Ext User(, nospam@ever.com.au)
15-01-2006, 05:44 PM
The Real Andy wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 06:56:46 +1100, "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >McGrath <no@email> wrote
> >> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
> >>> McGrath <no@email> wrote
> >>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
> >>>>> McGrath <no@email> wrote
> >>>>>> Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
> >>>>>>> McGrath <no@email> wrote
> >>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
> >>>>>>>>> The Real Andy <will_get_back_to_you_on_This@> wrote
> >
> >>>>>>>>>> Its not the wood thats doing the conducting.
> >
> >>>>>>>>> Yes it is.
> >
> >>>>>>>> You'll find it was the water that was
> >>>>>>>> the conductor, not simply the wood.
> >
> >>>>>>> Wrong with dry wood.
> >
> >>>>>> Dry wood is an insulator - not a conductor.
> >
> >>>>> Depends entirely on the level of voltage
> >>>>> applied, just like with any insulator.
> >
> >>>> Well in the context of grounding a laptop,
> >
> >>> The thread had diverged from that.
> >
> >>>> wood is useless and would act as an insulator.
> >>>> In the context of the 'bandstand' incident,
> >>>> water was the conductor - NOT wood.
> >
> >>>> In both instatnces wood was/is not a conductor.
> >
> >>> Irrelevant to the general question about whether
> >>> wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.
> >
> >>>>>> For the purpose of earthing - which is where this started,
> >
> >>>>> Irrelevant to where it diverged to.
> >
> >>>> Somehow we diverged to the Geelong incident. The lightning
> >>>> was conducted by water from the thunderstorm - not the wood.
> >
> >>> Irrelevant to the general question about whether
> >>> wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.
> >
> >>>>>> wood has NO conducive conductive abilities.
> >
> >>>>> Pity about the situation that it diverged to.
> >
> >>>> Which was the situation where water was the
> >>>> main conductive substance - NOT the wood.
> >
> >>> Irrelevant to the general question about whether
> >>> wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.
> >
> >>>> You said wood was doing the conducting - it wasn't.
> >
> >>> Irrelevant to the general question about whether
> >>> wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.
> >
> >> Sorry mate, but that 'general question' was never part of the thread.
> >
> >Wrong, as always. It became part of the thread when you
> >made a spectacular fool of yourself when you claimed that
> >it wasnt the wood that conducted. Sometimes it is indeed.
> >
> >> It's simple. In this context of this thread, wood is NOT a conductor.
> >
> >Wrong, as always. Just like with ANY conductor, its ALWAYS
> >possible to exceed the breakdown voltage and get it to conduct.
> >Most obviously when the wood isnt that thick and you have the
> >lightning hitting metal on the weather side, and then the wood
> >CAN break down even when it isnt wet.
> >
>
> The only time this can happen is when there is no possible way for the
> lightning to find ground. What happens in this situation is that it
> usually 'punches' or burns a hole in the material. Once again, the
> material itself is not doing the conducting.
>
> Lightning still follows the path of least resistance, and considering
> that air breaks down at a much lower voltage than timber, the air will
> always win.
Not quite right. Lightning is usually completely random. The force and
time levsl involved do not permit a "cool" appraisal of "the least
resistance".
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 06:56:46 +1100, "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >McGrath <no@email> wrote
> >> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
> >>> McGrath <no@email> wrote
> >>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
> >>>>> McGrath <no@email> wrote
> >>>>>> Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
> >>>>>>> McGrath <no@email> wrote
> >>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
> >>>>>>>>> The Real Andy <will_get_back_to_you_on_This@> wrote
> >
> >>>>>>>>>> Its not the wood thats doing the conducting.
> >
> >>>>>>>>> Yes it is.
> >
> >>>>>>>> You'll find it was the water that was
> >>>>>>>> the conductor, not simply the wood.
> >
> >>>>>>> Wrong with dry wood.
> >
> >>>>>> Dry wood is an insulator - not a conductor.
> >
> >>>>> Depends entirely on the level of voltage
> >>>>> applied, just like with any insulator.
> >
> >>>> Well in the context of grounding a laptop,
> >
> >>> The thread had diverged from that.
> >
> >>>> wood is useless and would act as an insulator.
> >>>> In the context of the 'bandstand' incident,
> >>>> water was the conductor - NOT wood.
> >
> >>>> In both instatnces wood was/is not a conductor.
> >
> >>> Irrelevant to the general question about whether
> >>> wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.
> >
> >>>>>> For the purpose of earthing - which is where this started,
> >
> >>>>> Irrelevant to where it diverged to.
> >
> >>>> Somehow we diverged to the Geelong incident. The lightning
> >>>> was conducted by water from the thunderstorm - not the wood.
> >
> >>> Irrelevant to the general question about whether
> >>> wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.
> >
> >>>>>> wood has NO conducive conductive abilities.
> >
> >>>>> Pity about the situation that it diverged to.
> >
> >>>> Which was the situation where water was the
> >>>> main conductive substance - NOT the wood.
> >
> >>> Irrelevant to the general question about whether
> >>> wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.
> >
> >>>> You said wood was doing the conducting - it wasn't.
> >
> >>> Irrelevant to the general question about whether
> >>> wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.
> >
> >> Sorry mate, but that 'general question' was never part of the thread.
> >
> >Wrong, as always. It became part of the thread when you
> >made a spectacular fool of yourself when you claimed that
> >it wasnt the wood that conducted. Sometimes it is indeed.
> >
> >> It's simple. In this context of this thread, wood is NOT a conductor.
> >
> >Wrong, as always. Just like with ANY conductor, its ALWAYS
> >possible to exceed the breakdown voltage and get it to conduct.
> >Most obviously when the wood isnt that thick and you have the
> >lightning hitting metal on the weather side, and then the wood
> >CAN break down even when it isnt wet.
> >
>
> The only time this can happen is when there is no possible way for the
> lightning to find ground. What happens in this situation is that it
> usually 'punches' or burns a hole in the material. Once again, the
> material itself is not doing the conducting.
>
> Lightning still follows the path of least resistance, and considering
> that air breaks down at a much lower voltage than timber, the air will
> always win.
Not quite right. Lightning is usually completely random. The force and
time levsl involved do not permit a "cool" appraisal of "the least
resistance".