Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Lightning Rods



A few people have responded to me directly rather than the list. One person commented that it might make sense the blunt lightning rods get hit more often than the sharp ones because they don't prevent the lighting as well as the sharp rods. The person then asked if you would rather protect your house with blunt rods that will get hit more often or sharp rods that will prevent strikes better.

That reasoning was my initial reaction. However, Charles Moore and the Langmuir Laboratory for Atmospheric Research folks are saying the blunt rods actually protect your house better. They view lightning protection from the "attract it" approach rather than the "prevent it" approach.

* * * Quotation from Charles Moore * * *

The undeniable facts are that "dissipation" devices do not prevent the occurrence of cloud-to- ground lightning strikes and that they are not designed nor intended to be the preferential receptors of the lightning strikes in their vicinity. Accordingly, such devices serve no useful protective purpose in the prevention nor in the reception and conveyance of lightning to Earth.

In my opinion, the "Charge Transfer System" method does not have technical merit for lightning protection and there is little probability that it will acquire any technical merit in the future.

It would be a disservice to the public for the IEEE to issue a standard supporting the use of these devices as being suitable for protection against lightning.

Sincerely,

/s/ CBM
Charles B. Moore
Professor Emeritus
Atmospheric Physics
New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

* * * End quote * * *

Ludwik mentioned radioactive rods. Moore's group has also tested those and says they don't work.

Their theory is that the lightning strike actually starts high, usually at the base of the cloud, and this is so remote from any rods or other surface objects that surface details have no bearing on whether the strike will occur or not. Therefore, since strikes cannot be prevented, the best approach is to look for the best receptor rather than trying for prevention.

Based on Moore's recommendations, some organizations such as National Lightning Safety Institute are beginning to recommend blunt rods of 1 to 2 cm diameter rather than sharp rods.

Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D.
Professor of Physics and Chemistry
Bluffton University
Bluffton, OH 45817
(419)-358-3270
edmiston@bluffton.edu