I live out here in Central Florida, lightning capitol of the country, and
want to install some lightning protection. I have googled around and
listened to the home shows. Was wondering if any of you folks out there have
any suggestions on what to buy or not to buy....thanks in advance....Ross

You mean surge protection, or house protection (ligthning rods)?

Ross Mac wrote:
I live out here in Central Florida, lightning capitol of the country,

And right in the neighborhood we have a company doing something
unusual -
http://www.windemuller.com/wmtext.html

Whether you buy this technology or not, I'm sure seeing a lot of it
installed on commercial and high-end residential housing in the Tampa
Bay area. A few weeks ago I saw some in Orlando on hotels along I-4
near the Colonial Drive exit. Look for the "flying saucers on a pole".

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:43:17 -0500, "Ross Mac"
wrote:

I live out here in Central Florida, lightning capitol of the country, and
want to install some lightning protection. I have googled around and
listened to the home shows. Was wondering if any of you folks out there have
any suggestions on what to buy or not to buy....thanks in advance....Ross



IMHO:

If you are serious, you have this professionally done. Why? Because
most of home owners are use to seeing nothing more thatn 4 awg as a
ground for our electrical system, and misconcieve that for lightning
protection. It isn't and the pro's use monster sized cables. Reason
I heard for that, is because a lightning rod is working 24/7 and it's
constantly hit with static charge, even if you don't see it. static
electricity(lightning) is a very high frequency, so it tends to travel
over the surface of conductors, leading to the use of braded high
guage conductors.

So, like I said, seek professional services, and check with your local
bbb, and chamber of commerce for references, and background checks.

hth,

tom @ www.BookmarkAdmin.com

"Ross Mac" wrote in message
...
I live out here in Central Florida, lightning capitol of the country, and
want to install some lightning protection. I have googled around and
listened to the home shows. Was wondering if any of you folks out there
have
any suggestions on what to buy or not to buy....thanks in advance....Ross


Time for a trip to the library. Your looking for UL96A at least that is what
it was called.

Lightning protection that does not carry a master label is not worth much
and can be more problems than with out it. Best check with your insurance
agent on this.

You know; if you manage to get a strike your looking at a sacrificial
system?
Just like surge protectors it will work once.

http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_...mendation.html

This has some interesting data.

http://www.lightningstorm.com/tux/js...cquisition.jsp


A google search will find 20 or so companies that if you send them a drawing
of the structure and the surrounding area, they will design and sell you the
products. It is not all that hard nor is it that expensive to install as
long as you do not mind getting close the edges.

The only house that I have even work on that had been hit was a total loss
electrically. It had lightning rods, and surge protectors installed by the
utility. They had an iron clad guarantee if you had this stuff installed. I
was hired to rip out the drywall and completely rewire the home. All of the
copper pipes were fused so the plumber was jack hammering up the concrete as
well. All of the stucco had to be removed cause all of the staples holding
the lath to the studs had dissolved and the outside looked like chicken pox.
I am pretty sure that a bull dozer and starting over from scratch would not
have been all that much more expensive.

Good luck

When I was a kid, and a thunderstorm interfered with the TV reception,
my brothers used to strip me naked, strap a tv antenna to my head and
make me go stand outside.

I only got hit once or twice, that I can remember.

SQLit wrote:
They had an iron clad guarantee if you had
this stuff installed.

The insurance against damage offered by some utilities and lighting
contractors may be more valuable that the system itself.

"Matt" wrote in message
oups.com...
You mean surge protection, or house protection (ligthning rods)?


All the above....good protection from lightning that won't make my house
look like transmitting tower. .....Ross

"The Real Tom" Tom @ www.WorkAtHomePlans.com wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:43:17 -0500, "Ross Mac"
wrote:

I live out here in Central Florida, lightning capitol of the country, and
want to install some lightning protection. I have googled around and
listened to the home shows. Was wondering if any of you folks out there
have
any suggestions on what to buy or not to buy....thanks in advance....Ross



IMHO:

If you are serious, you have this professionally done. Why? Because
most of home owners are use to seeing nothing more thatn 4 awg as a
ground for our electrical system, and misconcieve that for lightning
protection. It isn't and the pro's use monster sized cables. Reason
I heard for that, is because a lightning rod is working 24/7 and it's
constantly hit with static charge, even if you don't see it. static
electricity(lightning) is a very high frequency, so it tends to travel
over the surface of conductors, leading to the use of braded high
guage conductors.

So, like I said, seek professional services, and check with your local
bbb, and chamber of commerce for references, and background checks.

hth,

tom @ www.BookmarkAdmin.com



Agreed Tom....I don't plan on doing this myself...thanks....Ross

"Matt" wrote in message
oups.com...
When I was a kid, and a thunderstorm interfered with the TV reception,
my brothers used to strip me naked, strap a tv antenna to my head and
make me go stand outside.

I only got hit once or twice, that I can remember.


Maybe we should call you Rodney Dangerfield....Ross

"Travis Jordan" wrote in message
...
Ross Mac wrote:
I live out here in Central Florida, lightning capitol of the country,

And right in the neighborhood we have a company doing something
unusual -
http://www.windemuller.com/wmtext.html

Whether you buy this technology or not, I'm sure seeing a lot of it
installed on commercial and high-end residential housing in the Tampa
Bay area. A few weeks ago I saw some in Orlando on hotels along I-4
near the Colonial Drive exit. Look for the "flying saucers on a pole".


