http://www.kentonline.co.uk/thanet_e...ollowing-7131/


“She has an exit wound in the back of her head. The lightning travelled
through her to there. She is very lucky because she was leaning back
with her head on the metal bed frame at the time. The lightning
travelled out through her head and into the ground".


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 12/10/2013 12:55, The Medway Handyman wrote:

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/thanet_e...ollowing-7131/



“She has an exit wound in the back of her head. The lightning travelled
through her to there. She is very lucky because she was leaning back
with her head on the metal bed frame at the time. The lightning
travelled out through her head and into the ground".

The survival rates for lightening strike injuries are massively better
than "one in a million"... in the UK there are something in the 60 to 70
people struck pre year, most survive, with an average of about 3
fatalities.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article , The Medway Handyman
scribeth thus

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/thanet_e...shocking-tale-
following-7131/


€œShe has an exit wound in the back of her head. The lightning travelled
through her to there. She is very lucky because she was leaning back
with her head on the metal bed frame at the time. The lightning
travelled out through her head and into the ground".



Poor kid

Odd tho for this time of year, lightning..

Must have been a very large strike..
--
Tony Sayer

On 12/10/2013 16:51, tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Medway Handyman
scribeth thus

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/thanet_e...shocking-tale-
following-7131/


€œShe has an exit wound in the back of her head. The lightning travelled
through her to there. She is very lucky because she was leaning back
with her head on the metal bed frame at the time. The lightning
travelled out through her head and into the ground".



Poor kid

Odd tho for this time of year, lightning..

Must have been a very large strike..

I would have thought flats would have a lightning rod thingy?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Saturday, 12 October 2013 12:55:48 UTC+1, The Medway Handyman wrote:
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/thanet_e...ollowing-7131/





“She has an exit wound in the back of her head. The lightning travelled

through her to there. She is very lucky because she was leaning back

with her head on the metal bed frame at the time. The lightning

travelled out through her head and into the ground".


Never mind all that; Did the laptop survive?

A lot of it depends on the spread of the strike as obviously the full
current through a body would incinerate you. I have been very close to
lightening strikes, one in particular, and it was not pleasant, but did not
kill any of us in the area, just made us deaf for some minutes and the
fleeting current part was very similar to being very close to the eht of
an old CRT colour telly, but for a split second.

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 12/10/2013 12:55, The Medway Handyman wrote:

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/thanet_e...ollowing-7131/



“She has an exit wound in the back of her head. The lightning travelled
through her to there. She is very lucky because she was leaning back
with her head on the metal bed frame at the time. The lightning
travelled out through her head and into the ground".

The survival rates for lightening strike injuries are massively better
than "one in a million"... in the UK there are something in the 60 to 70
people struck pre year, most survive, with an average of about 3
fatalities.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

They do, but they often burn out and not present a very low impedence if
the strike was a long duration one. Much of the wiring in such buildings can
be destroyed as can the appliences. One is talking amajor current here
after all.
In our case we were just outside the building struck.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
news
On 12/10/2013 16:51, tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Medway Handyman
scribeth thus

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/thanet_e...shocking-tale-
following-7131/


"She has an exit wound in the back of her head. The lightning travelled
through her to there. She is very lucky because she was leaning back
with her head on the metal bed frame at the time. The lightning
travelled out through her head and into the ground".



Poor kid

Odd tho for this time of year, lightning..

Must have been a very large strike..

I would have thought flats would have a lightning rod thingy?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

John Rumm writes:

On 12/10/2013 12:55, The Medway Handyman wrote:

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/thanet_e...ollowing-7131/



€œShe has an exit wound in the back of her head. The lightning travelled
through her to there. She is very lucky because she was leaning back
with her head on the metal bed frame at the time. The lightning
travelled out through her head and into the ground".

The survival rates for lightening strike injuries are
massively better than "one in a million"... in the UK there
are something in the 60 to 70 people struck pre year, most
survive, with an average of about 3 fatalities.

