12.3.

Dart leader

hundreds of meters of the channel, a height consistent with the typical return-stroke front speed and the typical channel-base current risetime. The product of these two quantities gives the height of the return-stroke front at the time when the channel-base current peak is formed. The formulation of a return-stroke model in terms of charge density (Thottappillil et a/. 1 !" see Tables 1#.$ and 1#.% & provides a direct link to the dart-leader model, assuming that all leader charge is neutrali'ed by the return stroke and that the latter does not deposit any additional charge on the channel. (urther, )akov (1 *& suggested that a subsequent return stroke could be viewed as a ground +reflection+ of the dartleader. ,nterestingly, -done and .rville (1 *%& observed, in a /ew 0e1ico rocket-triggered lightning flash, the partial +reflection+ (an upward-propagating luminosity wave& of the downward-propagating dart-leader luminosity wave from the 2unction between the upper, natural section of the channel and its lowest %33-m-long section formed along the triggering wire trace.

1#.$. Dart leader

4e first consider the +atomic physics+ models (5chonland 1 $*, 1 67" 8oeb 1 76, 1 77" 9urenka and :arreto 1 *#, 1 *6&. These models describe the ioni'ation processes within the dart-leader front that facilitate the advancement of the leader. The principal output of these models that can be compared to observations is the front propagation speed 9urenka and :arreto (1 *# 1 *6& assumed that, prior to the dart leader, the lightning channel is composed of a weakly ioni'ed gas, and they considered this gas to be a mi1ture of three +fluids+; neutral particles, ions, and electrons. They described the electron fluid using one-dimensional hydrodynamic equations (the equations of continuity, momentum, and energy conservatl<on& in con2unction with =oisson>s equation, in order to obtain the propagation characteristics of electron density gradients that simulated dart leaders moving along defunct lightning channels. The neutral and ion fluids were assumed to be stationary in relation to the electron fluid 9urenka and :arreto

claimed increase agate

ioni'ed gas without appreciable attenuation and with a velocity e1ceedmg the electron acoustic velocity of about 137 m s-, in the gas and hence similar to observed dart-leader velocities (subsection %.!.#&. :orovsky (1 6& critici'ed this electron-pressure driven?vane model on the grounds that (i& it actually cannot e1plain the observed dart-leader speeds (often in e1cess of 13! m s-l" 5ection %.!& because an electron-pressure shock wave cannot propagate faster than the electron thermal velocity

that in into

the the a

electron electron weakly

pressure density at

wave, the

basically wavefront

a can

sharp prop-

behind

the

wavefront

which

is

about

136

s-1

for

temperature as high as $3 ..fl@, (ii& electronpressure waves

9,
I
AB
CB
%16 would lightning only propagate channels for and distances much less than , cm in

(iii)

transport energy fast enough to tion and heating thought to be produced by dart leaders. 5chonland t 1 $*, 1 67& proposed a simple formula for the speed of an ioni'ing wave as a function of the initial electron density in the front, the electron drift velocity (which is considerably lower than the front velocity& and the ,?.a? e-front length. Dnother simple speed equation was proposed by 8oeb ( 1 76& 8oeb>s formula uses the same input parameters as that of 5chonland plus the final electron density (after the wave has traversed a distance equal to the wave-front length& and the number of new electrons created per unit length by a drifting electron (the first Townsend ioni'ation coefficient& :oth 5chonland>s and 8oeb>s formulas were discussed by Eman (1 7 , 1 *%&. 5chonland>s formula is based on an arbitrary assumption that the time required for an ioni'ing wave to traverse a distance equal to the wave-front length is the same as the time necessary for each electron to travel the average distance (much smaller than the front length& between electrons. ,n 8oeb>s formula, the former time is equal to the time required for many electron avalanches to produce a specified increase in electron density within the front. :oth formulas require a knowledge of quantities that are generally not known, and therefore they are of little practical value. 4e now consider the electromagnetic model of the dart leader proposed by :orovsky (1 6&F Ge used 0a1well equations to simulate both dart-leader and return-stroke processes as guided electromagnetic waves propagating along conducting cylindrical channels. The re-

the account

electron for

pressure the air

cannot ioni'a-

sistance per unit length of the channel guiding the dartleader wave was assumed to be constant and equal to 733 4 m-1 . The dart-leader wave was represented by a single, dominant sinusoid (about 173 kG'& for which various propagation characteristics were found from the model. .nly a middle section of the lightning channel, undisturbed by the conditions at the channel ends, was considered. )akov (1 *& argued that :orovsky>s model is not adequate because it predicts an attenuation of more than an order of magnitude within 133 m or so, contrary to the e1perimental data on dart-leader luminosity profiles (9ordan et a/. 1 !&. Note that the attenuation distance given by :orovsky is based on an amplitude decay to less than 3.# percent of the original value, instead of the generally assumed $! percent.

,n summary, it appears :orovsky is not suitable for describing the dart leader.
sient

that

the

electromagnetic
leader as prescribed

model
a

of
tran-

Baze yan (1 6& modeled the dart process initiated by impressing one end of an RLC transmission other end with 8 and H assumed to vary as a function of current! tri&uted circuit) mode- is nonlinear in that it takes account

voltage

at

line
constant Thus,

short-circuited
and
Baze yan"s

at
)
#$%

the
assumed
(dis-

,
1

' B
1