Comparison of Lightning Return Stroke Electric Fields Predicted by the Transmission Line and Antenna Theory Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Transmission Line (TL) model of the lightning return stroke with a speed equal to the speed of light ( v = c) (Thottappillil et al., 2001 [1]) is compared to the Antenna Theory (AT) model. There are appreciable differences between the electric fields on the ground 500 m, 5 km, and 50 km from the lightning channel base predicted by these two models. The AT model gives a total electric field peak that is about 10% lower than the field peak predicted by the TL model. The differences between the predictions of the TL and AT models are primarily due to the use of different sources in these two models. In the TL model with v = c, the source produces a spherical TEM wave (theta-directed electric field), and the resultant electromagnetic field structure in the waveguide formed by the lightning channel and ground is a pure TEM wave. In the AT model, the source produces a longitudinal electric field, and the resultant electromagnetic field structure is not a pure TEM wave. The TEM-wave source in the TL model with v = c is implicitly specified by imposing a nonattenuated current in the channel. The current would be necessarily attenuated if a non-TEM-wave source were used instead, as is the case in the AT model. The TL model with v = c admits an analytical solution, while the AT model requires a full-wave numerical solution. From a review of the optical measurements of the return-stroke speed, the value of speed in the bottom few tens of meters to 100 m of the lightning channel, that is, at the time when the initial peak of the channel-base current is formed is typically one-third to one-half of the speed of light.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".