Which is to say 60 out of 60 million get struck at all, so about
a one in a million annual chance of being struck. ie rather than
being lucky, she was very unlucky.

--
Jón Fairbairn
http://www.chaos.org.uk/~jf/Stuff-I-dont-want.html (updated 2012-10-07)

On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 12:55:48 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:


http://www.kentonline.co.uk/thanet_e...ollowing-7131/


“She has an exit wound in the back of her head. The lightning travelled
through her to there. She is very lucky because she was leaning back
with her head on the metal bed frame at the time. The lightning
travelled out through her head and into the ground".


I see the standards of literacy haven't improved on that rag.

The Medway Handyman scribbled...



Poor kid

Odd tho for this time of year, lightning..

Must have been a very large strike..

I would have thought flats would have a lightning rod thingy?


Wouldn't make any difference, I think the strike was probably through
the telephone cable, which is still overhead in that street.

I still pull out the phone cable when there's a thunder storm here.

On 13 Oct 2013 19:15:26 GMT, Huge wrote:

Poor kid

Aye, did you see here mother ...

Must have been a very large strike..

I would have thought flats would have a lightning rod thingy?

'twas only a block of 12. I used to live in a block of 15, converted
Victorian building, it would have been a semi but had a single
terrace in the the middle. No lighting conductors. The office block
across the road did, that was lower.

Lighting conductors are there to leak the charge into the atmosphere
to (hopefully) prevent a build up big enough to cause a strike.

Wouldn't make any difference, I think the strike was probably
through
the telephone cable, which is still overhead in that street.

I still pull out the phone cable when there's a thunder storm
here.

I switch the modem off but don't bother about unplugging it. If there
is a strike that close the induced voltages in all the other attached
wiring are going to be enough to zap it anyway. I switch it off so
the induced noise and subsequent retrains don't fup the BRAS rate.

The lightning jumped a couple of km from the cloud, you think another
50cm is going to make any difference?

I think you'll find the cloud base of a thunderstorm somewhat less
than 6,500' ... 1,000' 2,000? But yes lighting goes where it wants to
go and that may not always be the obvious route. And the induced
voltages within a few hundred yards can be enough to zap stuff or the
ground currents creating enough voltage between the front and back
legs of quadrupeds to kill 'em...

--
Cheers
Dave.

Huge scribbled...


On 2013-10-13, Artic wrote:
The Medway Handyman scribbled...



Poor kid

Odd tho for this time of year, lightning..

Must have been a very large strike..

I would have thought flats would have a lightning rod thingy?


Wouldn't make any difference, I think the strike was probably through
the telephone cable, which is still overhead in that street.

I still pull out the phone cable when there's a thunder storm here.

The lightning jumped a couple of km from the cloud, you think another
50cm is going to make any difference?


Errr. I disconnect the phone line and obviously turn off the computer.
The strike won't make its way through my router, pc, printer etc etc.

On 14/10/13 09:49, Artic wrote:
Huge scribbled...


On 2013-10-13, Artic wrote:
The Medway Handyman scribbled...



Poor kid

Odd tho for this time of year, lightning..

Must have been a very large strike..

I would have thought flats would have a lightning rod thingy?


Wouldn't make any difference, I think the strike was probably through
the telephone cable, which is still overhead in that street.

I still pull out the phone cable when there's a thunder storm here.

The lightning jumped a couple of km from the cloud, you think another
50cm is going to make any difference?


Errr. I disconnect the phone line and obviously turn off the computer.
The strike won't make its way through my router, pc, printer etc etc.


lightning will jump the shortest/most ionised gap .

99% of equipment failures due to lightning are not because of direct
hits but because of high voltages induced in overhead wires by *nearby*
strikes.

removing kit from telephone wires is a good idea for that reason.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 13/10/2013 23:02, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On 13 Oct 2013 19:15:26 GMT, Huge wrote:

Poor kid

Aye, did you see here mother ...

