On Oct 15, 11:02*am, "zzznot" wrote:
Y'know, that is interesting.

The logic seems to be that a conductive path disperses the buildup of
static, that would increase likelihood of a strike.

But also, it would seem that a tall conductive path would increase
the likelihood of a strike to a large-area charge buildup that
causes lightning.

So, do ground systems have a high resistance, to attempt to achieve
the one and not the other?

J.

"Dave" wrote in message

rica...

Was talking with someone the other day and mentioned that I had just
grounded the TV antenna (the mast, actually) to protect against lightning
strikes, and they said that was not such a good idea because lightning is
more likely to strike a path that goes straight to ground. *Now I am not
sure what to do. *Anyone have any input on this topic? *Ideas are
gratefully
received...

Thanks,

Dave

From what I have read, for cloud-to-ground lightning, the sequence
generally goes like this. A "stepped leader" comes down from the
cloud base in a series of steps or jumps. When it gets within a
couple hundred feet of the ground, now there is kind of a target area
on the ground, maybe one or two hundred feet in diameter. Within that
area, positive charges from the ground move up and make "streamers"
from tall objects. One of the streamers eventually connects with the
stepped leader, creating a cloud-to-ground conductive path, and then
the main stroke happens. All this takes place very fast, in
milliseconds. But from this description, it seems like what you do
will not much change the chance of lightning striking the house - if
you're in the target area then you may very well get struck, but
otherwise not. -- H