Lightning return stroke current models with specified channel-base current: a review and comparison. Nucci, C., A.; Diendorfer, G.; Uman, M., A.; Rachidi, F.; Ianoz, M.; and Mazzetti, C. Journal of Geophysical Research, 95(D12):20395-20408, 1990.
abstract   bibtex   
We compare five lightning return stroke current models that exhibit a simple relationship between the current at the return stroke channel-base and the current along the return stroke channel. There are basically two characteristics that distinguish the models, namely, (1) the treatment of the return stroke wave front and (2) the spatial and temporal distribution of charge removed from the leader channel. The models produce overall fields which are reasonable approximations to measured fields from natural lightning even though, for the assumed channel-base current, the BG and TCS models do not reproduce the observed distant-field zero crossing and the MTL and MULS models do not reproduce the magnetic "hump' observed after the initial field peak at close range. None of the models can reproduce the fine structure observed in the measured fields. -from Authors
@article{
 title = {Lightning return stroke current models with specified channel-base current: a review and comparison},
 type = {article},
 year = {1990},
 identifiers = {[object Object]},
 keywords = {atmospheric radiation,atmospherics,lightning,meteo},
 pages = {20395-20408},
 volume = {95},
 id = {a522a52a-8c01-30f3-8035-58ffff48bbb4},
 created = {2020-12-22T17:12:05.247Z},
 file_attached = {false},
 profile_id = {f7c25345-a8b5-3d31-977d-34baa516d876},
 group_id = {7dcc2f99-6e61-3683-a6e6-764f3bce95b4},
 last_modified = {2020-12-22T17:12:05.247Z},
 read = {false},
 starred = {false},
 authored = {false},
 confirmed = {true},
 hidden = {false},
 citation_key = {3815148/LRE},
 source_type = {article},
 notes = {<b>From Duplicate 2 (<i>Lightning return stroke current models with specified channel-base current: a review and comparison</i> - Nucci, C A; Diendorfer, G; Uman, M A; Rachidi, F; Ianoz, M; Mazzetti, C)<br/></b><br/>return stroke channel electric<br/>current;atmospherics;Bruce-Golde model;transmission line<br/>model;Master-Uman-Lin-Standler model;lightning EM<br/>fields;Travelling Current Source model;Modified<br/>Transmission Line model;electric fields;charge removal<br/>spatial distribution;close-range magnetic field hump;peak<br/>electric field derivative;electric current<br/>derivative;specified channel-base current;lightning<br/>return stroke current models;return stroke<br/>channel-base;current wave shape;magnetic fields;return<br/>stroke wave front;temporal distribution;leader<br/>channel;long-time field calculation;natural lightning;0<br/>to 12 kA;0 to 10 mus;0 to 100 mus;0 to 7 km;0 to 45<br/>muT;50 to 5000 m;},
 private_publication = {false},
 abstract = {We compare five lightning return stroke current models that exhibit a simple relationship between the current at the return stroke channel-base and the current along the return stroke channel. There are basically two characteristics that distinguish the models, namely, (1) the treatment of the return stroke wave front and (2) the spatial and temporal distribution of charge removed from the leader channel. The models produce overall fields which are reasonable approximations to measured fields from natural lightning even though, for the assumed channel-base current, the BG and TCS models do not reproduce the observed distant-field zero crossing and the MTL and MULS models do not reproduce the magnetic "hump' observed after the initial field peak at close range. None of the models can reproduce the fine structure observed in the measured fields. -from Authors},
 bibtype = {article},
 author = {Nucci, C. A. and Diendorfer, G. and Uman, M. A. and Rachidi, F. and Ianoz, M. and Mazzetti, C.},
 journal = {Journal of Geophysical Research},
 number = {D12}
}
Downloads: 0