harriss
>>
>>Pity what was being discussed was lightning, fuckwit.
>
>
> Take a look at the OP, it's clearly about a timber laptop case
Yes... but, this is all in reply to the real andy's assertion that
any type of dry wood will not conduct lightning.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Damien McBain <as...@for.it> wrote
>>> Mark Harriss wrote
>>>> Clockmeister wrote
Completely irrelevant to what the thread diverged to, LIGHTNING,
and what we chose to comment on with LIGHTNING.
Do TRY to keep up.
Rod Speed
Unlikely with that sort of voltage on them.
The best insulation for that sort of voltage
is one of the thicker coaxs like RG8
Mark Harriss
I'm on the lookout for x-ray cable if anyone has some
lying around the place.
McGrath
> McGrath <no@email> wrote
>
> >>> I said wood wouldn't conduct as a
> >>> grounding measure for a laptop case.
>
> >> Liar, you said nothing of the sort in the quoting
> >> you keep deleting and I keep restoring.
>
> > "Dry wood is an insulator - not a conductor. For the
> > purpose of earthing - which is where this started,
> > wood has NO conducive conductive abilities."
>
> AFTER the thread had clearly diverted to the more general
> question of whether lightning can indeed be conducted by dry wood.
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.
> > So where did I get the above from?
>
> Its obvious from the quoting that you keep flagrantly
> dishonestly deleting where that came from.
Or maybe the 'flagrantly dishonest' poster is indeed yourself :)
> > I keep deleting to save myself having to scroll through
> > 'reams of puerile shit' - not to hide the facts :)
>
> Lying, again.
No lies, just the truth - hence why I've cut the thread again.
> >>> Likewise I said wood was not the conductor in the Geelong incident -
>
> >> Irrelevant to whether dry wood does indeed conduct when the
> >> voltage across it is high enough, just like with any insulator.
>
> > Which has nothing to do with this thread
>
> Wrong, as always. It has everything to do
> with the claims made at the top of the quoting.
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.
> > - which was originally about the earthing on a wooden laptop case
>
> Originally is completely irrelevant. I chose to comment on
> your stupid pig ignorant claims about wood and lightning.
But wood in this discussion was wet - not dry. There was never any mention
of dry wood.
> > and somehow spread to the Geelong deaths.
>
> Its clear that lightning was being discussed in the
> quoting you keep flagrantly dishonestly deleting.
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.
> >>> both are true, both are correct.
>
> >> And both are irrelevant to the general statement you made.
>
> > "You'll find it was the water that was
> > the conductor, not simply the wood."
>
> And that is just plain wrong with dry wood and lightning.
Which is irrelevent to every part of this thread as the wood was *wet* - not
dry.
> > So where did I get the above from?
>
> Plucked it from your arse basically.
Or, as the case indeed it, from the thread.
> > I made no general statements, I replied to the thread.
>
> What you replied to was the general statement, stupid.
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?
> > Maybe you should re-read what has been posted?
>
> No need.
If there was no need I wouldn't be posting again on this topic.
> > You continue to make general statements stating
> > wood is a conductor if the voltage is high enough.
>
> I wasnt the first one to say, that, MC was.
But you *continue* to say that - which is what I said and which is
irrelevant to this thread.
> > Well buddy, in the context of this thread *that* is irrelevant.
>
> Wrong, as always. Hariss made that general
> claim which is clearly just plain wrong.
As you posted that wood is doing the conducting. It's not - the water is.
> >>> You said wood could be used to ground a wooden laptop
>
> >> No I didnt.
>
> > Yes you did.
>
> No I didnt. You cant quote the post where I said that, because I didnt.
Try here:
"> Its not the wood thats doing the conducting.
Yes it is."
I think that is fairly clear.
> >>> and was the conductor at Geelong
>
> >> No I didnt.
>
> > Yes you did.
>
> No I didnt, I never ever mentioned Geelong at all.
You agreed with the statement.
> >>> - both are false, both are incorrect.
>
> >> Pity I never made either statement.
>
> > Better re-read the thread.
>
> No need, someone else said both of those.
Both of which you agreed with.
> >>> So explain to me me how I made a fool of myself?
>
> >> You clearly said
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> You'll find it was the water that was
> >>>>>>>>>>> the conductor, not simply the wood.
>
> > Which was correct.
>
> Nope, just plain wrong when stated as baldly as that.
It can't be wrong if it's a direct quote from this thread.
> Pity the thread had diverged to a more
> general claim about wood and lightning
>
> You get to like that or lump it.
I don't wish to sound arrogant, but maybe you should take your own advice.
> > In this instance wood is not a conductor.
>
> Pity it can be with lightning.
Pity in this thread the wood that was struck by lightning was wet.
