climber struck by lightning twice in Wyoming
rick++
fell to his death when struck a second time an hour later.
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~1463841,00.html
rick++
http://insidedenver.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_2053571,00.html
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~1466433,00.html
They guy was a "genius" in college, but maybe less so on the mountain.
tom rogers
mountains?
"rick++" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f7422d8e.03062...@posting.google.com...
Eugene Miya
tom rogers <thomas....@boeing.com> wrote:
>You sound sort of like an smart*ass on flat ground, how are you in the
>mountains?
I have met Rick several times.
He's a Stanford PhD geologist living in Denver now.
He is basically a peak bagger.
Mad Dog
>He is basically a peak bagger.
PEAK BAGGER??? THAT'S NOT SERIOUS. (HACK, PTOOYEY!)
I thght wgt rd f ll thm??
Wait a minute... I'm still here.
Peak baggers are da bomb.
Mad "ShoeBURThga" Dog
Nate B
"rick++"
> They guy was a "genius" in college, but maybe less so on the mountain.
I've found denial to be 100% predictable in the analysis of a climbing
accident.
The peak is interesting, if anyone's been on it. You need to traverse to
ascend, as well as descend. If you are somewhere in the middle, you're
above perhaps close to 1000 ft of drop with not much hope in keeping your
rack should you choose to rap. For probably the same reasons, many have
also been hit by lightning on Wolf's Head. In addition, Steeple has a neat
place to hide out and stay dry - but it's close to the summit, which you
have to go up and over to get to the fixed raps...
A little slow/late, and a little unlucky, IMO. Seems the accident was
around 3pm.
- Nate
Charles Vernon
Pretty snide. I guess you've never done any alpine climbing. Sure,
we all try to get off before noon, but it doesn't always work out that
way. Things have always gone exactly as planned on every climb you
ever done, eh?
Charles
Christopher Brian Colohan
> "rick++"
>
> > They guy was a "genius" in college, but maybe less so on the mountain.
>
> I've found denial to be 100% predictable in the analysis of a climbing
> accident.
I am curious: one of the things mentioned in the description is that
he took off his harness in order to minimize the metal on/around him.
Because he was not tied in, he fell when hit by lightning.
Given an otherwise easy to sit on ledge, is this always the best
decision? (Given I was not there, I have no idea whether he made the
best choice, or if there was a best choice.) What I am wondering is
if the metal in a harness (I presume just the buckles) is enough to
really affect the path of the lightning. If he was tied in would this
have seriously affected the chances of getting hit? Would it have
affected the severity of the strike when he was hit?
It sounds to me from the description I read that the lighning killed
him before the fall, so this was not a factor. But if I was stuck in
a similar situation, would there be a good reason for me to remove my
harness?
Chris
--
Chris Colohan Email: ch...@colohan.ca PGP: finger col...@cs.cmu.edu
Web: www.colohan.com Phone: (412)268-4751
Ed Huesers
Christopher Brian Colohan wrote:
> It sounds to me from the description I read that the lighning killed
> him before the fall, so this was not a factor. But if I was stuck in
> a similar situation, would there be a good reason for me to remove my
> harness?
Some'll say yea and others will say nay.
Here's a link to a discussion we had a while back:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&frame=right&rnum=1&thl=0,1370307943,1370279290,1370206941,1369990460,1369082829,1368870548,1370258567,1370202337,1370136449,1370001274,1368739938&seekm=3B268A7F.969FAE10%40grandshelters.com#link1
Wow, I think that link was longer than yours Marty.
Ed Huesers
http://www.grandshelters.com
Nate B
"Charles Vernon"
> Pretty snide. I guess you've never done any alpine climbing.
Not nearly as bad as the lighning expert dorks quoted in one of those
articles! Number 1 rule - don't climb when there's a possible thunderstorm?
Sheesh - what's that - grade II routes in the AM at a 10% success rate?
The pearls of wisdom continue, where you learn that you should "pray" and
"duck underneath some boulders" as protection from lighning. I can't
believe they printed that crap.
Per another post - the conventinal wisdom, straight out of Freedom of the
Hills, is, when trapped, to sit on top of your gear, etc. Probably what
they were attempting to do. The fact he took his harness off tells me a
lot - trapped and scared. Appearantly, she was able to rap - but the rack
went, I'm sure. They took a risk, as climbers often do...
- Nate
Mark Cato
- Christopher Brian Colohan <colo...@cs.cmu.edu> wrote:
> I am curious: one of the things mentioned in the description is that
> he took off his harness in order to minimize the metal on/around him.
> Because he was not tied in, he fell when hit by lightning.
>
> Given an otherwise easy to sit on ledge, is this always the best
> decision? (Given I was not there, I have no idea whether he made the
> best choice, or if there was a best choice.) What I am wondering is
> if the metal in a harness (I presume just the buckles) is enough to
> really affect the path of the lightning. If he was tied in would this
> have seriously affected the chances of getting hit? Would it have
> affected the severity of the strike when he was hit?
>
> It sounds to me from the description I read that the lighning killed
> him before the fall, so this was not a factor. But if I was stuck in
> a similar situation, would there be a good reason for me to remove my
> harness?
>
> Chris
I had the same questions. Depending on the size of the ledge (which I
don't recall seeing anywhere), I might prefer to live with any increased
risk of lightning and leave my harness on.
Given sufficient time, would it make sense to tie a harness out of webbing
and anchor off of natural features, use knots in constrictions, etc? You'd
remove metal from the system, but still be anchored. Would the reduced
risk be significant enough to consider this?
mark
_____________________
Mark Cato
mdc...@andrew.cmu.edu
Lord Slime
> - Christopher Brian Colohan <colo...@cs.cmu.edu> wrote:
> > It sounds to me from the description I read that the lighning killed
> > him before the fall, so this was not a factor. But if I was stuck in
> > a similar situation, would there be a good reason for me to remove my
> > harness?
> don't recall seeing anywhere), I might prefer to live with any increased
> risk of lightning and leave my harness on.
>
> Given sufficient time, would it make sense to tie a harness out of webbing
> and anchor off of natural features, use knots in constrictions, etc? You'd
> remove metal from the system, but still be anchored. Would the reduced
> risk be significant enough to consider this?
You guys think that the amount of metal in a harness is going to
make an iota of difference in a lightning strike? Think again.
Better yet, learn something about lightning before you speculate
about it, but be aware there's LOTS of misinformation out there
from many otherwise respectable sources.
- Lord Slime
Christopher Brian Colohan
> You guys think that the amount of metal in a harness is going to
> make an iota of difference in a lightning strike? Think again.
Actually, my gut reaction is "no it won't make a significant
difference". This is why I was asking...
Wiclimber
>about it, but be aware there's LOTS of misinformation out there
>from many otherwise respectable sources.
>
>- Lord Slime
nice thing about gettting old is ya know everything.
thanks lard!
tom rogers
the location of climbing and height of the peak and the region he was in.
It one climbs with any amount of success then one is going to find oneself
on top of something sometime somewhere at the wrong time. It doesn't make
him an idiot and especially deserving of comments from Rick++.
"Eugene Miya" <eug...@cse.ucsc.edu> wrote in message
news:3ef774c6$1...@news.ucsc.edu...
Eugene Miya
Rick is just trolling for responses.
He goes back a long way on the net.
>Nate B said it well with
>the location of climbing and height of the peak and the region he was in.
>It one climbs with any amount of success then one is going to find oneself
>on top of something sometime somewhere at the wrong time. It doesn't make
>him an idiot and especially deserving of comments from Rick++.
Rick owns his own words to paraphrase Tom Mandel's early net observations.
He does fairly easy short climbs/peak bags as most people in R.b. do
(he doesn't really understand what a III or a IV means).
You can flame him if you want, but he has seen it before.
Andy Gale
Eugene Miya wrote:
> Rick owns his own words to paraphrase Tom Mandel's early net observations.
> He does fairly easy short climbs/peak bags as most people in R.b. do
> (he doesn't really understand what a III or a IV means).
> You can flame him if you want, but he has seen it before.
Thanks for the permission.
Andy
Tumblemark
linked was pretty interesting, in terms of what might actually be
effective for climbers confronted by a lightening storm. Problem is,
it stopped at the observation that perzackly where lightening strikes
is hard or impossible to determine and that standing on your backpack
won't do much to prevent that special spot from being you. It didn't
say much about what a trapped climber could do to prevent being the
victim of ground currents.
Does standing or crouching on your backpack offer any protection from
ground currents? Are ground currents a lethal problem? If you are
walking, does the separation between your feet mean that nasty old
ground currents are going to go up one leg and down the other and fry
your sorry ass, whether they zig-zag or act like sheets?
Inquiring minds want to know (if they should rip these pages out of
FOH, along with the others that are now missing).
Bill Z.
If you are just tying in on a ledge and want to remove the harness
due to the buckle, you don't need to make a harness out of webbing:
just use a bowline on a coil.
With the buckle flush against you (you are a reasonably good conductor),
that mitigates any effect the metal may have, although the risk is
still be higher than otherwise. The basic principle is that
the electric field is highest where a surface forms a point, but if
you have something that forms a point and it lies along a good conductor,
it acts like it is simply part of the surface. For example, a needle
lying along a metal sheet wouldn't cause a noticable problem, although
one perpendicular to it would. The point where the electric field
is highest is where the air will start to ionize.
