fayfreethinkers.com

from:
Seattle Times
===========
Five Mexican children were killed when a large metal cross they were praying at was struck by lightning in central Mexico, local media reported Monday.

Five children between 9 and 16 years old died and several others
suffered burns when lightning struck a white-painted metal cross set on a hill in the town of Santa Maria del Rio early on Sunday, according to two newspaper reports.

Several families had been participating in a midnight ceremony as part of a local religious festival that centers around the cross.
===========

dayamn!



you'd think things like this would make believers stop and think twice about what they're believing in, but they just say "it's god's will" or "we don't always know why god does things, we just have to have faith" or blah blah blah nonsense...

Or at least think twice about praying close to a metal cross set on a hill in a storm (of course, it didn't mention a storm, I'm just assuming that's were the lightning came from). Why just children? I don't know of any "kids only" ceremonies or saints' days on April 24th. To take the flip side, that this was actually a anti-christian ceremony and the children were human sacrifices, that makes it "god's will" to take the ones who died and leave the rest. Why a metal cross anyway - most of the christian religions I've known go in for wood, stone, or concrete.

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote:Or at least think twice about praying close to a metal cross set on a hill in a storm (of course, it didn't mention a storm, I'm just assuming that's were the lightning came from).

DOUG
Or Zeus got jealous?

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote:Why just children? I don't know of any "kids only" ceremonies or saints' days on April 24th.

DOUG
They have a special one, I guess.

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote:To take the flip side, that this was actually a anti-christian ceremony and the children were human sacrifices, that makes it "god's will" to take the ones who died and leave the rest.

DOUG
Well, if human sacrifice was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for the kids.

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote:Why a metal cross anyway - most of the christian religions I've known go in for wood, stone, or concrete.

DOUG
The "2nd Largest Cross in the Western Hemisphere," 190 feet tall, near Groom, Texas, is made of sheet metal. (See below.) I've driven by it a couple of times on road trips. It's on I-40, just east of Amarillo. One website warned that the anti-abortion material around the cross was so explicit it made his 8-year-old girl cry.



The cross west of Effingham, Illinois, the "Giant White Cross," is also of sheet metal. (See below.) It's 8 feet taller than the one in Texas. It's on Highway 70, and it's 198 ft. high. The First Baptist Church of Effingham raised $1.1 million to build the cross after they saw the one in Groom, Texas, which USED to be the tallest cross in the Western hemisphere. Sin of pride, anyone?

It's a nice tradition that a civilization put up lots of tall objects/statutes before it collapses.

Those are really lovely gigantic statues of an instrument of capital punishment, by which thousands of people were brutally tortured to death, most of whom without due process. Lovely.

Wonder if they could attach them to a power station? Think of all that lovely electricity - the number of batteries you could recharge with just one bolt! A tool is just as good or as evil as the purpose it's put to. As an instrument of torture and death (a lovely Roman idea, only used on non-Roman citizens) it IS evil, but as a lightning rod/electricity generator it could do good. (And TX, which could have invented the sin of pride, is probably in the process of rebuilding theirs to be taller.)

or they could use it as an electric utility pole. Just picture it with streams of electrical wires over each "arm" - makes sense that way...

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote:Wonder if they could attach them to a power station? Think of all that lovely electricity - the number of batteries you could recharge with just one bolt!

DAR
An interesting question. The idea of harnessing and storing the energy contained in a lightening bolt.
They have a discussion about one proposed method (debunked) at this site but this fellow's response clearly shows why it would probably be a waste of time:

****
Here is the problem... POWER is rated (Overall) in WATTS... (Heat conversion)... If a SOURCE of POWER can only generate X heat WATTS then it can only be converted into Y current @ volts @ amps... and if you ever saw a lightning strike damage... you will realize that it is not that powerful... only lightly damaging things like aluminum, steel, copper, concrete, sand...

The misconception is that it is powerful, because it makes a lot of noise and light, and can rip a tree in half, and can instantly carbonize a life-form... That is not POWER, the noise you hear is the AIR falling back into the micro sized hole left in the atmosphere as the lightning (BOILED) the moisture (Conductive invisable wire) that it just passed through... that sound is created when the air hits air on the opposing side (also falling in) and harmonically bounces SOUND back away from its source...

Like the pendilum balls... drop one at each end at the same time... they both transfer thier energy back to themselves when they strike... and return back up into the air... (Rumbling decaying sound waves) What split the tree was the water in the trees veins/cells/micro-tubes boiling and forcing a hairline crack in the tree, along it's length (to/from the ground)... the outward transfered energy uses this week point to split the tree the rest of the way... and gravity takes over after that...

