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.
The thing being metal has a very tiny impact on being more likely to be struck by lightning. There is no such thing as “attracting” lightning. Lightning starts as a widespread charge in the clouds, until it reaches a tipping point and discharges. Often this discharge is between two parts of the same system in the sky. However sometimes the discharge can be with the ground itself.
When the electric field is large enough, a similar field is induced in the ground. These fields are often on the large side, with one pair of fields being able to serve a lot of strikes and each strike being a whole bunch of discharges. At the top the air begins to break down and form a lightning channel. This follows a random, often branching pattern, moving generally downward being attracted by the field in the ground. When this channel gets close to the ground little “feelers” begin to discharge from sharp edges of everything near the channel. Once one of these feelers touches the lightning channel, the actual strike happens. That single channel will be used to transfer energy, due to the difference in field charge. The air becomes super heated and turns into a hot plasma. We see the bright white lighting arc and a wave of expanding air moves out from the strike. Often these strikes pulsate, where the channel moves a lot of energy, heats up, stops moving energy, cool down and heat up again. I’m not sure how many cycles one strike has, I think something around a dozen or so. Sometimes when there’s multiple suitable channels available, it will jump around between these, which can look very pretty.
As I said these fields are usually on the big side and that’s what determines where abouts the strike will occur. The bit on the ground only plays a part in the last few meters of a process that is often hundreds of meters long. The material doesn’t matter all that much, as the charge is enough to break down the air itself. If something has sharp edges often matters more than the material, but the biggest factor is height.
Large towers, a singular tree in a field and stuff like that is said to “attract” lightning, because we dumb monkeys see those things get hit more often than elsewhere (but not exclusively so). Like I said the lightning channel is formed up to down, because of the two opposing fields. When the channel gets close to something, it can complete the channel. So things being more up are more likely to do so, just by virtue of being up.
Just a little tangent not directly related to your question tho. If you want to ground the thing to make it less likely to explode when hit by lightning, sure go ahead. But remember a lighting strike is very violent, so it will never be safe. Best to stay indoors during a heavy lightning storm.
is it grounded properly? it would be trivial to install a proper lightning protection on it with a little digging (sheet metal roof might be too thin to conduct lightning current safely and without damage. not a legal advice. consult your local building code)
My brain for some reason read that as a “metal gazelle”, and I was very confused as to why somebody would be asking if a metallic recreation of an animal is safe in a storm. Then I was thinking maybe they were talking about “Gazelle”, as in the bicycle company, but that made even less sense.
It’s only now I realised IT’S A GAZEBO, THE WEIRD BUILDING THING IN PARKS
A metal gazebo is no more likely to be struck than a wooden one of the same height and shape in the same location. Metal doesn’t attract lightning.
That’s wrong. Height is more important than material because air is a fairly good isolator, but electricity will always run the path of least resistance, which will invariably be the metal gazebo if they’re close enough.
That being said, a metal gazebo can also act like a Faraday cage. The reason why a car is safe is because it’s a metal cage, electricity will flow more easily through the metal than through you so you’re safe. Wood might be less conductive than you, so the path of least resistance might go through you, making it less safe. Also trees are alive and have water inside so they’re way more conducting than a wooden gazebo.
All of this being said, being near lighting when it strikes is not safe, as the electricity dissipates on the ground it creates massive electrical difference in the ground, and the least resistance path might be to go up your body and down the other side. Curiously if your feet are at roughly the same distance from the lighting strike you’re less likely to be electrocuted as the difference in electrical potential will be small, however if one feet is significantly closer than the other, as if you were running away from the lighting the electrical potential difference might be enough to kill you.
The reason why a car is safe is
hint: rubber is a good insulator.
No, in fact cars would be safer (about lighting strikes) if they had metal wheels or some metal touching the ground. Rubber is similarly insulated as air, meaning that they’re almost invisible to lightings.
The reason why you’re safe in a car is because it’s a Faraday cage, the electricity flows around the body of the car instead of through you. That being said, exactly because the car has rubber feet it can hold quite a large charge still, so if you’re ever in a car that got hit by a lighting and the car doesn’t have a discharge (it’s common in some dry countries to have a metal chain or wire touching the ground to avoid getting shocked by your car due to static electricity), your safest bet is to touch the car against a metal pole before getting off. Because let’s say that the tires can insulate up to 10KV, the lighting might not have fully discharged and the car still be 10KV more charged than the ground, and when you touch the ground with one feet while the other is in the car you become the path of least resistance.
but electricity will always run the path of least resistance, which will invariably be the metal gazebo if they’re close enough.
Not according to the USA National Weather Service:
The presence of metal makes absolutely no difference on where lightning strikes. Natural objects that are tall and isolated, but are made of little to no metal, like trees and mountains get struck by lightning many times a year.
You are reading one thing and interpreting another. Both me and that link told you height is more important. What that link is telling you is that a wood gazebo in the middle of nowhere will attract lightning the same way a metal gazebo of the same height in the middle of nowhere will, so you’re not less safe in a metal gazebo than in a wooden one in isolation of one another. What I’m telling you is that if you put them side by side the metal one will be struck nearly 100% of the time.
The myth that it is trying to counter is that you having a metal ring/watch/etc on you will make you a target over a tree or something similar.
Lighting is not a magical thing, it’s just electricity, but it’s so much electricity that it can arc extreme distances and be conducted through things we consider non conductive. And here’s the thing, air is a much better insulator than almost anything else, so height will be the determining factor most of the time because it will always be easier for the electricity to run through 10m of wood than 9m of metal and 1m of air, but between 10m of metal and 10m of wood it’s a no contest.
This is why you can be electrocuted inside a wooden gazebo, the tall building will offer less resistance to the lighting, and of you’re touching ground and a pillar you offer less resistance than the wood pillar. A metal gazebo is more conductive than you so it will create a Faraday cage, because the electricity will mostly prefer the metal. That is not to say you’re 100% sure to be safe there, but that’s where I would place my bet.
Those two sentences are entirely unrelated. Just because lightning will strike wood under some circumstances has nothing to do with whether it’s more likely to strike metal.
A more definitive statement would be, “Lightning has been repeatedly observed striking metal objects, and those made of other materials, with equal frequency, provided the objects are of equal height and in the same general location.”
If what you’re saying is true, how do you explain those videos of people playing with Tesla coils while wearing chain link suits?
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.
So, the electrical current is forced to travel around the outside of the body because it’s attracted to metal?
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.
same reason why lightning rods are copper or aluminum -it’s to conduct the energy to ground better.
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.
‘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.
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 👍
So if metal doesn’t attract lightning then explain why tall buildings have lightning conductors, usually made from copper
That’s a safe pathway for the electricity to discharge. The material is irrelevant except in regard to long term durability. It’s height, isolation, and shape.
If the metal gazebo is grounded, and you are not, you’ll be protected if lightning strikes the gazebo because electricity will always follow the path of least resistance to ground.
Have you ever seen one of those videos of a guy in a metal suit playing with the lightning from a Tesla coil? Same principle.
