Lightning Research 122
Mike writes: "There was a great topic covered on tonight's episode of ABC's NightLine. They discussed lightning and how a group of researchers at the University of Florida have been able to develop rockets that "pull down" lightning and allow them to gather data to help find out more about it. They can capture lightning bolts with relative ease and film the bolts with high-speed cameras, revealing that what appeared as a single flash to the naked eye was often times three or four bolts in extremely rapid succession. While the article doesn't go into the detail that was covered on TV, you do get a video clip and nice overview. And photos and additional details are available at the University of Florida's Lightning Research Lab web site."
Recycled story on ABC's part (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe this is something new.
Can anyone tell me if the ABC one is the same.
Re:Recycled story on ABC's part (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Fuck yeah (Score:1)
Re:Recycled story on ABC's part (Score:1)
An appropriate phrase (Score:3, Funny)
F-bacher
Old news... (Score:1)
Old news (Score:1, Funny)
Safety first (Score:2, Funny)
It might be safe, but that still would be damn loud. I still wouldn't want to be the guinne pig that gets to sit in the house while they lure lightening bolts toward it. I don't care how good you say bullet proof vests are, I don't want you taking shots at me.
F-bacher
Re:Safety first (Score:1)
Of course they could just stick monkeys or rabbits in there for testing purposes...
This is old stuff (Score:1)
I missed ABC's Nightline, but I saw the same thing on one of the science shows on PBS over a year ago. It's very interesting stuff. But a lot of things, like multiple strokes, is old news ... 20 years old for me. I can actually see the multiple stroke activity visually and have known about it for years.
I'm not sure why they are calling it a mystery about some of the causes and actions. Perhaps the academics haven't pinned down irrefutable proof, and that's fine. But the probable sources and causes are fairly well known. They may be theories, but they are good ones.
maybe older .... (Score:1)
Re:maybe older .... (Score:2)
Yeah, that show could have been much older. Come to think of it I saw it around 2AM, when the local PBS affiliate, KERA, often shows reruns of PBS programming. Often they will batch a bunch of related shows together, like run 6 Nova's back to back, late at night if there's no school programming to feed. Those do that on weekend afternoons, too. Beats football.
Power source? (Score:3, Interesting)
I have no idea if this is at all possible, or even remotely logical, but I'd like to hear what someone who's an expert thinks.
Re:Power source? (Score:1)
The catch is that lightening doesn't usually strike at the same place over and over. With a nice, big thunderstorm you could get a bunch of thunderstrikes, but most of the time I'd bet you could only get a couple. It may be more costly to create and maintain the facility to harness lightening than the savings would be from the generated energy.
F-bacher
Re:Power source? (Score:1)
Re:Power source? (Score:1)
Re:Power source? (Score:1)
Re:Power source? (Score:1)
Re:Power source? (Score:1)
But the expense of the capacitor, and the low probability of lightning strike would not make profit.
But perhaps this could be used cheaply power pulse technology, like the stuff at Los Alamos Labs
Re:Power source? (Score:1)
Re:Power source? (Score:1)
However, the equipment involved was cost prohibitive, despite the fact that one thunderstorm could litteraly power a city for some amount of time (cant remember exactly). The scientists believed that this would be great for places like Texas where thunderstorms are common.
As for the lightning hitting rarely in one area, they found if you're the only large, highly conductive object for miles you get a much higher chance of being hit by lightning. One steel building in the middle of a flat area with a big antenna on top is going to attract lighting many times per storm.
Re:Power source? (Score:5, Interesting)
Lightning is just an artifact of existing energy fields. You could reap that energy even before there are lightning strikes (and on a large enough scale, perhaps reduce the lightning or even eliminate it). The "antenna" would basically be a bunch of very tall lightning rods. Lightning rods don't serve to attract lightning, but rather, serve to dissipate static charges that are exaggerated during a thunderstorm. That dissipation does result in a flow (amperes is a measure of electrical current, coulombs is the measure of electrical charge, and farads is the measure of the capacity to store an electrical charge). The trick to accomplishing what your suggest is to avoid the air insulation breakdown that results in a sudden flow (the lightning stroke). The problem is that unless the rods are very tall, the flow is inhibited by extreme air resistance until the breakdown occurs (which is very rapid when it happens, with rarely more than a few seconds notice, if that). I'd guess that the height needed to efficiently exploit air charges would be 1 to 5 kilometers. Once you get that high, you will get currents even without the thunderstorms.
