Application of the antenna theory model to a tall tower struck by lightning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interaction of lightning with the 553‐m high CN Tower in Toronto is modeled using the antenna theory model. A simple lossless wire structure is used to represent the tower. The return‐stroke channel is modeled as a lossy vertical antenna attached to the tower top. The lossy antenna and the wire structure representing the tower are assumed to be fed at their junction point by a voltage source. The voltage waveform of this source is selected so that the source current resembles a typical lightning current waveform not influenced by the presence of the tall strike object. An electric field integral equation in the time domain is employed to calculate the lightning return stroke current distribution along the CN Tower and along the lightning channel. The equation is solved numerically using the method of moments. The lightning current flowing in the tower at the 474‐m level above ground, predicted by the antenna theory (AT) model, compares favorably with the measurements conducted at the CN Tower. Once the temporal and spatial distributions of the current along the tower and along the lightning channel are determined, the corresponding remote electromagnetic fields are computed. Waveshapes of model‐predicted electric and magnetic fields at a distance of 2 km from the tower are in good agreement with measurements. The contribution of the tower to the electric and magnetic fields at 2 km is about four to five times the contribution of the lightning channel.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it