alt.energy.renewable

Eeyore wrote:
>
> sno wrote:
>
> > Eeyore wrote:
> > > sno wrote:
> > > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > > sno wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Wouldn't the skin effect tend to protect the cable....??
> > > > >
> > > > > Have you any other jokes you'd like to share ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Graham
> > > >
> > > > I do not see why my question was a joke...I would think
> > > > the extremely high rise and fall time of a lightning strike
> > > > could cause the electrons to flow on the outside of the
> > > > conduit (skin effect)
> > >
> > > And why would that stop a current flowing in a conductor inside it ?
> > >
> > > > If you are not familiar with the the term you might look here.
> > > >
> > > > /wiki/Skin_effect
> > >
> > > Yes, I know what it is.
> > >
> > > Graham
> >

> > My thinking was that it would extenuate the current that would be
> > induced into the cable...because it would give two alternate
> > paths for current flow to ground (inside and outside of the conduit)-
> > I would think the only current in the cable would be caused by
> > the electromagnetic pulses.
>
> The duration of lightning strikes is too long to be affected by skin effect. If
> a lightning strike lasted a microsecond or so you might have a point.
>
I thought I had read way back when that a lightening strike was actually
a number of strikes, the intial leader ionized the air and then there
was a ringing effect...causing multiple strikes at a high frequency..
...between the earth and the cloud...guess it was
one of those things I misread or am not remembering correctly.

> Graham

Thanks for your knowledge...have fun....sno

--
No matter how dangerous nuclear power may or
may not be.....
Is it any more dangerous then what we are doing
now.....???

This tag line is generated by:
SLNG (Silly Little Nuclear Generator)