Must have been a very large strike..

I would have thought flats would have a lightning rod thingy?

'twas only a block of 12. I used to live in a block of 15, converted
Victorian building, it would have been a semi but had a single
terrace in the the middle. No lighting conductors. The office block
across the road did, that was lower.

Lighting conductors are there to leak the charge into the atmosphere
to (hopefully) prevent a build up big enough to cause a strike...

Franklin's lightning dissipation theory is not consistent with figures
prepared for the Ecclesiastical Insurance Group, which show that fitting
a lightning rod to a church increases the probability of it being hit,
but normally reduces the chance of it being damaged by lightning. Their
research supports his alternative theory that the purpose of the
lightning conductor is to provide a low resistance path to earth.

Colin Bignell

In article , Nightjar
scribeth thus
On 13/10/2013 23:02, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On 13 Oct 2013 19:15:26 GMT, Huge wrote:

Poor kid

Aye, did you see here mother ...

Must have been a very large strike..

I would have thought flats would have a lightning rod thingy?

'twas only a block of 12. I used to live in a block of 15, converted
Victorian building, it would have been a semi but had a single
terrace in the the middle. No lighting conductors. The office block
across the road did, that was lower.

Lighting conductors are there to leak the charge into the atmosphere
to (hopefully) prevent a build up big enough to cause a strike...

Franklin's lightning dissipation theory is not consistent with figures
prepared for the Ecclesiastical Insurance Group, which show that fitting
a lightning rod to a church increases the probability of it being hit,

Just how do they work that out I wonder;?..


but normally reduces the chance of it being damaged by lightning. Their
research supports his alternative theory that the purpose of the
lightning conductor is to provide a low resistance path to earth.

Colin Bignell

I doubt it improves the chances of it being hit from the experiences
I've had of tall structures they'll be walloped anyway, the only purpose
of the lightning protection system is to Shunt the discharge by as low
resistance and inductive path means as possible to prevent it causing
any damage anywhere;!..

--
Tony Sayer

On 14/10/2013 22:18, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Nightjar
scribeth thus
On 13/10/2013 23:02, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On 13 Oct 2013 19:15:26 GMT, Huge wrote:

Poor kid

Aye, did you see here mother ...

Must have been a very large strike..

I would have thought flats would have a lightning rod thingy?

'twas only a block of 12. I used to live in a block of 15, converted
Victorian building, it would have been a semi but had a single
terrace in the the middle. No lighting conductors. The office block
across the road did, that was lower.

Lighting conductors are there to leak the charge into the atmosphere
to (hopefully) prevent a build up big enough to cause a strike...

Franklin's lightning dissipation theory is not consistent with figures
prepared for the Ecclesiastical Insurance Group, which show that fitting
a lightning rod to a church increases the probability of it being hit,

Just how do they work that out I wonder;?..

They have been insuring churches for 125 years, so I expect they have
quite a lot of their own data to draw on. There would also be earlier
parish records of repairs to any churches as a result of lightning
strikes. They also know that around 30% of English churches had
lightning rods in 1910 and about 80% have them today.


but normally reduces the chance of it being damaged by lightning. Their
research supports his alternative theory that the purpose of the
lightning conductor is to provide a low resistance path to earth.

Colin Bignell

I doubt it improves the chances of it being hit from the experiences
I've had of tall structures they'll be walloped anyway, the only purpose
of the lightning protection system is to Shunt the discharge by as low
resistance and inductive path means as possible to prevent it causing
any damage anywhere;!..

There are around 16,000 Anglican parish churches. Between them, they get
30-60 lightning strikes every year which cause damage, mostly to
electrical equipment, so the chances of *not* being hit are fairly good.

Colin Bignell

In article , Nightjar
scribeth thus
On 14/10/2013 22:18, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Nightjar
scribeth thus
On 13/10/2013 23:02, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On 13 Oct 2013 19:15:26 GMT, Huge wrote:

Poor kid

Aye, did you see here mother ...