Bill
Guido
> The peak is interesting, if anyone's been on it. You need to traverse to
> ascend, as well as descend. If you are somewhere in the middle, you're
> above perhaps close to 1000 ft of drop with not much hope in keeping your
> rack should you choose to rap. For probably the same reasons, many have
> also been hit by lightning on Wolf's Head. In addition, Steeple has a
neat
> place to hide out and stay dry - but it's close to the summit, which you
> have to go up and over to get to the fixed raps...
>
> A little slow/late, and a little unlucky, IMO. Seems the accident was
> around 3pm.
Steeple's most popular route, the III 5.8 "North ridge" route, goes right
_through_ the mountain using a chimney system. You emerge in the sunlight
of the SSW side and race up a dihedral to the summit block. The 2 pitch 5.8
"South Ridge" route allows for a reasonable escape route off the summit
block. Once off the summit block, a Kelsey 3rd class passage to the W is
available off the remaining N-S ridgeline, with one rappel in wet conditions
recommended.
Both routes start along the high ridgeline, so there's considerable exposure
to lightning and storm. Climbers also enjoy a fine view of impending storms
rolling in from their W/NW over the Wyoming range, 'less they're already in
the soup. The entire Haystack-Steeple-East Temple ridgeline sees lots of
lightning activity in a season.
But for the grace of better fortune might many of us have so departed. My
condolences to all.
Guido
Lord Slime
> Problem is,
> it stopped at the observation that perzackly where lightening strikes
> is hard or impossible to determine
Yes. From a practical standpoint, it's impossible to predict, except in
"classic" situations. For example, I can correctly predict that if a
thunderstorm rolls over Castle Valley, Castleton Tower will be hit at
least once.
> ...and that standing on your backpack
> won't do much to prevent that special spot from being you.
Yup. Standing/sitting on your backpack is to mitigate being
electrocuted by the ground current.
> it didn't
> say much about what a trapped climber could do to prevent being the
> victim of ground currents.
Actually I'd bet ALL of it was addressed to ground currents, but you
didn't catch that.
> Does standing or crouching on your backpack offer any protection from
> ground currents? Are ground currents a lethal problem?
Yes and yes. Consider these simplified scenarios: You are on a
lonesome, conical mountain in a lightning storm. The most likely spot
for the strike is the top of the mountain, obviously.
1) Standing on your pack on the top of the mountain won't do a fucking
thing to save your life. Neither will dumping your rack, rope, or any
other thing you happen to have with you. Waving your clip-stick over
your head is strongly discouraged.
2) If you run down the mountain 100m and lay down flat, that's not much
better than #1. When the lightning strikes the summit, it then comes
down the surface of the mountain in a sheet. It'll enter your head and
exit your heels since you're a much better conductor than the earth.
This'll stop your breathing (very common), maybe your heart, cause
severe nerve damange, and often 3rd degree burn you internally and
externally.
Because ground currents cover areas a *million times* larger than
the actual strike (which is inches across), ground currents are much
more likely to "find" you and while you won't be vaporized, they are
still strong enough to do the bad things above.
Standing/sitting on your pack mitigates the chance of having current
flow through your body.
As climbers we are often on vertical surfaces. In this case, do *not*
sit on a ledge with your back against the wall, or any other position
where your body can create a path for the current, unless you can
insulate yourself both behind and below (e.g. lean against a pack,
sit on the rope). If I was in a semi-hanging belay, I'd try to insulate
my feet with the pack/rope. If I was desperate, I'd try to short-circuit
the current by chaining a bunch of biners from each of my anchors to
the ledge below my feet. Maybe the current would flow through them
instead of me.
> If you are
> walking, does the separation between your feet mean that nasty old
> ground currents are going to go up one leg and down the other and fry
> your sorry ass, whether they zig-zag or act like sheets?
It's possible. So in conclusion, if you are unlucky enough to be struck
directly... it's over no matter what (although some farmers/golfers have
apparently survived weak strikes). Since the ground current covers
such a huge area it's much more likely to "hit" someone, but it's
weakened by then and some mitigation is possible by your actions.
- Lord Slime
Lord Slime
> If you are just tying in on a ledge and want to remove the harness
> due to the buckle, you don't need to make a harness out of webbing:
> just use a bowline on a coil.
Removing your harness because of the buckle is stupid. It won't
make a difference.
> With the buckle flush against you (you are a reasonably good conductor),
> that mitigates any effect the metal may have, although the risk is
> still be higher than otherwise.
The risk (of injury) is NOT any higher. The only scenario I can think
of where the buckle would be a factor is if you were leaning in such
a way that it touched the wall; in which case you're gonna get
shocked anyway.
> The basic principle is that
> the electric field is highest where a surface forms a point, but if
> you have something that forms a point and it lies along a good conductor,
> it acts like it is simply part of the surface. For example, a needle
> lying along a metal sheet wouldn't cause a noticable problem, although
> one perpendicular to it would. The point where the electric field
> is highest is where the air will start to ionize.
This is true Bill, but you're wrong to try to apply this to ground currents.
- Lord Slime
Guido
> ....So in conclusion, if you are unlucky enough to be struck
> directly... it's over no matter what (although some farmers/golfers have
> apparently survived weak strikes). Since the ground current covers
> such a huge area it's much more likely to "hit" someone, but it's
> weakened by then and some mitigation is possible by your actions.
Ground currents are the killers. You don't need to fry to experience
respiratory arrest, just catch a piece of the action. And there's lots of
action downhill of any strike.
A lightning strike hit within 1 second of us in a cloud 500' vertical from
the summit of Grand Teton. We looked at one another, surprised we were
still standing, and kept moving towards the summit. The strike had occurred
within 1,000' of us, but thankfully below us, dissipating its power down the
mountain. Speed is safety, we concluded, even among fools on a hill.
On another occasion, we continued to climb Baxter's Lost Pinnacle as a
thunderstorm descended upon us, while another party skidaddled in a hurry.
They must have thought us fools, but we were actually improving our
position. A perfect sparkgap, Baxter's pinnacle sits 1500' below the major
ridgeline, and rises but 60'. We howled with our good fortune, confident
that any ground currents would go around this obstacle on its path to
groundwater below.
I'm always wary of those leading edge strikes as a storm rolls in. I
outwaited a T-storm's initial entrance before continuing an escape in the
Dolomites, delaying the walk down a narrow, windward ridgeline right into
the face of the oncoming storm. It just seemed to tempt fate. Twenty
minutes into the storm, with so much leading-edge action having passed, we
still moved rapidly down that exposed ridge, wetter but likely safer for our
wait.
Best part of aging is that there's less hair to stand on end now in the face
of that magical moment of opportunity. Those snapping ice axes, humming
hexcentrics and tight anal apertures are better remembered than relived. Be
safe out there.
G
Galen Hekhuis
At least that is what the experts say. But bear in mind that no one knows
much about it really. The general advice is to get off the water when a
thunderstorm approaches. Living on a sailboat that was too big to get
hauled out of the water very often made me wonder what to do when you
couldn't avoid being close to the tallest thing around (my mast) during a
thunderstorm (which was also metal and was not stepped through to the
keel). I did some research and found a lot of information, some of which
was contradictory and some of which was downright silly. Aside from
general tips like "don't summit during a thunderstorm" and basic common
sense stuff like that, there doesn't seem to be a great consensus on
exactly what to do, although few will object to others suggestions, no
matter how nonsensical the suggestions may be. (A fairly safe place from
lightning to be is in your car. Unfortunately, severe thunderstorms are
often accompanied by high winds, and a car is one of the last places you
want to be. Low ground offers some protection against high wind, but then
thunderstorms frequently cause flash flooding, and low ground isn't a
particularly bright idea then. I think you can see where this is
heading...)
My own opinion is that it is unlikely that an individual can carry enough
mass to make much of a difference where it is during a lighting strike.
While I wouldn't suggest it, I suspect that waving a 'biner above your head
is about as likely to attract lightning as putting a goldfish bowl on top
of your head. Much the same holds true for metal tent poles, racks,
what-have-you.
My research has led me to two solutions which seem not only equally
effective but require very little effort on the part of the person using
the technique. For the religious among us there is the "pray you don't get
hit" type of approach. The non-religious among us can hope we don't get
hit.
Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA ghek...@earthlink.net
A penny saved gathers no moss
Will Niccolls
"Guido"
> "Lord Slime" wrote: (among other comments)
> > ....So in conclusion, if you are unlucky enough to be struck
> > directly... it's over no matter what (although some farmers/golfers have
> > apparently survived weak strikes). Since the ground current covers
> > such a huge area it's much more likely to "hit" someone, but it's
> > weakened by then and some mitigation is possible by your actions.
>
> Ground currents are the killers. You don't need to fry to experience
> respiratory arrest, just catch a piece of the action. And there's lots of
> action downhill of any strike.
