Something Different

[Mark Harriss]

Damien McBain wrote:

Mark Harriss committed to the eternal aether...:


Clockmeister wrote:


I *know* wood or any insulator conducts if the voltage is high enough, I
wanted to see the evidence from that lazy bullshit artist Rod.

And 50KV is pretty low, really.





I once made the mistake of trying to use once inch dia. black rubber
tubing to insulate some conductors with 47KV on them: after a few
seconds it begans to smoke heavily and start to pop: I assume the
rubber had carbon black added to colour it. The stuff was more of a
resistor than an insulator at those voltages.

Apparently hot glass is conductive from the sodium ions in it as well
: heat some up till it's red and then microwave it to see a lightshow.


Maybe the wires got hot and burnt the rubber?

The wires were attached to the ends of the 60cm length of rubber tube
which was used to space the wires out as they were not rated for HV.
The voltage was able to breakdown the 1000V rated insulation and cause
enough flow across the rubber to make it start crackling and popping
with lots of smoke.

 

[Mark Harriss]

Colin Ž wrote:

Someone posted ----


From the Werner PDF file on fibreglass ladders for the electrical
industry, some tests on the CONDUCTIVITY of wood and fibreglass
ladders:
http://www.wernerladder.com/catalog/files/rc81.pdf

2. DC leakage current(in uA) as related to conditioning for 10" electrode
spacing, 80% relative humidity conditioned at 22° C.

Applied Voltage
Time Wood Fiberglass Wood Fiberglass
As Received 90 KV 90 KV 7.0 1.0
24 hours 50 KV 90 KV 48.0 1.4
48 hours 50 KV 90 KV 67.0 1.9
72 hours 50 KV 90 KV 120.0 2.4


As you can see at 50KV wood begins to CONDUCT, now what part of this
concept don't you understand?. Are you aware that lightning is higher
in voltage than 50KV?.


Those figures show that wood exposed to 80% humidity at 22C for a period of
72 hours is more conductive than the same wood after only 24 hours.

The wood is absorbing moisture so it conducts better - the fibreglass does
also but not to the same extent.

The conclusion is that the water in the wood is doing the conducting.

Now, whose argument does that support, if anyones ?

Ok then, does fibreglass resin absorb water?? as it's also increasing in
conductivity. I would go for a breakdown mechanism in the material
first. If you want the figure for wet timber then go to that URL as it's
figure are on the same page.

Also note that at 50KV and 120uA translates to 6 watts of heating in a
20 cm length of wood, this would tend to slowly drive off moisture.

 

[Mark Harriss]

Damien McBain wrote:

Pity what was being discussed was lightning, fuckwit.


Take a look at the OP, it's clearly about a timber laptop case

Yes... but, this is all in reply to the real andy's assertion that
any type of dry wood will not conduct lightning.

 

[Rod Speed]

Damien McBain <askme@for.it> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
Damien McBain <askme@for.it> wrote
Mark Harriss wrote
Clockmeister wrote

Prove it or shut up about it.

From the Wikipedia definition for dielectric breakdown:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_strength

"The maximum electric field strength that it can withstand
intrinsically without breaking down, i.e., without experiencing
failure of its insulating properties."

IOW when it's insulating properties fail it becomes a CONDUCTOR.

From the Werner PDF file on fibreglass ladders for the electrical
industry, some tests on the CONDUCTIVITY of wood and fibreglass
ladders:
http://www.wernerladder.com/catalog/files/rc81.pdf

2. DC leakage current(in uA) as related to conditioning for 10"
electrode spacing, 80% relative humidity conditioned at 22° C.

Applied Voltage
Time Wood Fiberglass Wood Fiberglass
As Received 90 KV 90 KV 7.0 1.0
24 hours 50 KV 90 KV 48.0 1.4
48 hours 50 KV 90 KV 67.0 1.9
72 hours 50 KV 90 KV 120.0 2.4

As you can see at 50KV wood begins to CONDUCT,
now what part of this concept don't you understand?.
Are you aware that lightning is higher in voltage than 50KV?.

The voltage in a laptop computer isn't

Pity what was being discussed was lightning, fuckwit.

Take a look at the OP, it's clearly about a timber laptop case

Completely irrelevant to what the thread diverged to, LIGHTNING,
and what we chose to comment on with LIGHTNING.

Do TRY to keep up.

 

[Mark Harriss]

Rod Speed wrote:

Damien McBain <askme@for.it> wrote

Mark Harriss wrote

Clockmeister wrote:


I *know* wood or any insulator conducts if the voltage is high enough,
I wanted to see the evidence from that lazy bullshit artist Rod.