Benjamin Franklin's key experiment supposedly didn't actually get a stroke of lightning, but got a charge fed to it that perhaps was coming close to breakdown voltage. But that charge could have developed even without the storm, although at a lower level. A charge develops in the atmosphere every day due to photon energy striking the atmosphere within a magnetic field. The air serves as an insulator, and you have a giant capacitor. Lifting in the air, which occurs more extreme during a thunderstorm, changes the dynamics of that capacitor, reducing its farad measure, and given a constant of coulombs, raises the voltage of the charge. Raise it enough and the air insulation breaks down. But the charge is there all the time. The question in science is just how much of that charge comes from various sources. Apparently the charge from sunlight isn't enough to bring about the level of lightning we actually see.
Another source of energy you can extract from a thunderstorm is lateral charge shifts from horizontal storm movement. The storm carries a concentrated charge, and to balance that out, the earth exhibits a counter charge gathered near the surface to be as close as possible to the storm. That charge moves along with the storm. This charge movement is often the source of damaging levels of electrical current in some extended wiring like rural telephone lines. I've watched the charges dance off lines miles from thunderstorms. There might be a way, given wide open spaces, to exploit that.
The lateral charge effect can also cause some interesting lighting. I once saw a lightning stroke emerge from the half way up the back side of a tall thundercloud into the clear air in its wake, and jump some 10 to 12 km back, then bend down to the ground. The earth charge hadn't followed fast enough and apparently got built up way back there somewhere.
I had another interesting experience once when taking advantage of a clear weather break in the midst of a stormy week, to do some site surveying for radio coverage when I was doing storm spotting years ago. I first noticed some strange whistling sounds in my car AM radio. It started at a high pitch and dropped down to nothing in about 1 to 4 seconds, repeating after after another 1-4 seconds. When they started coming faster I started feeling some "static bites" in my handheld 2m ham radio (KA9WGN) which was connected to an antenna on the car roof. I pulled off the antenna connector from the radio and put the tip of the BNC connector pin (which went to the actual antenna rod itself, which being a 5/8-wave style, had no loading coil) up to the keys in the car ignition switch. At about 1 cm distance, a spark jumped across. At about 3 mm distance, it sustained a spark repeating about every 2/3 second continuously. I opened the car window and looked around and up, and saw a small cloud forming directly above. It was very small, not any larger than a "partly cloudy day" kind of cloud. But I decided to drive away anyway. About 10 minutes later I was 3 miles south east and looked back northwest and saw that my little cloud had become a billowing thunderhead. 5 minutes later there were cloud to ground strokes.
Tesla...Again. (Score:2)
One of the first to really think about this was Nikola Tesla.
Mr. Tesla was granted several patents related to transmitting power without wires, utilizing the earth and the ionosphere as basically opposing plates of a large capacitor, allowing one to draw off the excess energy (pumped in via remote Tesla coil systems), from anywhere on the globe, using a simple antenna-like receiving unit.
Tesla was very familiar with lightning, as his patent #1266175 "Lightning Protector" proves. This device appears similar to some of the experimental Colorado Springs "antenna" he used for various experiments - so he undoubtedly saw the possibility of using such a device to pull energy from the air as well as put it there.
I think (and this is pure conjecture), that Tesla also experimented with "free" energy - pulling off excess charge using similar equipment, and maybe actually using it to drive certain small devices. I find a reference in the book "The Inventions, Researches, and Writings of Nikola Tesla" (ISBN 0-88029-812-X) about an "Alternate Current Electrostatic Induction Apparatus", which was apparently first published as an article by Tesla in "The Electrical Engineer" on May 6, 1891. In the description of the device, Tesla writes that "The output of such an apparatus is very small, but some of the effects peculiar to alternating currents of short periods may be observed."