Clockmeister
Rubber conducts rather well if it has a high carbon content. Try putting a
multimeter across a rubber tyre and measure the resistance.
Clockmeister
"Colin ®" <toby...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:NK8if.4918$ea6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
All it shows is that Rod is wrong, again.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> McGrath <no@email> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> McGrath <no@email> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>> McGrath <no@email> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> McGrath <no@email> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> McGrath <no@email> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed" <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> McGrath <no@email> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Real Andy <will_get_back_to_you_on_This@> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MC <M...@nonexistant.place> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Real Andy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mark Harriss <bi...@blartco.co.uk> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wood will conduct lightning!,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what are you worried about!!.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, wood doesn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Put enough volts across it and it certainly will.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Its not the wood thats doing the conducting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes it is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You'll find it was the water that was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the conductor, not simply the wood.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong with dry wood.
>>>>>>>>>>> Dry wood is an insulator - not a conductor.
>>>>>>>>>> Depends entirely on the level of voltage
>>>>>>>>>> applied, just like with any insulator.
>>>>>>>>> Well in the context of grounding a laptop,
>>>>>>>> The thread had diverged from that.
>>>>>>>>> wood is useless and would act as an insulator.
>>>>>>>>> In the context of the 'bandstand' incident,
>>>>>>>>> water was the conductor - NOT wood.
>>>>>>>>> In both instatnces wood was/is not a conductor.
>>>>>>>> Irrelevant to the general question about whether
>>>>>>>> wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.
>>>>>>>>>>> For the purpose of earthing - which is where this started,
>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant to where it diverged to.
>>>>>>>>> Somehow we diverged to the Geelong incident. The lightning
>>>>>>>>> was conducted by water from the thunderstorm - not the wood.
>>>>>>>> Irrelevant to the general question about whether
>>>>>>>> wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.
>>>>>>>>>>> wood has NO conducive conductive abilities.
>>>>>>>>>> Pity about the situation that it diverged to.
>>>>>>>>> Which was the situation where water was the
>>>>>>>>> main conductive substance - NOT the wood.
>>>>>>>> Irrelevant to the general question about whether
>>>>>>>> wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.
>>>>>>>>> You said wood was doing the conducting - it wasn't.
>>>>>>>> Irrelevant to the general question about whether
>>>>>>>> wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.
>>>>>>> Sorry mate, but that 'general question'
>>>>>>> was never part of the thread.
>>>>>> Wrong, as always. It became part of the thread when you
>>>>>> made a spectacular fool of yourself when you claimed that
>>>>>> it wasnt the wood that conducted. Sometimes it is indeed.
>>>>> I said wood wouldn't conduct as a
>>>>> grounding measure for a laptop case.
>>>> Liar, you said nothing of the sort in the quoting
>>>> you keep deleting and I keep restoring.
>>> "Dry wood is an insulator - not a conductor. For the
>>> purpose of earthing - which is where this started,
>>> wood has NO conducive conductive abilities."
>> AFTER the thread had clearly diverted to the more general
>> question of whether lightning can indeed be conducted by dry wood.
> Dry wood was only part of the tread in relation to a laptop case
The laptop case was completely irrelevant once the
thread had diverged to discuss lightning and wood.
> - in which case the wood is not a good conductor.
The laptop case was completely irrelevant once the
thread had diverged to discuss lightning and wood.
> The thread diverged to the Geelong incident,
Wrong again, that came later than what is quoted above.
> where the wood was wet
Wrong again, it wasnt wet.
> and water was the main conductor
Wrong again, there was no water.
> - again not the wood conducting.
Wrong, as always.
> There was never mention of dry wood.
Lying, again. Read the quoting you keep flagrantly
dishonestly deleting and I keep restoring.
>>> So where did I get the above from?
>> Its obvious from the quoting that you keep flagrantly
>> dishonestly deleting where that came from.
> Or maybe the 'flagrantly dishonest' poster is indeed yourself :)
Lying, again. Read the quoting you keep flagrantly
dishonestly deleting and I keep restoring.
>>> I keep deleting to save myself having to scroll through
>>> 'reams of puerile shit' - not to hide the facts :)
>> Lying, again.
> No lies, just the truth
Lying, again.
> - hence why I've cut the thread again.
You flagrant dishonesty fools absolutely no one at all.
>>>>> Likewise I said wood was not the
>>>>> conductor in the Geelong incident -
>>>> Irrelevant to whether dry wood does indeed conduct when the
>>>> voltage across it is high enough, just like with any insulator.
>>> Which has nothing to do with this thread
>> Wrong, as always. It has everything to do
>> with the claims made at the top of the quoting.