Thanks Travis....this is quite interesting....I will look around to see
them.....I'm over in Clermont....I think where the only hills in Florida
exist....Take Care, Ross

Ross Mac wrote:
Thanks Travis....this is quite interesting....I will look around to
see them.....I'm over in Clermont....I think where the only hills in
Florida exist....Take Care, Ross

I was surprised when these 'protectors' starting showing up on new
construction here in the Tampa area. At first I thought they were
either rain gauge senders or maybe GPS antennas, but I couldn't figure
out why they were being installed so high up. On St. Pete Beach there
is one on a condo that must be 40 or 50 feet above the roof line. I
guess it needs to be that high to provide a zone of protection? Most of
the homes here have them in the center of the house about 15 feet or so
above the roof line. From an asthetic point of view they probably
aren't as nice looking as a collection of simple roof mounted rods, but
then maybe the improved protection would be worth it. If you were a
ham radio operator or a scanner buff I suppose you could mount a small
yagi on the side of the pole and have a dual-use structure.

Let us know what you decide to do.

Ross Mac wrote:
I live out here in Central Florida, lightning capitol of the country, and
want to install some lightning protection. I have googled around and
listened to the home shows. Was wondering if any of you folks out there have
any suggestions on what to buy or not to buy....thanks in advance....Ross

Ross
Materials are not the big issue. Installation practices are the snake
in that brush and it is poisonous. Do a reasonable amount of research
and you will be able to answer your own materials questions. Some of
the issues you will want to be up to speed on on are; side flash, common
system bonding, and secondary damage caused by installation. If you do
not learn these and other issues and the effective techniques to abate
them you may make your situation worse rather than better.

In defiance of conventional DIY wisdom that anyone can do the job with a
few paragraphs of advice from Usenet or a magazine article I will warn
you that having a fully effective lightning protection system will take
a serious investment on your part. You can either invest the large
amount of time that is necessary to learn the fundamentals of system
installation or you can invest the larger amount of money to have it
done by folks who have already done the training. To put it another way
you can have it cheap, fast, good, but you can only have two of them in
any given job.
--
Tom H

"Travis Jordan" wrote in message
...
Ross Mac wrote:
Thanks Travis....this is quite interesting....I will look around to
see them.....I'm over in Clermont....I think where the only hills in
Florida exist....Take Care, Ross

I was surprised when these 'protectors' starting showing up on new
construction here in the Tampa area. At first I thought they were
either rain gauge senders or maybe GPS antennas, but I couldn't figure
out why they were being installed so high up. On St. Pete Beach there
is one on a condo that must be 40 or 50 feet above the roof line. I
guess it needs to be that high to provide a zone of protection? Most of
the homes here have them in the center of the house about 15 feet or so
above the roof line. From an asthetic point of view they probably
aren't as nice looking as a collection of simple roof mounted rods, but
then maybe the improved protection would be worth it. If you were a
ham radio operator or a scanner buff I suppose you could mount a small
yagi on the side of the pole and have a dual-use structure.

Let us know what you decide to do.



This system looks great to me. I will have to check if I can put one of
these things up, since I live on a golf course, they have a big ole set of
rules as you can imagine...but hey, thanks so much for the great info and I
will post after I contact them....thanks again, Ross

"HorneTD" wrote in message
link.net...
Ross Mac wrote:
I live out here in Central Florida, lightning capitol of the country, and
want to install some lightning protection. I have googled around and
listened to the home shows. Was wondering if any of you folks out there
have any suggestions on what to buy or not to buy....thanks in
advance....Ross

Ross
Materials are not the big issue. Installation practices are the snake in
that brush and it is poisonous. Do a reasonable amount of research and
you will be able to answer your own materials questions. Some of the
issues you will want to be up to speed on on are; side flash, common
system bonding, and secondary damage caused by installation. If you do
not learn these and other issues and the effective techniques to abate
them you may make your situation worse rather than better.

In defiance of conventional DIY wisdom that anyone can do the job with a
few paragraphs of advice from Usenet or a magazine article I will warn you
that having a fully effective lightning protection system will take a
serious investment on your part. You can either invest the large amount
of time that is necessary to learn the fundamentals of system installation
or you can invest the larger amount of money to have it done by folks who
have already done the training. To put it another way you can have it
cheap, fast, good, but you can only have two of them in any given job.
--
Tom H

Hiring Pro's on this one Tom and thanks for your advice...I was more
interested in the best system...then I will contract it out....My days up on
a roof are drawing to a close...take care and thanks, Ross

Travis Jordan wrote:
Ross Mac wrote:

I live out here in Central Florida, lightning capitol of the country,


And right in the neighborhood we have a company doing something
unusual -
http://www.windemuller.com/wmtext.html

Whether you buy this technology or not, I'm sure seeing a lot of it
installed on commercial and high-end residential housing in the Tampa
Bay area. A few weeks ago I saw some in Orlando on hotels along I-4
near the Colonial Drive exit. Look for the "flying saucers on a pole".

