I appreciate what CJT is saying which is why I included the
concept of boundary conditions. However to be more
technically correct, then most readers would not understand
the concepts. Yes, sine waves go forever in time. The 'sine
waves' that combine to construct a pulse have boundary
conditions; exist only during the period of that pulse.

Wavelet as a better description would be nice. But I
believe most don't even know what a wavelet is. I would not
even know how to begin to describe a lightning pulse in terms
of wavelets. Where would we even start? Define a pulse in
terms of a Daubechie, Mexican Hat, or Morlet wavelet? I
think not.

Furthermore, I was not sure of CJT's math background. For
example, what is a true impulse? Literally every frequency in
that spectrum. But did CJT understand that basic math
concept? I thought not after a few posts suggested I had
better keep it simpler: describe a pulse in terms that all may
understand - sine waves. Then made the concept a little more
complicated - added boundary conditions.

Wavelets - way too complex. To comprehend the destructive
(almost capricious) nature of lightning, it is simply better
to limit a lightning pulse description to a wide spectrum of
frequencies (numerous sine waves of different frequencies that
are summed together).

Leonard Caillouet wrote:
w_tom,

While you are correct in many ways, CJT is also correct in
pointing out that your suggestion that lightning is made of
sine waves is faulty application of Fourier. You could just as easily say that lightning is made of wavelets
(and more correctly, actually) or many other functions. These are all just
mathematical constructs to describe a complex phenomenon as components that
can be manipulated for analysis. The point that lightning is a pulse and
can be analyzed by its component frequencies should be clear. That it is
"made of sine waves" is an equally clearly faulty application of the
concept. If you would learn to be a bit more humble in accepting criticism
of your language, useage, and out of context application of concepts, the
correct basis of your arguments might be more often appreciated. Mostly,
you end up looking like an idiot.

Leonard