> Again, dry wood as a conductor was only
> part of the thread in relation to laptop cases
Again, the laptop case was completely irrelevant once
the thread had diverged to discuss lightning and wood.
> - where it's use as a conductor is non existant.
Again, the laptop case was completely irrelevant once
the thread had diverged to discuss lightning and wood.
> Please do try and keep up.
Couldnt bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag...
>>> - which was originally about the earthing on a wooden laptop case
>> Originally is completely irrelevant. I chose to comment on
>> your stupid pig ignorant claims about wood and lightning.
> But wood in this discussion was wet - not dry.
Lying, again.
> There was never any mention of dry wood.
Lying, again. There clearly is in the quoting you keep flagrantly
dishonestly deleting from the quoting and I keep restoring.
>>> and somehow spread to the Geelong deaths.
>> Its clear that lightning was being discussed in the
>> quoting you keep flagrantly dishonestly deleting.
> Yep, lightning in relation to *wet* wood
Lying, again.
> - as was the case in the Geelong incident.
Lying, again. And that was a separate sub thread anyway.
> Again there was no mention of dry wood
Lying, again. There clearly is in the quoting you keep flagrantly
dishonestly deleting from the quoting and I keep restoring.
> - except for use in the laptop case.
Lying, again. There clearly is in the quoting you keep flagrantly
dishonestly deleting from the quoting and I keep restoring.
Nothing to do with any laptop, everything to do with lightning.
>>>>> both are true, both are correct.
>>>> And both are irrelevant to the general statement you made.
>>> "You'll find it was the water that was
>>> the conductor, not simply the wood."
>> And that is just plain wrong with dry wood and lightning.
> Which is irrelevent to every part of this
> thread as the wood was *wet* - not dry.
Lying, as always. YOU made the stupid pig ignorant claim
that dry wood is always an insulator, never a conductor.
>>> So where did I get the above from?
>> Plucked it from your arse basically.
> Or, as the case indeed it, from the thread.
Lying, as always. YOU made the stupid pig ignorant claim
that dry wood is always an insulator, never a conductor.
>>> I made no general statements, I replied to the thread.
>> What you replied to was the general statement, stupid.
> But there was no general statement.
Lying, as always.
> It's simple really - laptop case: dry wood, not a good conductor.
Again, the laptop case was completely irrelevant once
the thread had diverged to discuss lightning and wood.
> Geelong: wet wood, water was the conductor.
Wrong, as always. And that was a separate sub thread anyway.
> So where does dry wood and lightning come into this?
Reread the quoting that you keep flagrantly
dishonestly deleting and I keep reposting.
>>> Maybe you should re-read what has been posted?
>> No need.
> If there was no need I wouldn't be posting again on this topic.
Lying, as always.
>>> You continue to make general statements stating
>>> wood is a conductor if the voltage is high enough.
>> I wasnt the first one to say, that, MC was.
> But you *continue* to say that
Because you keep denying it, cretin.
> - which is what I said and which is irrelevant to this thread.
And you clearly lied, as proven by the quoting that you
keep flagrantly dishonestly deleting and I keep restoring.
>>> Well buddy, in the context of this thread *that* is irrelevant.
>> Wrong, as always. Hariss made that general
>> claim which is clearly just plain wrong.
> As you posted that wood is doing the conducting. It's not - the water is.
Wrong as always. Wood still conducts when there is no water, fuckwit.
Just like any insulator does when the voltage is high enough.
>>>>> You said wood could be used to ground a wooden laptop
>>>> No I didnt.
>>> Yes you did.
>> No I didnt. You cant quote the post where I said that, because I didnt.
> Try here:
> "> Its not the wood thats doing the conducting.
> Yes it is."
Nothing to do with any laptop or any grounding.
As should be obvious to even someone as stupid as you by the quoting
that you keep flagrantly dishonestly deleting and I keep restoring.
> I think that is fairly clear.
Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought.
Or even being able to bullshit or lie your way out of a wet paper bag either.
>>>>> and was the conductor at Geelong
>>>> No I didnt.
>>> Yes you did.
>> No I didnt, I never ever mentioned Geelong at all.
> You agreed with the statement.
Wrong again, I didnt even commment Geelong at all.
>>>>> - both are false, both are incorrect.
>>>> Pity I never made either statement.
>>> Better re-read the thread.
>> No need, someone else said both of those.
> Both of which you agreed with.
Lying, again. I didnt even comment on either statement.
>>>>> So explain to me me how I made a fool of myself?
>>>> You clearly said
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You'll find it was the water that was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the conductor, not simply the wood.
>>> Which was correct.
>> Nope, just plain wrong when stated as baldly as that.
> It can't be wrong if it's a direct quote from this thread.
