Capacitor to store lightning?
- Thread starter cato
- Start date
- Status
Bingo!
YIPPEEEEEEEEE !!
Which reminds me, if any of you have serious plans to try to collect and store the voltage from lightning, you should consider the serious possibility that your collection equipment might just get hit more than once from the same electrical storm. It happens.
If it does happen, your capacitor-based storage equipment will be charged up with double or even triple the voltage that you were expecting. You don't want that. Trying to find a way to store 500 MV is bad enough, but now, you're looking at a few billion volts?
I've already thought about this design consideration. That's one problem that won't happen with my circuits. I have already added some special electrical circuitry that will keep a second lightning bolt far away from any capacitors I am using. In fact, I believe I can guarantee that my caps won't get charged up again until sometime after they're fully discharged. Sorry, but for the sake of my potential application to the patent office, I choose not to say how I'm going to prevent an overcharged capacitor.
Benny
Which reminds me, if any of you have serious plans to try to collect and store the voltage from lightning, you should consider the serious possibility that your collection equipment might just get hit more than once from the same electrical storm. It happens.
If it does happen, your capacitor-based storage equipment will be charged up with double or even triple the voltage that you were expecting. You don't want that. Trying to find a way to store 500 MV is bad enough, but now, you're looking at a few billion volts?
I've already thought about this design consideration. That's one problem that won't happen with my circuits. I have already added some special electrical circuitry that will keep a second lightning bolt far away from any capacitors I am using. In fact, I believe I can guarantee that my caps won't get charged up again until sometime after they're fully discharged. Sorry, but for the sake of my potential application to the patent office, I choose not to say how I'm going to prevent an overcharged capacitor.
Benny
You mean you caught one? You honest to God caught a lightning bolt, converted and stored it in some sort of capacitor?
YIPPEEEEEEEEE !!
You will be hailed as the savior of the human race - I am honored to have known you, even in such a peripheral fashion as an internet forum...
Benny F - You still seem to still be dreaming. Did you not understand your fundamental error, explained here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2512112&postcount=153
BTW, I don't think you need worry about a second lightning bolt "over volting" your capacitor storage system. It will have enough inductance to not collect much energy even on the first strike.
I.e. most of the voltage that hits your collection rod(s) will appear across the system's inductance. - This will limit the current flowing in your capacitors. The voltage they develop will be directly proportional that collected charge. To keep the inductance as low as possible, interconnect the individual capacitors in the series string by wide copper straps, not wires.
Actually, instead of even significantly trying to enter your capacitors, the bolt will just arc around them to the ground. With their inductance, they will be a higher impedance path than just continuing the air arc to the ground.
But don't worry about facts -just keep on dreaming in your ignorance.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2512112&postcount=153
BTW, I don't think you need worry about a second lightning bolt "over volting" your capacitor storage system. It will have enough inductance to not collect much energy even on the first strike.
I.e. most of the voltage that hits your collection rod(s) will appear across the system's inductance. - This will limit the current flowing in your capacitors. The voltage they develop will be directly proportional that collected charge. To keep the inductance as low as possible, interconnect the individual capacitors in the series string by wide copper straps, not wires.
Actually, instead of even significantly trying to enter your capacitors, the bolt will just arc around them to the ground. With their inductance, they will be a higher impedance path than just continuing the air arc to the ground.
But don't worry about facts -just keep on dreaming in your ignorance.
Aw, nuts, it didn't work. OK, I'll try again.
Benny, crossing my fingers on both hands
(You can't imagine how hard it is to type with crossed fingers ...)
What are those images..?? I noticed the date on the images are yesterday?
Last edited:
The show is over, it's back to business, I'm afraid.
The Argonne National Laboratory has asked the public to submit questions on physics topics, using their "Ask a Scientist" web page. Awhile ago, a woman named Paige asked about the mass of a lightning bolt.
Here's her question and their answer.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00876.htm
I note that his answer uses an average lightning bolt, with "measurements" of 30 KA and 100 KV. That may very well be average figures, but anyone who wants to collect and store energy from lightning must deal with the peak amperage and voltage, which I've already posted.
And that's just one problem you must deal with if you want to collect and store any of the energy from a lightning bolt. Another consideration is the fact that every lightning bolt produces nitrogen oxides, which some call a greenhouse gas.
A French institute, documenting their "lightning produces NOx" findings.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18602693
A world map from the Global Emissions Inventory Activity, showing where NOx gets produced (from lightning) (PDF format).
http://geiacenter.org/graphics/light-nox-ann.pdf
NASA, in 2003, saying that lightning has a big effect on global atmospheric chemistry.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0312pollution.html
"Scientists were surprised to learn summer lightning over the U.S. significantly increases regional ozone and other gases that affect air chemistry 3 to 8 miles above Earth's surface.The amounts of ozone and nitrogen oxides created by lightning surpass those generated by human activities in that level of the atmosphere."
On the other hand, there's all this hydrogen you could produce, if you could collect it, store it, and send it through an electrolyzer ....
