SciForums Encyclopedia

[phlogistician]

Actually technically not stating he was having the problem was "Dumb", but since he's spoken up he can now work out how to do it, it also might be down to the button not showing on his particular browser or maybe even mobile phone. Which means it could have well been a technical issue.

Or this could be the dumb guy that thinks he can catch lightning in a box talking.

 

[CheskiChips]

Or this could be the dumb guy that thinks he can catch lightning in a box talking.

Speak USA or die.

 

[GeoffP]

Catch lightning in a box? Let's hear more about this plan.

 

[BennyF]

Thanks to all (but Phil) for your replies.

Benny, an admirer of Mr. Franklin

 

[phlogistician]

Catch lightning in a box? Let's hear more about this plan.

He was vague about his actual circuit, because he was applying for a patent, allegedly, but he thought he could stick a conductor in the air, so it would be struck by lightning, and capture all the energy from the lightning into capacitors. He didn't realise that to DC, capacitors are insulators, and that the lightning, wanting to find a path to ground, won't just jump into his little electronic box of tricks, it will find a path to ground.

The current (pun intended) best solution is to place inductors around a lightning rod, and tap off energy that is created by the magnetic field induced around the rod as the lightning grounds itself. This works, because the lighting has a path to ground, but it only taps off a fraction of the energy. Simply, any device that makes lightning do work to get to ground, looks less favourable than a direct path. So the more energy you try to take, the less likely it is your conductor will be struck. Benny doesn't seem to grasp that trying to take 100% of the energy, gives him less chance of a strike. I think he sees lightning like he sees a DC voltage supply coming down a wire. The point that the lightning can choose where to strike and cannot be applied across a device with certainty just doesn't occur to him.