>
> A lightning strike hit within 1 second of us in a cloud 500' vertical from
> the summit of Grand Teton. We looked at one another, surprised we were
> still standing, and kept moving towards the summit. The strike had
occurred
> within 1,000' of us, but thankfully below us, dissipating its power down
the
> mountain. Speed is safety, we concluded, even among fools on a hill.
Regarding the current topic: there's an electrifying story from a party
struck on Lightning Bolt Cracks in the 2002 ANAM. They were discharged with
some not minor injuries.
Will Niccolls
Mad Dog
>This is true Bill, but you're wrong (snip)
Oh, boy...
Bill Z.
> "Bill Z." <nob...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > If you are just tying in on a ledge and want to remove the harness
> > due to the buckle, you don't need to make a harness out of webbing:
> > just use a bowline on a coil.
>
> Removing your harness because of the buckle is stupid. It won't
> make a difference.
I didn't say you should remove it: I suggested a bowline on a coil
rather than trying to make a harness out of webbing if you want to
take it off for whatever reason. Tying a bowline on a coil is
faster and easier.
>
> > With the buckle flush against you (you are a reasonably good conductor),
> > that mitigates any effect the metal may have, although the risk is
> > still be higher than otherwise.
>
> The risk (of injury) is NOT any higher. The only scenario I can think
> of where the buckle would be a factor is if you were leaning in such
> a way that it touched the wall; in which case you're gonna get
> shocked anyway.
There's going to be a slight increased risk due to the buckle being a
better conductor than you are and being sharper. I pointed out that
having it flush against you mitigates that risk considerably, but
not completely. If I said the risk was zero, you can bet your ass
that someone would complain about that too.
> This is true Bill, but you're wrong to try to apply this to ground currents.
I didn't apply it to ground currents. I was refering to being directly
hit.
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
Mad Dog
>A lightning strike hit within 1 second of us in a cloud 500' vertical from
>the summit of Grand Teton.
>Those snapping ice axes
Brings back two unpleasant memories. The first was while descending Long's,
with me about to do the NF rap. Jonas went off rap, then yelled up: "What does
it mean when my ice axe is buzzing?" I told him it meant that he should throw
down his pack and run for his fucking life. I rapped and as I was pulling the
ropes, lightning hit about 50' away. Rock schrapnel cut my ankle and ear, the
same ear that had tinnitus for 3 days. The second was doing the Exum with Keith
Jewell. Initially, we were above the lightning, we on the Exum, it on the East
Ridge, both rising at somewhat glacial paces. As we approached the summit, it
was faster than we. We, being less than SERIOUS and tiny of naddage, chose the
short-cut to the raps and to surrender the summit to the plasma gods.
Writing this caused me to remember another nightmare, also on Long's. Rob was
on YWBL, setting a backup to the fixed anchor. Sunny skies turned dark and as I
turned to look towards Meeker, a bolt hit its summit, then turned towards us.
The flight of the lightning went down past me and snaked into North Chimney.
Experts say lightning moves too fast to see but I'm here to tell you, that one
musta been lazy. No, Edith, lightning does NOT move at the speed of light.
Different physics. Rob got burns on his toes and fingertips. Karen was hiking
up to meet us for the descent and saw the same thing I did, so it must be true,
right? The main bolt was blue, the tendrils orange. Ever seen that? Damn, it
was loud thunder.
Michael A. Riches
nob...@nospam.pacbell.net wrote on 6/25/03 2:49 PM:
>> The risk (of injury) is NOT any higher. The only scenario I can think
>> of where the buckle would be a factor is if you were leaning in such
>> a way that it touched the wall; in which case you're gonna get
>> shocked anyway.
>
> There's going to be a slight increased risk due to the buckle being a
> better conductor than you are and being sharper. I pointed out that
> having it flush against you mitigates that risk considerably, but
> not completely. If I said the risk was zero, you can bet your ass
> that someone would complain about that too.
>
Actually, the risk (like Slime pointed out...) is not any higher with a
metal buckle or not. (effectively zero...)
Lightening does not look down, see a conductive piece of metal and target
that. Lightening is caused by by a difference in polarity between two or
more areas. A person standing on the ground, effectively becomes ground
potential (from head to foot...), unless they are isolated from the ground
in some manner. In a rain storm it would be almost impossible for a hiker to
become isolated.
When the difference in potential between say the cloud above you and the
ground, becomes great enough, the charges will try and equalize. Feelers
will start to follow any lower resistance path. This means that these
feelers will start from the ground, from a tree, from a high spire, or from
a dummy standing holding a biner from the end of a tent pole (Galen...).
These feelers will also start from the clouds above. They will seek the ones
forming on the ground, following any path they can, to equalize the
difference in potential. When two or more of these feelers of opposite
potential get close enough to over come the resistance between them, they
surge, sending sometimes millions of amps of current back and forth along
this ionized path of low resistance, until both the cloud and the ground are
of equal potential.
A buckle, a pocket knife, pocket change or a rack full of climbing gear will
"NOT" automatically attract anything. Closing the gap between the two
opposite charges is the only thing that will insure a strike.
I can't (right off the top of my head...) remember what the resistance of
air is, but even holding a biner, above your head, or a tent pole will lower
the air gap between the two charges. Several feet could mean the difference
of maybe millions of ohms of resistance...
My professional opinion (and I am a master electrician with over twenty
years in the business...) "Is get the fuck off the mountain..." Start moving
down, the longer you stay in the upper reaches will considerably increase
your odds of becoming a target. The lower you go, the better your odds
become. If you can't move, the only thing that may help, would be to squat
with both feet together and try to be as short as possible and this is about
as preventative as pissing in ocean to change it's color...
Ratzzz...
Chiloe
> Guido says...
>
> >A lightning strike hit within 1 second of us in a cloud 500' vertical from
> >the summit of Grand Teton.
>
> >Those snapping ice axes
>
> Brings back two unpleasant memories. The first was while descending Long's,
> with me about to do the NF rap. Jonas went off rap, then yelled up: "What does
> it mean when my ice axe is buzzing?" I told him it meant that he should throw
> down his pack and run for his fucking life.
There must be a lot of memories like these out there, especially among
the Rocky Mountain folks.
I was coiling a rope once on the summit of Petit Grepon. As I lifted a
coil, my hand became the highest point on the peak. There was a sharp
crackling sound, my hair stood up, and the rack I was carrying began to
buzz like a swarm of bees. We rapped outta there carelessly, extra fast,
afraid we might die any second. Hail and thunder chased us all the way
down.
I later read that static discharge is not necessarily a sign of an
imminent lightning strike, but it sure felt that way at the time.
Chiloe
> in article m3of0lz...@nospam.pacbell.net, Bill Z. at
> nob...@nospam.pacbell.net wrote on 6/25/03 2:49 PM:
>
> >> The risk (of injury) is NOT any higher. The only scenario I can think
> >> of where the buckle would be a factor is if you were leaning in such
> >> a way that it touched the wall; in which case you're gonna get
> >> shocked anyway.
> >
> > There's going to be a slight increased risk due to the buckle being a
> > better conductor than you are and being sharper. I pointed out that
> > having it flush against you mitigates that risk considerably, but
> > not completely. If I said the risk was zero, you can bet your ass
> > that someone would complain about that too.
> >
>
> Actually, the risk (like Slime pointed out...) is not any higher with a
> metal buckle or not. (effectively zero...)
My understanding of the metal-buckle (etc.) issue is not that metal
increases your chances of getting hit, but that it increases your
likelihood of local burns if some part of the current does reach you.
That used to be the advice, anyway. Is that advice out of fashion?
Michael A. Riches
wrote on 6/25/03 5:42 PM:
Exactly, if you are hit, or are close enough, the heat from the flash can
superheat any metal objects that you are carrying...(this includes wedding
rings and any type of metal jewelry...).
Ratzzz...(nipple rings anyone...???)
tallrock
walking with those if the climate warrants it? would they be at all
effective?
Michael A. Riches
tall...@sympatico.ca wrote on 6/25/03 6:50 PM:
> Given that climbing shoes are mostly soled with rubber... shouldn't we be
> walking with those if the climate warrants it? would they be at all
> effective?
>
>
>
About any type of approach shoe has just as much insulating properties, but
if the sole gets moist or wet up into the body of the shoe, then they lose
their electrical insulating properties...
Ratzzz...(Could always wear chest waders, I suppose...)
x15x15
> About any type of approach shoe has just as much insulating properties,
but
> if the sole gets moist or wet up into the body of the shoe, then they lose
> their electrical insulating properties...
Ok, here I go again after being out on climbing leave and fishing leave (24"
rainbow on the big horn with my #20 scud). But, is water conductive? Or is
it the "stuff" in the water that makes it conductive. This is a left over
dilemna from my college chemestry class that I still have a hard time
believing.
x15x15
Michael A. Riches
mtme...@fastmail.fm wrote on 6/25/03 7:41 PM:
Pure water is an electrical insulator, but I have yet to find pure water
anywhere but a lab...
Scuds are doing good this year...??? Damn, shouldn't have sent all mine
overseas...guess I'll have to stick with my low yield, small kiloton "Red
Flashers"...
Ratzzz...
Lord Slime
> My own opinion is that it is unlikely that an individual can carry enough
> mass to make much of a difference where it is during a lighting strike.
