Kepekley23 said:
Thermal speed of a current can be similar to lightning. At ~26 Celsius, for example, the speed can be as high as 70km/s, or lower. Which proves perfectly that conducting on water or, worse, causing muscle contraction = \ = being Mach 1300
Thermal speed has absolutely nothing to do with the speed of lightning, as far as I am aware. (it measures the back and forth bouncing speed of the particles, which isn't in any particular direction)
And why do you repeat the "conducting on water Ôëá Mach 1300" point? As I said twice now this criteria are not supposed to proof speed, they are supposed to proof scientific nature.
Because everyone uses these vague "conducts on water and metal" criteria as proof that the lightning the fire is MHS without any further proof whatsoever, such as the AP one you mentioned? It's definitely a non-sequitur to say "real electricity conducts on water and looks like lightning, therefore any electric current that conducts on water travels at the speed of lightning".
I agree with the fact that just conducting through water isn't sufficient, without the AP criteria.
But... if people actually claim that they are going against the current rules.
It is required to show that the electricity carries an energy of at least 5 billion joules or a voltage of around 100 million volts in order to qualify.
| | |
| | ~ The Rules | |
As I thought I made sure you understood priorly the AP critera is obligatory. It is absolutely necessary for it to be fulfilled for anything that isn't cloud to ground lightning. Just "lightning conducts to water" would at the current state of the rules not be accepted.
The minimum requirement involving conduction would be "conducts through water/metal + one other criteria + the AP criteria".
If the formulation on that page doesn't get that across it is, from my side, no problem to change it to an equivalent formulation that is more clear.