THE STATEMENT is wrong, fuckwit.
>> Pity the thread had diverged to a more
>> general claim about wood and lightning
>> You get to like that or lump it.
> I don't wish to sound arrogant,
You just sound like a fool.
> but maybe you should take your own advice.
No need, you have always been just plain
wrong and a pathological liar to boot.
>>> In this instance wood is not a conductor.
>> Pity it can be with lightning.
> Pity in this thread the wood that was struck by lightning was wet.
Lying, as always.
Rod Speed
RG8 is fine, I ran quite a bit more than 50KV thru that fine.
Mark Harriss
>
>
> RG8 is fine, I ran quite a bit more than 50KV thru that fine.
>
>
>
I bought about 20 metres of RG8 on a cable drum from the
recycle shop for $5....then gave it to a mate for free,
it amazing what eventually would come in handy.
Was the braid earthed at that voltage?
Mark Harriss
From what I can see Rod, these clowns have the same grip on
reality as a UN weapons inspector, you can post data showing
dry wood current flow figures and still they want to argue
their way out.
Insulation is relative, which was the point I made, but they
still want to argue about voltage levels, moisture contents
and change the rules or shift the goalpost.
DRY, WET OR DIPPED IN SOY SAUCE, WOOD IS A CONDUCTOR TO
LIGHTNING LEVEL VOLTAGES....GET OVER IT YOU STUPID FLAT EARTH
PIG IGNORANT FUCKS.
Patrick Turner
Mark Harriss wrote:
OK mark, no need to shout, they wood get the message if they wood read
ordinary lower case typing woodent they surely now?
In a tubed preamp I have used wooden terminal strips made of dry
jarrah, and when prodding between
metal screws in the wood only 10mm apart the resistance was well over
what my DVM could read.
But if the wood ever cop a soaking from being flooded in a
Katrina event, then the amp wood need drying out well before use
although the
polyurethane coating I have painted on wood keep the problems to a
minimum.
Lightning strikes might affect the item slightly; and perhaps zap the
fragile
input fet but only tickle the tubes unless the lightning strike was
directly
to the input terminal, which is unlikely.
Wooden boards for radios were used in the 1920s, and what fine rugged
radios those old bangers were,
since many are still being used in the outback of Oz.
Patrick Turner.
Clockmeister
You want to make a blanket statement and cut out all the variables, well
that is fine but it also makes you wrong.
Damien McBain
ffs, no wonder people think you're a bot with those brainless repetitive
interjections.
Rod Speed
> From what I can see Rod, these clowns have the same grip on reality as a UN
> weapons inspector, you can post data showing dry wood current flow figures and
> still they want to argue their way out.
Yep, just as stupid.
He's actually desperately attempting to bullshit his way
out of his predicament now and aint fooling anyone at all.
> Insulation is relative, which was the point I made, but they still want to
> argue about voltage levels, moisture contents and change the rules or shift
> the goalpost.
Yep, the original pig ignorant claim that it aint the wood
that is conducting is just plain pig ignorant and wrong.
In some situations it is indeed what is conducting.
> DRY, WET OR DIPPED IN SOY SAUCE, WOOD IS A CONDUCTOR TO LIGHTNING LEVEL
> VOLTAGES.... GET OVER IT YOU STUPID FLAT EARTH PIG IGNORANT FUCKS.
Rod Speed
Sweet fuck all are, actually.
Rod Speed
Damien McBain <as...@for.it> wrote just the
puerile shit thats always pouring from the back of it.
Rod Speed
Better to get rid of the jacket and the braid at the higher voltages.
Colin Ž
"Patrick Turner" <in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:4389B256...@turneraudio.com.au...
> Wooden boards for radios were used in the 1920s, and what fine rugged
> radios those old bangers were,
> since many are still being used in the outback of Oz.
Hence the term 'breadboard' for a quick knock-up of a design.
Takes me back to the good old days when a stray finger could encounter 300V
of plate voltage instead of a pissy 5V.
Mark Harriss
> OK mark, no need to shout, they wood get the message if they wood read
> ordinary lower case typing woodent they surely now?
>
> In a tubed preamp I have used wooden terminal strips made of dry
> jarrah, and when prodding between
> metal screws in the wood only 10mm apart the resistance was well over
> what my DVM could read.
>
> But if the wood ever cop a soaking from being flooded in a
> Katrina event, then the amp wood need drying out well before use
> although the
> polyurethane coating I have painted on wood keep the problems to a
> minimum.
That approach sounds entirely up to the task, as the moisture would
be kept out by the Estapol. Most phenolic resin product is actually
filled with sawdust and has been since the stuff was invented, so I
don't see why Jarrah can't be used (except for your next 50KV product)
.