Extensive review by a team of lightning protection scientist coordinated
by the National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded that the
claims of such systems are based on junk science and that they do not
perform better than Franklin air terminal systems The one thing that I
can say they perform better on is the profit margins of the firms that
offer them.
--
Tom H

HorneTD wrote:
Extensive review by a team of lightning protection scientist
coordinated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology
concluded that the claims of such systems are based on junk science
and that they do not perform better than Franklin air terminal
systems The one thing that I can say they perform better on is the
profit margins of the firms that offer them.

Citation, please?

Travis Jordan wrote:
Ross Mac wrote:
I live out here in Central Florida, lightning capitol of the country,

And right in the neighborhood we have a company doing something
unusual -
http://www.windemuller.com/wmtext.html

Whether you buy this technology or not, I'm sure seeing a lot of it
installed on commercial and high-end residential housing in the Tampa
Bay area. A few weeks ago I saw some in Orlando on hotels along I-4
near the Colonial Drive exit. Look for the "flying saucers on a
pole".

Over the years there have been a lot of new ideas for lightning
protection. In the end it has always been the standard lightning rods that
work best.

Now if it was tornados, I would suggest moving a trailer park up wind.
:-)

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
Travis Jordan wrote:
Ross Mac wrote:
I live out here in Central Florida, lightning capitol of the country,

And right in the neighborhood we have a company doing something
unusual -
http://www.windemuller.com/wmtext.html

Whether you buy this technology or not, I'm sure seeing a lot of it
installed on commercial and high-end residential housing in the Tampa
Bay area. A few weeks ago I saw some in Orlando on hotels along I-4
near the Colonial Drive exit. Look for the "flying saucers on a
pole".

Over the years there have been a lot of new ideas for lightning
protection. In the end it has always been the standard lightning rods
that work best.

Now if it was tornados, I would suggest moving a trailer park up wind.
:-)

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

Thanks Joe....Ross

Ross Mac wrote:

I live out here in Central Florida, lightning capitol of the country, and
want to install some lightning protection. I have googled around and
listened to the home shows. Was wondering if any of you folks out there have
any suggestions on what to buy or not to buy....thanks in advance....Ross


I'm not sure what the answer is but I need some protection, too. Last
summer two tall White Pine trees got struck in my front yard. Although
the house wasn't hit, I lost a computer router (cable modem was OK), the
DVD player part of my VCR/DVD/CD machine (CD and VCR were OK), and a TV set.

So, the pine trees didn't serve as lightning rods and they were struck.
Lightning rods have a sharp point and electric fields concentrate on
conductors with the smallest radius of curvature. Lightning rods are
supposed to passively and continuously discharge the fields, avoiding a
strike. So we need more effective protection.

Travis has this completely backwards. He is recommending a
device for which not one peer reviewed paper exists to
recommend it. Furthermore, when ESE people tried to get their
device approved by the National Fire Protection Association -
a non-profit standards organization - these devices were
rejected, completely. And for good reason.

Its called propaganda. First get one to believe a myth -
that a product works. Then when honest, technical facts
arrive to call it ineffective, then those facts stand accused
and challenged rather than the original myth. Propaganda
typically gets the myths go unchallenged only because they
were provided first.

What makes the protection? Earth ground. Too many confuse
what they see with what really makes an effective system.
What you don't see provides the protection. One need not
cover a building in massive grids of air terminals. But one
must connect that air terminal to the best earthing possible.
Quality of earthing determined quality of protection.

This ESE product (windemuller.com) is promoted on outright
half truths. Bottom line: any properly earthed rod will be
effective. How to make it more effective? Analyze the
connection to and quality of that earthing system. Make a
superior system without any unsightly dodads.

Furthermore, which appears to be the better lightning rod?
Sharp or blunt. Recent experiments demonstrate that blunt
rods are superior. Just a simple blunt rod, properly earthed
(also important is how that connection is made) causes a
massive protection improvement.

In the meantime, appreciate that Travis cannot provide
published citations for his recommendation. Such technical
facts don't exist:
http://www.windemuller.com/wmtext.html
Even professional papers criticize its promoters for not
bothering to do any science. They just know it must be better
- facts, concepts, and numbers be damned.

Again, Travis has it backwards. A more responsible reply is
to provide technical papers that explain why this device is
effective. He cannot. Such peer reviewed papers do not
exist. So instead he demands citations to the contrary.
First Travis must provide just one citation that says such ESE
devices work - and why. No such citation exists.

Travis Jordan wrote:
HorneTD wrote:
Extensive review by a team of lightning protection scientist
coordinated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology
concluded that the claims of such systems are based on junk science
and that they do not perform better than Franklin air terminal
systems The one thing that I can say they perform better on is the
profit margins of the firms that offer them.

Citation, please?

Other observers have noted that white pines appear to be
superior lightning rods. However you define electronics
damage from another part of the lightning strike circuit.
Learn lessons from campers. Lightning strike the tree near
their camp site. Those campers sleeping tangent to the tree
were OK. Two campers sleeping pointed to the tree were
seriously hurt. No again we must understand the electrical
circuit.

Lightning builds a conductor between earth borne and cloud
borne charges. It the shortest path from cloud five miles to
those charges? Of course not. Electrically shortest path is
three miles directly down to that tree. Then four miles
through earth to those charges.

Where campers were sleeping tangent, the current passed
underneath them. Where campers were sleeping point, current
rose up from earth at the feet, passed through body, and
reentered earth at the head.

