On one hand, it would obviously attract lightning, being a tall-ish conducter it would attract it, but cars and the like are said to be (relatively) safe specifically because they direct lightning around you to the ground. I imagine it would be similar to that.

  • Dookieman12@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    If what you’re saying is true, how do you explain those videos of people playing with Tesla coils while wearing chain link suits?

    • Diddlydee@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      That’s essentially a wearable Faraday cage. The metal suit acts as a highly conductive shield. It forces the electrical current to safely travel around the outside of the body rather than through it. That’s why stainless steel or chain mail is used specifically.

      • Dookieman12@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        So, the electrical current is forced to travel around the outside of the body because it’s attracted to metal?

        • Diddlydee@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 hours ago

          It is not attracted to metal. Metal provides excellent condition for the current to travel across the suit rather than the body. There is no magical attraction force.

          • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            same reason why lightning rods are copper or aluminum -it’s to conduct the energy to ground better.

          • Dookieman12@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 hours ago

            You can keep describing it in different, more technical terms if you want, all you’re doing is making yourself more correct, not making me less correct.

            Of course you and I know “attract” isn’t the correct technical term, but that’s the term OP used and there’s nothing wrong with adjusting your message to communicate the same idea using words your audience will understand.

            A lay person thinking “electricity is attracted to metal” still holds an accurate mental model of what can be expected. OP wanted to know if their mental model was correct, not whether they used the correct terminology to describe it.

            • Diddlydee@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 hours ago

              ‘Obviously it would attract lightning’ was and is incorrect. I pointed that out and explained what actually happens. I am also a lay person. I was just explaining what I know in response, and clarifying with replies.

              • Dookieman12@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 hours ago

                No, you’re calling it wrong, then describing the same thing using different words and asserting that your description is right and the other is wrong. Whether you say “metal conducts electricity” or “metal attracts electricity” doesn’t matter when the idea you’re expressing is, “electricity can be expected to go where metal is.”

                Either way, I don’t have the time or the inclination or be pedantic with strangers on the internet regarding matters I already understand and ultimately don’t matter.

                Good luck to you 👍