Streamer Delaying Lightning Rods

[UofL07]

I have a few questions about the applications of these style of lightning protection.

These rods actually discourage lightning from hitting the building they are protecting instead of guiding the strike to a known point (for more information see http://www.lightningmaster.com/TheWhitePappers.htm). One of the clients my company does work for is enamoured with how well they work but I have a few issues about how they impact the surrounding area. The same client has said that when they have retro fitted plants in phases they have watched the lightning strikes increase in the areas that don't have these new rods on them. This is what I have a problem with, is it really a good idea especially if you have neighbooring plants (or buildings). Has anyone dealt with these and seen how they really affect the surrounding areas?

Thanks for any guidance in advance.

 

[catchtwentytwo]

Suggest you ask the experts at Yahoo's Lightning Safety & Power Quality Group , this issue is controversial. Please share the response as a follow-up.Thanks!

 

[ron]

As a professional, I often read lots of wonderful sales information. More often than that, I only design to nationally recognized standards, such as NFPA 780, which does not recognize that type of device.
As mentioned, it is controversial, but I've never been "zapped" when designing to a national standard. But I've often been "burned" by trying something relatively new where there is only anecdotal evidence that they work (or lab data from the manufacturer).

 

[UofL07]

Thanks, I've sent my message to them. It's been hard to track down information not supplied by the guys selling these. I was hoping someone on here worked at a plant that used them and might have answered the question. When I get a response I'll try to remember to post it.

 

[UofL07]

They are designing to the NFPA 780 as if they were normal lightning rods, my main problem has been finding data that the manufacturer didn't provide. Even if they do work as well is they say I have concerns about liability if a neighbooring plant can "prove" it negatively affected their operation with an increase in strikes.

 

[UofL07]

I got a response and the reason I had trouble finding research is they have renamed the old lightning elimination devices. I have a couple of papers explaining why these generally don't work (including a section that explains why you do see improvement on certain structures) if you would like a copy I would be glad to send these on. It seems UL listing doesn't mean that they can do what they claim, just that they can get UL listing. At least I'm learning this while I'm young

 

[brian john]

But I've often been "burned" by trying something relatively new where there is only anecdotal evidence that they work (or lab data from the manufacturer).

This product in some form or another has been around for some time.

 

[weressl]

I have a few questions about the applications of these style of lightning protection.

These rods actually discourage lightning from hitting the building they are protecting instead of guiding the strike to a known point (for more information see http://www.lightningmaster.com/TheWhitePappers.htm). One of the clients my company does work for is enamoured with how well they work but I have a few issues about how they impact the surrounding area. The same client has said that when they have retro fitted plants in phases they have watched the lightning strikes increase in the areas that don't have these new rods on them. This is what I have a problem with, is it really a good idea especially if you have neighbooring plants (or buildings). Has anyone dealt with these and seen how they really affect the surrounding areas?

Thanks for any guidance in advance.

I did use a competitive product that is also the subject of controversy. Since we are not supposed to talk about specific products here I will not mention the name.

The installation was large, in the 7 figure range. We had vigorous opposition to the project from the technical community, but the business guy - pretty high up - asked: ....and what alternative do you suggest? So the project went ahead.

In short the science is definetly not clear behind it, however the product seem to work. Whereas we previously experienced 2-3 strikes per year resulting in instrument signal error an susbsequent malfunction this did not repeat in the past 3 years. So the proof of the pudding is in the eating.......

 

[UofL07]

I've heard of at least one other plant that had trouble with lightning, installed this type of protection and hasn't had a problem since. The problem seems to be that they don't completely understand how it works, and in some places it works and others it doesn't (but this is based purely on people I've talked to while researching this and has no scientific reasoning).

 

[oceanaradio]

Apparently many plant engineers make poor scientists, unable to identify empirical data from unadulaterated BS. There has never been a peer-reviewed scientific finding to support one single claim of early-streamer emssion or charge-transfer devices. The claims by these "protector" companies have in one famous case resulted in a U.S. Federal Court ordering the owners to cease all advertising claims about preventing strikes from lightning.

There has never been empirical evidence to suggest that under repeateable conditions there is any lessening of attraction by lightning to a particular structure or area because of any kind of device that was attached to it.

At the very best, a single "elimination" device or any other fraudulent name they happen to go by, can function as the equivalent of one standard franklin rod. There ends any relationship to the truth regarding protection from lightning by those ESE, CTS or other snake-oil devices.

Quoting one of the regulars here:

"The lottery is taxation to the math-challenged".

Perhaps lightning prevention devices are taxation to the science-challenged. Or as Will Rogers said: "It's not what people don't know that bothers me; what really gets me is what folks know that just ain't so".