> While I wouldn't suggest it, I suspect that waving a 'biner above your head
> is about as likely to attract lightning as putting a goldfish bowl on top
> of your head. Much the same holds true for metal tent poles, racks,
> what-have-you.
I agree with you for the most part, but It Depends. Farmers sitting on
tractors in flat fields are *definitely* more likely to be hit. Same sort
of thing for golfers. But climbers, as you say, are unlikely to be able
to influence the point of the strike.
- Lord Slime
Lord Slime
> "Lord Slime" <jbyr...@SPAMfriiPLEASE.com> writes:
>
> > "Bill Z." <nob...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > > If you are just tying in on a ledge and want to remove the harness
> > > due to the buckle, you don't need to make a harness out of webbing:
> > > just use a bowline on a coil.
> >
> > Removing your harness because of the buckle is stupid. It won't
> > make a difference.
>
> I didn't say you should remove it: I suggested a bowline on a coil
> rather than trying to make a harness out of webbing if you want to
> take it off for whatever reason. Tying a bowline on a coil is
> faster and easier.
BULLSHIT as usual Bill! I quote above "and want to remove the harness
due to the buckle". Now tell me again you didn't say it.
> > > With the buckle flush against you (you are a reasonably good conductor),
> > > that mitigates any effect the metal may have, although the risk is
> > > still be higher than otherwise.
> >
> > The risk (of injury) is NOT any higher. The only scenario I can think
> > of where the buckle would be a factor is if you were leaning in such
> > a way that it touched the wall; in which case you're gonna get
> > shocked anyway.
>
> There's going to be a slight increased risk due to the buckle being a
> better conductor than you are and being sharper.
BULLSHIT. Sharper? You're an idiot. You need a POINT (do you
ever) not an EDGE.
> I pointed out that
> having it flush against you mitigates that risk considerably, but
> not completely. If I said the risk was zero, you can bet your ass
> that someone would complain about that too.
I'll say it, THE RISK IS ZERO.
> > This is true Bill, but you're wrong to try to apply this to ground currents.
>
> I didn't apply it to ground currents. I was refering to being directly
> hit.
Then you are TOTALLY, INCREDIBLY stupid.
- Lord Slime
Lord Slime
[much good stuff deleted]
> A buckle, a pocket knife, pocket change or a rack full of climbing gear will
> "NOT" automatically attract anything. Closing the gap between the two
> opposite charges is the only thing that will insure a strike.
Yeah! Someone who knows something about Lightning!
> My professional opinion (and I am a master electrician with over twenty
> years in the business...) "Is get the fuck off the mountain..." Start moving
> down, the longer you stay in the upper reaches will considerably increase
> your odds of becoming a target. The lower you go, the better your odds
> become.
And the ground currents (usually) become weaker as they flow down
the mountain.
- Lord Slime
Stephen Meier
>
> And the ground currents (usually) become weaker as they flow down the
> mountain.
>
> - Lord Slime
Does the ground current becomes weaker or is it that the current density gets
smaller? Same current just spread out over a larger surface?
Steve M.
Nafod40
> directly... it's over no matter what (although some farmers/golfers have
> apparently survived weak strikes).
Never say never...
Park Ranger Roy C. Sullivan worked many years at Shenandoah National
Park. On this day, Roy was struck by lightning for the seventh time
earning him the title of "the human lightning conductor." The first
time occurred in 1942 as he was working up in a lookout tower. The
lightning bolt caused him to lose his big toe nail. In 1969, he was
driving along a mountain road when the bolt struck. (Cars and trucks
will not protect you if the window is open). He lost his eye brows. In
1970, he was walking across his yard to get the mail when lightning
struck. His shoulder was seared. In 1972, he was standing in the
office at the ranger station when lightning set his hair on fire. In
1973, after his hair had grown back, he was struck again. His hair was
again set on fire and his legs were seared. In 1976, while checking on
a campsite, he was struck injuring his ankle. His last and seventh
encounter was while fishing. Lightning caused chest and stomach burns.
It is not only amazing that Roy was injured seven times by lightning,
but it is astounding that he was not killed! His death in his 70's was
not related to lightning. He committed suicide and was said to be
distraught over the loss of a woman. It was never determined why
lightning seemed to be attracted to him.
Nafod40
>
> My own opinion is that it is unlikely that an individual can carry enough
> mass to make much of a difference where it is during a lighting strike.
> While I wouldn't suggest it, I suspect that waving a 'biner above your head
> is about as likely to attract lightning as putting a goldfish bowl on top
> of your head. Much the same holds true for metal tent poles, racks,
> what-have-you.
I dunno...
Lightning is static electricity, and when attempting to bridge a gap,
the electrons like to congregate at points nearest the opposite charge
(high points), but they also really like points that are "sharp" and
are conductive. It might not take much of either to make you the
favored target.
Mike, who has had his airplane hit by numerous lightning strikes
Gary S.
My thought is that if you are starting to worry about what materials
you are wearing or have near you, like tent poles, you are in the
wrong location, and it doesn't much matter.
The macro shape is more important, such as a summit, or a single
taller point on a flat expanse, such as a lone boat on the water, one
tree in a field, or the one golfer who keeps on playing.
Ground current is more of a concern, and protecting yourself from that
would be more productive. Most of the lightning safety tips focus on
this.
Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
------------------------------------------------
at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence
Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom
Galen Hekhuis
Like I say, there are oodles of theories and advice. I started looking
into it seriously when I replaced the wooden mast on a 35' sailboat with an
aluminum one. Most of the information I could find on the subject
suggested running a connection to "ground" the mast to the keel, or the
surrounding water around the boat. Unfortunately, my mast did not go
through to the keel, and sharp bends are not particularly useful for
"grounding." Notions about how electricity behaves largely go out the
window when it comes to the immense voltages and discharges in a lightning
strike. There's been research done with firing rockets into likely clouds
and photographs taken that can break down a strike into the streamer and
various pulses that often accompany a strike. As of yet, however, no one
has come up with a theory that adequately explains lightning nor has anyone
come up with absolute protection against it. I am somewhat familiar with
the behavior of electrons when they congregate among pointy things, the
University of Virginia called me an electrical engineer and even employed
me in that capacity. I contend that we know so little about it that any
"precautions" are as likely to do no good as they are to help. There was a
guy just recently who was struck by lightning down here in Florida while
*inside his house*. Then there were the folks (in Maryland, I think) who
were struck while taking shelter *inside a church*. I'm not going to tell
anyone to disregard "safety tips" or anything, but my favorite reaction is
to cower in abject fear whenever there is a lightning storm, and that seems
to have worked about as well as advice given by experts.
>Mike, who has had his airplane hit by numerous lightning strikes
Galen, who has seen chainplates blown off of neighboring boats (with
shorter masts than mine) due to lighting strikes. I can't count how many
times my boat was struck.
Maohai Huang
> [about lightning]
> My research has led me to two solutions which seem not only equally
> effective but require very little effort on the part of the person
> using the technique. For the religious among us there is the "pray
> you don't get hit" type of approach. The non-religious among us can
> hope we don't get hit.
and
> I'm not going to tell anyone to disregard
> "safety tips" or anything, but my favorite reaction is to cower in
> abject fear whenever there is a lightning storm, and that seems
> to have worked about as well as advice given by experts.
>
my nomination for Best of 2003.
Eugene Miya
Maohai Huang <usenet...@Myahoo.com> wrote:
>Galen Hekhuis <ghek...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> [about lightning]
>> "safety tips" or anything, but my favorite reaction is to cower in
>> abject fear whenever there is a lightning storm, and that seems
>> to have worked about as well as advice given by experts.
>
>my nomination for Best of 2003.
Too early in the year for that.
Raise the issue again in December.
Chit
<ghek...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I'm not going to tell
> anyone to disregard "safety tips" or anything, but my favorite reaction is
> to cower in abject fear whenever there is a lightning storm, and that seems
> to have worked about as well as advice given by experts.
Thanks. That's exactly what worked for me a couple years ago in the
Emigrant, when I cowered through my first and only near storm.
Has anybody addressed the haloes that seemed to appear around
everything as the storm came nearer? Or were we hallucinating at the
time?
- chit
Eugene Miya
Chit <ch...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>Has anybody addressed the haloes that seemed to appear around
>everything as the storm came nearer? Or were we hallucinating at the
>time?
The book:
Rainbows, Halos, and Glories.
Michael Creel
...
> It's possible. So in conclusion, if you are unlucky enough to be struck
> directly... it's over no matter what (although some farmers/golfers have
> apparently survived weak strikes). Since the ground current covers
> such a huge area it's much more likely to "hit" someone, but it's
> weakened by then and some mitigation is possible by your actions.
>
> - Lord Slime
One action that will help a lot is to learn CPR. My brother had his heart
and breathing stopped by a ground current, but we were able to jump start
him. He's been a bit odd ever since - too long without O2, fried neurons,
who knows. At least he's still around. M.
Bill Z.
