...when the lighting strikes...

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
DougPaul said:
Lightning can also strike out of a clear blue sky, but both are rare occurrances.

Doug


The basic rule that I use in the woods, on ridge lines and on my kids soccer fields is simple. If you can hear thunder, you are in range. Protect yourself. Bolts traveling over 10 miles are rare but they do occur and kill people often enough. On extremely rare occasions it strikes before anyone hears any thunder.

Keith
 
VFTT Rocks

This thread is an example of why VFTT is my favorite website. Thanks to DougPaul and SAR-EMT40 for the science lessons. As usual, I'm in awe.
I remember a real-life example of what Little Bear said:
A young man was killed by lightning at the New Jersey Shore a couple of years ago, under a blue sky. The nearest storm cloud was eight miles offshore.
I wonder if farmers get hit by lightning more often than loggers? Both my grandfathers were hit two different times each while working in fields in the Connecticut River Valley.
 
SAR-EMT40 said:
Warning: some science below. :eek: :D
Warning: still more science.
(This could be getting a bit OT... Skip to the last paragraph if you wish a non-technical executive summary.)

Not exactly. As I remember Doug, I think you are using the ideal gas law. Now this is OK but it ignores the pressure changes, but they are there. Ignoring it is OK because the gas we are talking about is air and air, while not truly an ideal gas (no gas is ideal) it is close enough to use the ideal gas equation in most instances. Considering the gas to be ideal and forgetting to include the changes do to pressure because of altitude is OK in this case because the contributions because of altitude is much much smaller than the contributions due to temperature.
You think incorrectly--I am not using the ideal gas law. Talking about the ideal gas implies that you are talking about taking a parcel of air and changing its pressure (due to altitude) and looking at the resultant temp change assuming no other heat inputs or losses. My equation for temp vs altitude is an approximation of an average static (ie non-moving) column of air, presumably based upon real measurments and certainly affected by other heat inputs and losses. You appear to be talking about the temperature lapse rate of dry or humid air (they are different) as it changes altitude (eg up or down a mountainside), I was not. (Since both the volume and pressure change as a function of altitude, the heat capacity of the gas must also be brought into the calculation of the temperature lapse rate.)

(For info on the dry and moise adiabatic (temperature) lapse rates, see, for instance:
Theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_process
Practice: http://www.tpub.com/content/aerographer/14312/css/14312_47.htm)

A barometric altimeter generally knows the pressure at some altitude (supplied by your calibration), the local pressure, and perhaps the local temperature. It then uses some "standard" atmosphere model to estimate the local altitude which requires some assumed standard temperature profile. My equation simply summarizes such a standard temperature profile as found in an aeronautics book. What I did not show in the equation that I presented was that the standard temp profile becomes constant at 220K (-53C) above 29500 ft to some much higher altitude at which point the standard temp begins to rise again. (This higher altitude point was well above where any aircraft could fly, so it was not included in the simulator.)

Short answer is what Doug has done is perfectly reasonable in his simulator, longer answer is that altitude does affect the speed but its contribution is small enough that most times its contribution can be ignored. Like any good engineer Doug went for the simplier equation that gives engineering answers that are perfectly respectable considering what needed to be done.
Short answer is that assuming someone else's motivation is risky, and in this case, wrong.

Now all of this was from my fluids and gases classes and that was a long time ago. Its what I remember but I have already established that my memory isn't what it used to be. What I was stating was based on the full equations relating pressures/temperature etc. There are times, like this, when you can get away with the simplification of the gas equation by using the ideal gas law, and this is one of those times. :D Hope this makes sense? :confused: If I have made some mistake then let me know.
As I have already stated, our underlying assumptions are different.

BTW, the ideal gas law is:
PV=nRT
..... P=pressure
..... V=volume
..... n=moles (amount) of gas
..... R=universal gas constant
..... T=absolute temp

All of the above is about the temp of air as a function of altitude. The speed of sound is still proportional to the sqrt(absolute_temp).

Somehow, I doubt that the average hiker needs to know much of the above--the speed of sound is still ~1000 ft/sec anywhere that one is likely to hike.

Doug
 
Last edited:
DougPaul said:
Warning: still more science.
(This could be getting a bit OT... Skip to the last paragraph if you wish a non-technical executive summary.)


You think incorrectly--I am not using the ideal gas law. Talking about the ideal gas implies that you are talking about taking a parcel of air and changing its pressure (due to altitude) and looking at the resultant temp change assuming no other heat inputs or losses. My equation for temp vs altitude is an approximation of an average static (ie non-moving) column of air, presumably based upon real measurments and certainly affected by other heat inputs and losses. You appear to be talking about the temperature lapse rate of dry or humid air (they are different) as it changes altitude (eg up or down a mountainside), I was not. (Since both the volume and pressure change as a function of altitude, the heat capacity of the gas must also be brought into the calculation of the temperature lapse rate.)

(For info on the dry and moise adiabatic (temperature) lapse rates, see, for instance:
Theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_process
Practice: http://www.tpub.com/content/aerographer/14312/css/14312_47.htm)

A barometric altimeter generally knows the pressure at some altitude (supplied by your calibration), the local pressure, and perhaps the local temperature. It then uses some "standard" atmosphere model to estimate the local altitude which requires some assumed standard temperature profile. My equation simply summarizes such a standard temperature profile as found in an aeronautics book. What I did not show in the equation that I presented was that the standard temp profile becomes constant at 220K (-53C) above 29500 ft to some much higher altitude at which point the standard temp begins to rise again. (This higher altitude point was well above where any aircraft could fly, so it was not included in the simulator.)


Short answer is that assuming someone else's motivation is risky, and in this case, wrong.


As I have already stated, our underlying assumptions are different.

BTW, the ideal gas law is:
PV=nRT
..... P=pressure
..... V=volume
..... n=moles (amount) of gas
..... R=universal gas constant
..... T=absolute temp

All of the above is about the temp of air as a function of altitude. The speed of sound is still proportional to the sqrt(absolute_temp).

Somehow, I doubt that the average hiker needs to know much of the above--the speed of sound is still ~1000 ft/sec anywhere that one is likely to hike.

Doug

Let me open some of my moldier books and check this. Like I said, I may be wrong. I need some time to check. Sorry if you took offense none was meant. I suspect that we are going to go far OT at this point so I will send email Doug. Give me some time.

It is also true that at this point it is academic as the differences are not much no matter what.

But, rest assured if I find out I am wrong (right now I'm betting on Doug) I will post that.

Keith
 
Last edited:
SAR-EMT40 said:
Let me open some of my moldier books and check this. Like I said, I may be wrong. I need some time to check. Sorry if you took offense none was meant. I suspect that we are going to go far OT at this point so I will send email Doug. Give me some time.
Keith,

Perhaps no need to breathe all that mold dust--I found a similar standard atmosphere definition to the one that I used. (I may have used an older version.)

Properties Of The U.S. Standard Atmosphere 1976: http://www.pdas.com/atmos.htm
which includes a table of altitude vs temp: http://www.pdas.com/e2.htm

The table uses feet and degrees R whereas my equation uses feet and degrees K (R = 1.8 K), but on converting, the two are in near agreement.

It is also true that at this point it is academic as the differences are not much no matter what.
Agreed.

Doug
 
Last edited:
DougPaul said:
Keith,

Perhaps no need to breathe all that mold dust--I found a similar standard atmosphere definition to the one that I used. (I may have used an older version.)

Properties Of The U.S. Standard Atmosphere 1976: http://www.pdas.com/atmos.htm
which includes a table of altitude vs temp: http://www.pdas.com/e2.htm

The table uses feet and degrees R whereas my equation uses feet and degrees K (R = 1.8 K), but on converting, the two are in near agreement.


Agreed.

Doug

OK, I have looked at several things and I agree with a whole heart that Doug is correct. Speed of sound in air is entirely related to temperature. The part of the equation that relates to air pressure and air density basically cancels out and you are left with nothing but an equation for the speed of sound that only relates to temperature. Any changes in altitude that would have an affect on the speed of sound is because of a temperature change not the actual change in pressure or density. Sorry about any confusion. :eek:

Keith
 
Just imagine - ME - a guy who never got thru Algebra II, chemistry or physics started this thread! :D

Somehow, I actually liked calculus in college - and basic math is not a problem...

Have you guys ever heard of Equations Anonomyous? :p :D :p :D

Seriously - this thread has been great info - some practical, some theoretical.
 
sapblatt said:
Have you guys ever heard of Equations Anonomyous? :p :D :p :D

Seriously - this thread has been great info - some practical, some theoretical.
Just a normal exchange between two people with scientific backgrounds. One makes an assertion. The second asks "is that correct?". Then they exchange evidence until they agree.

Or if the evidence is incomplete (perhaps because the issue is cutting edge research), then they may have to agree to disagree until more evidence decides the issue. Occasionally, essentially all in the field agree except for a few prominent holdouts (eg big-bang vs continuous generation of the universe). Then you have to wait for the holdouts to die...

And, of course, there are also those who are not interested in evidence--eg the flat-earthers.

Doug
 
"Scariest storm photo I sawr was living in Gorham, Maine: local teen gahl, in front o' school, her hair standin' up like she was touching a Van De Graff generatah'." (Truth)

JEEPERS !!
I'm trying to intuit which of you geeks went to RPI
;^)
(Apologies to Sli74).

[Knowledge and Thoroughness !]
Moonrock (MS 84)
 
moonrock said:
"Scariest storm photo I sawr was living in Gorham, Maine: local teen gahl, in front o' school, her hair standin' up like she was touching a Van De Graff generatah'." (Truth)
When your hair stands up like that it means that the electrical fields are getting rather high. You may also start hearing a buzzing sound. Not a good place to be--the lightning gods are taking aim...

I'm trying to intuit which of you geeks went to RPI
Not me.

Doug
 
The worst thing about being struck by lightning is that sometimes it doesn't always kill you - it can turn you into this guy:


common sense approach - if you above treeline - get below
if your below treeline - keep moving unless obvious shelter is around and pray a tree doesn't fall on you

for the numbers of people that hike in summer in the whites above treeline and below - chances are many have been caught in a boomer - I have been cuahgt in boomers.


I don't recall a death lately in the northeast, based on this - getting hit using the common sense approached has worked pretty well for thousands if not tens of thousands of hikers. Just playing the odds game. doug and sar, etc as usual have great advice - even if I can't can understand it :eek: :D ;)
 
moonrock said:
I'm trying to intuit which of you geeks went to RPI
[Knowledge and Thoroughness !]
BS CS '81 ! :D

And when I was there, it took a Sage student to inform me that the motto on the window sticker I had on my car was spelled wrong:

"Knowledge and Thoroghness" !!! :eek:
 
Tom Rankin said:
BS CS '81 ! :D

And when I was there, it took a Sage student to inform me that the motto on the window sticker I had on my car was spelled wrong:

"Knowledge and Thoroghness" !!! :eek:

Tom
Were you there when Adam Oates was there?
 
moonrock said:
JEEPERS !!
I'm trying to intuit which of you geeks went to RPI
;^)

hey, watch it. I resemble that remark.

BSEE '93

by the way, if in the middle of a thunderstorm, you were to stop and think about all the things Doug and Keith posted here, you probably would get struck by lightning.

Puck,
I missed Adam Oates, but Joe Juneau was there when I was.
 
SteveHiker said:
Puck,
I missed Adam Oates, but Joe Juneau was there when I was.

I suspect we have alot of ECAC rivals on this board. Not to mention Hockey East.
 
Since the season is winding down it probably would have been better to post it earlier but anyways.

What to do after a lightning strike.

As usual make sure the scene is safe and then start checking people. As always the people moaning, screaming and crying are the ones to ignore initially as you triage your patients. They will tend to get the most attention and if there is only one or two of you to help a group of people you need to work hard at checking the people not moving. The ones not moving are the potentially seriously hurt ones who need immediate assistance, not the screamers and criers. Check the screamers and criers after you have checked and corrected the non-movers problems.

Start checking the non movers ABC's. Open the airway. Check breathing and check for pulse. If they don't have pulse start CPR. When looking at people not breathing or in cardiac arrest. They have a fair chance of being brought back after a lightning strike if help comes soon. If they aren't breathing, this is most common because the strike disrupts the breathing centers of the brain. Now this is one of the times that CPR will very possibly restart the heart if it is stopped, which is good. What may not happen, because the breathing centers of the brain have been disrupted, is very likely that they will not start breathing on their own. This means that you will need to support them with mouth to mouth or better for you mask (some sort of barrier) to mouth. Don't give up on this if you can. As long as you breathe for them their hearts will most likely continue to beat. The heart probably stopped before, if it did, because the breathing stopped. Getting the connection? :D If their heart is pumping it is likely they can be saved if you continue to support their breathing as long as it is needed.

Also be aware that many people who are struck or near struck by lightning are deaf in one or both ears from punctured eardrums, so communications with them may be very difficult, even after they become lucid. This is one of the most common injuries with people who survive a lightning strike. They will also very likely have punctures and feather pattern burns on them as well. It is possible that people that were not actually struck may have traumatic injuries from being thrown and hitting things. All these are common in strikes and near strikes.

I will also mention that people that have been directly struck and have survived rarely have the same quality of life, at least from what I have seen (anecdotal). Constant pain from nerve damage is always a threat as well as other ailments.

Bottom line; don’t have a fatalistic attitude about lightning. i.e. if I get hit I’ll never know about it. You may be unlucky enough to survive and spend the rest of your life in constant pain. Get off the ridgelines, away from tall objects, etc. Actively protect yourself.

Oh and that van de graff look in a lightning storm. Like Doug said. Bad thing. That is an indication that you are one of the lightning leaders for a strike. Consider that a warning that you are about to die if you don’t fix that and fix it immediately, like in seconds.

Wish I could have gone to RPI. :D Excellent engineering school along with several others in the northeast.

Keith
 
Last edited:
Puck said:
Tom Were you there when Adam Oates was there?
I do not know the name.

FWIW, I had dinner with George Low once. He was then the President of RPI, and had previously been the head of NASA. He is generally credited as having created the Space Shuttle program.

And I am a proud geek! :D
 
SteveHiker said:
by the way, if in the middle of a thunderstorm, you were to stop and think about all the things Doug and Keith posted here, you probably would get struck by lightning.
If you are caught in a thunderstorm, don't worry about our scientific issues. Follow the rules of thumb: get thee to a protected spot, etc.

The survivors can sort out the science later... :)

(Actually, some of the rules of thumb are motivated by the science--you just don't need to worry about the logic chain in real-time.)

Doug
 
Lightning Doesn't Always Follow the Rules

Getting away from the highest point of land is good advice, but it doesn't necessarily mean you are safe. I have witnessed lightning hit the Charles River not far from lots of tall skyscrapers. I also saw a video of lightning striking the ground right next to a tall building. (I can't find the link at the moment.) I don't know why it didn't hit the building, but someone standing next to the building thinking "I'm safe here because the building is a better target" might have been dead wrong.

It's still best to follow all of the precautions to minimize your risk and never underestimate the potential danger when you are near a thunder storm.
 
Mark said:
... it didn't hit the building, but someone standing next to the building thinking "I'm safe here because the building is a better target" might have been dead wrong. ...

The rule of thumb is to get away a distance at least half the height of the tree ... or building
 
Top