And 50KV is pretty low, really.


I once made the mistake of trying to use once inch dia. black rubber
tubing to insulate some conductors with 47KV on them: after a few
seconds it begans to smoke heavily and start to pop: I assume the
rubber had carbon black added to colour it. The stuff was more of a
resistor than an insulator at those voltages.


Apparently hot glass is conductive from the sodium ions in it as well

heat some up till it's red and then microwave it to see a lightshow.


Maybe the wires got hot and burnt the rubber?


Unlikely with that sort of voltage on them.

The best insulation for that sort of voltage
is one of the thicker coaxs like RG8

I'm on the lookout for x-ray cable if anyone has some
lying around the place.

 

[McGrath]

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3uqbkeF12r7lmU1@individual.net...

McGrath <no@email> wrote

I said wood wouldn't conduct as a
grounding measure for a laptop case.

Liar, you said nothing of the sort in the quoting
you keep deleting and I keep restoring.

"Dry wood is an insulator - not a conductor. For the
purpose of earthing - which is where this started,
wood has NO conducive conductive abilities."

AFTER the thread had clearly diverted to the more general
question of whether lightning can indeed be conducted by dry wood.

Dry wood was only part of the tread in relation to a laptop case - in which
case the wood is not a good conductor. The thread diverged to the Geelong
incident, where the wood was wet and water was the main conductor - again
not the wood conducting.

There was never mention of dry wood.

So where did I get the above from?

Its obvious from the quoting that you keep flagrantly
dishonestly deleting where that came from.

Or maybe the 'flagrantly dishonest' poster is indeed yourself

I keep deleting to save myself having to scroll through
'reams of puerile shit' - not to hide the facts

Lying, again.

No lies, just the truth - hence why I've cut the thread again.

Likewise I said wood was not the conductor in the Geelong incident -

Irrelevant to whether dry wood does indeed conduct when the
voltage across it is high enough, just like with any insulator.

Which has nothing to do with this thread

Wrong, as always. It has everything to do
with the claims made at the top of the quoting.

Again, dry wood as a conductor was only part of the thread in relation to
laptop cases - where it's use as a conductor is non existant. Please do try
and keep up.

- which was originally about the earthing on a wooden laptop case

Originally is completely irrelevant. I chose to comment on
your stupid pig ignorant claims about wood and lightning.

But wood in this discussion was wet - not dry. There was never any mention
of dry wood.

and somehow spread to the Geelong deaths.

Its clear that lightning was being discussed in the
quoting you keep flagrantly dishonestly deleting.

Yep, lightning in relation to *wet* wood - as was the case in the Geelong
incident. Again there was no mention of dry wood - except for use in the
laptop case.

both are true, both are correct.

And both are irrelevant to the general statement you made.

"You'll find it was the water that was
the conductor, not simply the wood."

And that is just plain wrong with dry wood and lightning.

Which is irrelevent to every part of this thread as the wood was *wet* - not
dry.

So where did I get the above from?

Plucked it from your arse basically.

Or, as the case indeed it, from the thread.

I made no general statements, I replied to the thread.

What you replied to was the general statement, stupid.

But there was no general statement. It's simple really - laptop case: dry
wood, not a good conductor. Geelong: wet wood, water was the conductor.

So where does dry wood and lightning come into this?

Maybe you should re-read what has been posted?

No need.

If there was no need I wouldn't be posting again on this topic.

You continue to make general statements stating
wood is a conductor if the voltage is high enough.

I wasnt the first one to say, that, MC was.

But you *continue* to say that - which is what I said and which is
irrelevant to this thread.

Well buddy, in the context of this thread *that* is irrelevant.

Wrong, as always. Hariss made that general
claim which is clearly just plain wrong.

As you posted that wood is doing the conducting. It's not - the water is.

You said wood could be used to ground a wooden laptop

No I didnt.

Yes you did.

No I didnt. You cant quote the post where I said that, because I didnt.

Try here:
"> Its not the wood thats doing the conducting.
Yes it is."

I think that is fairly clear.

and was the conductor at Geelong

No I didnt.

Yes you did.

No I didnt, I never ever mentioned Geelong at all.

You agreed with the statement.

- both are false, both are incorrect.

Pity I never made either statement.

Better re-read the thread.

No need, someone else said both of those.

Both of which you agreed with.

So explain to me me how I made a fool of myself?

You clearly said

You'll find it was the water that was
the conductor, not simply the wood.

Which was correct.

Nope, just plain wrong when stated as baldly as that.

It can't be wrong if it's a direct quote from this thread.