> in article m3of0lz...@nospam.pacbell.net, Bill Z. at
> nob...@nospam.pacbell.net wrote on 6/25/03 2:49 PM:
> > There's going to be a slight increased risk due to the buckle being a
> > better conductor than you are and being sharper. I pointed out that
> > having it flush against you mitigates that risk considerably, but
> > not completely. If I said the risk was zero, you can bet your ass
> > that someone would complain about that too.
> >
>
> Actually, the risk (like Slime pointed out...) is not any higher with a
> metal buckle or not. (effectively zero...)
>
> Lightening does not look down, see a conductive piece of metal and target
> that. Lightening is caused by by a difference in polarity between two or
> more areas.
You just failed physics :-) What you have is a difference in potential
difference between the a cloud and the ground or you. If you have a
small point sticking up from a flat surface, however, the gradient of
the potential is higher around that point, which means the electric
field is locally higher there. The result is that such a sharp point
is where the air will tend to ionize first. As the ionized region
extends upwards, you then get an enhanced chance of a strike at that
location. The effect is not zero, but is not very large, particularly
for a buckle lying parallel to you. For practical purposes you can
neglect it, but if I said "zero" for short, the newsgroup assholes
would all jump on it.
This is all covered in some detail in graduate level texts on
electricity and magnetism, as an illustration of various ways of
solving electrostatic problems by using orthogonal functions and
infinite series (with the emphasis on solving the problem in more
complex geometries than two infinitely long parallel plates.)
The buckle will make things a bit worse because it sticks out from
you (albeit by a small amount) and has a high radius of curvature at
various spots. It is not a case of "attracting" anything but of
simply creating a geometry where the boundary conditions result in a
somewhat higher electric field.
Note that "a bit worse" is not the same as "death defying" or
"unacceptably risky."
> My professional opinion (and I am a master electrician with over twenty
> years in the business...)
Being a "master electician" does not give you the background you would
get from a graduate level course in electromagnetism.
Bill
Bill Z.
> "Bill Z." <nob...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > "Lord Slime" <jbyr...@SPAMfriiPLEASE.com> writes:
> >
> > > "Bill Z." <nob...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > > > If you are just tying in on a ledge and want to remove the harness
> > > > due to the buckle, you don't need to make a harness out of webbing:
> > > > just use a bowline on a coil.
> > >
> > > Removing your harness because of the buckle is stupid. It won't
> > > make a difference.
> >
> > I didn't say you should remove it: I suggested a bowline on a coil
> > rather than trying to make a harness out of webbing if you want to
> > take it off for whatever reason. Tying a bowline on a coil is
> > faster and easier.
>
> BULLSHIT as usual Bill! I quote above "and want to remove the harness
> due to the buckle". Now tell me again you didn't say it.
I didn't : the *other* guy said he wanted to remove it, and
I merely pointed out that, if you wanted to, a bowline on a coil is
a lot easier and faster than fooling around creating a harness out
of webbing.
> I'll say it, THE RISK IS ZERO.
It isn't zero: it is simply small - probably too little to worry about
but not zero.
didn't apply it to ground currents. I was refering to being directly
> > hit.
>
> Then you are TOTALLY, INCREDIBLY stupid.
Go f__k yourself: someone *asked* about being hit, and I merely answered
the question.
Bill Z.
> "Bill Z." <nob...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > "Lord Slime" <jbyr...@SPAMfriiPLEASE.com> writes:
> >
> > There's going to be a slight increased risk due to the buckle being a
> > better conductor than you are and being sharper.
>
> BULLSHIT. Sharper? You're an idiot. You need a POINT (do you
> ever) not an EDGE.
That's not what you'll find when you solve the differential equations.
Before getting so upset and acting like a complete jerk, you should
first learn something about the subject.
A point will cause a bigger effect, but an edge will do something as
well.
Michael A. Riches
at st...@Tipler.DisOrg.com wrote on 6/26/03 8:56 AM:
Ground current doesn't necessarily flow like water. As it enters the area of
lower potential, it starts the process of equalizing that area's potential
with the area of higher potential, that it is getting the current from.
Thus, as the charges are equalized, the current becomes weaker. Also, due to
simple ground resistance, the current becomes weaker the farther away from
the strike zone that it gets.
Ohhhh, and this all pretty much happens in micro seconds...Soooo, when it
hits (depending on how close you are...), you're pretty much SOL...
Ratzzz...
Bill Z.
> Ground current doesn't necessarily flow like water. As it enters the area of
> lower potential, it starts the process of equalizing that area's potential
> with the area of higher potential, that it is getting the current from.
> Thus, as the charges are equalized, the current becomes weaker. Also, due to
> simple ground resistance, the current becomes weaker the farther away from
> the strike zone that it gets.
This explanation is muddled. The current becomes weaker as you go
further away from the 'strike zone' because of charge conservation,
not because of resistance: you'd see the same thing with zero
resistance. If the current were somehow restricted to a line
(imagine a tall pinnacle with a constant diameter), you'd see
almost no change in current from one point to the next, although
the current would drop with time (this ignores the point where the
lightning strikes, where the 'line' approximation breaks down.)
Bill
Ron Wong
>...
> Has anybody addressed the haloes that seemed to appear around
> everything as the storm came nearer? Or were we hallucinating at the
> time?
>
> - chit
If you are talking about the glow that appears on the ends of your finger
tips or around someone's head (frequently while their hair is standing
out away from their head) or the ends of a walking stick, top of lamp post
or mast head, etc. when a storm passes through then you weren't
hallucinating.
It is a coronal discharge - sometimes referred to as St. Elmo's Fire - and
it occurs when the person or object is in an intense elecctrical field.
This frequently occurs just before a lightning strike. If this is what you
were seeing then you can thank your lucky stars because it is frequently
the last thing a person sees before they are struck by lightning.
The glow arises because the electric field is so intense that the air,
which is usually an insulator, is beginning to break down and turn into a
conductor. The flow of the liberated charges ionizes the air and the glow
comes about as the air molecules return to their electrically neutral
state.
ron
nafod40
> "Michael A. Riches" <rock...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>> Ground current doesn't necessarily flow like water. As it enters the
>> area of lower potential,blah, blah, blah...
>> gets.
>
> This explanation is muddled. The current becomes weaker as you go
> further away from the 'strike zone' because of charge conservation,
> not because of resistance blah, blah, blah...
My Professor in the Electrostatics for History Majors course told me that
the electrons when they first come from the cloud are all excited to go
see and do things, and kind of like college graduates from Malibu
Adjacent Community College, they ae ashamed and want nothing to do with
each other. They run hither and thither, spreading far and wide. But then
they start "hooking up" with positive ions, and next thing you know they
are forced to setttle down and raise a family.
nafod40
> If you are talking about the glow that appears on the ends of your
> finger tips or around someone's head (frequently while their hair is
> standing out away from their head) or the ends of a walking stick, top
> of lamp post or mast head, etc. when a storm passes through then you
> weren't hallucinating.
>
> It is a coronal discharge - sometimes referred to as St. Elmo's Fire -
>
I was wondering if it is ever seen on the ground. I flew through the edge
of a thunderstorm once, and we had sheets of it running up our canopy
glass, like flowing water over a smooth rock. The tips of the spinning
propellor were blue glowing arcs. Anything pointy on the plane exterior had
an aura around it. Very, very cool. We turned around and flew back through
it three more times. No lightning strike either.
Chit
Ron Wong <ron...@purgethis.inreach.com> wrote:
There was a slight glow around our heads, and a definite sensation of
my hair lifting. The storm was still a mile away, I reckon. We also
say haloes around natural objects -- boulders, mostly; and also saw
auric pillars on the nearby horizon.
We did thank our lucky stars. Fortunately, the cowering in fear and
awe trick that was mentioned earlier in the thread protected us.
Thanks for the explanation.
- chit
Gary S.
Lightning can easily strike a point a mile or even two away from its
location, so for all intents, you were in the critical zone.
Cowering does reduce the odds that you are the highest point.
Another technique that people miss, is to have your group disperse so
that one strike is less likely to get all of you, and there will be
someone unzapped to help those who are.
Chit
<Idontwantspam@net> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 09:15:23 -0700, Chit <ch...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <ronwong-2706...@209-209-18-32.oak.inreach.net>,
> >Ron Wong <ron...@purgethis.inreach.com> wrote:
> >
> >There was a slight glow around our heads, and a definite sensation of
> >my hair lifting. The storm was still a mile away, I reckon. We also
> >say haloes around natural objects -- boulders, mostly; and also saw
> >auric pillars on the nearby horizon.
> >
> >We did thank our lucky stars. Fortunately, the cowering in fear and
> >awe trick that was mentioned earlier in the thread protected us.
> >
> Lightning can easily strike a point a mile or even two away from its
> location, so for all intents, you were in the critical zone.
>
> Cowering does reduce the odds that you are the highest point.
>
> Another technique that people miss, is to have your group disperse so
> that one strike is less likely to get all of you, and there will be
> someone unzapped to help those who are.
For us, the cowering worked hand in hand with another technique,
similar to the one you describe above about group dispersal. In our
case, we were the only two in our group; but there was a party of four
slightly higher up the mountain, also practicing the art of cowering in
terror. While we did not, thus, actively disperse, my own party of two
was actively hoping that if anybody was going to get hit, it would be
the other party.