Best regards,
Jack

 

[UofL07]

There is evidence that they can reduce the frequency and extent of the damage, BUT I can't find anyone who has substantiated why this happens in some cases and not in others. One theory is on tall structures they can be used to alter the geometry to reduce the number of upward streamers generated by the structure. Although upward streamers are only an issue on tall (relative to sea level) structures. But this has never been substantiated. I should point out that this explanation was suggested by an independent researcher(ie not the vendor) trying to reconcile NASA test where it was ineffective to some communications towers where it was effective. To summarize my feelings: While there are some structures that show reductions in lightning strikes with these installed the lack of scientific understanding as to why makes it impossible to design a system that you know will work as intended, however if they are UL listed (UL only list them as traditional systems and they still have the same effects of directing the strike to the ground as franklin rods) AND my client request them, I will suggest the client contract the company to do the lightning protection. As I see it I am not responsible for it, and the client should decide if they wish to take the risk (although I will point out the controversial nature of the technology). Does anyone see any problems with this?

 

[weressl]

Apparently many plant engineers make poor scientists, unable to identify empirical data from unadulaterated BS. There has never been a peer-reviewed scientific finding to support one single claim of early-streamer emssion or charge-transfer devices. The claims by these "protector" companies have in one famous case resulted in a U.S. Federal Court ordering the owners to cease all advertising claims about preventing strikes from lightning.

There has never been empirical evidence to suggest that under repeateable conditions there is any lessening of attraction by lightning to a particular structure or area because of any kind of device that was attached to it.

At the very best, a single "elimination" device or any other fraudulent name they happen to go by, can function as the equivalent of one standard franklin rod. There ends any relationship to the truth regarding protection from lightning by those ESE, CTS or other snake-oil devices.

Best regards,
Jack

The negative is impossible to prove. Even when you equip the same structure that was struck earlier with a different device you can't replicate the weather.

So the only other empirical evidence - that does not meet YOUR criteria - is equipping previously struck structures with different devices and recording the lighting incidences over time.

There is plenty of positive evidence to the latter.

A simple laboratory setup demonstration of single point Franklin rod and a DAS had demonstrated that utilizing the same distances and same voltages the Franklin rod draw a lightning strike, but the DAS only produced St.Elmo's fire.

Furthermore two renown Russian scientists who are acknowledged as the Godfathers of Russian lightning science have conducted studies that seem to give at least some affirmative answers why the DAS system seems to produce positive results and suggested that it mertis further study that may provide targeted improvement of such system design, rather than the current hit-and-miss experimental adjustments.

 

[weressl]

There has never been empirical evidence to suggest that under repeateable conditions there is any lessening of attraction by lightning to a particular structure or area because of any kind of device that was attached to it.

Attached is some interesting reading of DAS technology by Russian Academics.

 

[oceanaradio]

Attached is some interesting reading of DAS technology by Russian Academics.

This has been thouroughly discredited as non peer-reviewed BS. Not surprising that in the entire world, there were two "scientists" who sold their soul for a price.

There are forums where you can read the details of the process in which this nonsense was discredited on an international basis, without dissent.

There are many papers which expose the fallacy of CTS / Lightning Elimination Devices / Streamer Delaying Lightning Rods. Several of these have been posted over the past years and some are archived on NLSI's site:

www.LightningSafety .com

Samples are:

1) "The Applicability of Lightning Elimination Devices to Substations and Power Lines", IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 1120-1127, October 1998.

2) "Validity of the Lightning Elimination Claim", Proceeding of IEEE-PES Annual Meeting, Toronto, Canada, July 2003.

It is apparent that you or someone you know has spent someone's money on these devices. The honorable thing to do would be to spend a few hours reading the evidence, findings and consensus of international committees on the subject (so you don't make the same mistake twice), and then share them with your client or associate.

Jack

 

[weressl]

This has been thouroughly discredited as non peer-reviewed BS. Not surprising that in the entire world, there were two "scientists" who sold their soul for a price.

There are forums where you can read the details of the process in which this nonsense was discredited on an international basis, without dissent.

There are many papers which expose the fallacy of CTS / Lightning Elimination Devices / Streamer Delaying Lightning Rods. Several of these have been posted over the past years and some are archived on NLSI's site:

www.LightningSafety .com

Samples are:

1) "The Applicability of Lightning Elimination Devices to Substations and Power Lines", IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 1120-1127, October 1998.

2) "Validity of the Lightning Elimination Claim", Proceeding of IEEE-PES Annual Meeting, Toronto, Canada, July 2003.

It is apparent that you or someone you know has spent someone's money on these devices. The honorable thing to do would be to spend a few hours reading the evidence, findings and consensus of international committees on the subject (so you don't make the same mistake twice), and then share them with your client or associate.

Jack

Interesting. Both of the cited material is published BEFORE the Prof's. Bazelyan/Raizer/Aleksandrov published their findings.

In their full report - over 75 pages long - they opened with recounting how reluctant they were to investigate the subject when requested. They were fully aware of the scepticism of the entire scientific community and at the same time their interest was peaked by the appearent results. No scientist would waste their time on things that they do not expect to be succesful. They clearly indicate that the mechanism is far from fully understood and that futher study is needed for validation, but clearly committed of finding out the yet unknown. They are sufficiently intriqued by their findings so far.

Laslty, I did not offend you, so respectfully request that you try to keep the comments civil.

