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. :-)
"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.
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
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:
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.
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.
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.
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
True and true again....take care, Ross
Read the citations from nfpa.org with care. First, ESE claims even in those citations are completely rejected:
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:
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:
As a result of a request for further information, a well respected panel later confirmed:
More specifically, a request for facts from the NFPA found that:
Slam dunk - with nothing left to question. Read their report as cited by Travis at:
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 orig> You forgot to mention that NFPA rejected conventional lightning rod
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:
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:
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.
is what the ESE > William W. Plummer wrote:
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 earth> ...
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.
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).
Debate rages on this subject.
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.
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 :-)
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
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
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.