Pity the thread had diverged to a more
general claim about wood and lightning

You get to like that or lump it.

I don't wish to sound arrogant, but maybe you should take your own advice.

In this instance wood is not a conductor.

Pity it can be with lightning.

Pity in this thread the wood that was struck by lightning was wet.

 

[Clockmeister]

"Mark Harriss" <billy@blartco.co.uk> wrote in message
news:438947f7$0$23377$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...

Damien McBain wrote:
Mark Harriss committed to the eternal aether...:


Clockmeister wrote:


I *know* wood or any insulator conducts if the voltage is high enough, I
wanted to see the evidence from that lazy bullshit artist Rod.

And 50KV is pretty low, really.





I once made the mistake of trying to use once inch dia. black rubber
tubing to insulate some conductors with 47KV on them: after a few
seconds it begans to smoke heavily and start to pop: I assume the
rubber had carbon black added to colour it. The stuff was more of a
resistor than an insulator at those voltages.

Apparently hot glass is conductive from the sodium ions in it as well
: heat some up till it's red and then microwave it to see a lightshow.


Maybe the wires got hot and burnt the rubber?


The wires were attached to the ends of the 60cm length of rubber tube
which was used to space the wires out as they were not rated for HV.
The voltage was able to breakdown the 1000V rated insulation and cause
enough flow across the rubber to make it start crackling and popping
with lots of smoke.

Rubber conducts rather well if it has a high carbon content. Try putting a
multimeter across a rubber tyre and measure the resistance.

 

[Rod Speed]

McGrath <no@email> wrote:

Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
McGrath <no@email> wrote
Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
McGrath <no@email> wrote
Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
McGrath <no@email> wrote
Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
McGrath <no@email> wrote
Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
McGrath <no@email> wrote
Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
McGrath <no@email> wrote
Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
The Real Andy <will_get_back_to_you_on_This@> wrote
MC <MC@nonexistant.place> wrote:
The Real Andy wrote:
Mark Harriss <billy@blartco.co.uk> wrote

Wood will conduct lightning!,
what are you worried about!!.

Actually, wood doesn't.

Put enough volts across it and it certainly will.

Its not the wood thats doing the conducting.

Yes it is.

You'll find it was the water that was
the conductor, not simply the wood.

Wrong with dry wood.

Dry wood is an insulator - not a conductor.

Depends entirely on the level of voltage
applied, just like with any insulator.

Well in the context of grounding a laptop,

The thread had diverged from that.

wood is useless and would act as an insulator.
In the context of the 'bandstand' incident,
water was the conductor - NOT wood.

In both instatnces wood was/is not a conductor.

Irrelevant to the general question about whether
wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.

For the purpose of earthing - which is where this started,

Irrelevant to where it diverged to.

Somehow we diverged to the Geelong incident. The lightning
was conducted by water from the thunderstorm - not the wood.

Irrelevant to the general question about whether
wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.

wood has NO conducive conductive abilities.

Pity about the situation that it diverged to.

Which was the situation where water was the
main conductive substance - NOT the wood.

Irrelevant to the general question about whether
wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.

You said wood was doing the conducting - it wasn't.

Irrelevant to the general question about whether
wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.

Sorry mate, but that 'general question'
was never part of the thread.

Wrong, as always. It became part of the thread when you
made a spectacular fool of yourself when you claimed that
it wasnt the wood that conducted. Sometimes it is indeed.

I said wood wouldn't conduct as a
grounding measure for a laptop case.

Liar, you said nothing of the sort in the quoting
you keep deleting and I keep restoring.

"Dry wood is an insulator - not a conductor. For the
purpose of earthing - which is where this started,
wood has NO conducive conductive abilities."

AFTER the thread had clearly diverted to the more general
question of whether lightning can indeed be conducted by dry wood.

Dry wood was only part of the tread in relation to a laptop case

The laptop case was completely irrelevant once the
thread had diverged to discuss lightning and wood.

- in which case the wood is not a good conductor.

The laptop case was completely irrelevant once the
thread had diverged to discuss lightning and wood.

The thread diverged to the Geelong incident,

Wrong again, that came later than what is quoted above.

where the wood was wet

Wrong again, it wasnt wet.

and water was the main conductor

Wrong again, there was no water.

- again not the wood conducting.

Wrong, as always.

There was never mention of dry wood.

Lying, again. Read the quoting you keep flagrantly
dishonestly deleting and I keep restoring.

So where did I get the above from?

Its obvious from the quoting that you keep flagrantly
dishonestly deleting where that came from.

