Lightning as an energy source?

[alan2here]

Shooting a projectile seems more sustanable. Good idea.

[Atomicfool]

it has been proved that talking on the phone during a storm can increse your risk of getting struck. Can this be used to attract lightning? electromagnetic radiation may be the passageway fr lightning to strike the earth.

[swansont]

it has been proved that talking on the phone during a storm can increse your risk of getting struck. Can this be used to attract lightning? electromagnetic radiation may be the passageway fr lightning to strike the earth.

 

AFAIK, the reason that odds "improve" on a corded landline phone is because it doesn't have to be a direct strike in order to harm you — the electricity can travel along a conductor from a remote strike. It's somewhat similar to standing under a tree vs. lying flat in a ditch — you effectively make yourself part of a bigger target, but it does not attract more lightning strikes.

 

However, note that the vast majority of lightning fatalities occur outdoors. In the US in 2009 (and 2008, I think), there were zero indoor fatalities.

 

http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/

 

(also, the statistics show that males attract lightning more than females)

[Mr Skeptic]

it has been proved that talking on the phone during a storm can increse your risk of getting struck. Can this be used to attract lightning? electromagnetic radiation may be the passageway fr lightning to strike the earth.

 

That's because the telephone cable is really really long piece of metal, and can conduct the lighting rather easily straight to your ear. A lightning rod works better to attract lighting, and even better a kite with a metal string or a rocket trailing a metal wire. Basically anything that provides an easier path for electricity than the air (such as holding a metal golf club up), increases the chance of lightning taking that path. You don't want lighting taking a path trough you, so make sure lightning always has an easier path than through your body.

[Atomicfool]

As a thundercloud moves over the surface of the Earth, an electric charge equal to but opposite the charge of the base of the thundercloud is induced in the Earth below the cloud. The induced ground charge follows the movement of the cloud,

remaining underneath it.

Courtesy: Wikipedia

if we can generate this opposite electric charge on an stationary ground unit then lightning will strike this unit from passing by clouds. the only problem is how to generate equal charge. but then will it be profitable?

[insane_alien]

so... you propose to used lots and lots of power generating acharge in the earths surface just so you can harness a few lightning strikes?

 

not going to be profitable at all, or even give a net energy output.

 

lightning just doesn't contain that much energy.

[Atomicfool]

Yeah maybe u r right....

[John Cuthber]

Bumping this for a tinkerer's benefit as he seems unable to read it otherwise.

 

He asked about the same thing here

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/70141-lessening-hurricanes-by-triggering-lightning-bolts/

 

even though I pointed out this thread to him here

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/70173-making-consumable-electricity-from-lightning-bolts-is-it-possible/page__p__711113#entry711113

Edited November 1, 2012 by John Cuthber

[a_tinkerer]

What I initially proposed is to fire (between 1 and 60 minute intervals) an ironized laser up through a small hole in large suspended dense metal object to bring down a number of lightning bolts per hour just as Nasa did with a copper wire on a day there were no clouds in the sky. I can only assume Nasa's copper wire reached the wireless electricity of lower Van Allen belt.

 

My initial idea is to send that electricity into a number of 20 foot container sized capacitors to heat up a body of water with red hot coils to drive a turbine to create consumable electricity.

 

Some here have said this is uneconomical - maybe it is but wouldn't that depend on the number of strikes brought down per hour. With the ongoing sale of electricity versus the minimum ongoing yearly costs in comparison, how exactly would a 'Lightning electrical generating plant' be uneconomical?

 

Once the right economies of scale and problems are worked out with a more costly prototype, such plant could be replicated many times over all over the world to bring the plant price down.

 

I realize this is an initial draft concept that I am sure needs much tweaking if it is ever going to fly. I run 3 businesses myself here in New Zealand - I am not a scientist - I just enjoy thinking outside the box. If there is any merit in this idea I can only hope there is someone or a group around who can lean forward and work out how it can be done rather that just see the problems. And I am not naive - I am sure there are many problems with such a concept. I am optimist at heart - that's how I started 3 businesses from nothing that I run successfully & have been working for myself for the past 12 years.

Edited November 1, 2012 by a_tinkerer

[Klaynos]

Can you provide a reference to the NASA work?

[a_tinkerer]

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/pdf/167417main_Lightning08.pdf

 

Page 9

 

For the effectiveness of a ironised laser - see http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6014-sweeping-stun-guns-to-target-crowds.html

[Klaynos]

Is that your only source for the lightning? It's not good on details, at all. Having read it I'd say you already needed the start of a build up and something like a rocket to spark it. Using a laser as you suggest may induce some lightning in an already highly lightning area, and may get it to strike one area.

 

Problems I see are you don't get enough storms for this to be feasible, I'm not sure storage is as trivial as you seem to suggest, the power the laser will need to ionise the air for 8km up and the high chance you'll fry your kit.

[John Cuthber]

For a start, learn to spell ionised.

Then read the new scientist page which says the range is less than 100M.

The energy required to produce an ionised channel is not small.

It will destroy the efficiency of the system.

 

Equally, you can not "harvest" lightning every minute unless there is a massive storm generating that energy.

[a_tinkerer]

It is interesting you don't seem to see the charged particles (electricity) of the lower Van Ellen belt which is not a distinctive belt as such - more of a gradual fading of charged particles to the level of the clouds as having much to do with recharging the atmosphere.

I have many more links on the internet to back up my theory as I have been thinking about this over the last 6 years.

However I see little point in discussing this further if your reactions are like the ones above.

Thank you for your comments - I can see this is going nowhere on this forum.

Edited November 2, 2012 by a_tinkerer

[Klaynos]

You need a big induced charge difference for lightning.

 

I am slightly saddened by your attitude, it strikes as not liking what your hearing so leaving. It is a discussion forum based about science people are not yes men here.

[a_tinkerer]

It appears the riddle of tapping into the seemingly unlimited radiated power of the lower Van Allen belt will be worked out by somebody more intelligent than John. I have no time for his sarcasm.

[Klaynos]

The inner belt is at its closest 200 km above the earths surface. Work out the energy of laser you'd need to create an ionised path that far. It is also unclear to me what you could do at that point, the flux of charged particles may be high but they also have very high energies.

 

So there's two reasons why you're being dismissed. The laser energy is not feasible and the mechanism of extracting useful energy using an ionised path is unclear.

[John Cuthber]

It appears the riddle of tapping into the seemingly unlimited radiated power of the lower Van Allen belt will be worked out by somebody more intelligent than John. I have no time for his sarcasm.

The problem is that the V A belt only seems like unlimited power to you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt#Removal

There's not really a lot of stored energy there because, at that altitude, the "atmosphere" is a pretty good vacuum.

 

My sarcasm might not help, and I don't claim to be all that intelligent, but at least I have the sense to look at the wiki page for the VA belts.

What did you do by way of research?

Because I think that the problem of supplying the human race with energy might come from someone sarcastic, but it sure won't come from someone with no idea what hey are talking about.