- chit
loosa
Your right, it actually gives him real world, practical experience, which is
usually lacking when only receiving a degree.
EVonD
Mad Dog
>Bill Z. wrote...
>> Michael A. Riches writes:
>>>My professional opinion (and I am a master electrician with over twenty
>>>years in the business...)
>>Being a "master electician" does not give you the background you would
>>get from a graduate level course in electromagnetism.
>Your right, it actually gives him real world, practical experience, which is
>usually lacking when only receiving a degree.
This explains why Bill doesn't relate - he doesn't live in the real world. He's
just a program, actually a virus - capable of eliciting an extremely irritating
reaction to those capable of coherent thought, which he's not.
Gary S.
Just in case there is anything to that whole karma idea, it is
probably good to make sure yours is good.
73,
Gary N1ZCE
------------------------------------------------
Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: mycallsignATarrlDOTnet
W Randolph Franklin
Would wrapping yourself in a metallized space blanket protect you
from a lightening ground current?
cobble
I have no clue to the correct answer to your question.
However, I was shocked to find out you do not need to be struck by the
lightning directly to be electrocuted. It just has to hit in the
vicinity. So if it strikes 30 feet away you can get electrocuted.
As it was explained to me,the ground, where the lightening strikes
exactly, cannot absorb the current quickly enough (even though it is
"the ground") so the current disperses, trying to seep into the
ground. You do not want the current to travel though your heart.
This current dispersion is what is so scary. I heard stories of
climbers get caught on big faces during a lighting storm so maybe they
find small cave depresion on cliff but they still get killed because
the lighting travels over the surface of the cliff and gets everywhere
they are hiding.
The only thing I think matches the panicked feeling of maybe being hit
by lighting is dodging rockfall while attached at a hanging belay.
Once I got caught in an absolutely huge lighting storm at the top a
ridge with boulders (5 strikes a minute for 30 minutes). There are
trees up there with the whole side, from top to bottom, with their
bark blown off by lighting strikes. I went under a 10 foot overhang on
top of my foam pad, hoping it would help if there was a strike. I was
subsequently told that if lighting hit the top of the rock I was
hinding under I still would have been fried even though I was on top
of my 4 inch thick pad.
I heard the forest rangers recommend a way of postitioning your body
if you get caught in the open during a lighting storm, so that the
current will not travel over your heart. You would have to do some
research to learn about what this exact method is and under the exact
circumstances it may or may not be utilized.
Mad Dog
>Would wrapping yourself in a metallized space blanket protect you
>from a lightening ground current?
I suggest you investigate atop the highest peak in the range you frequent,
during peak thunderstorm activity. If you survive, report back. While you're
at it, put a loaf of bread, some butter and a clove of garlic in your pack.
Good snack for SAR. Most of them are meat eaters. Bonus if you're not
completely carbonized.
John Smith
> if you get caught in the open during a lighting storm, so that the
> current will not travel over your heart. You would have to do some
> research to learn about what this exact method is and under the exact
> circumstances it may or may not be utilized.
It's pretty simple: squat down on your heels, put your elbows on your knees,
and lace your fingers over the top of your head. The current is supposed to
take the shorter route through your arms and legs to the ground rather than
through your torso with all of its conveniently stored major vital organs.
BTW, it would take a *lot* of insulation to insulate you from the ground in
a lightning strike. Also, lightning doesn't actually strike the ground if I
remember my science right. Part of the charge actually comes up from the
ground and meets the charge on it's way down.
As for the space blanket thing from the original poster.
a) stick some aluminum foil in your microwave.
b) stick some steel wool in your microwave.
c) stick a compact disc in your microwave.
(all for only a couple of seconds of course, max of five I'd say)
Now having done that and seen the results. Do you still wonder if an
emergency blanket is going to help you at all in a lightning storm?
: )
Not Bill Nye, Hardly the Science Guy
JKVawter
Damn. All of a sudden, I'm hungry.
JV
Michael A. Riches
nob...@nospam.pacbell.net wrote on 6/26/03 11:22 PM:
Uhhh, there is no ground resistance...??? And this resistance has no effect
on the ground currents...??? Maybe in your text book world you can negate
this resistance, the same way you can calculate the effects a belt buckle
will have on a magnetic field, but in the real world, Mr. Graduate Level
Electromagnetic, Whiz Bang, Einstein, Wannabe, things don't quite work like
they do in that fantasy world you're living in...
Get a life,
Ratzzz...
Michael A. Riches
may...@NOSPAM.psu.edu wrote on 6/27/03 6:37 AM:
Yep...snicker, that pretty much sums it up...
Ratzzz...(Always excited...)
Michael A. Riches
wrf+use...@ecse.rpi.edu wrote on 6/27/03 7:13 PM:
>
> Would wrapping yourself in a metallized space blanket protect you
> from a lightening ground current?
>
Don't know...This is a question for "Da Daa Da Daaaaa" Professor Electron,
Billy Boy Zaumoron (He's got a degree by the way...). If Professor Electron
don't know the answer, welll, damn...it prolly ain't a question worth
askin...
Ratzzz...
Bill Z.
> in article m3llvox...@nospam.pacbell.net, Bill Z. at
> nob...@nospam.pacbell.net wrote on 6/26/03 11:22 PM:
>
> > "Michael A. Riches" <rock...@earthlink.net> writes:
> >
[ muddled explanation deleted ].
> >
> > This explanation is muddled. The current becomes weaker as you go
> > further away from the 'strike zone' because of charge conservation,
> > not because of resistance: you'd see the same thing with zero
> > resistance. If the current were somehow restricted to a line
> > (imagine a tall pinnacle with a constant diameter), you'd see
> > almost no change in current from one point to the next, although
> > the current would drop with time (this ignores the point where the
> > lightning strikes, where the 'line' approximation breaks down.)
> >
> > Bill
> >
>
> Uhhh, there is no ground resistance...??? And this resistance has no effect
> on the ground currents...??? Maybe in your text book world you can negate
> this resistance, the same way you can calculate the effects a belt buckle
> will have on a magnetic field, but in the real world, Mr. Graduate Level
> Electromagnetic, Whiz Bang, Einstein, Wannabe, things don't quite work like
> they do in that fantasy world you're living in...
Is that your way of covering up your ignorance of the subject? Also, I
didn't say there was no ground resistance: I said the decrease in
current density you see as you move away from where the lightning hits
is due to charge conservation, and would occur even if the resistance
were zero. The resistance effects something else (and there is no
point trying to explain it to you.)
BTW, it was Maxwell and others living in the 19th century who developed
the theory, not Einstein. And using terms like "wannabe" will not
change the laws of physics.
Bill Z.
>
> Your right, it actually gives him real world, practical experience, which is
> usually lacking when only receiving a degree.
In case you don't know, "master electrician" essentially means the guy
knows how to run wires through a building and hook them up in a way
that won't give the building inspector fits. Master electricians do
not have practical experience as a result of their jobs regarding
lightning strikes when no wires are present.
I'll ignore Mad Dog's customary ranting - he has nothing useful to say.
Michael A. Riches
nob...@nospam.pacbell.net wrote on 6/28/03 12:12 AM:
Fucking Moron...It takes six years of schooling and practical work to become
a Master Electrician, how long did it take you to become a "Graduate",
Professor Electron....??? And, unlike graduates, we are required to maintain
a yearly number of schooling hours...Besides, dumb ass...electricians do a
hell of a lot more then wiring houses or other structures. Everything you
touch every day was made possible by somebody in the electrical business
(yesssss, Billy Boy, even that bity baby dick of yours, if it wasn't for the
electrician next door your mamma would have never gotten pregnant...)
And just how many hours have you spent in the practical analysis of
lightening Strikes...???
Get a life,
Ratzzz...
Thor Lancelot Simon
Michael A. Riches <rock...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>in article m33chub...@nospam.pacbell.net, Bill Z. at
>nob...@nospam.pacbell.net wrote on 6/28/03 12:12 AM:
>
>> "loosa" <evond...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>>
>>> Your right, it actually gives him real world, practical experience, which is
>>> usually lacking when only receiving a degree.
>>
>> In case you don't know, "master electrician" essentially means the guy
>> knows how to run wires through a building and hook them up in a way
>> that won't give the building inspector fits. Master electricians do
>> not have practical experience as a result of their jobs regarding
>> lightning strikes when no wires are present.
>>
>> I'll ignore Mad Dog's customary ranting - he has nothing useful to say.
>
>Fucking Moron...It takes six years of schooling and practical work to become
>a Master Electrician, how long did it take you to become a "Graduate",
Six years of schooling and practical work essentially none of which has
anything to do with the flow of charge through the earth in a lightning
strike. As usual, Bill is tactless -- but, as some here would like to
pretend he never is, but like most of us he is in fact more than
occasionally, he's also right.
--
Thor Lancelot Simon t...@rek.tjls.com
But as he knew no bad language, he had called him all the names of common
objects that he could think of, and had screamed: "You lamp! You towel! You
plate!" and so on. --Sigmund Freud
Hal Murray
>I was wondering if it is ever seen on the ground. I flew through the edge
>of a thunderstorm once, and we had sheets of it running up our canopy
>glass, like flowing water over a smooth rock. The tips of the spinning
>propellor were blue glowing arcs. Anything pointy on the plane exterior had
>an aura around it. Very, very cool. We turned around and flew back through
>it three more times. No lightning strike either.