Must have been a very large strike..

I would have thought flats would have a lightning rod thingy?

'twas only a block of 12. I used to live in a block of 15, converted
Victorian building, it would have been a semi but had a single
terrace in the the middle. No lighting conductors. The office block
across the road did, that was lower.

Lighting conductors are there to leak the charge into the atmosphere
to (hopefully) prevent a build up big enough to cause a strike...

Franklin's lightning dissipation theory is not consistent with figures
prepared for the Ecclesiastical Insurance Group, which show that fitting
a lightning rod to a church increases the probability of it being hit,

Just how do they work that out I wonder;?..

They have been insuring churches for 125 years, so I expect they have
quite a lot of their own data to draw on. There would also be earlier
parish records of repairs to any churches as a result of lightning
strikes. They also know that around 30% of English churches had
lightning rods in 1910 and about 80% have them today.

Yes but how can/could you tell if it was going the be hit or not
regardless of a lightning system being fitted. Shirely olde Jove doesn't
chose where he sends his "bolts" ?.

In all seriousness even if you do have any stats on the subject just how
can you tell if a building was going to be hit in a protected or
unprotected case you can't can you?...



but normally reduces the chance of it being damaged by lightning. Their
research supports his alternative theory that the purpose of the
lightning conductor is to provide a low resistance path to earth.

Colin Bignell

I doubt it improves the chances of it being hit from the experiences
I've had of tall structures they'll be walloped anyway, the only purpose
of the lightning protection system is to Shunt the discharge by as low
resistance and inductive path means as possible to prevent it causing
any damage anywhere;!..

There are around 16,000 Anglican parish churches. Between them, they get
30-60 lightning strikes every year which cause damage, mostly to
electrical equipment, so the chances of *not* being hit are fairly good.

Indeed and I'm gladdened to hear it seeing that I do spend some time in
such places as Belfry's and the like;!...


Colin Bignell


--
Tony Sayer

On 15/10/2013 10:22, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Nightjar
scribeth thus
On 14/10/2013 22:18, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Nightjar
scribeth thus
On 13/10/2013 23:02, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On 13 Oct 2013 19:15:26 GMT, Huge wrote:

Poor kid

Aye, did you see here mother ...

Must have been a very large strike..

I would have thought flats would have a lightning rod thingy?

'twas only a block of 12. I used to live in a block of 15, converted
Victorian building, it would have been a semi but had a single
terrace in the the middle. No lighting conductors. The office block
across the road did, that was lower.

Lighting conductors are there to leak the charge into the atmosphere
to (hopefully) prevent a build up big enough to cause a strike...

Franklin's lightning dissipation theory is not consistent with figures
prepared for the Ecclesiastical Insurance Group, which show that fitting
a lightning rod to a church increases the probability of it being hit,

Just how do they work that out I wonder;?..

They have been insuring churches for 125 years, so I expect they have
quite a lot of their own data to draw on. There would also be earlier
parish records of repairs to any churches as a result of lightning
strikes. They also know that around 30% of English churches had
lightning rods in 1910 and about 80% have them today.

Yes but how can/could you tell if it was going the be hit or not
regardless of a lightning system being fitted. Shirely olde Jove doesn't
chose where he sends his "bolts" ?.

In all seriousness even if you do have any stats on the subject just how
can you tell if a building was going to be hit in a protected or
unprotected case you can't can you?...

In individual cases, no. However, working with relatively large numbers
and being able to compare the number struck when few or none were
protected with that when most are, it certainly ought to be possible to
detect whether lightning protection makes a significant difference to
the risk of a hit and risk assessment is the business they are in.

Colin Bignell

In article , Nightjar
scribeth thus
On 15/10/2013 10:22, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Nightjar
scribeth thus
On 14/10/2013 22:18, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Nightjar
scribeth thus
On 13/10/2013 23:02, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On 13 Oct 2013 19:15:26 GMT, Huge wrote:

Poor kid

Aye, did you see here mother ...