I haven't found any patent on this device in "The Complete Patents of Nikola Tesla" (edited by Jim Glenn - ISBN 1-56619-266-8), so maybe Tesla, at the time, didn't consider it something worthy of a patent, because it didn't give anything useful.
I still wonder though if maybe he thought there was a way to actually harness "free" energy in lightning and other static electricity, in a way that the "common man" could use independant of the electric "company" - which was just starting to really come into being in Tesla's time. After all, a Leydon jar is nothing more than a form of a capacitor, and a static electrical charge (like lightning) can be used to charge such a device - maybe he was looking for a way to actually use the charge. Perhaps making electricity too cheap to meter (I can imagine a large field of his lightning protectors charging Leydon jars, which are bled off and feed the electrostatic-to-AC conversion devices, the AC which is sent on the customers, or to an individual)...
Re:Power source? (Score:2)
Unfortunately, I have seen the heaviest electrical equipment you can imagine (765kV distribution gear with ceramic insulators 2m high) blown into fragments by lightning strikes. There isn't much call for ultra-high voltage, ultra-high frequency (which is what lightning is) stuff in the normal world, so very little is known about how to handle that kind of energy.
Beside, if you just want to get rid of the strike, plain old lightning rods and lightning busters (grounded towers with hundreds of small points to dissipate the charge) do a pretty good job. Usually!
sPh
old news, but neat toys (Score:1)
BTW, saw this story almost a year ago. Must be summer re-runs.
If only this research had been done sooner (Score:1)
If only we'd had this unmanned technology sooner, then so many Furbies wouldn't have been lost [voltnet.com] in the name of science.
Superheating with Bolts... (Score:1)
Re:Superheating with Bolts... (Score:3)
Buckyballs were discovered by a Houston team that fired a high-intensity laser at a graphite sheet, and ran a mass-spec on the resulting carbon dust. They found a big spike at C60 (and C70, I believe). As it later turned out, burning a candle is enough to produce buckyballs... no lightning needed.
I've wondered if we could power some really energy-demaning reactions with lightning... like starting off a cold fusion reaction or something. Of course, getting predictable thunderstorms is another matter.
Very very frightening.. (Score:2)
Tcd004
Like a Condit on the Run [lostbrain.com]
Re:Very very frightening.. (Score:1)
Nothing new here.. but here's the run down. (Score:1)
They have people pay them so that their stuff can be tested. There was one company that had their breaker box tested and photographed after it was nuked so that they could see where most of the damage occured. Pretty interesting stuff.
Also a problem for lunar tourists (Score:2, Interesting)
Reminds me of when the Apollo 12 mission to the moon was struck by lightning shortly after liftoff. Here's an article [nasa.gov] including pictures. Pretty amazing that the spacecraft's electronics survived this and they still managed to go to the moon after rebooting everything. Here's an item [yarchive.net] from the RISKS digest about one of the reasons why that worked.
Re:Also a problem for lunar tourists (Score:1)
Lightning Research/Camp Blanding (Score:3, Interesting)
The research is done at a former military base (camp blanding IIRC). The rockets are shot from the old repelling tower (gives a slight boost as the tower is right about the same height as the pine trees that surround the facility) You can park on the highway and see where they launch the rockets from. Just dont walk around there with any big metal poles during a storm.
The rockets occasionally trigger natural lightning which is much stronger than the "triggered" lightning caused by the rockets. Its pretty cool to watch but in general its so bright and so fast you really dont see much other than the light trail burned on your retina.
Neat stuff.
Re: cool! (Score:2)
On an offtopic note it took about 10 goddamn tries to get this through the lameness filter. good work [slashdot.org] guys.
TV news (Score:2)
Now there's something you don't hear every day....