Or maybe the 'flagrantly dishonest' poster is indeed yourself

Lying, again. Read the quoting you keep flagrantly
dishonestly deleting and I keep restoring.

I keep deleting to save myself having to scroll through
'reams of puerile shit' - not to hide the facts

Lying, again.

No lies, just the truth

Lying, again.

- hence why I've cut the thread again.

You flagrant dishonesty fools absolutely no one at all.

Likewise I said wood was not the
conductor in the Geelong incident -

Irrelevant to whether dry wood does indeed conduct when the
voltage across it is high enough, just like with any insulator.

Which has nothing to do with this thread

Wrong, as always. It has everything to do
with the claims made at the top of the quoting.

Again, dry wood as a conductor was only
part of the thread in relation to laptop cases

Again, the laptop case was completely irrelevant once
the thread had diverged to discuss lightning and wood.

- where it's use as a conductor is non existant.

Again, the laptop case was completely irrelevant once
the thread had diverged to discuss lightning and wood.

Please do try and keep up.

Couldnt bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag...

- which was originally about the earthing on a wooden laptop case

Originally is completely irrelevant. I chose to comment on
your stupid pig ignorant claims about wood and lightning.

But wood in this discussion was wet - not dry.

Lying, again.

There was never any mention of dry wood.

Lying, again. There clearly is in the quoting you keep flagrantly
dishonestly deleting from the quoting and I keep restoring.

and somehow spread to the Geelong deaths.

Its clear that lightning was being discussed in the
quoting you keep flagrantly dishonestly deleting.

Yep, lightning in relation to *wet* wood

Lying, again.

- as was the case in the Geelong incident.

Lying, again. And that was a separate sub thread anyway.

Again there was no mention of dry wood

Lying, again. There clearly is in the quoting you keep flagrantly
dishonestly deleting from the quoting and I keep restoring.

- except for use in the laptop case.

Lying, again. There clearly is in the quoting you keep flagrantly
dishonestly deleting from the quoting and I keep restoring.
Nothing to do with any laptop, everything to do with lightning.

both are true, both are correct.

And both are irrelevant to the general statement you made.

"You'll find it was the water that was
the conductor, not simply the wood."

And that is just plain wrong with dry wood and lightning.

Which is irrelevent to every part of this
thread as the wood was *wet* - not dry.

Lying, as always. YOU made the stupid pig ignorant claim
that dry wood is always an insulator, never a conductor.

So where did I get the above from?

Plucked it from your arse basically.

Or, as the case indeed it, from the thread.

Lying, as always. YOU made the stupid pig ignorant claim
that dry wood is always an insulator, never a conductor.

I made no general statements, I replied to the thread.

What you replied to was the general statement, stupid.

But there was no general statement.

Lying, as always.

It's simple really - laptop case: dry wood, not a good conductor.

Again, the laptop case was completely irrelevant once
the thread had diverged to discuss lightning and wood.

Geelong: wet wood, water was the conductor.

Wrong, as always. And that was a separate sub thread anyway.

So where does dry wood and lightning come into this?

Reread the quoting that you keep flagrantly
dishonestly deleting and I keep reposting.

Maybe you should re-read what has been posted?

No need.

If there was no need I wouldn't be posting again on this topic.

Lying, as always.

You continue to make general statements stating
wood is a conductor if the voltage is high enough.

I wasnt the first one to say, that, MC was.

But you *continue* to say that

Because you keep denying it, cretin.

- which is what I said and which is irrelevant to this thread.

And you clearly lied, as proven by the quoting that you
keep flagrantly dishonestly deleting and I keep restoring.

Well buddy, in the context of this thread *that* is irrelevant.

Wrong, as always. Hariss made that general
claim which is clearly just plain wrong.

As you posted that wood is doing the conducting. It's not - the water is.

Wrong as always. Wood still conducts when there is no water, fuckwit.

Just like any insulator does when the voltage is high enough.

You said wood could be used to ground a wooden laptop

No I didnt.

Yes you did.

No I didnt. You cant quote the post where I said that, because I didnt.

Try here:
"> Its not the wood thats doing the conducting.
Yes it is."

Nothing to do with any laptop or any grounding.

As should be obvious to even someone as stupid as you by the quoting
that you keep flagrantly dishonestly deleting and I keep restoring.

I think that is fairly clear.

Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought.

Or even being able to bullshit or lie your way out of a wet paper bag either.

and was the conductor at Geelong

No I didnt.

Yes you did.

No I didnt, I never ever mentioned Geelong at all.

You agreed with the statement.

Wrong again, I didnt even commment Geelong at all.

- both are false, both are incorrect.