Must have been a very large strike..

I would have thought flats would have a lightning rod thingy?

'twas only a block of 12. I used to live in a block of 15, converted
Victorian building, it would have been a semi but had a single
terrace in the the middle. No lighting conductors. The office block
across the road did, that was lower.

Lighting conductors are there to leak the charge into the atmosphere
to (hopefully) prevent a build up big enough to cause a strike...

Franklin's lightning dissipation theory is not consistent with figures
prepared for the Ecclesiastical Insurance Group, which show that fitting
a lightning rod to a church increases the probability of it being hit,

Just how do they work that out I wonder;?..

They have been insuring churches for 125 years, so I expect they have
quite a lot of their own data to draw on. There would also be earlier
parish records of repairs to any churches as a result of lightning
strikes. They also know that around 30% of English churches had
lightning rods in 1910 and about 80% have them today.

Yes but how can/could you tell if it was going the be hit or not
regardless of a lightning system being fitted. Shirely olde Jove doesn't
chose where he sends his "bolts" ?.

In all seriousness even if you do have any stats on the subject just how
can you tell if a building was going to be hit in a protected or
unprotected case you can't can you?...

In individual cases, no. However, working with relatively large numbers
and being able to compare the number struck when few or none were
protected with that when most are, it certainly ought to be possible to
detect whether lightning protection makes a significant difference to
the risk of a hit and risk assessment is the business they are in.



Still question it. All the protection system will do is to prevent
damage .. the original strike or not doesn't depend on the lightning
system..

Colin Bignell

--
Tony Sayer

On 16/10/13 15:59, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Nightjar
scribeth thus
On 15/10/2013 10:22, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Nightjar
scribeth thus
On 14/10/2013 22:18, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Nightjar
scribeth thus
On 13/10/2013 23:02, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On 13 Oct 2013 19:15:26 GMT, Huge wrote:

Poor kid

Aye, did you see here mother ...

Must have been a very large strike..

I would have thought flats would have a lightning rod thingy?

'twas only a block of 12. I used to live in a block of 15, converted
Victorian building, it would have been a semi but had a single
terrace in the the middle. No lighting conductors. The office block
across the road did, that was lower.

Lighting conductors are there to leak the charge into the atmosphere
to (hopefully) prevent a build up big enough to cause a strike...

Franklin's lightning dissipation theory is not consistent with figures
prepared for the Ecclesiastical Insurance Group, which show that fitting
a lightning rod to a church increases the probability of it being hit,

Just how do they work that out I wonder;?..

They have been insuring churches for 125 years, so I expect they have
quite a lot of their own data to draw on. There would also be earlier
parish records of repairs to any churches as a result of lightning
strikes. They also know that around 30% of English churches had
lightning rods in 1910 and about 80% have them today.

Yes but how can/could you tell if it was going the be hit or not
regardless of a lightning system being fitted. Shirely olde Jove doesn't
chose where he sends his "bolts" ?.

In all seriousness even if you do have any stats on the subject just how
can you tell if a building was going to be hit in a protected or
unprotected case you can't can you?...

In individual cases, no. However, working with relatively large numbers
and being able to compare the number struck when few or none were
protected with that when most are, it certainly ought to be possible to
detect whether lightning protection makes a significant difference to
the risk of a hit and risk assessment is the business they are in.



Still question it. All the protection system will do is to prevent
damage .. the original strike or not doesn't depend on the lightning
system..


well that point is several hundred years laters STILL being debated.

And its not a debate I wish to engage in, merely to indicate that the
jury is possibly still out...


Colin Bignell



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

Still question it. All the protection system will do is to prevent
damage .. the original strike or not doesn't depend on the lightning
system..


well that point is several hundred years laters STILL being debated.

And its not a debate I wish to engage in, merely to indicate that the
jury is possibly still out...


Don't think Jove is on trial mate!..



