m 



ME. WILLIAM STURGEON ON LIGHTNING 



Endynnoii was struck by lightning on the fore -topgallant 

 mast, at the distance of about 50 feet from a pointed con- 

 ductor attached to the main -mast, reaching from the top- 

 gallant-mast's head to the water.* 



32. Case Q. — H. M. ship uEtna was struck by lightning 

 near the bow, which exploded about 12 feet above the fore- 

 castle, close to the fore-mast, whilst a chain conductor was 

 attached to her main-mast in the usual way.f 



33. Case R In May, 1835, at the Cape of Good 



Hope, H. M. brig Bucer was struck by lightning on the 

 fore-topgallant-mast, a chain conductor being in its place 

 on the main-mast at the time.:]: 



34. Although more instances of this kind might be ad- 

 duced, those already cited are sufficient of themselves to 

 show the fallacy of that doctrine, which embraces the idea 

 that tall pointed conductors will prevent violent explosions 

 of lightning from falling on vicinal objects. They, more- 

 over, prove that lightning does not invariably select the 

 tallest objects for its transit to the earth ; which is another 

 fact at variance with the views of Franklin, and the pre- 

 vailing opinion at the present day. 



35. I am not aware that oblique discharges of lightning 

 had ever been noticed by writers on electricity previously 

 to the appearance of my Memoir on Marine Lightning Con-' 

 cZwc<o»*s, dated September, 1839,1| although the character of the 

 damage by lightning, in many instances, was too obvious to 

 lead to any other conclusion. It is even doubtful that any 

 lightning discharge takes place in a vertical direction. If 

 lightning invariably took a perpendicular direction, it would 

 as constantly strike the highest points of such objects as 

 ship's masts, &c., which is contrary to observation. Nor 



* Harris on Thunder Storms. f Ibid. 



X Nautical Magazine — Harris on Thander Storms. 

 II Annals of Electricity, vol. iv. 