Sounds like a neat flight.
I first head about St. Elmo's Fire in the context of old sailing
ships.
I assume they got hit fairly often, but I don't remember reading
any tales of horrible things happening. Did they include lightning
rods on old wooden ships?
--
The suespammers.org mail server is located in California. So are all my
other mailboxes. Please do not send unsolicited bulk e-mail or unsolicited
commercial e-mail to my suespammers.org address or any of my other addresses.
These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam.
Hal Murray
>ridge with boulders (5 strikes a minute for 30 minutes). There are
>trees up there with the whole side, from top to bottom, with their
>bark blown off by lighting strikes. I went under a 10 foot overhang on
>top of my foam pad, hoping it would help if there was a strike. I was
>subsequently told that if lighting hit the top of the rock I was
>hinding under I still would have been fried even though I was on top
>of my 4 inch thick pad.
Caves, especially shallow ones, are classic bad-news places to
be in lightning storms. The problem is that the ground currents
will jump over the entrance rather than running back and around the
walls. If you are there, they go through you.
This is one of the war-stories I remember from my first trip out
west. It's probably in ANAM, early 60s. Somebody got killed that
way on the top of Bugaboo Spire.
Michael A. Riches
t...@panix.com wrote on 6/28/03 12:42 AM:
>
> Six years of schooling and practical work essentially none of which has
> anything to do with the flow of charge through the earth in a lightning
> strike.
Actually quite a bit it of does, if you don't think that I've put in some
highly sophisticated grounding and lightning protection systems then you're
as dense as Billy Boy... How many hours have you spent with electrical
engineers discussing the theory behind why their system is electrically
better then the next...??? One on one, with the people that actually design
these systems, for one hour, is worth ten hours asleep on your desk, in some
stuffy class room, listening to some underpaid moron, that wishes they were
somewhere else...
That's the thing that has always beefed me about half of you so called
educated morons, anybody without a degree is good for nothing but shovel
work. Wellll, surprise asshole, there are just as many of you college
educated pedigreed assholes out there that are working for Hamburger Bob's,
down on the corner, cause they can't get a job anywhere else...
Ratzzz...
Mad Dog
>How many hours have you spent with electrical engineers discussing the
>theory behind why their system is electrically better then the next...???
>One on one, with the people that actually design these systems, for one
>hour, is worth ten hours asleep on your desk, in some stuffy class room,
>listening to some underpaid moron, that wishes they were somewhere else...
Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach. Those that can't teach, teach
teachers. All hail Bill Zaumoron, the teacher of teacher's teachers.
>That's the thing that has always beefed me about half of you so called
>educated morons, anybody without a degree is good for nothing but shovel
>work. Wellll, surprise asshole, there are just as many of you college
>educated pedigreed assholes out there that are working for Hamburger Bob's,
>down on the corner, cause they can't get a job anywhere else...
Word. I'll probably drop into that black hole one soon day. But, I guarantee,
I'll cook up a damn fine burger, cuz I'm teachable.
Mad Dog
>I'll ignore Mad Dog's customary ranting - he has nothing useful to say.
Having nothing useful to say is a topic you're adept at, but in this case,
you're wrong. Bill, I have a nice, simple physics exercise for you. Since
you're so well versed in the theoretical side of damn near everything, you
should be able to pop this one off without needing even the back side of an
envelope. Just wing it, dude, and inspire us all with your incredible
understanding of electrostatics.
I'd like you to develop a model that explains the boundary conditions for the
exact scenario discussed this thread. Variables should include the height,
weight, body fat, degree of hydration and ionic strength of the fluid of the
climber, the length of the climber's hair, the amount of coverage by hair of the
top of the climber's head, whether or not the climber's hair is spiked and the
conductivity of the spiking moose as a function of rain-induced wetness.
Other variables should include the local electrical field gradients, available
current density, the dust content, humidity and water particle density and size
distribution water particles in the air, the size and shape of the metal buckle
on the climber's harness, the depth and frequency of scratches on said buckle
and how much poop is in the undies.
If you want to limit this scenario, then let's take you as one example. Short,
balding and fat to the point that the buckle is totally immersed within the
guttous maximous vs. BURT BRONSON, taller, slimmer, with hair and a buckle that
has wear from actually going out climbing instead of sitting around masturbating
his dipshit theoretical models that can't predict a fucking thing in the real
world that sadly led to the death of an unfortunate climber.
tallrock
"Mad Dog"
whether or not the climber's hair is spiked and the
> conductivity of the spiking moose as a function of rain-induced wetness.
>
Unless you've intentionally introduced another high point, don't you mean
"mousse?"
x15x15
> That's the thing that has always beefed me about half of you so called
> educated morons, anybody without a degree is good for nothing but shovel
> work.
Yeah, but that is because many of them shovel guys ain't afraid of work.
Where as those life long acadamians are. They love to stay all suffed up
and safe in their little steril world. A lot of good comes from them, but
it is the *shovel guys* that prove them wrong.
x15x15
Bill Z.
> in article bdjdcc$9nk$1...@panix5.panix.com, Thor Lancelot Simon at
> t...@panix.com wrote on 6/28/03 12:42 AM:
>
> >
> > Six years of schooling and practical work essentially none of which has
> > anything to do with the flow of charge through the earth in a lightning
> > strike.
>
> Actually quite a bit it of does, if you don't think that I've put in some
> highly sophisticated grounding and lightning protection systems then you're
> as dense as Billy Boy... How many hours have you spent with electrical
> engineers discussing the theory behind why their system is electrically
> better then the next...??? One on one, with the people that actually design
> these systems, for one hour, is worth ten hours asleep on your desk, in some
> stuffy class room, listening to some underpaid moron, that wishes they were
> somewhere else...
Alas, your ranting does not change the fact that charge is conserved,
nor does a "highly sophisticated grounding and lightning protection
system" require you do do anything beyond stringing some wires and
rigging some poles, nor does it indicate that you know anything about
the topic that was being discussed. And when you said in another rant
that you needed 6 years of "schooling plus practical work" to become
a master electrician, that's a fraction of what you need to get through
graduate school (which is not a 40 hour per week effort.)
BTW, Mad Dog's attempt at humor, after having looked up the term "boundary
condition," is simply his way of covering up how he was duped by King
George about the non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Some
wiseguys in the Bay Area figured out where these weapons went, however.
See <http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/pictures/2003/06/28/mn_3bush01.jpg>.
Bill
Lord Slime
> > BULLSHIT. Sharper? You're an idiot. You need a POINT (do you
> > ever) not an EDGE.
>
> That's not what you'll find when you solve the differential equations.
> Before getting so upset and acting like a complete jerk, you should
> first learn something about the subject.
> A point will cause a bigger effect, but an edge will do something as
> well.
What an asshole. Bill, I've forgotten more "diff-ee-que" than you
ever knew. Sure, in the total absence of any other object, the edge
will be the obvious focus, but in the REAL WORLD (something you
obviously have no grasp of) the risk is zero.
- Lord Slime
Lord Slime
> Stephen Meier at st...@Tipler.DisOrg.com wrote on 6/26/03 8:56 AM:
> > On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 07:48:33 -0600, Lord Slime wrote:
> >> And the ground currents (usually) become weaker as they flow down the
> >> mountain.
> >
> > Does the ground current becomes weaker or is it that the current density gets
> > smaller? Same current just spread out over a larger surface?
>
> Ground current doesn't necessarily flow like water. As it enters the area of
> with the area of higher potential, that it is getting the current from.
> Thus, as the charges are equalized, the current becomes weaker. Also, due to
> the strike zone that it gets.
Overall true, but my "usually" was addressing the topological issues. Depending
on the shape/composition of the thing stuck, there certainly can be places where
the current is concentrated; and thus is stronger (higher current density) than
higher
on the slope.
- Lord Slime
Lord Slime
> Galen Hekhuis ...
> > My own opinion is that it is unlikely that an individual can carry enough
> > mass to make much of a difference where it is during a lighting strike.
True.
> I dunno...
> Lightning is static electricity,
Not true. Lightning is CURRENT; and lots of it!
(In fact, there are two types of lightning *bolts*: cool and hot. I can't
remember the amperage of a hot one, but I do remember that
surviving one would be impossible. Luckily for us, cool bolts are
far more common than hot ones.)
> and when attempting to bridge a gap,
Static charge "attempts" to bridge a gap, current (arcing) bridges
the gap.
> the electrons like to congregate at points nearest the opposite charge
> (high points), but they also really like points that are "sharp" and
> are conductive. It might not take much of either to make you the
> favored target.
As I've said, very unlikely (basically zero) in a typical climbing scenario.
> Mike, who has had his airplane hit by numerous lightning strikes
Of course, you are flying between huge static fields, likely bridging
the lightning "leaders".
- Lord Slime
Lord Slime
> > metal buckle or not. (effectively zero...)