Colin Bignell




--
Tony Sayer

On 16/10/2013 15:59, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Nightjar
scribeth thus
On 15/10/2013 10:22, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Nightjar
scribeth thus
On 14/10/2013 22:18, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Nightjar
scribeth thus
On 13/10/2013 23:02, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On 13 Oct 2013 19:15:26 GMT, Huge wrote:

Poor kid

Aye, did you see here mother ...

Must have been a very large strike..

I would have thought flats would have a lightning rod thingy?

'twas only a block of 12. I used to live in a block of 15, converted
Victorian building, it would have been a semi but had a single
terrace in the the middle. No lighting conductors. The office block
across the road did, that was lower.

Lighting conductors are there to leak the charge into the atmosphere
to (hopefully) prevent a build up big enough to cause a strike...

Franklin's lightning dissipation theory is not consistent with figures
prepared for the Ecclesiastical Insurance Group, which show that fitting
a lightning rod to a church increases the probability of it being hit,

Just how do they work that out I wonder;?..

They have been insuring churches for 125 years, so I expect they have
quite a lot of their own data to draw on. There would also be earlier
parish records of repairs to any churches as a result of lightning
strikes. They also know that around 30% of English churches had
lightning rods in 1910 and about 80% have them today.

Yes but how can/could you tell if it was going the be hit or not
regardless of a lightning system being fitted. Shirely olde Jove doesn't
chose where he sends his "bolts" ?.

In all seriousness even if you do have any stats on the subject just how
can you tell if a building was going to be hit in a protected or
unprotected case you can't can you?...

In individual cases, no. However, working with relatively large numbers
and being able to compare the number struck when few or none were
protected with that when most are, it certainly ought to be possible to
detect whether lightning protection makes a significant difference to
the risk of a hit and risk assessment is the business they are in.

Still question it. All the protection system will do is to prevent
damage .. the original strike or not doesn't depend on the lightning
system..

Actually there is reason to think that it might since depending on the
shape and design of the lighting protection system the top of the tower
may well display St Elmos fire when a thunderstorm is around since the
pontetial difference between earth and the top of the tower is more than
enough to ionise the air. The stream of ions according to Franklin is
supposed to allow the charge to dissipate, but there is some evidence
that it also primes pathways for sparks to jump across. That is having
the wrong sort of thing on the top makes strikes more likely.

Lightning research is still pretty empirical even with todays fast
cameras. ISTR Langmuir at Magdelena Lightning Observatory showed that
blunt lightning protectors worked better sometime in the 80's.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/161906685.html

I have had a belt off our TV aerial before now and that is only 10m off
the ground. It will quite often light a neon screwdriver when
thunderstorms are about.

The protection system can sometimes work against you when thieves have
stolen the bottom 20' of copper strip. Happened to a building I worked
in and the lightning hit the roof and then went down the phone trunking
vapourising it. The switchboard girls were inconsolable afterwards and
also deaf for a day or two. It added insult to injury that our roof was
much lower than the two supergrid pylons on either side. Mains came back
fairly quickly after a reset the phones took most of a week.

Surge arresters even correctly installed ones on well earthed heavy
copper bus bars frequently manage to save themselves by allowing some
much more expensive electronics to get fried to a crisp.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 16:15:14 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:



well that point is several hundred years laters STILL being debated.

You'd have thought that if God wanted churches he wouldn't send bolts of lightning to damage them. :-)

In article ,
whisky-dave scribeth thus
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 16:15:14 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:



well that point is several hundred years laters STILL being debated.

You'd have thought that if God wanted churches he wouldn't send bolts of
lightning to damage them. :-)

What about the local Mosque then, all that copper dome etc?..
--
Tony Sayer

Still question it. All the protection system will do is to prevent
damage .. the original strike or not doesn't depend on the lightning
system..