An article that just had its' two-year anniversary, saying that H2 can be stored in nanoparticles made out of hydride sodium alanate.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080331112030.htm
Benny, still working and still thinking
The Argonne National Laboratory has asked the public to submit questions on physics topics, using their "Ask a Scientist" web page. Awhile ago, a woman named Paige asked about the mass of a lightning bolt.
Here's her question and their answer.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00876.htm
I note that his answer uses an average lightning bolt, with "measurements" of 30 KA and 100 KV. That may very well be average figures, but anyone who wants to collect and store energy from lightning must deal with the peak amperage and voltage, which I've already posted.
And that's just one problem you must deal with if you want to collect and store any of the energy from a lightning bolt. Another consideration is the fact that every lightning bolt produces nitrogen oxides, which some call a greenhouse gas.
A French institute, documenting their "lightning produces NOx" findings.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18602693
A world map from the Global Emissions Inventory Activity, showing where NOx gets produced (from lightning) (PDF format).
http://geiacenter.org/graphics/light-nox-ann.pdf
NASA, in 2003, saying that lightning has a big effect on global atmospheric chemistry.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0312pollution.html
"Scientists were surprised to learn summer lightning over the U.S. significantly increases regional ozone and other gases that affect air chemistry 3 to 8 miles above Earth's surface.The amounts of ozone and nitrogen oxides created by lightning surpass those generated by human activities in that level of the atmosphere."
On the other hand, there's all this hydrogen you could produce, if you could collect it, store it, and send it through an electrolyzer ....
An article that just had its' two-year anniversary, saying that H2 can be stored in nanoparticles made out of hydride sodium alanate.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080331112030.htm
Benny, still working and still thinking
Last edited:
Kira, those two images are graphical documentation of a storm that happened yesterday. Depending on your point of view, you can call it an electrical storm or a thunderstorm if you wish.
With reference to the second image, every dot shows one lightning bolt. My research says that 90% of them go from one cloud to another, but some do hit a ground-based object. This distinction is further clarified by the first image, which classifies them into five categories:
Positive Cloud-to-Ground
Positive Cloud-to-Cloud
Negative Cloud-to-Ground
Negative Cloud-to-Cloud
unclassified (probably too far away to be studied)
Kira, you might want to take note of the 13,561 total lightning strikes they recorded, the 197 strikes per minute that were happening at the moment that I recorded this image, and the 459 strikes per minute that happened at the peak of the storm. These numbers should give anyone good reason to have a few second thoughts before they start buying capacitors.
Benny
With reference to the second image, every dot shows one lightning bolt. My research says that 90% of them go from one cloud to another, but some do hit a ground-based object. This distinction is further clarified by the first image, which classifies them into five categories:
Positive Cloud-to-Ground
Positive Cloud-to-Cloud
Negative Cloud-to-Ground
Negative Cloud-to-Cloud
unclassified (probably too far away to be studied)
Kira, you might want to take note of the 13,561 total lightning strikes they recorded, the 197 strikes per minute that were happening at the moment that I recorded this image, and the 459 strikes per minute that happened at the peak of the storm. These numbers should give anyone good reason to have a few second thoughts before they start buying capacitors.
Benny
Thanks for the explanation. How did you capture and count the lightning spots?
(if you don't mind me asking)
Article gives us a rough figure for the energy in a lightning bolt.
5e8 Joules.
1 Kwh is 3.6e6 Joules
So, 138.9 Kwh
What was the storm like?
5e8 Joules.
1 Kwh is 3.6e6 Joules
So, 138.9 Kwh
What was the storm like?
I sympathise.
I've tried to explain to Benny that amperage is not a measure of usable energy. I've tried really hard.
I can hardly believe he's gone back to saying the same as he said in the first place.
Just for shits and giggles...let's go with the 30KA 100KV number, and assume a 30mS strike time. (I need the math practice) Using something rarely found in my posts...math...I will attempt to calculate the total amount of energy in Joules, and then attempt to calculate the total capacitance required to store that amount of energy at 100KV.
30KA * 100KV = 3 MW
3 MW for .003 seconds = 9 KW per second or 2.5 KW/h (edit: wrong..it's 2.5 W/h)
2.5W/h = 9kJ
C= (9kJ/100KV^2) /2
C=.00045 Farads
Using the previous linked 100KV 30nF caps..it would require 15 thousand of these caps in parallel to store 9kJ @100KV. Is my math right?
Edit: corrected math
Last edited:
Your thinking would produce less errors if you learned some physic first. In ignorance "thinking" is really just "dreaming," without connection to reality.
Could someone else have a go?
I can't do it any more.:bawl:
It must be possible for someone to make him see that you have to bring time into the calculation.
Billy, I'm not famillar with your terminology. I am familliar with voltage that is measured across a resistor (or a capacitor) and current going through a resistor, but "voltage across an inductance"? The question is even more pointed when I remind you that I haven't shown anyone my schematics.
Billy, I think you're talking about a technological matter, something that wouldn't appear on a schematic, like the brand name of the capacitor that gets used, or the current rating on the wires.