Pity I never made either statement.

Better re-read the thread.

No need, someone else said both of those.

Both of which you agreed with.

Lying, again. I didnt even comment on either statement.

So explain to me me how I made a fool of myself?

You clearly said

You'll find it was the water that was
the conductor, not simply the wood.

Which was correct.

Nope, just plain wrong when stated as baldly as that.

It can't be wrong if it's a direct quote from this thread.

THE STATEMENT is wrong, fuckwit.

Pity the thread had diverged to a more
general claim about wood and lightning

You get to like that or lump it.

I don't wish to sound arrogant,

You just sound like a fool.

but maybe you should take your own advice.

No need, you have always been just plain
wrong and a pathological liar to boot.

In this instance wood is not a conductor.

Pity it can be with lightning.

Pity in this thread the wood that was struck by lightning was wet.

Lying, as always.

 

[Rod Speed]

Mark Harriss <billy@blartco.co.uk> wrote:

Rod Speed wrote:
Damien McBain <askme@for.it> wrote

Mark Harriss wrote

Clockmeister wrote:


I *know* wood or any insulator conducts if the voltage is high
enough, I wanted to see the evidence from that lazy bullshit
artist Rod.


And 50KV is pretty low, really.


I once made the mistake of trying to use once inch dia. black
rubber tubing to insulate some conductors with 47KV on them: after
a few seconds it begans to smoke heavily and start to pop: I
assume the rubber had carbon black added to colour it. The stuff
was more of a resistor than an insulator at those voltages.


Apparently hot glass is conductive from the sodium ions in it as
well
heat some up till it's red and then microwave it to see a
lightshow.


Maybe the wires got hot and burnt the rubber?


Unlikely with that sort of voltage on them.

The best insulation for that sort of voltage
is one of the thicker coaxs like RG8




I'm on the lookout for x-ray cable if anyone has some
lying around the place.

RG8 is fine, I ran quite a bit more than 50KV thru that fine.

 

[Mark Harriss]

Rod Speed wrote:

RG8 is fine, I ran quite a bit more than 50KV thru that fine.

I bought about 20 metres of RG8 on a cable drum from the
recycle shop for $5....then gave it to a mate for free,
it amazing what eventually would come in handy.

Was the braid earthed at that voltage?

 

[Mark Harriss]

From what I can see Rod, these clowns have the same grip on
reality as a UN weapons inspector, you can post data showing
dry wood current flow figures and still they want to argue
their way out.

Insulation is relative, which was the point I made, but they
still want to argue about voltage levels, moisture contents
and change the rules or shift the goalpost.

DRY, WET OR DIPPED IN SOY SAUCE, WOOD IS A CONDUCTOR TO
LIGHTNING LEVEL VOLTAGES....GET OVER IT YOU STUPID FLAT EARTH
PIG IGNORANT FUCKS.

 

[Clockmeister]

"Mark Harriss" <billy@blartco.co.uk> wrote in message
news:438985c6$0$23379$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...

From what I can see Rod, these clowns have the same grip on
reality as a UN weapons inspector, you can post data showing
dry wood current flow figures and still they want to argue
their way out.

Insulation is relative, which was the point I made, but they
still want to argue about voltage levels, moisture contents
and change the rules or shift the goalpost.

DRY, WET OR DIPPED IN SOY SAUCE, WOOD IS A CONDUCTOR TO
LIGHTNING LEVEL VOLTAGES....GET OVER IT YOU STUPID FLAT EARTH
PIG IGNORANT FUCKS.

You want to make a blanket statement and cut out all the variables, well
that is fine but it also makes you wrong.

 

[Damien McBain]

Rod Speed committed to the eternal aether...:

McGrath <no@email> wrote:
Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
McGrath <no@email> wrote
Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
McGrath <no@email> wrote
Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
McGrath <no@email> wrote
Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
McGrath <no@email> wrote
Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
McGrath <no@email> wrote
Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
McGrath <no@email> wrote
Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
The Real Andy <will_get_back_to_you_on_This@> wrote
MC <MC@nonexistant.place> wrote:
The Real Andy wrote:
Mark Harriss <billy@blartco.co.uk> wrote

Wood will conduct lightning!,
what are you worried about!!.

Actually, wood doesn't.

Put enough volts across it and it certainly will.

Its not the wood thats doing the conducting.

Yes it is.

You'll find it was the water that was
the conductor, not simply the wood.

Wrong with dry wood.

Dry wood is an insulator - not a conductor.

Depends entirely on the level of voltage
applied, just like with any insulator.