Actually there is reason to think that it might since depending on the
shape and design of the lighting protection system the top of the tower
may well display St Elmos fire when a thunderstorm is around since the
pontetial difference between earth and the top of the tower is more than
enough to ionise the air. The stream of ions according to Franklin is
supposed to allow the charge to dissipate, but there is some evidence
that it also primes pathways for sparks to jump across. That is having
the wrong sort of thing on the top makes strikes more likely.


Consider the distance from the average storm cloud to the ground, some
miles usually. A few hundred feet of sometimes rather more conductive
then you'd think building thats if the Pikeys have had the roof off
rather conductive lead and other metalwork;!..


Lightning research is still pretty empirical even with todays fast
cameras. ISTR Langmuir at Magdelena Lightning Observatory showed that
blunt lightning protectors worked better sometime in the 80's.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/161906685.html

Well according to a contact at Messers Furse of Nottingham there is no
hard and fast evidence of that anymore..


I have had a belt off our TV aerial before now and that is only 10m off
the ground. It will quite often light a neon screwdriver when
thunderstorms are about.


Indeed when a lad I used to couple a loudspeaker to the TV aerial in a
storm and listen to this remarkable "radio"..

Usually a direct or sometimes nearby discharge would see the aerial
vaporised plus other collateral damage inflicted!..


The protection system can sometimes work against you when thieves have
stolen the bottom 20' of copper strip. Happened to a building I worked
in and the lightning hit the roof and then went down the phone trunking
vapourising it. The switchboard girls were inconsolable afterwards and
also deaf for a day or two. It added insult to injury that our roof was
much lower than the two supergrid pylons on either side. Mains came back
fairly quickly after a reset the phones took most of a week.

Bet it did. We had an odd incident at Friday Bridge water tower where
the scrotes pinched a few metres of conductor plus some transmitter
cables and Two feet of water pipe, the damage in there wasn't found for
a few days until the underground part of the building flooded and filled
up;!..


Surge arresters even correctly installed ones on well earthed heavy
copper bus bars frequently manage to save themselves by allowing some
much more expensive electronics to get fried to a crisp.



Yes but if the overall system is designed well they can and do survive..



I'm sure olde w_tom will be along in a post or so;?..
--
Tony Sayer

On Thursday, October 17, 2013 12:45:05 PM UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:

You'd have thought that if God wanted churches he wouldn't send bolts of lightning to damage them. :-)

They annoy Zeus.

On 18/10/2013 10:56, tony sayer wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave scribeth thus
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 16:15:14 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:



well that point is several hundred years laters STILL being debated.

You'd have thought that if God wanted churches he wouldn't send bolts of
lightning to damage them. :-)

What about the local Mosque then, all that copper dome etc?..

Gold, or at least gilded. Some years ago, I had trouble getting some
electro-gilding done, as all the available materials and equipment were
tied up for weeks with a contract to gild parts for the roof etc of a
mosque in Saudi Arabia.

Colin Bignell

In article , Nightjar
scribeth thus
On 18/10/2013 10:56, tony sayer wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave scribeth thus
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 16:15:14 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:



well that point is several hundred years laters STILL being debated.

You'd have thought that if God wanted churches he wouldn't send bolts of
lightning to damage them. :-)

What about the local Mosque then, all that copper dome etc?..

Gold, or at least gilded. Some years ago, I had trouble getting some
electro-gilding done, as all the available materials and equipment were
tied up for weeks with a contract to gild parts for the roof etc of a
mosque in Saudi Arabia.

Colin Bignell

Well Copper will soon be the same price as gold so not that much of a
surprise;!...


I bet they don't have the same problems was we do with Pikey's nicking
the roof lead or metal, as if they get caught there off comes a hand or
two;!...
--
Tony Sayer

Onetap writes:

On Thursday, October 17, 2013 12:45:05 PM UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:

You'd have thought that if God wanted churches he wouldn't send bolts of lightning to damage them. :-)

They annoy Zeus.

I understand they're sent in order to test our faith.

--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ S c o t s h o m e . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost