Lightning detectors function (among other frequencies)

down to 10 kHz.  My opinion is that most of

the lightning energy is below 1 MHz.

 

 

Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen

 

g.grem...@cetest.nl <mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl> 

www.cetest.nl


Kiotoweg 363

3047 BG Rotterdam

T 31(0)104152426
F 31(0)104154953

 

Before printing, think about the environment. 

 

 

Van: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Namens Fred Townsend
Verzonden: Friday, November 06, 2009 11:52 AM
Aan: m...@sfo.com
CC: emc-pstc@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Onderwerp: Re: [PSES] Discharge capacitors

 

Robert it is difficult to validate your models without knowing more about them
but they are suspect when they fail to uphold empirically derived practice
that has existed for longer than field solvers.  You certainly stick your neck
out when you say:



"CONCLUSION:
  Round is always better."

I can think of numerous exceptions, exceptions that may prove the rule.  In
fairness many of the exceptions are caused effects not considered by your
models but are real world, nevertheless. ( I thought this discussion was about
best practice.)  For instance if one is terminating in a, PCB or just a tab,
round tube requires a  round to rectangular conversion. How may that
conversion effect corona? As you said nature doesn't like 'pointy' stuff.

It would be folly to characterize the problem as purely one of inductance. We
like to model lightning as pulse but we know lightning is often a damped
sinusoid. Where does the sinusoid come from? 

We know that if hit a LC circuit with an impulse function, the circuit will
ring at its natural frequency.  Could this be the source of the sinusoid? If
we suspect there are resonance effects, then clearly we must address
capacitance and L/C ratios and transmission line effects as well. Clearly your
2D field solver isn't going to do that.

Finally in your models, isn't there going to be significant energy below 10
MHz? My AM broadcast radio certainly thinks there is whenever lightning
strikes nearby. 

Why do you show reactance for ribbon and resistance for tube? Is that an error
of missing 'j's or is this truly apples and oranges?

Best regards,

Fred Townsend
DC to Light

m...@sfo.com wrote: 

Flat rectangular is NOT better than a round tube if each have the same
circumference.
 
The round tube has lower inductance than a flat ribbon conductor of
comparable circumference.  Makes sense, because Nature abhors 'pointy'
stuff.
 
This statement is based upon a comparison analyzing the two structures
using finite element analysis, femm 4.2.
 
Given:
 solid ribbon copper conductor, 1 inch wide and 120 mils thick
 copper tube, 0.75 inch outside diameter and 120 mils wall thickness
 
The two circumferences are approximately the same.
  Rectangle 2 * (0.12+1) = 2.24 inches
  Tube pi * 0.7 = 2.20 inches
 
Which is a better conductor?
 
Assume infinitely long, straight conductors.  Assuming most of lightning
energy is significant between 1MHz to 100MHz, calculate each conductor's
characteristics at 10MHz and at 100MHz using 2D finite element analysis.
 
Method: place each conductor in a 24 inch diameter metal 'tube' to provide
return current and represent infinity.  Note: I also used single
conductors in free space with current return at infinity. Values changed,
but the conclusions did not change.  Use a 12 inch length to reference
values per ft.  Mesh was set to be fine near the surfaces of the
conductors, so that even with hgih frequency currents inside the
conductors were accurately represented.  Skin depth was more than 3 nodes.
 
>From results, the current as a function of depth into the conductors
matched expected values.  Plots of current/eddy currents verified mesh was
of suficient density for these calculations.
 
TABLE RESULTS:
 
Ribbon - Solid  mesh 69,406
10MHz   210 nH/ft      0.00347 W
        13.2j ohm/ft   83 milliohm/ft
100MHz  210 nH/ft      0.0115W
        132j ohm/ft    0.15 ohm/ft
 
Tube - Hollow  mesh 90,233
100MHz  203 nH/ft      0.00239W
        12.8 ohm/ft    69 mOhm/ft
100MHz  203 nH/ft      0.00732
        128 ohm/ft     0.12 ohm/ft
 
It was interesting to note that with a wall thickness of more than 10
mils, at these frequencies the metal was doing nothing but physically
supporting the outside layer.
 
CONCLUSION:
  Round is always better.
 
Robert
 
  

        As a rule of thumb, a conductor
         
        has an (self)inductance proportionally inverse with
         
        it's circumference (if fact the shortest way the magnetic field lines
        will take).
         
        Big flat conductors always perform better then round ones, as they
         
        have the highest circumference per kilo.
         
        Litz and silver(gold) coated conductors do contribute to the
         
        real part of the impedance (=resistance)  properties only.
         
        Litz by increasing the conductive surfaces so reducing
         
        the resistance increase caused by  the skin effect.
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
        Regards,
         
        Ing. Gert Gremmen
         
         
         
        g.grem...@cetest.nl <mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl> 
<mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl> 
         
        www.cetest.nl
         
         
        Kiotoweg 363
         
        3047 BG Rotterdam
         
        T 31(0)104152426
        F 31(0)104154953
         
         
            

 
-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
<emc-p...@ieee.org> <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> 
 
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL.
 
Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <emcp...@socal.rr.com> <mailto:emcp...@socal.rr.com> 
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> 
 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org> <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> 
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com> <mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> 
 
  

 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <emcp...@socal.rr.com>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com> 

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
<emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <emcp...@socal.rr.com>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com> 


Reply via email to