Wrong!

Lighting rods are not meant to repel lightning!

As the other poster siad, lightning rods are there to give it what it
wants, a safe way to get to ground thats not through you or your house.

Some people thinik that if you also provide many many sharp points that
will conduct a small current over a period of time, the discharge can
be made to occur gradually instead of as a bolt. Maybe, maybe not.
At BEST this MIGHT reduce the probability of a bolt but it sure isn't
anything you can count on, so why bother.

Mark

On 1 Mar 2005 10:59:11 -0800, "Mark" wrote:

Wrong!

Lighting rods are not meant to repel lightning!


I don't know about! They stick up in the air, all sharp and pointy.
They do not look inviting!


As the other poster siad, lightning rods are there to give it what it
wants, a safe way to get to ground thats not through you or your house.

Some people thinik that if you also provide many many sharp points that
will conduct a small current over a period of time, the discharge can
be made to occur gradually instead of as a bolt. Maybe, maybe not.
At BEST this MIGHT reduce the probability of a bolt but it sure isn't
anything you can count on, so why bother.

Mark


:-P

later,

tom @ www.CarFleaMarket.com

The concept of Early Streamer Emission devices to repel or
avoid a lightning strike is again properly criticized with a
gusto that the scam deserves.

The newsgroups rec.radio.amateur.antenna includes many
whose professional experience is this topic. Posted in that
newsgroup on 3 Mar 2005 in "lighting replusion?" is this from
Jack Painter:
The IEEE has nearly succeeded in quashing once and for all,
the last ditch efforts of a desperate group of snake-oil
salesmen pushing Early Streamer Emission (ESE) and Charge
Transfer System (CTS) phony-science. The latest trick of
these junk-science purveyors was to hire corrupt Russian
scientists to publish "findings" that the ESE/CTS systems
worked. Every other lightning expert in the world has
rung-in on this already, and the theory is totally
discredited, and without merit.

That didn't stop some engineers at various plants and stations
around the world from trying the systems those CTS snake oil
salesmen pushed. The system you described on that tower is
CTS. And it never worked, anywhere. Anyone who still defends
it today is too embarrassed to admit they paid upwards of 10x
the cost of proven Franklin-rod lightning systems, for a
totally discredited design that leaves them dangerously
exposed to damage from lightning (if it was the only
protection system).

Now this question. If air terminals to repel lightning is
so obviously based in snake oil, then why were so many here
still avidly promoting that myth? At what point do people
first seek facts before posting myths? That is the bottom
line question that applies *topmost* to this particular
thread. So many promoted a myth; doing so convincingly
without any numbers and any basic facts. No numbers should
have been enough for everyone to dispute their claims. How is
it that such myth purveyors could promote this ESE lie and
almost get away with it? This question is directed at the
same people who also believed lies about 'weapons of mass
destruction'. This topmost question asks why do so many
people, as demonstrated in this thread, blindly believe lies
that obviously have no scientific or logical basis?

For some, this question should be a wake up call. ESE
devices - to repel lightning - is so wrong that some here
should have major questions about their own personal
credibility.

Mark wrote:
Wrong!

Lighting rods are not meant to repel lightning!

As the other poster siad, lightning rods are there to give it what it
wants, a safe way to get to ground thats not through you or your house.
...
Some people thinik that if you also provide many many sharp points that
will conduct a small current over a period of time, the discharge can
be made to occur gradually instead of as a bolt. Maybe, maybe not.
At BEST this MIGHT reduce the probability of a bolt but it sure isn't
anything you can count on, so why bother.

Mark