Well in the context of grounding a laptop,

The thread had diverged from that.

wood is useless and would act as an insulator.
In the context of the 'bandstand' incident,
water was the conductor - NOT wood.

In both instatnces wood was/is not a conductor.

Irrelevant to the general question about whether
wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.

For the purpose of earthing - which is where this started,

Irrelevant to where it diverged to.

Somehow we diverged to the Geelong incident. The lightning
was conducted by water from the thunderstorm - not the wood.

Irrelevant to the general question about whether
wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.

wood has NO conducive conductive abilities.

Pity about the situation that it diverged to.

Which was the situation where water was the
main conductive substance - NOT the wood.

Irrelevant to the general question about whether
wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.

You said wood was doing the conducting - it wasn't.

Irrelevant to the general question about whether
wood, like any insulator CAN BE a conductor.

Sorry mate, but that 'general question'
was never part of the thread.

Wrong, as always. It became part of the thread when you
made a spectacular fool of yourself when you claimed that
it wasnt the wood that conducted. Sometimes it is indeed.

I said wood wouldn't conduct as a
grounding measure for a laptop case.

Liar, you said nothing of the sort in the quoting
you keep deleting and I keep restoring.

"Dry wood is an insulator - not a conductor. For the
purpose of earthing - which is where this started,
wood has NO conducive conductive abilities."

AFTER the thread had clearly diverted to the more general
question of whether lightning can indeed be conducted by dry wood.

Dry wood was only part of the tread in relation to a laptop case

The laptop case was completely irrelevant once the
thread had diverged to discuss lightning and wood.

- in which case the wood is not a good conductor.

The laptop case was completely irrelevant once the
thread had diverged to discuss lightning and wood.

The thread diverged to the Geelong incident,

Wrong again, that came later than what is quoted above.

where the wood was wet

Wrong again, it wasnt wet.

and water was the main conductor

Wrong again, there was no water.

- again not the wood conducting.

Wrong, as always.

There was never mention of dry wood.

Lying, again. Read the quoting you keep flagrantly
dishonestly deleting and I keep restoring.

So where did I get the above from?

Its obvious from the quoting that you keep flagrantly
dishonestly deleting where that came from.

Or maybe the 'flagrantly dishonest' poster is indeed yourself

Lying, again. Read the quoting you keep flagrantly
dishonestly deleting and I keep restoring.

I keep deleting to save myself having to scroll through
'reams of puerile shit' - not to hide the facts

Lying, again.

No lies, just the truth

Lying, again.

- hence why I've cut the thread again.

You flagrant dishonesty fools absolutely no one at all.

Likewise I said wood was not the
conductor in the Geelong incident -

Irrelevant to whether dry wood does indeed conduct when the
voltage across it is high enough, just like with any insulator.

Which has nothing to do with this thread

Wrong, as always. It has everything to do
with the claims made at the top of the quoting.

Again, dry wood as a conductor was only
part of the thread in relation to laptop cases

Again, the laptop case was completely irrelevant once
the thread had diverged to discuss lightning and wood.

- where it's use as a conductor is non existant.

Again, the laptop case was completely irrelevant once
the thread had diverged to discuss lightning and wood.

Please do try and keep up.

Couldnt bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag...

- which was originally about the earthing on a wooden laptop case

Originally is completely irrelevant. I chose to comment on
your stupid pig ignorant claims about wood and lightning.

But wood in this discussion was wet - not dry.

Lying, again.

There was never any mention of dry wood.

Lying, again. There clearly is in the quoting you keep flagrantly
dishonestly deleting from the quoting and I keep restoring.

and somehow spread to the Geelong deaths.

Its clear that lightning was being discussed in the
quoting you keep flagrantly dishonestly deleting.

Yep, lightning in relation to *wet* wood

Lying, again.

- as was the case in the Geelong incident.

Lying, again. And that was a separate sub thread anyway.

Again there was no mention of dry wood

Lying, again. There clearly is in the quoting you keep flagrantly
dishonestly deleting from the quoting and I keep restoring.

- except for use in the laptop case.

Lying, again. There clearly is in the quoting you keep flagrantly
dishonestly deleting from the quoting and I keep restoring.
Nothing to do with any laptop, everything to do with lightning.

both are true, both are correct.

And both are irrelevant to the general statement you made.

"You'll find it was the water that was
the conductor, not simply the wood."

And that is just plain wrong with dry wood and lightning.

Which is irrelevent to every part of this
thread as the wood was *wet* - not dry.

Lying, as always. YOU made the stupid pig ignorant claim
that dry wood is always an insulator, never a conductor.

So where did I get the above from?