This also applies to your building. It is why we want all
utilities to enter at one common point - the single point
earth ground. With utilities enters from opposite directions,
then lightning rises up from the earth, takes a shorter
electrical path through household appliances, then drops back
down to earth at other end of building.

White pines did their job. They earthed the incoming
lightning strike. But we humans still build new homes as if
the transistor did not exist. You have demonstrated how
humans create lightning damage to household appliances.

A figure from the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST - the government standards agency)
demonstrate what may be your problem. Their figure shows how
improperly earthing causes damage to a fax machine:
http://www.epri-peac.com/tutorials/sol01tut.html

So what should you do in a thunderstorm. Experts recommend
keeping your feet together so that lightning need not find a
shorter path up one leg and down the other. Meantime, review
how your house is earthed to avoid future damage.: Learn much
starting (and this is only introductory) with this from a
utility:
http://www.cinergy.com/surge/ttip08.htm

Experiments have demonstrated your pointed rod explanation
is incorrect. Furthermore lightning rods don't discharge the
air to avoid lightning strikes. You will be hard pressed to
find a single peer reviewed paper that makes that claim.
Lightning rods have always been about shunting. Shunt the
direct strike into a path that is not destructive. Nothing
stops, blocks, dissipates, or absorbs such surges. And yet we
routinely suffer direct lightning strikes without damage.
How? We shunt - earth the direct strike. Give it what it
wants without putting good household appliances or church
steeples in that path.

"William W. Plummer" wrote:
I'm not sure what the answer is but I need some protection, too.
Last summer two tall White Pine trees got struck in my front yard.
Although the house wasn't hit, I lost a computer router (cable
modem was OK), the DVD player part of my VCR/DVD/CD machine (CD and
VCR were OK), and a TV set.

So, the pine trees didn't serve as lightning rods and they were
struck. Lightning rods have a sharp point and electric fields
concentrate on conductors with the smallest radius of curvature.
Lightning rods are supposed to passively and continuously
discharge the fields, avoiding a strike. So we need more
effective protection.

Travis Jordan wrote:
HorneTD wrote:

Extensive review by a team of lightning protection scientist
coordinated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology
concluded that the claims of such systems are based on junk science
and that they do not perform better than Franklin air terminal
systems The one thing that I can say they perform better on is the
profit margins of the firms that offer them.


Citation, please?

IEEE Electrical Insulation Magazine - January 01, 2000

I believe that this article covers the review. It was some time ago so
I may be wrong. The NFPA has recently declined to include a project on
lightning protection using these devices based on the standards council
having not been presented with evidence by the proponents of the project
that would demonstrate that there is a sound scientific basis for this
new technology. Even it's proponents can not offer any clear evidence
of superior performance in comparison to Faraday cage approaches.
--
Tom H

w_tom wrote:
Travis has this completely backwards. He is recommending a

w_tom - You are confused.

I'm not recommending any device. The OP asked for comments about
lightning protection, and I said - quoting now:
"Whether you buy this technology or not, I'm sure seeing a lot of it
installed on commercial and high-end residential housing in the Tampa
Bay area."

I don't have a clue whether this technology is any good or not. I would
be interested in any published information affirming or disputing the
performance of this system. But please, no personal opinions. Let's
see some published documentation by industry-recognized agencies or
institutions.

"The only house that I have even work on that had been hit was a total
loss
electrically. It had lightning rods, and surge protectors installed by
the
utility. They had an iron clad guarantee if you had this stuff
installed. I
was hired to rip out the drywall and completely rewire the home. All of
the
copper pipes were fused so the plumber was jack hammering up the
concrete as
well. All of the stucco had to be removed cause all of the staples
holding
the lath to the studs had dissolved and the outside looked like chicken
pox.
I am pretty sure that a bull dozer and starting over from scratch would
not
have been all that much more expensive. "

Oh no! I bet you're gonna hear a rant from w_tom on this one. Let me
get you ready: This is a human failure! No proper earth ground!
Can't happen if the protection was done right. On and on.

BTW, I believe you. Lightening rods and surge protectors are great and
reduce risk a lot, but nothing is 100% effective.

Those were interesting articles but they deal with minimizing the effect
of an actual strike. I'm concerned with avoiding strikes in the first
place by keeping charges from building up in the area. This is what
lightning rods do and their effectiveness has been demonstrated for many
years.

The reason that lightning rods work is as I said, the electric field is
concentrated around sharp points -- all the equipotentials in the field
are packed together. This means there is a large voltage difference in
a short space. So, if there is a breakdown, this is where it will
happen, but again, lightning rods are used to provide static protection.
Prior to a breakdown, this will be the "path of least resistence".

If you doubt the fields being concentrated at sharp points, you could
repeat hours of agony I suffered in an EE lab years ago. We had to plot
fields around various shapes using "Teladeltos" (resistive)paper and
silver paint for conductors. A pin connected to a volt meter allowed
measuring the voltage at a point. Hundreds of readings were needed and
lots of slide rule work to produce a graph paper plot of the
equipotentials. I threw out my field theory books decades ago;
otherwise, I would cite chapter and verse.


w_tom wrote:
Other observers have noted that white pines appear to be
superior lightning rods. However you define electronics
damage from another part of the lightning strike circuit.
Learn lessons from campers. Lightning strike the tree near
their camp site. Those campers sleeping tangent to the tree
were OK. Two campers sleeping pointed to the tree were
seriously hurt. No again we must understand the electrical
circuit.