The big CRACK BANG you hear after lightning striking the tree is the tree splitting and dropping... (it is louder than you think)

If lightning had POWER worth harnessing... you would see the tree branches launch thousands of feet from the tree, not fall directly to the ground. Even in cement, when lightning struck our sidewalk, it left a 1 foot diameter hole, with molten glass (sand) around it... a grenade has more power... Lightning = Ultra high VOLTS at Nearly ZERO AMPS... (proportionally speaking)
Error_205, May 11 2003

DAR
There is also this foundational problem as one fellow points out:

"To successfully coax in the lightning, there must be a path to ground: this is what lightning wants. The lightning will hit the (conductive) tungsten [or whatever--Dar] and may melt a little bit, but most will pass thru to ground. If you put the tungsten in a rubber room so the lightning can't get to ground, it won't hit the tungsten."

D.
.

.
.

Lightning hit a tent pole of a tent in which a friend of mine was sleeping - it set the tent on fire, recharged the battery of his CPAP machine, and burned his chest. The cross is definitely a big enough object to attract lightning - I was thinking of recharging batteries off the strikes.

I don't think there are any known batteries that like to get charged in less than a second. Also, I don't think there is really all that much energy involved (there is some controversy about this). As with some of the Tesla machines, you can have super high voltage and make some impressive lightening strikes, with very tiny amperage. This is a hobby for some people.



Plus, the problem given above is a biggie. Lightening wants to go to ground (earth). If it does, it's lost. If you hook it up to a battery, which would be insulated from the earth, it isn't drawn to strike it.

But I'm just a piano tuner.

D.

Lightning isn't sentient. It strikes at anything high up - Lightning mostly strikes clouds. It would hit those humongous crosses, even if they sat on a base of rubber tires (not that they'd be stable, but that's another issue). The more valid point is the probable destruction of the batteries if repeatedly recharged at that speed. Of course, more rapid recharge is one of the issues for research right now, as recharge time is one of the drawbacks of EVs - but even if they get much faster recharge, you're probably right that instaneous recharge isn't a good idea for the longevity of the unit (and considering what they cost, longevity is a desired feature).

There is a lot of energy in lightning - most of it is in the form of heat and light. The energy in petroleum is even more latent than that - it has to be burned to release its energy. Just because lightenings energy largely isn't in voltage doesn't mean a creative genius couldn't come up with a way to utilize it - at the moment it's right up there with perpetual motion machines, but so was solar at one time.

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote:There is a lot of energy in lightning - most of it is in the form of heat and light.

DAR
Two pretty useless forms when the dose only comes in bursts of a second or two! Comparatively then, the heat and light of lightening (I suspect) wouldn't even register on a sensor (measuring heat and light) as strongly as the sun, and this, for only tiny unpredictable bursts.

D.

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote:Lightning isn't sentient. It strikes at anything high up...

DOUG
Don't underestimate human stupidity. There are MANY people in this very country who still believe that lightning is sent down by God to punish evildoers.

So I guess park rangers are more wicked than other people, since they have the highest rates of being struck by lightning.

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote:Just because lightenings energy largely isn't in voltage doesn't mean a creative genius couldn't come up with a way to utilize it...

DOUG
Hasn't that been done...


It's alive! It's alive!...

Park rangers...and those evil EVIL golfers! Always out on the course on sunday morning, when they should be in church.

But the first thing that came to mind with those kids was..."Instant Salvation, yay"

Hmm, I seem to have missed this thread continuation due to my trip...

Recalling from a TLC special I saw long ago...

When lightning begins flowing downward toward the ground, objects on the ground send up "positive streamers" due to the extreme voltage differential. Presumably, non-grounded objects could also send up positive streamers. However, I find myself thinking that anything contacting the earth has a larger sink for its own voltage differential and therefore stands a better chance of contacting the lightning strike.

Check out the top of the tree and the top of the light pole (click for larger image):

Doug - just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean it can't be. That attitude is what's delayed development of EVs, among other things.

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote:Doug - just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean it can't be. That attitude is what's delayed development of EVs, among other things.

DOUG
I said, "Hasn't that been done..." not "That hasn't been done..."

I'm sure progress will be made on it someday.

The Dr. Frankenstein picture and quotation is intended to suggest that that idea has been around for a long time.

Oh, the idea has been around a long time - Ben Franklin was toying with it in the 18th century - actually managed to cook a turkey that way once rumor has it (probably a myth) - would love to know how he managed to get the bird cooked and not incinerated if rumor is correct.

Sorry I misread the comment - I did get the Dr. Frankenstein allusion.