> >
> > Lightening does not look down, see a conductive piece of metal and target
> > that. Lightening is caused by by a difference in polarity between two or
> > more areas.
>
> You just failed physics :-)
Perhaps the sanitized classroom variety that you seem to have
in mind. But as engineers have a tendency of saying, "for all practical
puposes" he's right on.
> What you have is a difference in potential
> difference between the a cloud and the ground or you. If you have a
> small point sticking up from a flat surface, however, the gradient of
> the potential is higher around that point, which means the electric
> field is locally higher there. The result is that such a sharp point
> is where the air will tend to ionize first. As the ionized region
> extends upwards, you then get an enhanced chance of a strike at that
> location.
In the classroom. Perhaps you should go study up on "Franklin Rods",
which are nicely pointed and placed on church steeples. Didja know
that their *primary* effect is to PREVENT lightning strikes? Bill,
go put your head in a hole or I'll sick the Mad Dog on you again.
- Lord Slime
Mad Dog
>BTW, Mad Dog's attempt at humor, after having looked up the term "boundary
>condition,"
Actually, no. I've used science to make a living by understanding that boundary
conditions matter in the real world. Physics is cool, I love it and always aced
it with virtually no study time. Maxwell's equations are as beautiful as life
itself. Physics is a wonderful way of modeling what is real in the world, under
fully understood and carefully controlled conditions. What I asked you to do
was to construct a physics-based model that would be an accurate predictor out
in the mountains, incorporating the variables I listed.
Guess what? YOU CAN'T FUCKING HANDLE IT! The real world of lightning in the
mountains and the effect of a harness buckle on the big picture is way beyond
any model you can construct. You will not successfuly predict nature! Your
tiny physics cock will get knocked into the dirt of reality the vast majority of
the time. If you think I'm wrong, prove it. My gut instinct is that your shiny
head and fat gut, which would obscure your harness buckle, would have little
bearing on whether or not you'd get hit. But we can still hope...
Bill Z.
> "Michael A. Riches"
> > That's the thing that has always beefed me about half of you so called
> > educated morons, anybody without a degree is good for nothing but shovel
> > work.
>
> Yeah, but that is because many of them shovel guys ain't afraid of work.
> Where as those life long acadamians are.
Both of you are a good illustration of what's wrong with the U.S.: a
tendency to revel in ignorance.
Of course, no one said anything about people without a degree not being
good for anything. M. Riches, by contrast, seems to have a negative
view of education. He wasn't criticized for being an electrician, but
rather for touting that as an indication of expertise in an area where
he has none.
Bill Z.
> In the classroom. Perhaps you should go study up on "Franklin Rods",
> which are nicely pointed and placed on church steeples. Didja know
> that their *primary* effect is to PREVENT lightning strikes? Bill,
> go put your head in a hole or I'll sick the Mad Dog on you again.
Perhaps you should sit on the top of half dome (which isn't even all
that sharp) during a thunderstorm. Or you can take a metal ice axe
and point it upwards above your head as the afternoon thunderstorm
comes by.
Bill Z.
[ more infantile name calling on the part of our 46+ year old Mad Dog
deleted ]
> >BTW, Mad Dog's attempt at humor, after having looked up the term "boundary
> >condition,"
>
> Actually, no. I've used science to make a living by understanding
> that boundary conditions matter in the real world.
If so, you'd know what sort of computing facilities you'd need to
solve the problem you posed (which was, after all, a silly one when
you start worrying about hair coverage), not to mention the size of
the file needed to store the results.
The short answer, of course, is that for a conductor with no current
flowing, the electric field is perpendicular to the surface, so the
boundary conditions are actually simple to explain. But that should
be common knowledge.
> Guess what? YOU CAN'T FUCKING HANDLE IT!
*You* can't admit what you made a fool of yourself with your WMD thing.
Did you enjoy the URL?
http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/pictures/2003/06/28/mn_3bush01.jpg
H. R. Bob Hofmann
A typical lightning (not lightening) stroke has a current of 10,000 to
20,000 amps. If you were enclosed by a metal cage, like perhaps an
automobile, that could carry that kind of current, it might stay in
the metal and not jump directly across. The metalized mylar film of a
space blanket is so thin that a few hundred amps would vaporize it.
So, the answer to the original poster is NO! The safest thing to do
is to keep low, have as small a contact point with the ground as
possible, so as to minize the voltage drop across the parts of your
body that are touching the ground, and try to not be any higher than
any of the surrounding ground. Almost impossible unless you find a
small depression in the rocks or the ground, and can stand on one foot
just before each lightning strike. BTW, I have had some close calls,
you get religion very quickly!
H. R. (Bob) Hofmann
Galen Hekhuis
wrote:
>... and can stand on one foot
>just before each lightning strike...
This is probably the most important technique to master.
Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA ghek...@earthlink.net
A penny saved gathers no moss
Michael A. Riches
nob...@nospam.pacbell.net wrote on 6/28/03 1:49 PM:
> He wasn't criticized for being an electrician, but
> rather for touting that as an indication of expertise in an area where
> he has none.
Is that a fact, Billie Boy....??? Just how much "Actual" electrical theory
do you have behind that degree...??? I took one full year of nothing but
electrical theory, before I even started the into the career as an
electrician. That is one full year of nothing but electrical theory, eight
hours a day. Unlike most grad students that take one maybe two classes a day
on their degree and round out the rest of the week on electives (such as
basket weaving and humanities for the soul) to give them an ohhhhh sooooo
welllll rounded education.
Quite playing with yourself Billie (it'll make you go blind...) and get a
real life...
Ratzzz...
Michael A. Riches
nob...@nospam.pacbell.net wrote on 6/28/03 10:05 AM:
> that's a fraction of what you need to get through
> graduate school (which is not a 40 hour per week effort.)
Yeah yer right...I did miss the frat parties and all the elective crap that
had absolutely nothing to do my chosen field. Ohhhh, and as far as the forty
hour a week thing goes, again...you have absolutely no fucking clue what it
takes to survive in the real world...
Ratzzz...
Gary S.
<ghek...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On 28 Jun 2003 13:17:59 -0700, hrho...@att.net (H. R. Bob Hofmann)
>wrote:
>
>>... and can stand on one foot
>>just before each lightning strike...
>
>This is probably the most important technique to master.
>
And how is this done?
When you hear the thunder, start counting backwards. For every 1000
feet of distance from the lightning stroke, the thunder sound will be
delayed.
Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
------------------------------------------------
at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence
Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom
Mike Elliott
Gary S. wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 20:40:00 GMT, Galen Hekhuis
> <ghek...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>On 28 Jun 2003 13:17:59 -0700, hrho...@att.net (H. R. Bob Hofmann)
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>... and can stand on one foot
>>>just before each lightning strike...
>>
>>This is probably the most important technique to master.
>>
>
> And how is this done?
>
> When you hear the thunder, start counting backwards. For every 1000
> feet of distance from the lightning stroke, the thunder sound will be
> delayed.
This is true. By the same token, for ever 10 feet of distance, the sound
will be delayed as well. And for every mile, the sound will be delayed.
So many distances, so many delays. But the rule o' thumb here is that
sound travels about a foot per millisecond. So in one second it travels
1000 feet. In five seconds, it goes about a mile. When the lightning is
right on top of you, there will be no delay worth discussing. So, to
know when lightning strikes are too close -- when you need to hop onto
one foot and start fingering your prayer beads -- assume that anything
less than a second is pretty darn risky. When you hear the thunder,
start counting milliseconds backwards from 1000. You need to do this
backward in time, of course, since in normal time, lightning is seen
before it is heard and you'll already have noticed the flash. So anyway,
when you hear the thunder, start going backwards in time and count
milliseconds backwards from 1000, like "One thousand milliliter bottles
of microbrewery beer on the wall . . .." one bottle per millisecond. If
the flash occurs well before you hit zero bottle of beer, then you know
that the lightning is getting real close. Reverse time back to normal
and hop onto one leg -- you have less than a second to do this, so hustle.
.spleh siht epoh I
EekiM
Mad Dog
>The short answer, of course, is that for a conductor with no current
>flowing, the electric field is perpendicular to the surface, so the
>boundary conditions are actually simple to explain.
Then solve the problem as asked, if it's so simple. Simpleton.
>*You* can't admit what you made a fool of yourself with your WMD thing.
WMD wasn't MY thing. And YOU'RE the fool for continuing to post off-topic
bullshit.
sindbad
"Hal Murray" <hmu...@suespammers.org> skrev i en meddelelse
news:vfqih2...@corp.supernews.com...
> I assume they got hit fairly often, but I don't remember reading
> any tales of horrible things happening. Did they include lightning
> rods on old wooden ships?
Usually the wires holding the masts are attached to large metal things on
the outside of the hull, so no need for a rod...
sindbad
H. R. Bob Hofmann
Spent a couple of hours just below the summit of Holy Cross (in CO)
doing the lightning anticipation hop. One of the party had never been
in a real CO summertime thunderstorm and didn't realize why we wanted
to get an early start and summit before noon and get down off the
summit after only a few minutes on top. He definitely got religion
that afternoon. It's good to see posters on this group have a
well-developed sense of humor!!!
H. R. (Bob) Hofmann