ES & EM Radiation in lightning
Max Dearing
A relatively similar post has been made to sci.phics.plasma under a
different but similar subject line. Please excuse the dbl post but info
on NG's is extremely hard to find.
I am a lightning strike survivor with a mission. I am seeking
information as to the amount of relative electrostatic, electromagnetic,
and concequential quantum radiation across the energy spectrum
associated with lightning.
It would seem logical that the electron plasma would be quite capable of
producing substantial amounts of varied radiation particles. Especially
in the gamma, and x ranges.
If there is any information or source that you could recommend it would
be greatly appreciated. Not to be obstinant, but I would prefer current
research models or data.
I am trying to put together the association between the high energy
discharge of lightning and the effects on human tissue, especially
neural pathways in the brain. The correlation of high radiation levels
and the obvious effects on human tissue are well documented. So it
should be a relatively simple matter of obtaining measurements and
calculating backwards.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. Though relatively short in duration, the
amount and types of radiation are probably more than enough, to cause
profound and acute celular change.
Again, any information you could recommend would be greatly appreciated.
Most sincerely,
Max Dearing
--
Stealing is illegal: The government hates competition.
Don't just support Tax Reform, DEMAND IT!
Harry H Conover
Max Dearing (phot...@dur.mindspring.com) wrote:
: A relatively similar post has been made to sci.phics.plasma under a
: different but similar subject line. Please excuse the dbl post but info
: on NG's is extremely hard to find.
:
: I am a lightning strike survivor with a mission. I am seeking
: information as to the amount of relative electrostatic, electromagnetic,
: and concequential quantum radiation across the energy spectrum
: associated with lightning.
:
: It would seem logical that the electron plasma would be quite capable of
: producing substantial amounts of varied radiation particles. Especially
: in the gamma, and x ranges.
I know of no short wavelength radiation (x-ray, gamma, etc.) being observed
in connection with lightning discharges. This would seem consistent with
the belief that lightning discharges occur through an ionized gas
path, where only modest potential differences exist over finite distances.
By contrast, the production of x-rays (let alone gamma radiation)
requires the abrupt deceleration of highly energetic electrons (typically
80+ kev electrons slamming into high density targets).
:
: If there is any information or source that you could recommend it would
: be greatly appreciated. Not to be obstinant, but I would prefer current
: research models or data.
:
: I am trying to put together the association between the high energy
: discharge of lightning and the effects on human tissue, especially
: neural pathways in the brain. The correlation of high radiation levels
: and the obvious effects on human tissue are well documented. So it
: should be a relatively simple matter of obtaining measurements and
: calculating backwards.
You are postulating that lightning produces a significant quantity of
ionizing radiation. I suspect that, in general, this is not the case.
:
: Please correct me if I'm wrong. Though relatively short in duration, the
: amount and types of radiation are probably more than enough, to cause
: profound and acute celular change.
This is not obvious. While a lightning strike obviously produces
electromagnetic radiation, the vast bulk of the EM energy is in the
wavelength range of visible light and greater. Radiation in these
wavelengths is non-ionizing and not notably hazardous to living
organisms.
Harry C.
Max Dearing
Harry H Conover wrote:
>
> I know of no short wavelength radiation (x-ray, gamma, etc.) being observed
> in connection with lightning discharges. This would seem consistent with
> the belief that lightning discharges occur through an ionized gas
> path, where only modest potential differences exist over finite distances.
> By contrast, the production of x-rays (let alone gamma radiation)
> requires the abrupt deceleration of highly energetic electrons (typically
> 80+ kev electrons slamming into high density targets).
>
>
> You are postulating that lightning produces a significant quantity of
> ionizing radiation. I suspect that, in general, this is not the case.
>
excess of 20Kv, a target and current flow. I would postulate that the
point if impact would serve as the target and the potential difference
of the earth and ground would serve as the catalyst to produce ionized
radiation. Voltages in excess 100MEV are said to exist within the plasma
of the bolt. I have little other information as to the amount of current
flow, but that it is measured in Joules. Medical X-ray generation occurs
in the mA range. But again, this is why I would like to locate either a
text or data source.
> This is not obvious. While a lightning strike obviously produces
> electromagnetic radiation, the vast bulk of the EM energy is in the
> wavelength range of visible light and greater. Radiation in these
> wavelengths is non-ionizing and not notably hazardous to living
> organisms.
>
> Harry C.
>
Again, I seek some documentation to verify this.
As a side bar - One of my professors in school was a technician at one
of the first TV stations in the US. He had to climb the tower one day
while it was "hot" to effect repairs. When he got off the tower, he had
received 2nd degree burns on the front side of his body, only. Before
his death from brain cancer, he had in excess of 15 operations to remove
various types of skin lesions. OSHA, now prevents this practice because
of health risks.
While non-ionizing, the shear amount of ES & EM radiation in the
broadcast range is enough to be hazardous to tissue. As lightning also
is "wide" enough to interrupt the signal flow of radio and TV, I again
postulate that those levels are not healthy either.
