[BC] Lightning Prevention?????

[Alan Alsobrook]

Hi Bruce,
I'm not sure reopening this can of worms is a good idea, this one was 
almost as bad as religion or politics, but what the heck I'll throw in 
my $.02.

My first opinion is that the established lightning protection community 
is going to tend to stay with known technologies until the newer 
technologies are excessively proven.

If the theory that the manufactures of the new equipment provide is 
correct, and I do think it has merit, then it will be very difficult to 
prove that the system works. The only real way to evaluate it would be 
to set up two identical test facilities and a separated but close 
proximity and count the strikes to each over several years.

To many lightning protection has always been black magic. Even in the 
traditional community you will hear different experts strongly 
disagreeing on the method of protection to employ.

I don't see how installing one of the newer systems could hurt you, 
since it employs many of the old system designs with a few new twists 
(or points as the case my be) It still relies on a very solid ground 
path and sound grounding techniques.

I've observed several facilities that were getting sever lightning 
damage annually, who installed one of the various new system and their 
damage has been greatly reduced. So did the lightning just quit hitting, 
or did the systems work? It's very difficult to prove one way or the 
other. If you travel through Florida you'll see that the newer weigh 
stations have the umbrella type dissipater's installed, the Bridge of 
Lions in St. Augustine has bottle brushes all over it. So someone (at 
least at FDOT) is giving the new technologies some serious consideration.

The older conventional systems work also, as to proving if one works 
better than the other it is going to take many years and the debate will 
probably still rage on.

Bruce Doerle wrote:

> Fellow broadcasters,
> 
> Last week there was a brief debate on the merits of Charge
> Dissipation Devices (ie lightning prevention or avoidance systems).
> The debate started in response to a message from Mr. Dana Whitehair
> of KUT, University of Texas.  Mr. Whitehair's message, mine, and
> others are shown below this initial paragraph grouping. Of course,
> this raised some hairs on the manufacturer's of these products and
> number of messages took place in public and behind the scenes.  The

-- 
Alan Alsobrook CSRE CBNT
St. Augustine Fl. 32086 904-829-8885
aalso at Bellsouth.net