Lightning builds a conductor between earth borne and cloud
borne charges. It the shortest path from cloud five miles to
those charges? Of course not. Electrically shortest path is
three miles directly down to that tree. Then four miles
through earth to those charges.

Where campers were sleeping tangent, the current passed
underneath them. Where campers were sleeping point, current
rose up from earth at the feet, passed through body, and
reentered earth at the head.

This also applies to your building. It is why we want all
utilities to enter at one common point - the single point
earth ground. With utilities enters from opposite directions,
then lightning rises up from the earth, takes a shorter
electrical path through household appliances, then drops back
down to earth at other end of building.

White pines did their job. They earthed the incoming
lightning strike. But we humans still build new homes as if
the transistor did not exist. You have demonstrated how
humans create lightning damage to household appliances.

A figure from the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST - the government standards agency)
demonstrate what may be your problem. Their figure shows how
improperly earthing causes damage to a fax machine:
http://www.epri-peac.com/tutorials/sol01tut.html

So what should you do in a thunderstorm. Experts recommend
keeping your feet together so that lightning need not find a
shorter path up one leg and down the other. Meantime, review
how your house is earthed to avoid future damage.: Learn much
starting (and this is only introductory) with this from a
utility:
http://www.cinergy.com/surge/ttip08.htm

Experiments have demonstrated your pointed rod explanation
is incorrect. Furthermore lightning rods don't discharge the
air to avoid lightning strikes. You will be hard pressed to
find a single peer reviewed paper that makes that claim.
Lightning rods have always been about shunting. Shunt the
direct strike into a path that is not destructive. Nothing
stops, blocks, dissipates, or absorbs such surges. And yet we
routinely suffer direct lightning strikes without damage.
How? We shunt - earth the direct strike. Give it what it
wants without putting good household appliances or church
steeples in that path.

"William W. Plummer" wrote:

I'm not sure what the answer is but I need some protection, too.
Last summer two tall White Pine trees got struck in my front yard.
Although the house wasn't hit, I lost a computer router (cable
modem was OK), the DVD player part of my VCR/DVD/CD machine (CD and
VCR were OK), and a TV set.

So, the pine trees didn't serve as lightning rods and they were
struck. Lightning rods have a sharp point and electric fields
concentrate on conductors with the smallest radius of curvature.
Lightning rods are supposed to passively and continuously
discharge the fields, avoiding a strike. So we need more
effective protection.

"SQLit" wrote in message
news:i%KTd.118138$0u.66840@fed1read04...

"Ross Mac" wrote in message
...
I live out here in Central Florida, lightning capitol of the country, and
want to install some lightning protection. I have googled around and
listened to the home shows. Was wondering if any of you folks out there
have
any suggestions on what to buy or not to buy....thanks in advance....Ross


Time for a trip to the library. Your looking for UL96A at least that is
what
it was called.

Lightning protection that does not carry a master label is not worth much
and can be more problems than with out it. Best check with your insurance
agent on this.

You know; if you manage to get a strike your looking at a sacrificial
system?
Just like surge protectors it will work once.

http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_...mendation.html

This has some interesting data.

http://www.lightningstorm.com/tux/js...cquisition.jsp


A google search will find 20 or so companies that if you send them a
drawing
of the structure and the surrounding area, they will design and sell you
the
products. It is not all that hard nor is it that expensive to install as
long as you do not mind getting close the edges.

The only house that I have even work on that had been hit was a total loss
electrically. It had lightning rods, and surge protectors installed by the
utility. They had an iron clad guarantee if you had this stuff installed.
I
was hired to rip out the drywall and completely rewire the home. All of
the
copper pipes were fused so the plumber was jack hammering up the concrete
as
well. All of the stucco had to be removed cause all of the staples holding
the lath to the studs had dissolved and the outside looked like chicken
pox.
I am pretty sure that a bull dozer and starting over from scratch would
not
have been all that much more expensive.

Good luck


Hey, SQ....I agree with the trader....you will definitely hear from w_tom .
He is well known over in the electical engineering groups, as you probably
know, for his long winded grounding explanations.

William W. Plummer wrote:
Those were interesting articles but they deal with minimizing the
effect of an actual strike. I'm concerned with avoiding strikes in
the first place by keeping charges from building up in the area. This is
what lightning rods do and their effectiveness has been
demonstrated for many years.

The reason that lightning rods work is as I said, the electric field
is concentrated around sharp points -- all the equipotentials in the
field are packed together. This means there is a large voltage
difference in a short space. So, if there is a breakdown, this is
where it will happen, but again, lightning rods are used to provide
static protection. Prior to a breakdown, this will be the "path of
least resistence".
If you doubt the fields being concentrated at sharp points, you could
repeat hours of agony I suffered in an EE lab years ago. We had to
plot fields around various shapes using "Teladeltos" (resistive)paper
and silver paint for conductors. A pin connected to a volt meter
allowed measuring the voltage at a point. Hundreds of readings were
needed and lots of slide rule work to produce a graph paper plot of
the equipotentials. I threw out my field theory books decades ago;
otherwise, I would cite chapter and verse.


Exactly. The purpose of lightning rods is to REPEL lightning, not attract
it!