Why?? (Score:1)
Lightening video's (Score:1)
This is old news (Score:2)
Because of static.... (Score:1)
Nightline was very informative. (Score:5, Interesting)
They also posited that the Sprites may be weak enough that they could have caused life to form. Other theorists had thought that lightning might have caused life but the power from regular lightning is too strong; however, this new form of lightning is weak enough that it might do the trick according to the researchers.
The blue jets that emanate from clouds and rise up into the upper atmosphere are supposed to be extremely powerful and are considered a danger to stratospheric aircraft, rockets and the space shuttle.
All in all it seems to be very strange phenomena. Add ball lightning to the mystery.
A Scientic American link [sciam.com] on Sprites and Elves.
Re:Nightline was very informative. (Score:2)
You can find some of the images and movies here [nasa.gov], or do a bit of googling [google.com].
Re:Nightline was very informative. (Score:2)
Where there is a charge, there is counter charge of the opposite polarity. The storm's lifting process spreads the charge between upper and lower parts of the storm. But that's not enough to balance things out. Counter charges exist in the earth below (and follow the storm) as well in the air far above the storm. When a lightning strike happens, the charge level drops suddenly, and the counter charges now have to go somewhere and quickly. I believe the sprites are the result of this bleed off of the charges about a strike. And yes, that would make them very powerful.
As for lightning forming life, it could happen anyway because the lightning is basically going to be energizing molecules which can then come back to gether it all sorts of ways as they cool down after the current stops. Life could result from enough of the carbon based building blocks having been put together, or later come together, in the right way to be able to reproduce the same molecules some way. The formation of life this way could be an extremely rare event. But even if it only occurs once in billions of years in our galaxy, you can bet that's where we'll end up being.
Re:Nightline was very informative. (Score:1)
(Discover Channel)
How big is a bolt of lightning (Score:1)
Re:How big is a bolt of lightning (Score:1)
Re:How big is a bolt of lightning (Score:1)
Sometimes lightning strikes at the beach, and the heat from the strike will cause the sand to turn into glass around the bolt. If you could find such a "petrified lightning bolt", you would know the size of that bolt. Find enough of them, and you would have a general idea about the circumfrence of lightning bolts.
Now - I doubt you have to go scour every beach/desert/[sandy place] nearby, trying to find petrified lightning bolts - I'd vager a dollar that either the state's museums of science, universities and/or metereological weather stations have some lying around, either for research or just for show. Either way, it can't really hurt to ask around.
nothing new (Score:1)
Cool stuff on Amasci (Score:2)
Lots of other cool stuff too, lots of build-it-yourself things that actually work (and lots that probably don't, like electrical rockets, but they're in a separate category )
500,000,000 volts at 10,000 amps (Score:5, Informative)
A lightning discharge is perhaps 500,000,000 volts at 10,000 amps.
Interesting references:
Great Lightning Photos -- West Virginia Lightning [wvlightning.com]
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about Lightning [forestry.ca]
Human Voltage -- What happens when people and lightning converge [nasa.gov]
Lightning Concepts [gsu.edu]
Re:500,000,000 volts at 10,000 amps (Score:1)
Or 50,000 Gigawatts (for those thinking in Back to the future units). 5*10^13 Watts seems way to much to get out of a lightning bolt.
Re: That's what the references say. (Score:1)
Actually 5*10^8 Volts * 10^4 Amps = 5*10^12 Watts
That's what the references say.
Re: That's what the references say. (Score:1)
Re: Power plants produce energy. (Score:2)
I think I have found the confusion. Power plants produce energy. Energy is power over time, watt-hours.
Lightning is of very short duration. The power is great, but the energy is small compared to a power plant.
In an hour, a one-megawatt power plant produces one megawatt-hour of energy. A lightning bolt of 5,000 gigawatts that lasts 70 microseconds produces only (5 * 10^12) * (7 * 10^-5) = 3.5 * 10^9 watt-seconds, which is only 97,000 watt-hours.
97,000 watt-hours is slightly less than the energy used by a thousand 100 watt light bulbs in one hour.
