Why must we, supposedly technical types, anthropomorphize lightning and
its "behaviors?" Lightning has no mind of its own, no desires, no
ability to choose a path. It is just a manifestation of physical law.
Attributes of the phenomenon, lightning, are governed by the immutable
laws of physics. Our inability to predict, in detail, what lightning
will do is a reflection of our paucity of understanding of physical law
compounded by chaos where small changes in initial conditions can
produce large and often unpredictable outcomes. The laws of electronics
are a subset of the laws of physics dealing with voltage, current,
charge, etc. Lightning "obeys" these laws completely with no deviation
irrespective of our ability to understand the fine detail sufficiently
to explain outcomes.
Lightning follows "the rules" as surely as a simple flashlight does.
The challenge is to divine how "the rules" are applied in what becomes
an exceedingly complex time varying electrical network problem. We
apply simplifying assumptions in order to deal with what would otherwise
be overwhelming complexity. The simpler we make the problem the easier
it is for us to understand but the less accurate our model parallels or
describes reality. This leads to unexpected results where our
expectations are not met by that nasty ole lightning seemingly having a
mind of its own.
The more we simplify our model the greater the potential for deviation
of reality vs our flawed expectation. Along the way, over time, folks
dealing with lightning have worked out some basic guidelines that, when
applied, reduce the probability of lightning caused damage. I am not
aware of any exposed but fully lightning protected installations of any
useful complexity. The statistical likelihood of lightning damage may
be reduced but I would think it impossible to be fully eliminated in
practical applications. The cost vs protection ratio rapidly escalates
as higher degrees of protection are attempted. At some point it is
easier to accept some amount of risk as it might be more economical than
trying to further reduce the likelihood of damage.
Excellent insurance is available from an ARRL approved source that in
many instances would make replacing equipment damaged by lightning less
expensive than paying to get greater lightning protection which is still
no guarantee against damage just a reduction in probability.
I wish everyone a lightning safe new year and the good luck to avoid
being smacked by Thor.
Patrick NJ5G
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|