Sometimes things go wrong and the lightning does hit a lightning rod (the
"Drunken Thor" hypothesis). That's why you want a big-ass conductor straight
to earth, otherwise you could use #14 for the necessary static electricity
charge.

w_tom wrote:
Travis has this completely backwards. He is recommending a
device for which not one peer reviewed paper exists to
recommend it. Furthermore, when ESE people tried to get their
device approved by the National Fire Protection Association -
a non-profit standards organization - these devices were
rejected, completely. And for good reason.

You forgot to mention that NFPA rejected conventional lightning rod
systems as well, since there has been no scientific or technical
validation of them, either.

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/700Minutes.pdf
The Panel Report noted that detailed documentation of lightning

protection system operations or failures is lacking for lightning

protection systems of all types. It pointed to recent experiments

questioning the effectiveness of the primary type of air terminal

used on most NFPA 780 lightning protection systems (i.e., the

traditional pointed tipped Franklin rod). The Report concluded

as follows:

It appears to the Panel that the NFPA 780 document does not meet the

NFPA criteria for a standard since the recommended lightning

protection system has never been scientifically or technically validated

and the Franklin rod air terminals have not been validated in field

tests under thunder storm conditions (Bryan Panel Report at Page 28).

JerryMouse wrote:
Exactly. The purpose of lightning rods is to REPEL lightning, not
attract it!

Debate rages on this subject.

Travis Jordan wrote:
You forgot to mention that NFPA rejected conventional lightning rod
systems as well, since there has been no scientific or technical
validation of them, either.

Following up... the NFPA later reissued NFPA 780 after being presented
with industry evidence of the "value" of lightning rod systems. At the
same time they added several of the features of ESE systems (such as the
taller terminal) to the 2004 standard.

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/00-60LD.pdf

"Travis Jordan" wrote in message
...
JerryMouse wrote:
Exactly. The purpose of lightning rods is to REPEL lightning, not
attract it!

Debate rages on this subject.



You have plead your case well and I am still going to look into your
recommendation on Monday. It is interesting how many posts there have been
but only one recommendation....yours....thanks again...Ross

Ross Mac wrote:
You have plead your case well and I am still going to look into your
recommendation on Monday. It is interesting how many posts there have
been but only one recommendation....yours....thanks again...Ross

You're welcome. As I said earlier in the thread, I think the insurance
offered by any of the reputable providers may be worth as much as the
lightning protection itself. Have fun shopping!

Travis Jordan wrote:
Ross Mac wrote:
You have plead your case well and I am still going to look into your
recommendation on Monday. It is interesting how many posts there
have been but only one recommendation....yours....thanks
again...Ross

You're welcome. As I said earlier in the thread, I think the
insurance offered by any of the reputable providers may be worth as
much as the lightning protection itself. Have fun shopping!

BTW, it looks like tomorrow is going to be a good test day for lightning
protection around here :-)

"Travis Jordan" wrote in message
...
Travis Jordan wrote:
Ross Mac wrote:
You have plead your case well and I am still going to look into your
recommendation on Monday. It is interesting how many posts there
have been but only one recommendation....yours....thanks
again...Ross

You're welcome. As I said earlier in the thread, I think the
insurance offered by any of the reputable providers may be worth as
much as the lightning protection itself. Have fun shopping!

BTW, it looks like tomorrow is going to be a good test day for lightning
protection around here :-)


True and true again....take care, Ross

Dr Mousa in IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery of 4 Oct
1998 in "Applicability of Lightning Elimination Devices to
Substations and Power Lines" wrote:
Unlike the Franklin lightning rod which achieves protection
by providing a sacrificial point for the termination of
lightning flashes, special devices employing the
point-discharge phenomenon have been marketed since 1970s
with the objective of eliminating lightning strikes. The
application of those devices has been mostly limited to
communication towers and other tall structures, with the
manufacturers claiming success and the scientific community
expressing strong scepticism. ....
The idea of using multiple point discharge to neutralize
cloud charges was first suggested by Czech scientist Prokop
Divisch in 1754 and has since been periodically advocated
and abandoned. ... Devices claimed to be able to eliminate
lightning strikes were originally marketed for use on tall
communication towers. ... the suggestion that lightning can
be eliminated has been soundly rejected by the scientific
community based upon an evaluation which was quite
rigorous. The evaluation was based on both theoretical
and field studies which were commissioned by the Office of
Naval Research, the US Air Force, NASA and FAA. ...
The invalidity of the concept of lightning elimination has
since been confirmed by other field studies. ...
The so-called lightning elimination devices fail miserably and
the fallacy of the underlying concept gets exposed when their
configuration does not change the geometry of the tower to one
which is significantly less susceptible to the generation of
upward flashes. .... The combination of the above factors made
the above sites the perfect place to demonstrate the fallacy of
the underlying theory, and that is exactly what happened!

Travis Jordan wrote:
...
I don't have a clue whether this technology is any good or not. I would
be interested in any published information affirming or disputing the
performance of this system. But please, no personal opinions. Let's
see some published documentation by industry-recognized agencies or
institutions.