Plucked it from your arse basically.

Or, as the case indeed it, from the thread.

Lying, as always. YOU made the stupid pig ignorant claim
that dry wood is always an insulator, never a conductor.

I made no general statements, I replied to the thread.

What you replied to was the general statement, stupid.

But there was no general statement.

Lying, as always.

It's simple really - laptop case: dry wood, not a good conductor.

Again, the laptop case was completely irrelevant once
the thread had diverged to discuss lightning and wood.

Geelong: wet wood, water was the conductor.

Wrong, as always. And that was a separate sub thread anyway.

So where does dry wood and lightning come into this?

Reread the quoting that you keep flagrantly
dishonestly deleting and I keep reposting.

Maybe you should re-read what has been posted?

No need.

If there was no need I wouldn't be posting again on this topic.

Lying, as always.

You continue to make general statements stating
wood is a conductor if the voltage is high enough.

I wasnt the first one to say, that, MC was.

But you *continue* to say that

Because you keep denying it, cretin.

- which is what I said and which is irrelevant to this thread.

And you clearly lied, as proven by the quoting that you
keep flagrantly dishonestly deleting and I keep restoring.

Well buddy, in the context of this thread *that* is irrelevant.

Wrong, as always. Hariss made that general
claim which is clearly just plain wrong.

As you posted that wood is doing the conducting. It's not - the water is.

Wrong as always. Wood still conducts when there is no water, fuckwit.

Just like any insulator does when the voltage is high enough.

You said wood could be used to ground a wooden laptop

No I didnt.

Yes you did.

No I didnt. You cant quote the post where I said that, because I didnt.

Try here:
"> Its not the wood thats doing the conducting.
Yes it is."

Nothing to do with any laptop or any grounding.

As should be obvious to even someone as stupid as you by the quoting
that you keep flagrantly dishonestly deleting and I keep restoring.

I think that is fairly clear.

Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought.

Or even being able to bullshit or lie your way out of a wet paper bag either.

and was the conductor at Geelong

No I didnt.

Yes you did.

No I didnt, I never ever mentioned Geelong at all.

You agreed with the statement.

Wrong again, I didnt even commment Geelong at all.

- both are false, both are incorrect.

Pity I never made either statement.

Better re-read the thread.

No need, someone else said both of those.

Both of which you agreed with.

Lying, again. I didnt even comment on either statement.

So explain to me me how I made a fool of myself?

You clearly said

You'll find it was the water that was
the conductor, not simply the wood.

Which was correct.

Nope, just plain wrong when stated as baldly as that.

It can't be wrong if it's a direct quote from this thread.

THE STATEMENT is wrong, fuckwit.

Pity the thread had diverged to a more
general claim about wood and lightning

You get to like that or lump it.

I don't wish to sound arrogant,

You just sound like a fool.

but maybe you should take your own advice.

No need, you have always been just plain
wrong and a pathological liar to boot.

In this instance wood is not a conductor.

Pity it can be with lightning.

Pity in this thread the wood that was struck by lightning was wet.

Lying, as always.

ffs, no wonder people think you're a bot with those brainless repetitive
interjections.

 

[Rod Speed]

Mark Harriss <billy@blartco.co.uk> wrote

From what I can see Rod, these clowns have the same grip on reality as a UN
weapons inspector, you can post data showing dry wood current flow figures and
still they want to argue their way out.

Yep, just as stupid.

He's actually desperately attempting to bullshit his way
out of his predicament now and aint fooling anyone at all.

Insulation is relative, which was the point I made, but they still want to
argue about voltage levels, moisture contents and change the rules or shift
the goalpost.

Yep, the original pig ignorant claim that it aint the wood
that is conducting is just plain pig ignorant and wrong.
In some situations it is indeed what is conducting.

DRY, WET OR DIPPED IN SOY SAUCE, WOOD IS A CONDUCTOR TO LIGHTNING LEVEL
VOLTAGES.... GET OVER IT YOU STUPID FLAT EARTH PIG IGNORANT FUCKS.

 

[Rod Speed]

Patrick Turner <info@turneraudio.com.au> wrote:

Mark Harriss wrote:

From what I can see Rod, these clowns have the same grip on
reality as a UN weapons inspector, you can post data showing
dry wood current flow figures and still they want to argue
their way out.

Insulation is relative, which was the point I made, but they
still want to argue about voltage levels, moisture contents
and change the rules or shift the goalpost.

DRY, WET OR DIPPED IN SOY SAUCE, WOOD IS A CONDUCTOR TO
LIGHTNING LEVEL VOLTAGES....GET OVER IT YOU STUPID FLAT EARTH
PIG IGNORANT FUCKS.