The research I've done so far tells me that a solid copper wire won't have as much ability to transmit current as a stranded wire of the same outside diameter, like the spool of 3/0 wire from Grainger's that I linked to in an earlier post. I admit, my physics isn't perfect, but when DC current is flowing in a wire, don't the electrons travel on the outside of the wire? If so, why should I design a system that uses solid copper wire when the peak amperage is so high, I'm planning on multiplying the voltage to compensate, using Ohm's Law?
Captain, please. I'm not as dumb as you think. I graduated from an electronics school. The voltage in a lightning bolt gets delivered in a small fraction of a second, and that's why lightning has high current, which I've taken into consideration in my schematics.
When a DC voltage charges a cap through a series resistor, the RC curve will look different if the resistor has a high resistance than it would if the resistance is low. The schematic on my computer has few resistors because each one of them would convert electrical energy into heat, and I consider that wasted energy.
I'm still reviewing the figures that you and Billy have supplied on the energy in lightning bolts, energy measured in Joules, and I haven't bought any caps. I won't be doing that anyway until sometime after the U.S. Government decides whether my patent application has all the right stuff. For their purposes, the brand name on the cap doesn't matter, and neither does the choice of a solid wire or a stranded one.
Benny
Benny you are so ignorant about electric circuits that it is difficult to communicate with you. "Inductance" is not my terminology, but one of the three standard terms, used to characterize electrical components, - Resistance and capacitance are the other two. Inductors and capacitors are sort of each others opposite, in several ways, but I don’t want to go into concepts related to phase shifts given your ignorant state. So I will just note one thing important in your planned application: The voltage across a capacitor cannot change instantaneously but it is the CURRENT through an inductor that cannot change instantaneously.
As many posters have pointed out you will have a very large number of individual capacitors connected together in a series string to get your very high voltage ratings. I already told you that copper straps should be used to interconnect them* to lower the inductance, which is limiting the rate that current can change (increase) in this string of capacitors. Note that before the lightning bolt strikes the current in your capacitor string is zero and due to this fact about inductors, it will not increase much in the brief duration of the lightning bolt. I.e. for this and other reasons you will not get much charge into your high voltage storage system.
The extent to which current flows in the interior of a wire, instead of on the skin is a function of the frequency. The current density (amps/cm^2) as you move (conceptually) from the skin towards the center of a conductor decreases with increase in frequency of the current but for DC there is no such decrease. (Not absolutely true as normally the core of a solid conductor will be slightly warmer than the skin and thus have higher resistance, but this effect is small and considering how ignorant you of very simple things I will not say more about this subtlety and dare not even try to explain or define the useful concept of "skin depth.")
------------------------
*Every wire has both resistance and inductance. Both can be lowered by using copper straps instead of wires to interconnect your large number of capacitors in a series string. Another way capacitors and inductors are each other’s opposites is that in parallel connections the total capacitance of two identical capacitors is twice that of either one, but two identical inductors in parallel becomes an inductor with half the inductance of either. Think of the copper strap as many wires in parallel - that is why it lowers the inductance of the interconnections.
PS
I have long ago concluded you are too ignorant and too disinclined to learn anything, but I continue to post replies as I like to teach and many others are learning from my posts. I might change this opinion of you if you were to read and reply to post 153 which is at:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2512112&postcount=153
There I quickly explain the primary origin of your totally wrong ideas.
Last edited by a moderator:
@Benny
You've only had a few posts on here, and perhaps you are not used to forums.
One thing you do which is very annoying, is that you do not seem to read posts and reply to what is contained in them.
You gave a link, to which I replied that (using the data from that link) the useable energy in an average thunderbolt is about 140 Kwh, if collected with 100% efficiency.
If you accepted that, you could have replied saying that:
"Yes, the energy is 140 Kwh. I estimate that with my equipment I could gather X% of that amount. My equipment and other costs would be Y amount. I estimate that I could gather X number of thunderbolts per year with my equipment. It would pay for itself in Z years"
Instead of that, you reply talking about peak voltage and amperage again, which is totally meaningless as far as using it is concerned.
If you want to, say, heat up a house, or drive a motor, you need to start talking about the average current, and the time it is flowing.
Use KWh.
You've only had a few posts on here, and perhaps you are not used to forums.
One thing you do which is very annoying, is that you do not seem to read posts and reply to what is contained in them.
You gave a link, to which I replied that (using the data from that link) the useable energy in an average thunderbolt is about 140 Kwh, if collected with 100% efficiency.
If you accepted that, you could have replied saying that:
"Yes, the energy is 140 Kwh. I estimate that with my equipment I could gather X% of that amount. My equipment and other costs would be Y amount. I estimate that I could gather X number of thunderbolts per year with my equipment. It would pay for itself in Z years"
Instead of that, you reply talking about peak voltage and amperage again, which is totally meaningless as far as using it is concerned.
If you want to, say, heat up a house, or drive a motor, you need to start talking about the average current, and the time it is flowing.
Use KWh.
Last edited:
- Status