I am not trying to "find something that ain't there", but I do know what
I've experienced. If you or anyone else reading would like to read an
account, please let me know.
This is a WAG based upon pure conjecture: If the plasma temp is supposed
to have been measured at 3-5 times hotter than the sun, could not those
temperatures be hot enough to fuse molecules of He and or O2 into, VERY
insignicant, levels of fusion reaction?
Thanx,
Max
Harry H Conover
Max Dearing (phot...@dur.mindspring.com) wrote:
: Three things are needed to generate ionized radiation...Potential in
: excess of 20Kv, a target and current flow.
You are missing a critical point. To produce x-rays or even shorter
wavelength ionizing radiation requires the acceleration of electrons
to high energy levels prior to impacting the target. This generally
requires that the electrons be accelerated across a potential difference
within a vacuum environment, as is done in a x-ray tube.
By contrast, a lightning discharge through ionized gas is similar to
passing electrical current through a resistor. The electrons do not
(because of frequent collisions) reach high energy levels and thus cannot
produce ionizing radiation.
: I would postulate that the
: point if impact would serve as the target and the potential difference
: of the earth and ground would serve as the catalyst to produce ionized
: radiation.
This would only be true if there was no atmosphere (e.g. a vacuum).
: Voltages in excess 100MEV are said to exist within the plasma
: of the bolt. I have little other information as to the amount of current
: flow, but that it is measured in Joules. Medical X-ray generation occurs
: in the mA range. But again, this is why I would like to locate either a
: text or data source.
Refer to any introductory physics text covering x-rays.
Harry C.
Max Dearing
Harry H Conover wrote:
>
> You are missing a critical point. To produce x-rays or even shorter
> wavelength ionizing radiation requires the acceleration of electrons
> to high energy levels prior to impacting the target. This generally
> requires that the electrons be accelerated across a potential difference
> within a vacuum environment, as is done in a x-ray tube.
>
> By contrast, a lightning discharge through ionized gas is similar to
> passing electrical current through a resistor. The electrons do not
> (because of frequent collisions) reach high energy levels and thus cannot
> produce ionizing radiation.
>
>
> This would only be true if there was no atmosphere (e.g. a vacuum).
>
>
> Harry C.
I really do appreciate the input.
I do come from a 15 year career in medical diagnosic x-ray imaging for
GE MEdical Systems, Inc. According to Roentgen, Crook, Edison, Varian,
et al, a vacuum only precipitates the focus of the beam to the target,
but is not necessary to generate ionizing radiation. e.g. no radiation
could exist outside of a vacuum, which is certainly not the case.
(Crooks tube)
I again would like to thank you for your input and pointing out the
acceleration of electrons factor within the bolt itself. Is there anyone
who you could recommend to elaborate on this?
Sincerely,
Max Dearing
Gerald Larson
Max Dearing <phot...@dur.mindspring.com> wrote:
-snip-
>
>According to Roentgen, Crook, Edison, Varian,
>et al, a vacuum only precipitates the focus of the beam to the target,
>but is not necessary to generate ionizing radiation. e.g. no radiation
>could exist outside of a vacuum, which is certainly not the case.
>(Crooks tube)
>
Almost, but not quite, true. The real point is that ionizing EM
radiation (x-rays and gamma) has an energy of typically tens of keV per
photon or more. Thus you need particles, usually electrons, which have
kinetic energies of at least this much to generate photons this energetic;
the photons carry away the kinetic energy when the massive particles are
slowed suddenly by collision. You have to accelerate a massive particle up
to about 100 keV of energy, THEN have it collide with something.
Collisions before that point carry away energy and spoil the accelerator.
Now, a lightning bolt is a partially-ionized plasma channel in the
atmosphere. The mean-free-path in the atmosphere is on the order of a
micron; because of the higher temperatures in the bolt it is probably
considerably shorter there, but for the sake of argument let's let it be
one micron. The dielectric breakdown point of air (which is the E-field
strength that generates a lightning bolt) is on the order of 1 MV/m. So
the typical electrostatic acceleration of charged particles between
collisions is (1MV/m)*(10^-6m)*(1e)=1eV approximately. Notice that we are
about FIVE orders-of-magnitude away from the kinetic energy needed to
generate ionizing EM radiation.
But, you mentioned in an earlier posting that the temperature of the
bolt is so high that there must be radiation production, and possibly even
some fusion going on.
Not even close. The rule-of-thumb is that 1eV of thermal kinetic energy
equals a temperature of 11,000K. (In other words, if you multiply 11,000K
by the Boltzmann constant you get 1eV.) Thus the hottest lightning bolt in
the world contains plasma with thermal kinetic energies of at most a couple
eV. Again this is about FIVE orders-of-magnitude less than needed to
generate x-rays, and even further away from fusion.
Note that this is not a contradiction with your statement in the earlier
post that "lightning bolts are hotter than the sun" because that statement
should really read "lightning bolts are hotter than the surface of the
sun." The sun's photoshpere is about 5000K; fusion occurs in the sun's
core, which is at a temperature of a few million K.
Gerald Larson
Nichols Research Corp.