On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:09:55 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Richard Casady" wrote in message
.. .


You evidently think a lightning rod will somehow increase the danger,
but such has been proven by long experience not to be the case. BS in
other words. The lightning rod doesn't know or care what is under it.
It prevents strikes in a 90 degree cone under it. Works equally well
for buildings, boats, and powerlines.

I think we are talking two different concepts here.

A lightning rod is designed to be "the" point of strike, should one occur
and equipped with sufficiently sized conductors to discharge the strike to
ground.
.
I am talking about making the building, boat, or whatever less favorable to
the strike.

It has to do with the positive column .... based on the static charge that
builds on the ground point.

Having some experience with lightning after constructing and using two
hundred foot and one 120 foot radio towers in the back yard, it's not
always height that affects possibilities.

My towers actually took fewer hits over the years than the Beverage I
had running out through the woods for 5,000 feet which was seven feet
off the ground and covered by tree branches.

Also, something that I didn't realise until about ten years ago, the
damage is done not on the air-ground strike but the ground-air return
strike. - there is more power going that way.

I took a trauma course back when I was still active in the vollies and
I was surprized to find that with injuries, it's actually better to be
closer to the actual strike rather than five/ten feet away.

On Aug 21, 4:13 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:09:55 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
.. .

You evidently think a lightning rod will somehow increase the danger,
but such has been proven by long experience not to be the case. BS in
other words. The lightning rod doesn't know or care what is under it.
It prevents strikes in a 90 degree cone under it. Works equally well
for buildings, boats, and powerlines.

I think we are talking two different concepts here.

A lightning rod is designed to be "the" point of strike, should one occur
and equipped with sufficiently sized conductors to discharge the strike to
ground.
.
I am talking about making the building, boat, or whatever less favorable to
the strike.

It has to do with the positive column .... based on the static charge that
builds on the ground point.

Having some experience with lightning after constructing and using two
hundred foot and one 120 foot radio towers in the back yard, it's not
always height that affects possibilities.

My towers actually took fewer hits over the years than the Beverage I
had running out through the woods for 5,000 feet which was seven feet
off the ground and covered by tree branches.

Also, something that I didn't realise until about ten years ago, the
damage is done not on the air-ground strike but the ground-air return
strike. - there is more power going that way.

I took a trauma course back when I was still active in the vollies and
I was surprized to find that with injuries, it's actually better to be
closer to the actual strike rather than five/ten feet away.

My neighbors below surface well has been hit 3 times even though none
of it protrudes above ground, it is a really good ground I guess.
Mine has been hit once.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:48:27 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:58:54 GMT, (Richard
Casady) wrote:

I am always curious about how a boat takes a hit but I do have some
experience with a lightning rod. I put a 3' copper rod over my weather
station with a pointy stainless steel tip, connected to 2ga copper
wire and terminated in a ground rod (connected to my extensive house
grounding system)
It has been hit twice that I know of and I was about 30' away during
one of them. A mexican laborer was pretty much under it, plastered
against my garage door. Other than the poop reflex we were totally
unaffected.. The steel garage door he was plastered to is bonded to
the same grounding system as the lightning rod as is the wet concrete
driveway I was standing on.
We were fine. The weather station ... not so much ... either time.

000 wire and a ten foot long grounding rod, is the customary practice
with lightning rods.


The 2 ga does an excellent job of routing the shot. My ground
electrode system is a lot more extensive than a single rod. The proof
is in the pudding as they say. The only thing I have ever lost is the
serial port in the PC that hooks to the weather station and that is
because the weather station signal cable runs parallel to the ground
wire from the air terminal for about 20'.
I am a bit embarrassed that I did that but I didn't really think this
thing would attract lightning so well.
It should be noted that the PC was connected to my network and nothing
else was affected. In fact I am still typing on the same PC as we
speak. The only thing that went was the serial port.
The last time it took a hit the same thing happened. The serial port
on the lap top it was connected to wasn't even totally fried. It still
runs a modem, just not the weather station.
Next time around I am putting the weather station on a fiberglass pole
on the other corner of the house but I am keeping the air terminal
where it is.
If I was using the RF connection from the weather station I bet
nothing would have been hurt

I was working at my computer when lightning hit 6 feet away. The
screen didn't even flicker. All the juice stayed with the 000 wire.

Casady

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...

I was working at my computer when lightning hit 6 feet away. The
screen didn't even flicker. All the juice stayed with the 000 wire.

Casady


If you could instantaneously block the vivid light of a lightning strike,
you would see a large area surrounding it, the diameter of which is
dependent on the voltage, of ionized atmosphere around the primary strike
point. It also is conducting, although at a much lower amperage compared
to the main current path.

You just don't see it because the primary flash of light is so bright.

Eisboch

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:09:52 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


wrote in message
...