Still, you are right, it seems like a huge amount.
Re: But, I made a mistake. (Score:2)
But, I made a mistake. If the figures we are using are correct, the energy of one 70 microsecond flash is 972,000 watt-hours, not 97,200 watt-hours, because there are 3,600 seconds in one hour.
However, the power plant keeps on ticking, whereas lightning is a relatively rare event.
Re: But, I made a mistake. (Score:1)
Re: Power plants produce energy. (Score:1)
Power = energy/time.
therefore: energy = Power * time.
1 Watt is equal to 1 Joule/second.
Joule is the unit for energy, this is the same as a watt-second as you call it.
A watt/hour unit is an energy (energy/time * time) unit because power companies charge for the total amount of energy, not for fluctuating power. Power companies are appropriately named so because they provide power, consumers decide how much power they use. Measuring a powerplants capacity by it's power-generation ability is correct because in theory every powerplant could deliver infinite amounts of energy given infinite time.
In the end to calculate the energy (which you correctly did) you need to multiply the power by time. If lightning lasts for 70 microseconds it generates 5000 * 10^9 * 70*10^-5 = 3.5 * 10^9 Joules. (A Watt-Second is equal to a Joule).
Anyway, this is about the same amount of energy required to lift a 100 ton airplane 3.5 km into the sky. (ignoring friction and engine innefficiency etc.)
Video from The Learning Channel (Score:1)
New Mexico Lightning Research (Score:1, Informative)
Every Summer, a bunch of teachers and students make the trip up South Baldy mountain to the Langmuir Lab in the hopes of triggering lightning.
It's not as easy as it might sound to trigger lightning. In fact, the Summer my roommate was up there (1992, I think), they weren't able to trigger any lightning.
Basically, someone would keep watch for promising storm clouds to come over the lab. Once the clouds got closer, they would start checking an electric field mill, a device used to measure the strength of the storm-induced fields. When the field was sufficiently high, a person sitting in what was essentially a steel pup tent would fire the rocket into the cloud, hoping to generate a strike along the metal cord that it carried with it.
Even though they didn't get any lightning that year, National Geographic sent up a photojournalist, who snapped some photo's of them. In late '92 or early '93, National GeoGraphic did have a small one or two page article on it at the back of the magazine, so they did get some recognition.
By the way, New Mexico Tech is also the same place where the NRAO is located (what is essentially the command post for the VLA radio telescope. It's the one seen in Contact.
They also do explosives research there, too. I've seen a show or two on TLC/Discovery that featured them. It's a neat school. Very underrated...and cheap, too!
--NMT, Class of '93
More Info (Score:1)
Alternative Lightning Collection techniques (Score:2)
A high powered laser would be shot towards an approaching thunderhead. The laser would also superheat the air in its path producing a conductive plasma. The electrical discharge from the cloud would then travel down this path where it would meet up with a lighting rod. There was talk about using this technique to take the punch out of potentially severe thunderstorms.
The technique of using Estes rockets certainly is probably a lot cheaper than a high powered laser...but you'd get a lot more shots with the laser.
Johny-come-lately (Score:2)
Besides, Tech has some of the best green chile con carne around. Especially for a University cafeteria!
Re:Johny-come-lately (Score:1)
They're treating it like it's a brand new technology.
Re:Johny-come-lately (Score:2)
That's what I was going to say!
You like their green chile too?
Lightning (Score:1)
Hehe, speaking of science, I watched a video the other day of tornadoes.. one guy was doing a home video and was just about right next to the tornadoe and got struck by lightning. 10 seconds later, he got up saying "uh, I got struck by lightning" and kept on filming. He then went to a porch and was knocked out by debris but 30 seconds later got up and kept filming.. hehe I can't imagine it not hurting that badly to that guy..
this rocks! (Score:1)
wow...
Another thing I like about Slashdot. (Score:1, Offtopic)
That's another thing I like about Slashdot. Everyone is so kind!
In Mourning (Score:1)
Re:In Mourning (Score:1)