OK mark, no need to shout, they wood get the message if they wood read
ordinary lower case typing woodent they surely now?

In a tubed preamp I have used wooden terminal strips made of dry
jarrah, and when prodding between
metal screws in the wood only 10mm apart the resistance was well over
what my DVM could read.

But if the wood ever cop a soaking from being flooded in a
Katrina event, then the amp wood need drying out well before use
although the
polyurethane coating I have painted on wood keep the problems to a
minimum.

Lightning strikes might affect the item slightly; and perhaps zap the
fragile
input fet but only tickle the tubes unless the lightning strike was
directly
to the input terminal, which is unlikely.

Wooden boards for radios were used in the 1920s, and what fine rugged
radios those old bangers were,
since many are still being used in the outback of Oz.

Sweet fuck all are, actually.

 

[Colin Ž]

"Patrick Turner" <info@turneraudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:4389B256.6F124744@turneraudio.com.au...

Wooden boards for radios were used in the 1920s, and what fine rugged
radios those old bangers were,
since many are still being used in the outback of Oz.

Hence the term 'breadboard' for a quick knock-up of a design.

Takes me back to the good old days when a stray finger could encounter 300V
of plate voltage instead of a pissy 5V.

 

[Mark Harriss]

Patrick Turner wrote:

OK mark, no need to shout, they wood get the message if they wood read
ordinary lower case typing woodent they surely now?

In a tubed preamp I have used wooden terminal strips made of dry
jarrah, and when prodding between
metal screws in the wood only 10mm apart the resistance was well over
what my DVM could read.

But if the wood ever cop a soaking from being flooded in a
Katrina event, then the amp wood need drying out well before use
although the
polyurethane coating I have painted on wood keep the problems to a
minimum.

That approach sounds entirely up to the task, as the moisture would
be kept out by the Estapol. Most phenolic resin product is actually
filled with sawdust and has been since the stuff was invented, so I
don't see why Jarrah can't be used (except for your next 50KV product)
..

 

[Clockmeister]

"Mark Harriss" <billy@blartco.co.uk> wrote in message
news:438a3d53$0$23372$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...

Patrick Turner wrote:

OK mark, no need to shout, they wood get the message if they wood read
ordinary lower case typing woodent they surely now?

In a tubed preamp I have used wooden terminal strips made of dry
jarrah, and when prodding between
metal screws in the wood only 10mm apart the resistance was well over
what my DVM could read.

But if the wood ever cop a soaking from being flooded in a
Katrina event, then the amp wood need drying out well before use
although the
polyurethane coating I have painted on wood keep the problems to a
minimum.

That approach sounds entirely up to the task, as the moisture would
be kept out by the Estapol. Most phenolic resin product is actually
filled with sawdust and has been since the stuff was invented, so I don't
see why Jarrah can't be used (except for your next 50KV product)
.

Do you really think wooden spark plug leads on a car would conduct?

 

[Clockmeister]

"Mark Harriss" <billy@blartco.co.uk> wrote in message
news:438a6cde$0$23373$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...

Clockmeister wrote:


Do you really think wooden spark plug leads on a car would conduct?




Yes, if you used lightning for your spark coil.....dickhead.

50KV is about half what moden electonic ignition systems put out, dickhead.

 

[Clockmeister]

"Mark Harriss" <billy@blartco.co.uk> wrote in message
news:438a6e29$0$23386$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...

Clockmeister wrote:
"Mark Harriss" <billy@blartco.co.uk> wrote in message
news:438a3d53$0$23372$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...

Patrick Turner wrote:


OK mark, no need to shout, they wood get the message if they wood read
ordinary lower case typing woodent they surely now?

In a tubed preamp I have used wooden terminal strips made of dry
jarrah, and when prodding between
metal screws in the wood only 10mm apart the resistance was well over
what my DVM could read.

But if the wood ever cop a soaking from being flooded in a
Katrina event, then the amp wood need drying out well before use
although the
polyurethane coating I have painted on wood keep the problems to a
minimum.

That approach sounds entirely up to the task, as the moisture would
be kept out by the Estapol. Most phenolic resin product is actually
filled with sawdust and has been since the stuff was invented, so I don't
see why Jarrah can't be used (except for your next 50KV product)
.


Do you really think wooden spark plug leads on a car would conduct?




Those figures for wood translate to 416 MegOhms, you can buy specialty
resistors close to that value.

Yep, you can also measure the resistance of those resistors. Have fun
measuring the resistance of wood using the same method though.