On Aug 20, 7:57 pm, Vic Smith wrote:


This is the best thing I've seen on lightning, and think it pretty
well hits the mark on what you can do on a boat.
It's geared toward sailboats, but the principles are there.
For electronics gear, I would do the same as I do at home with my
computer and other electronic gear if I anticipate lightning:
unplug it. An insulated non-conducting case might be appropriate
for a radio when at sea.http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/SG/SG07100.pdf

--Vic

That is a good article.

Thanks


It is a good article in terms of what happens when you get hit and how to
design for a hit.

The other school of thought is a design to minimize your chances of getting
hit in the first place.

That isn't a school of thought in the scientific community.
It's been pretty well debunked, but will live on, like Bigfoot.
We could argue about it, but I have the feeling it would be endless no
matter how many cites I come up with.
Of course I'm not a scientist, but can google like crazy.
If you have NFPA approved lightning protection the addition
of devices of "the other school" will do no harm.
But IMO the "other school" alone is Voodoo - and dangerous.
The danger part is why I feel compelled to answer your post.

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...


That isn't a school of thought in the scientific community.
It's been pretty well debunked, but will live on, like Bigfoot.
We could argue about it, but I have the feeling it would be endless no
matter how many cites I come up with.
Of course I'm not a scientist, but can google like crazy.
If you have NFPA approved lightning protection the addition
of devices of "the other school" will do no harm.
But IMO the "other school" alone is Voodoo - and dangerous.
The danger part is why I feel compelled to answer your post.

--Vic

Hey, I never said it worked.

Eisboch (in his best Harry impersonation)

On Aug 21, 7:45 pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Vic Smith" wrote in message

...



That isn't a school of thought in the scientific community.
It's been pretty well debunked, but will live on, like Bigfoot.
We could argue about it, but I have the feeling it would be endless no
matter how many cites I come up with.
Of course I'm not a scientist, but can google like crazy.
If you have NFPA approved lightning protection the addition
of devices of "the other school" will do no harm.
But IMO the "other school" alone is Voodoo - and dangerous.
The danger part is why I feel compelled to answer your post.

--Vic

Hey, I never said it worked.

Eisboch (in his best Harry impersonation)

Every effin day in summer we have lightning shutting stuff down here.
I come in after lunch and power surges have shut down both electron
microscopes. At home during a storm I was sitting 4' from my computer
and a huge spark jumped from the cable modem to the power outlet, the
computer survived. Last week it was my well getting fried by
lightning. I use cordless phones cuz I am terrified of a strike to
the phone lines (another neighbor had that happen to him).

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:45:04 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .


That isn't a school of thought in the scientific community.
It's been pretty well debunked, but will live on, like Bigfoot.
We could argue about it, but I have the feeling it would be endless no
matter how many cites I come up with.
Of course I'm not a scientist, but can google like crazy.
If you have NFPA approved lightning protection the addition
of devices of "the other school" will do no harm.
But IMO the "other school" alone is Voodoo - and dangerous.
The danger part is why I feel compelled to answer your post.

--Vic

Hey, I never said it worked.

Eisboch (in his best Harry impersonation)

Works for me (-:

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...


That isn't a school of thought in the scientific community.
It's been pretty well debunked, but will live on, like Bigfoot.
We could argue about it, but I have the feeling it would be endless no
matter how many cites I come up with.
Of course I'm not a scientist, but can google like crazy.
If you have NFPA approved lightning protection the addition
of devices of "the other school" will do no harm.
But IMO the "other school" alone is Voodoo - and dangerous.
The danger part is why I feel compelled to answer your post.

--Vic


I am not a scientist either, but have an interest in this kind of stuff.
From what I can tell, the operational theory of a "Lightning Dissipater" has
never been scientifically proved .... or disproved.
So, the controversy continues.

However, those that believe it works are in good company.
Nicola Tesla patented it in 1918. He is rumored to know a thing or two
about electricity.
Ol' Ben Franklin even muttered about it.

Eisboch

wrote in message
...
On Aug 21, 7:45 pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Vic Smith" wrote in message

...



That isn't a school of thought in the scientific community.
It's been pretty well debunked, but will live on, like Bigfoot.
We could argue about it, but I have the feeling it would be endless no
matter how many cites I come up with.
Of course I'm not a scientist, but can google like crazy.
If you have NFPA approved lightning protection the addition
of devices of "the other school" will do no harm.
But IMO the "other school" alone is Voodoo - and dangerous.
The danger part is why I feel compelled to answer your post.

--Vic

Hey, I never said it worked.

Eisboch (in his best Harry impersonation)

Every effin day in summer we have lightning shutting stuff down here.
I come in after lunch and power surges have shut down both electron
microscopes. At home during a storm I was sitting 4' from my computer
and a huge spark jumped from the cable modem to the power outlet, the
computer survived. Last week it was my well getting fried by
lightning. I use cordless phones cuz I am terrified of a strike to
the phone lines (another neighbor had that happen to him).


Lightning storms scare the bananas out of me.

Eisboch