Read the citations from nfpa.org with care. First, ESE
claims even in those citations are completely rejected:
The proponents of that technology, primarily those associated
with the Heary Brothers Lightning Protection Company, Inc., ...
have extolled the technology and, in particular, have claimed
that ESE terminals offer a vastly increased zone of protection
over that of traditional lightning rods. Those claims have been
disputed and, most recently, a special panel created to
consider information and to issue a report concerning ESE
lightning protection technology to the Standards Council
(Bryan Panel Report), firmly rebutted the claims of ESE
proponents that the technology had been adequately validated,
concluding, among other things, as follows:
The ESE lightning protection technology as currently developed
in the installation of complete systems does not appear to be
scientifically and technically sound in relation to the claimed
areas of protection or the essentials of the grounding system
(Bryan Panel Report at p. 26)

Second, no facts nor experimental evidence demonstrate that
ESE devices accomplish anything. NFPA781 was roundly
rejected. ESE is promoted only on myth as even an NFPA report
notes. Elsewhere, one ESE device was even made using
radioactive materials (Americanium) to *prevent* lightning.
Then when lightning strikes that device (as it so often does
in field studies), we now have a radioactive area? What kind
of protection is that? Protection promoted only on myth that
lighting can be eliminated.

That is about ESE myths. Now about standard protection as
defined by NFPA 780. Those grossly overpriced and ineffective
ESE devices are promoted very profitably using myths. They
don't even bother to do any scientific research - as is
repeatedly noted in the science community. Their purpose is
only to enrich their manufacturers. Since their 'science' was
roundly rejected, then ESE manufacturers are conducting war on
all other 'valid' standards. Intent is to muddy the waters
because their own products are nothing more than grossly
overpriced lightning rods.

First, NFPA only questioned a revised NFPA 780 and not the
existing standard:
... the passage of such a motion would have resulted in a
recommendation to the Council not to issue the proposed new
edition of 780 but would not have affected the continuing
existence of the earlier existing edition of that standard. ...
The thrust of the motion was clearly aimed at challenging
the underlying validity of the NFPA 780 and raising the
question whether it should any longer be issued as an NFPA
standard.

Who is pushing motions to have NFPA 780 withdrawn? The ESE
industry whose products were roundly rejected by the NFPA on
scientific principle and who repeatedly voted to approve NFPA
780 before their product (NFPA 781) was rejected. NFPA 780 is
being challenged because ESE manufacturers are muddying the
waters - including a lawsuit whose only intent was to bankrupt
the non-profit NFPA. Yes - selling these ESE devices without
any scientific merit is that profitable.

To further muddy the waters, ESE promoters made accusations
that the Council specifically responded to with this comment:
Specifically, it has been argued that Council rejection of
the recommendation of the floor vote was required because
of allegedly false and misleading statements that were made
by supporters of NFPA 780 during the floor debate. The
Council rejects this as any basis for action.

As a result of a request for further information, a well
respected panel later confirmed:
“there is a solid trail of scientific investigation into
lightning protection techniques.”

More specifically, a request for facts from the NFPA found
that:
Review of the key literature, as presented here, leads to the
overwhelming conclusion that lightning protection systems have
been intensively studied and have been proven effective many
times over in the past 250 years. ...
The consensus of the scientific literature, field testing,
etc., is that conventional, or Franklin, lightning
protection systems, in the venue of the NFPA 780 standard,
are highly effective when properly installed and adequately
maintained.

Slam dunk - with nothing left to question. Read their report
as cited by Travis at:
http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/00-60LD.pdf

In short, one underlying theory in NFPA 780 was challenged -
by people from an industry whose product has no credibility,
as demonstrated by how quickly NFPA 781 was rejected. As a
result of a Byran Report, but again, the science behind NFPA
780 was roundly endorsed. IOW a slap directly into the face
of ESE promoters who attempt to sell their ineffective product
by questioning other well proven technologies.

NFPA was working towards a better revision of NFPA 780 -
that recommends Franklin air terminals. They are not
rejecting the technology behind standard and well proven
lightning protection. But they want a better NFPA 780. This
is contrary to what was implied by Travis' post - that NFPA is
rejecting or questioning Franklin lightning rod technology.
That is not the case. Since ineffective ESE sales are so
profitable, then Heary Bros, et al will do anything to even
undermine good science. They will do anything to promote
their well proven ineffective product including a lawsuit
against the NFPA. Even in Travis's citation - ESE technology,
in layman's terms, is a scam.

This is most important - the original point. ESE devices
have zero credibility when science replaces myth. No personal
opinions cited. That is well proven science. So well proven
repeatedly that anyone who claims lightning protection to
eliminate lightning should have either his personal
credibility or his motives questioned. Yes, those who promote
ESE technology will do anything to confuse the consumer.
Promoting their myths and doing no science is that profitable.

Travis Jordan wrote:
You forgot to mention that NFPA rejected conventional lightning rod
systems as well, since there has been no scientific or technical
validation of them, either.

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/700Minutes.pdf
The Panel Report noted that detailed documentation of lightning

protection system operations or failures is lacking for lightning

protection systems of all types. It pointed to recent experiments

questioning the effectiveness of the primary type of air terminal

used on most NFPA 780 lightning protection systems (i.e., the

traditional pointed tipped Franklin rod). The Report concluded

as follows:

It appears to the Panel that the NFPA 780 document does not meet the

NFPA criteria for a standard since the recommended lightning

protection system has never been scientifically or technically validated

and the Franklin rod air terminals have not been validated in field

tests under thunder storm conditions (Bryan Panel Report at Page 28).

