MichaelHoltJr
Member
- Location
- Groveland Florida. (Lake County)
What types of lightening protection are there? Suggestions on which to use.
Lightening protection
- Thread starter MichaelHoltJr
- Start date
- Status
ultramegabob
Senior Member
- Location
- Indiana
lightning rods, ground rods, panel mounted surge protectors...
bphgravity
Senior Member
- Location
- Florida
Lightning protection takes on many forms, but all should conform with the NFPA 780 and UL 96 / 96A standards.
In short, lightning protection, at a minimum, may only consist of a single surge protection device or could be as complicated as full coventional LPS incorporating strike termination devices (air terminals), down conductors, grounding / bonding conductors, and grounding electrodes.
Do you have a project or a specific question in mind when it comes to lightning protection?
In short, lightning protection, at a minimum, may only consist of a single surge protection device or could be as complicated as full coventional LPS incorporating strike termination devices (air terminals), down conductors, grounding / bonding conductors, and grounding electrodes.
Do you have a project or a specific question in mind when it comes to lightning protection?
Franklin Design (traditional spikes on the roof peaks and perimeter which are connected to grounding rods.)
This is a list of non-traditional methods from Wikipedia.
Early Streamer Emission
Early streamer emission type air terminals aim to provide a wider coverage area than traditional Franklin rods. The basic theory utilized is the idea that if an upwards step leader were able to be produced before any would naturally occur on a structure, this early step leader would be able to travel higher and be much more likely to intersect the downward step leader. By initiating a controlled step leader before any naturally occur, ESE systems should be able to direct the main lightning stroke to a very small number of lightning rods on a structure. This would allow ESE systems to use far fewer components than traditional systems.
The effectiveness of ESE systems has never been scientifically proven. All studies to date have shown that the zone of protection provided by an ESE lightning rod is exactly the same as a traditional lightning rod.
ESE Systems are generally not recognised by either the soon to be obsolete BS 6651:1999 or the newly published BS EN 62305:2006.
Radioactive Rod Systems
Radioactive rod systems' main differentiating feature from traditional Franklin type systems is the use of radioactive materials in the lightning rods. The theory behind this is that the radioactive properties of the rods can ionize the air around the rod sufficiently to increase the likelihood of that rod being struck, rather than the building itself. This, in effect, would increase the zone of protection provided by the lightning rod. Unfortunately, the efficacy of radioactive lightning has been shown to be less than that of regular lightning rods as the radioactive materials are only able to ionize air around the lightning rod for a short distance that doesn't positively affect the chance of being struck.
Laser Induced Systems
Laser induction of lightning strikes is currently being researched by scientists. The main principle of these systems is that a sufficiently powerful and properly tuned laser can ionize air from the clouds to the ground level. This ionization reduces the breakdown voltage of the air and provides a lower resistance path for the lightning to travel on. This acts like a lightning rod tall enough to reach the clouds. So far, scientists have only been able to trigger lightning activity in the clouds and have not been able to induce a cloud-to-ground strike.
Charge Transfer Systems
Charge transfer systems claim to eliminate the charge buildup on a structure by transferring it to the surrounding area, thereby eliminating the potential for a lightning strike. This is the same idea that prompted Benjamin Franklin to invent the lightning rod. The effectiveness of these systems has been called into question recently as studies have failed to show any evidence for any reduction of lightning strikes when compared to traditional Franklin systems.
This is a list of non-traditional methods from Wikipedia.
Early Streamer Emission
Early streamer emission type air terminals aim to provide a wider coverage area than traditional Franklin rods. The basic theory utilized is the idea that if an upwards step leader were able to be produced before any would naturally occur on a structure, this early step leader would be able to travel higher and be much more likely to intersect the downward step leader. By initiating a controlled step leader before any naturally occur, ESE systems should be able to direct the main lightning stroke to a very small number of lightning rods on a structure. This would allow ESE systems to use far fewer components than traditional systems.
The effectiveness of ESE systems has never been scientifically proven. All studies to date have shown that the zone of protection provided by an ESE lightning rod is exactly the same as a traditional lightning rod.
ESE Systems are generally not recognised by either the soon to be obsolete BS 6651:1999 or the newly published BS EN 62305:2006.
Radioactive Rod Systems
Radioactive rod systems' main differentiating feature from traditional Franklin type systems is the use of radioactive materials in the lightning rods. The theory behind this is that the radioactive properties of the rods can ionize the air around the rod sufficiently to increase the likelihood of that rod being struck, rather than the building itself. This, in effect, would increase the zone of protection provided by the lightning rod. Unfortunately, the efficacy of radioactive lightning has been shown to be less than that of regular lightning rods as the radioactive materials are only able to ionize air around the lightning rod for a short distance that doesn't positively affect the chance of being struck.
Laser Induced Systems
Laser induction of lightning strikes is currently being researched by scientists. The main principle of these systems is that a sufficiently powerful and properly tuned laser can ionize air from the clouds to the ground level. This ionization reduces the breakdown voltage of the air and provides a lower resistance path for the lightning to travel on. This acts like a lightning rod tall enough to reach the clouds. So far, scientists have only been able to trigger lightning activity in the clouds and have not been able to induce a cloud-to-ground strike.
Charge Transfer Systems
Charge transfer systems claim to eliminate the charge buildup on a structure by transferring it to the surrounding area, thereby eliminating the potential for a lightning strike. This is the same idea that prompted Benjamin Franklin to invent the lightning rod. The effectiveness of these systems has been called into question recently as studies have failed to show any evidence for any reduction of lightning strikes when compared to traditional Franklin systems.
bphgravity
Senior Member
- Location
- Florida
Mr. Bill. Everything below the "Franklin Design" are neither recognized nor permitted per the NFPA 780 or UL Master Label Program.
As a matter of fact, many of these systems advertise GREATER protection verses the conventional systems. Plus, they usually cost much more per unit for the strike termination devices. They claim the cost offset is provided by the fact that less air terminals are needed, but this is based on bad science and will actually result in a GREATER hazard and LESS protection of the structure.
As a matter of fact, many of these systems advertise GREATER protection verses the conventional systems. Plus, they usually cost much more per unit for the strike termination devices. They claim the cost offset is provided by the fact that less air terminals are needed, but this is based on bad science and will actually result in a GREATER hazard and LESS protection of the structure.
weressl
Esteemed Member
Just like global warming it isn't bad science, but disputed science.
Just because the scientific principle is incomplete or not understood does not prevent a phenomena to occur. Since the science behind it is not completely or even partially understood the proper application and benefit gain will be haphazard and not necessarily repeateable in all circumstances.
There are large installations of certain sytems with many(10+) years of succesful track record, with comparative data available for the before and after performance.
- Status