Actually, I was oversimplifying some when I said that air is a better insulator than rubber. Neutral air is a better insulator than rubber, but the air which is conducting a lightning stroke is largely ionized, which makes it a decent conductor. In principle, of course, the same thing could happen with rubber, though it’d probably take significantly more energy. I’m not actually sure what would happen if you had a large amount of rubber in the line of a lightning strike.
It also depends on the type of rubber.
IIRC, modern tires have carbon black as an ingredient which enhances tire life. This also allows the tires to be slightly conductive.
In the “olden” days, the tires were far more insulative. This proved to be a problem for trucks carrying flammable fluids; the build up of static charges could result in an explosion. So chains were added to the trailer that just touch the ground which discharged the buildup. But that was in the mid-sixties; I think conductive tires had come into wide spread use by then and can’t recall seeing chains on trucks since the 60’s.
ETA: Just read that people used chains on gasoline trucks in the 90’s. So YMMV
I’ve certainly seen them in my lifetime, when I was old enough to ask what they were. That puts them somewhere into the 80s, at least.
For the record: Those buildings at the bottom of the OP’s photo are definitely not what’s around the Eiffel Tower. If they had to fake that, my guess is that the whole thing’s a fake.
I can’t tell, either. I tried to look for some landmark on this picture that would give me a clue, but couldn’t find any. There’s no open space in the vicinity of the tower on this picture, either (large avenue, “Champ de Mars”, the Seine river…) . I’m intrigued by all those cranes around it, too. Maybe this picture was taken from a quite unusual spot, but I’m wondering if the whole tower could have been added to a random picture of lightning striking in an urban area.
This is a very good point. Here is the source of the photo but their web site does not show the entire photo as linked by the OP. But it looks Shopped to me (this is subjective; the photo is not high enough resolution for me to identify any editing artifacts). I agree about the surroundings but I can’t imagine why anyone would bother to fake that.
Have a look at other photos of the tower and you will see that none of them look blue or have similar surroundings. The actual color of the tower is a kind of rusty brown (I was there in 2006). It could have been lit with blue spots but it seems unlikely that if so there is only one such photo.
As I pointed out, the photo was taken in July 2008. The tower was illuminated with blue floodlights that summer to mark France’s presidency of the EU. There’s even a photo of it on Wikipedia with a caption explaining that.
I wish people would take a moment to do some elementary research (that took less than 30 seconds on Google to find) rather than screaming “Fake!”.
As for the buildings at the bottom, I can see nothing to indicate fakery. You have to remember that this shot was taken with a telephoto lens (you can tell by how close the hills behind the tower appear to be). Telephoto lenses compress perspective, so the buildings that appear to be “just in front” of the base of the tower could be quite some distance away - like, miles.
I’m trying to work out the angle of the photo. It was taken from Bertrand Kulik’s aprtment, but I haven’t been able to find out which area of Paris that is in. Compare this photo, taken from Montmartre. I think that the large white-roofed building that appears to the right of the tower in that pic might be the same building that is visible to the left of the tower in the lightning pic. Montmartre is northeast of the Eiffel Tower, which means that white building is somewhere to the west of the tower.
Right, found a definite match for some of the surrounding buildings.
Here’s the best copy of the lightning shot I’ve found. Note the prominent white building in the centre foreground. Above that are two church towers with pointed roofs, the taller one on the right is particularly distinctive with large vertical windows.
Those two buildings are clearly visible, at the left of this photo, which was taken from the top of the Arc de Triomphe, north of the tower. (This distinctive rooftop is in the foreground of the pic, and Avenue d’Iéna is the road curving towards the tower.)
From that, I identified the church as the Eglise St Pierre de Chaillot
The lightning photo was clearly taken from almost exactly the opposite direction from the Arc de Triomphe, as the church towers appear the other way round (taller on the right) and to the right of the Eiffel Tower, rather than to the left as they appear from the Arc de Triomphe.
The Eiffel Tower’s feet are aligned with the compass points (so the “faces” are at 45 degrees), and the front and back feet are almost in line, so the photo was taken from a point almost due south of the Eiffel Tower.
There are some quite distinctive modern concrete buildings with long oval detailing right at the bottom of the lightning pic. Someone familiar with Paris might recognise them. My best guess is that it was taken from somewhere in the 15th arrondissement or perhaps even further out beyond the Parc des Expos (compare this pic for a similar kind of angle bur with different foreground).
Certainly enough evidence to demonstrate that the surroundings are definitely Paris, anyway!
There’s a good lesson here: don’t be near the ET in a thunderstorm.
That’s almost the same vantage as the one in
You can see the same buildings below and to the right, but that white building to the right in the second link isn’t in the first link. Any idea what that is? A new building or a temporary cover?
ETA: Oh, and good sleuthing, BTW.
I’m pretty sure the tall thin tower to the right of St Pierre de Chaillot (with the tip just protruding above the horizon) is the American Cathedral, but I haven’t identified the brightly floodlit steeple further to the right yet.
You can find the same buildings about a quarter of the way from the left of this panorama from the top of the tower. Which also makes me wonder if the lightning was in fact hitting that whopping great skyscraper near the left edge of the panorama? That’s the Hôtel Concorde-Lafayette, and it’s the highest thing in that vicinity by some margin.
Looking at the position of the tower’s legs more closely, it does seem that the photo was taken from slightly east of south, which would put that hotel directly behind the tower from the photographer’s vantage point.
Edit: good spot, ZenBeam. The photo that is described as being “from Montmartre” looks as though it must have been taken from the Arc de Triomphe as well. Like you say, the angle is pretty much identical.
Good points all, and I am impressed by your extensive research on the surroundings. I did raise questions about the photo but I don’t think what I did was to scream “Fake!”
Compare this night-time shot, taken from the suburb of Malakoff. The backgrounds match up pretty well (note the lights on the hill in the background), but the lightning photo must have been taken from a point to the right (i.e. east) of this one, as the tower appears further left in relation to the background.
You can see the same church towers in both pics, and the very bright red neon light in the distance (at right of lightning pic, near middle of Malakoff pic).