12.2.

Return stroke

minimum significant wavelength is 300 m ( to a frequency of 1 MIfz), o !ects whose heights 30 m or less may e considered as lumped" in as a short#circuit etween the lightning channel the grounding impedance of the o !ect$ the equi%&alent circuit is shown in 'ig" (")"

corresponding are a out most cases ase and corresponding

Retlcrn-stroke J`ront speed at early times *aum (1))0 ) argued that at the instant of return#stro+e initiation the geometry of the ottom few tens of meters of the leader channel is an inverted circular cone ecause the corona closer to ground has not had enough time for its full de# velopment" ,ropagation speeds of radial#corona stream# ers from conductors su !ected to negative hi--ch ,"oltage in the la oratory have een reported to e a out 10. m s/I (0" I m ms# I ) (1ooray 1))3), so that some microseconds

are required for the development of a corona sheath with a radius of the order of meters" 'or stepped 2cadets, the av# erage downward propagation speed is also of order I 0. m s#I , so that there is a relatively short delay in the corona# sheath formation as a stepped leader moves toward ground

although it is not clear what is occurring during the at# tachment process" 'or dart leaders, the downward propaga# tion speeds (typically 103 m s#I ) are a out t%no orders of magnitude higher than the radial#streamer speeds, so that the delay in the corona#sheath formation may e apprecia# le" 4he charge density in *aum&s (1))0 ) model is zero at ground and increases linearly with height" 4his coni# cal model of the leader charge distri ution in the ottom part of the channel predicts an initial return#stro+e speed of nearly c, the speed of light, ecause oth the longitudi# nal channel current and the channel charge near the ground are confined in a volume of appro5imately the same radial dimension" 4he speed was predicted y *aum to decrease in some hundreds of nanoseconds to appro5imately one#third of the speed of light when the return#stro+e front has reached a height of the order of tens of meters where the corona sheath is fully developed (and the channel geom# etry is cylindrical), that is, where the radii of the current# carrying channel core and of the charge#containing corona sheath differ appreciably from each other" However, the optically measured return#stro+e speed versus height pro# files within 600 m of ground reported for two triggeredlightning stro+es y 7ang et al. (1))) ) indicate an ini# tial upward speed of the order of one#third to one#half the speed of light with apparently no systematic variation in the ottom 100 m or so of the channel" 7ang et al. used the digital optical imaging system 89,: (;o+oyama et al. 1))0) with 100 ns time resolution, and the spatial resolution of his measurements was about 30 m" Further,
7eidman (199 ! reported mean
613

return#stro+e

speeds

in

the

lowest 100 m of the lightning channel equal to "# 5 10"

and <"< 5 103 m lightning stro+es, respectively" :ome researchers

s/1

for

nine

natural#

and

16

triggered#

(e"g", 7illett et a/. 1)<)$ 9eteinturier et a=" 1))0$ >man et a=" ?000, ?00?) have attempted to estimate the return#stro+e speed using @qs" 1?"6 and=or 1?"." :uch estimates are necessarily model de# pendent and are often difficult to interpret, as discussed elow" 9eteinturier et aL (1))0) estimated the return#stro+e speed using (i) the measured pea+ values of the time deriva# tive of the channel# ase current, (ii) the measured pea+ val# ues of the time derivative of the electric field at .0 m, and 3) ii) @q" 1?"." 4hey reported the speed values to e on av# erage near c, 16 out of 60 values apparently eing greater than the speed of light" >man et a/. (?000), using measured time derivatives of the electric fields at I0, 16, current#derivatives, o tained y numerical of the current records, and @q" 1?". estimated values as followsB 1"3 5 10< m s/I (10 m, seven events)B 3"1 5 10< m s#I (16 m, three events)$ and ?") 5
(30 m, seven events)A *aum (1))0 ) estimates of 9eteinturier retical prediction that invo+ed a/. the (1))0) initial

and

30 mA differentiation mean speed m s#

I

10<

et the

model#dependent in support of return#stro+e speed

his is

speed theo# nearly

equal ing gave light

et a/ 1)<))A 'urther, the use of (i) the mea# sured channel# ase current pea+, (ii) the measured electric field pea+ at a out . +m, and (iii) @q" 1?A6 led to a mean return#stro+e speed of a out one#half the speed of light, consistent with the corresponding optical speed measure# ments over the ottom 600/(00 m of the channel (7illett et a/. 1)<))" It is possi le that, since the pea+ derivative precedes the pea+ of electric field or current, the speed es# timates using @q" 1?"., that is, using the pea+ values of the time derivatives of electric field and current, are repre# sentative of a somewhat lower channel section than those ased on @q" 1?"6, that is, on the pea+ electric field and the pea+ current" Cowever, this con!ecture implies a very rapid speed decay within the ottom 100 m or so while, as notedAa ove, the measurements of 7ang et a/. (1))) )
do not appear to indicate a systematic speed variation near the ottom of the channel" 8dditionally, such a rapid speed decay would pro a ly render invalid @qs" 1?"6 and 1?"., derived assuming a constant v" 0ne possi le e5planation for the discrepancy e# tween the speeds inferred from @q" 1?". using the 16 to .0 m data (nearly c) and using the . +m data (c=3) is the contri ution of the induction and electrostatic field compo# nents at 16 to .0 m to the total electric#field derivative pea+ (1ooray 1)<)a$ 9eteinturier et al. 1))0$ >man et al. ?000,

to pea+ a (7illett

the speed of light" :imilar estimates electric field derivatives measured at mean value of appro5imately two#thirds

of a out the

speed . speed

us# +m of

?00?)" 4his contri ution is not which was derived for the radiation field component only"

accounted

for

in

@q"

1?".,

D ,t
i