 

[UofL07]

Oceanaradio,

Read section 4 of what you call sample 1. This is what I was talking about in post 6, which gives rise to the fact that they do in some cases reduce the lightning strikes on a building over time. The author actually goes on in his conclusion to ask for help with funding to further study this (specifically whether the points are actually what makes the difference).

Now I go back to my last question...
If they are UL listed (UL only list them as traditional systems and they still have the same effects of directing the strike to the ground as franklin rods) AND my client request them, I will suggest the client contract the company to do the lightning protection. As I see it I am not responsible for it, and the client should decide if they wish to take the risk (although I will point out the controversial nature of the technology). Does anyone see any problems with this?

 

[UofL07]

Oceanaradio,

In what I believe is your sample 2 (my pdf does not have a date on it anywhere but it was sent from the author of your sample 1 when I was looking for help with this subject), the conclusions discusses them not being feasible on an economic grounds. The argument being as long as the strikes hit some of the time the system must still handle a strike without damaging the building and therefor act like a franklin rod system. So he says why pay for 2 systems (although my experience was that they were 2 systems in 1). This is what I think most of us should base any discussions with clients on. If they are having problems why not just pay for a proper franklin rod system instead of paying a premium to reduce lightning strikes that with a proper system wouldn't hurt anyway. This is why I came to the conclusion that if I have a client that insist on using them as long as I am not responsible for the claim in reduction of strikes and it also meets whats necessary to stop the damage then I will raise no issues.

 

[oceanaradio]

UoFl07,

In your position on hold harmless "if or as long as" and so on, you overlook the danger of either endorsing or failing to expose as fraud the streamer-delay claims in general. The discredit of such systems is beyond controvery in the scientific and engineering community. The purveyors of preventor-devices claim that a wide area of coverage benefits from the placement of each expensive strike preventor. Nothwithstanding the science behind such claims is exposed as false (as to both prevention and area of coverage), the risk is that if chosen as the lightning protection system for a structure they would NOT be placed IAW NFPA standards as if they were franklin rods, and therefore WILL expose the structure, owner, and specification provider to liability. If as you may be suggesting that an owner might exist who has no concern whatsoever as to cost/benefit design, then placing the phony streamer-delay devices in exact specifications as if they were franklin rods (at a huge additional cost) could offer an equal protection as if standard franklin rods had been installed. There are numerous examples from various countries where lightning attached to masonry walls very near to the CTS or ESE devices which not only did not prevent the strike, but also failed to absorb the energy of a strike that would have attached to properly spaced franklin rods. The risk then, is only in assuming that the streamer-delay, CTS or ESE concept of operations works at all, even a little. Beyond the eye-sore asthetic image, they are nothing more than an over-sized franklin rod that can encourage bird nests and bird-strikes due to their useless appurtanances.

Jack

 

[weressl]

UoFl07,

.....is beyond controvery in the scientific and engineering community.
...... is exposed as false (as to both prevention and area of coverage),
....... There are numerous examples from various countries where lightning attached to masonry walls very near to the CTS or ESE devices which not only did not prevent the strike, but also failed to absorb the energy of a strike that would have attached to properly spaced franklin rods.
.......beyond the eye-sore asthetic image, they are nothing more than an over-sized franklin rod that can encourage bird nests and bird-strikes due to their useless appurtanances.

Jack

Not true.
Not true.
False and counter evidence exist.
Not true.

You and "dr" Mousa - who kicked me off the Yahoo 'discussion forum' when I asked inconvenient questions - are wearing blinders. That in itself is foolish when comes to science, but to offer blatant untruth is a disservice to the public. I would be VERY careful repeating that a scientist had sold his integrity.

 

[UofL07]

Jack,

You obviously didn't read my posts, Dr. Mousa's papers (which you cited) actually cite evidence that in some cases these work (although with no proven explanation of why). He also side steps the lack of proof by bringing in an economic argument in the "Validity of the Lightning Elimination Claim" paper you cited. The problem as I understand it is no one has proof one way or another, can you cite one study that shows these don't work? (Note I said study note paper based on unproven theory)

Second the devices I spoke of do dissipate the energy in the same manner a traditional franklin rod, so unless the end does affect it's attractiveness to lightning they will work (they are installed the same as your traditional rods with down comers and interconnections otherwise the vendor would lose the UL approval, incidently they provide the design and except for the tops of the rods they are exactly the same as what I would have designed using traditional rods).

I have a problem with BOTH sides of this argument because neither has shown me conclusive proof that these do or do not work. Until I see proof and not just conjecture I will let the client decide if they want to pay a premium for the technology. (although the economic argument is a strong one for not using these, some clients have had too many problems with traditional systems and are willing to spend the money)

Weress,

A concern I have is the client that wanted to use these said when they installed them in phases at a plant they watched the lightning strike frequency increase in the parts of the plant that didn't have them yet. Have you seen this?

Glad to hear I'm not the only one who thought the Dr. was a little biased (although some of the comments I've heard led me to believe he has been involved in litigation on the subject and is probably just sensitive about the subject).