It is an outright lie - as demonstrated by the wholesale
rejection of NFPA 781 - that repelling lightning is effective
or accomplished. Even Travis's own citation eliminates any
reason to say otherwise:
http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/00-60LD.pdf

William Plummer mistakes near field analysis (around a sharp
point) with far field analysis. As also demonstrated in
analysis of antennas, parameters change significance as
distances from that pointed rod increase. William Plummer has
assumed that a field adjacent to a sharp point is also how the
field works tens of meters or kilometers from that point.
Above citation provided by Travis even notes this. Sharp rods
do not work for lightning - far field analysis - as they do
only inches from the point - near field analysis.

To eliminate lightning, that electromagnetic field one inch
from the sharp point must be same tens of meters from that
point. It is not. Lightning rods and ESE devices do not
repel lightning.

As stated quite bluntly in an above IEEE paper from Dr
Mousa:
... the suggestion that lightning can be eliminated has been
soundly rejected by the scientific community based upon an
evaluation which was quite rigorous. The evaluation was
based on both theoretical and field studies which were
commissioned by the Office of Naval Research, the US Air
Force, NASA and FAA.

Every citation in this discussion keeps returning to the
same fact. A recommendation for ESE type devices - to
eliminate air charges and therefore eliminate lightning - is
bogus and not even supported by one responsible citation.

I'm concerned with avoiding strikes in the first place by
keeping charges from building up in the area.
is what the ESE industry promotes - and was roundly,
decisively, and scientifically rejected. Lightning rods
provide a superior electric connection to earth. Lightning is
going to occur. It cannot be avoided. Protection - as so
many scientists repeatedly note and as so many scam artists
try to confuse - is about connecting that lightning to earth
so that it does not take other, destructive paths.


JerryMouse wrote:
William W. Plummer wrote:
Those were interesting articles but they deal with minimizing the
effect of an actual strike. I'm concerned with avoiding strikes
in the first place by keeping charges from building up in the
area. This is what lightning rods do and their effectiveness has
been demonstrated for many years.

The reason that lightning rods work is as I said, the electric field
is concentrated around sharp points -- all the equipotentials in the
field are packed together. This means there is a large voltage
difference in a short space. So, if there is a breakdown, this is
where it will happen, but again, lightning rods are used to provide
static protection. Prior to a breakdown, this will be the "path of
least resistence".
If you doubt the fields being concentrated at sharp points, you could
repeat hours of agony I suffered in an EE lab years ago. We had to
plot fields around various shapes using "Teladeltos" (resistive)paper
and silver paint for conductors. A pin connected to a volt meter
allowed measuring the voltage at a point. Hundreds of readings were
needed and lots of slide rule work to produce a graph paper plot of
the equipotentials. I threw out my field theory books decades ago;
otherwise, I would cite chapter and verse.

Exactly. The purpose of lightning rods is to REPEL lightning, not
attract it!

Sometimes things go wrong and the lightning does hit a lightning
rod (the "Drunken Thor" hypothesis). That's why you want a big-ass
conductor straight to earth, otherwise you could use #14 for the
necessary static electricity charge.

True, nothing is 100% effective. Automobile brakes also
fail. But how often does brake failure occur from anything
other than human failure? For all practical purposes,
automobile brakes fail due to human failure.

Utilities spend $thousands extra to massively expand their
earthing systems so that even the rarest of lightning will not
be destructive. A simple earthing system for less than $100
can make the building 98% effective. Some then spend
$thousands more to make the earthing well over 99% effective.
Most will never see a 200,000 amp lightning bolt in their
lifetime. Therefore even a good earthing system would be a
massive improvement in protection. But the best facilities
are earthed so that even the 200,000 amp transient will not be
destructive. Then when failure does happen, the human
immediately looks for his mistakes - humans being the source
of most failures.

wrote:
...
Oh no! I bet you're gonna hear a rant from w_tom on this one.
Let me get you ready: This is a human failure! No proper earth
ground! Can't happen if the protection was done right. On and on.

BTW, I believe you. Lightening rods and surge protectors are great and
reduce risk a lot, but nothing is 100% effective.

Travis Jordan wrote:
Travis Jordan wrote:

You forgot to mention that NFPA rejected conventional lightning rod
systems as well, since there has been no scientific or technical
validation of them, either.


Following up... the NFPA later reissued NFPA 780 after being presented
with industry evidence of the "value" of lightning rod systems. At the
same time they added several of the features of ESE systems (such as the
taller terminal) to the 2004 standard.

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/00-60LD.pdf

I think it is a mis characterization to say that the NFPA "added several
of the features of ESE systems (such as the taller terminal) to the 2004
standard." The technical committee made changes to the document using
the NFPA's normal consensus standards development process. Any changes
that appear to be elements of ESE are mere coincidence.

The Standards Council made an entirely separate decision that that there
was and is sufficient scientific support to continue to publish a
standard on lightning protection. These actions were a response to
legal action brought against the NFPA by proponents of the early
streamer emission systems. The work of the joint federal users group
and others was used as the substantiation for the standards councils
decision. Which brought the issue full circle back to were the NFPA is
continuing to decline to provide legitimacy to the several alternative
approaches to lightning protection that various commercial firms have
patents on and proprietary interest in.

I stand by my earlier assertion that these patent lightning protection
systems are based on either junk science of no science at all.
--
Tom H