pesco — 2014-06-06T14:53:03-04:00 — #1
bolamig — 2014-06-06T15:06:43-04:00 — #2
But arent the rubber tires and low stance of the vehicle supposed to make them less of a target than say the telephone poles right next to it? Physicist explanation needed!
franko — 2014-06-06T15:15:54-04:00 — #3
when zeus says you're not moving to that new place, HE MEANS IT.
backtoyoujim — 2014-06-06T16:11:36-04:00 — #4
the_tim — 2014-06-06T16:14:55-04:00 — #5
Not a "moving truck," but rather a pickup truck that was in motion.
wearysky — 2014-06-06T17:08:28-04:00 — #6
My understanding is "less of a target" doesn't mean "not a target at all".
thaumatechnicia — 2014-06-06T17:29:08-04:00 — #7
Better quality video and a report with context, from the local CTV station.
(double-click on the HD in the first link to get full screen)
"A truck in Canada".. .Grrrr.
Why not say "a truck, somewhere on the surface of the planet"...
Fox News reported as "A truck in Toronto..." Even more of a fail!
It happened in Tofield Alberta. Fox only missed by 3,340 kms. It's a 38-hour drive from the Big Smoke to Tofield - by way of, appropriately enough, Thunder Bay.
It's a two-week hitchhike - 'cuz, y'know, you'll be stuck trying to get out of Espanola for ten days, fer crissakes.
jacksaw — 2014-06-06T19:57:34-04:00 — #8
The rubber tire idea is a myth actually. Not sure on what the odds are of getting hit in a vehicle but what keeps you safe if that happens is the fact that the vehicle acts as a "Faraday Cage". Here's a nifty link explaining that! (look to the left of the page for Lightning Myth #4)
jacksaw — 2014-06-06T20:05:23-04:00 — #9
Tried to watch the video but it was taken down for copyright infringement by CTV Edmonton. Do you think they did it because of bad reporting?
Also I agree with what you are saying but don't blame Fox for their mistake. It could happen to any upstanding station who actually does a little bit of fact-checking. Right? Right???
It's all okay though because I saw the good report on Canada AM this morning.
thaumatechnicia — 2014-06-07T08:12:52-04:00 — #10
The lowest estimate I could find of the voltage of a lightning strike was at around 10MV - Yes, that's a big M - the lowest estimate I could find. All of the rest of them put it at at least 100MV.
Take for example, 3M insulating rubber, which has a dielectric strength around 700V/mil, you would need about 14 inches of that insulating rubber to block 10MV. That pickup truck would have to be encased in a ball of solid rubber - 140 inches (about 3.6m) thick, to be on the safe side.
If the truck's windows were made of steel, you'd get a faraday cage out of the cab. What saved that couple is the fact that the truck body is much, much more conductive than the people and the air inside it. And the fact that the gasoline in the tank is liquid, not a gas - note the 2nd burn of the exhaust gases.
sim0n — 2014-06-07T09:18:17-04:00 — #11
Yep, look at how far apart three phase power lines are. They use air as an isolator. The biggest ones only run at a couple of hundred kilovolts and they still have to seperate the seperate lines by +10 feet.
pesco — 2014-06-11T14:53:02-04:00 — #12
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.