Talk:Lightning rod

Template:V0.5

Purpose of the lightning conductor

My physics teacher taught that if a lightning conductor actually did "conduct" a lightning strike then it would have failed in its job. Its job, he taught, was to prevent a strike from ever occurring by dissipating the charge in the atmosphere above the conductor, thereby causing the lightning to strike elsewhere. Was he correct? If so, there's not much talk of it in the article, where the emphasis is on the conductor being struck instead of the building. The Skywatcher and me (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The NFPA seems to expect lightning rods to get hit by lightning in preference to the structure. Since these are the people interested in preventing fires and property damage, I defer to their expertise. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Could be. I'm just wondering though - do they have any physicists on board. Another funny thing, In my home town there's a 100ft structure on top of an exposed hill of several hundred feet. It is the highest point by a long shot in all the surrounding countryside. The tower really is saying to the lightning - "come and get me" (there's a conductor on the top of the tower). Funny thing is, this tower has never been hit to my knowledge, but the hillside around has, may times. The Skywatcher and me (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

To your point, how do you know the tower has never been hit. More than likely it has, however the stroke has been "safely" routed to ground through the down conductors, and without visual inspection you would not know.

Your physics teacher is "wrong" in the sense that a "lightning conductor" IS designed to transmit the energy "safely" to ground by providing a pathway of lease resistance.

What your teacher was trying to describe is "point ionization", any point in a magnetic field will cause ionization to occur proportional to the strength of the magnetic field. Just as a hose can only carry so much water regardless of pressure before failure, a single point exhibits the same limitations, and this is known as "point saturation." Once point saturation occurs, no greater rate of charge dissipation can occur, so the argument of preventing a strike breaks down, because the intensity of charge in the ionization cloud at the point is so great it actually attracts the downward leader from the clouds and a strike, known as a stroke, occurs.

The theory of Charge Transfer or Charge Dissipation is based on providing thousands of points "or water hoses" from which more charge can be transferred into the air without reaching point saturation. This reduces the induced charge on the ground (the storm cell has one charge, that induces an equal and opposite charge on the ground surfaces), thereby making the location have a lower electrical potential, i.e., strong battery vs weak battery and areas of higher electrical potential (difference) are more probable to attract the lightning stroke.

Hope this helps. [redacted by Borealdreams (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC) (70.96.5.90 is also me)] 70.96.5.90 (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The text says "The patent was granted due to a fault in Franklin's original theory of operation; the pointed lightning rod actually ionizes the air around itself, rendering the air conductive, which in turn raises the probability of a strike". In my mind this is nonsense. Why is it here with no reference? Gutta Percha (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

There are two purposes of a lightning rod

I recommend that we re-write the article stating that there is a dual effect of the lightning rod.

One is that it does dissipate the charge from the ground to the atmosphere. This is fact as current can be measured flowing up through the lightning rod to the atmosphere. Any current flow will reduce the potential difference between the ground and charges in the sky thus lessening the probability of a strike. This reduction in potential also will weaken any strike that does occur (not by much but it will weaken it none the less). Almost all of the papers and arguments against this harp on the fact that it does not provide any better protection from a strike. This statement does not take into any consideration that it does reduce the probability of a strike. Also note that the NFPA and others do have financial incentive to play up the still lightning strikes argument for sales.

The second function of a lightning rod is to provide a more attractive target to strike to allow safe conduction of the energy to ground. This function prevents damage to structures in the event of a strike. DieselDude (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It's really hard to do good science on lightning strikes; if I were changing the article as much as that I'd want to have very good multiple reliable sources to back up the changes. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

it is also hard to do research when some of the "authorities" like to twist facts and rewrite history.

History --> http://fi.edu/pieces/hongell/

Perverted history (section 1) --> http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/InstallRods.html

Or UL, that does all the following: Writes the Regulations & Codes, Charges companies to test the products to see if they meet the codes, and operates a for profit sub-company that charges to go out and verify LPS systems meet their codes in order for the customer to obtain insurance? --DieselDude (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I also should correct my first statement. The NFPA has no conflict of interest, the NLSI does. (To many acronyms to keep them all straight) DieselDude (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This slide presentation sheds more light on the debate of ESE and such. (It also spreads doubt about what science really knowns about lightning behavior) http://vancouver.ieee.ca/files/Non-conventional%20LP%20Update.pdf DieselDude (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

DieselDude, The one glaring limitation to the dual use purpose you propose, is that you did not include "point saturation" in the discussion. A point maximizes out how much it can ionize. If there is 100 units to remove, and a remover can only do 10 at a time, then it will be limited to 10 maximum for any given time. However if you have 100 removers, they would each remove 1 unit in that time equally, and also have the ability to remove 9 additional units each, that is going unused. That in essence is the theory of Charge Dissipation, provide 1000s of points for charge ionization while never exceeding point saturation ----[redaction of text by 70.96.5.90 aka Borealdreams (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)]----- 70.96.5.90 (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggest merge

Lightning-protection system is essentially the same discussion under another title. The two articles should be merged. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Why have we merged LPS into Lightning Rods? That's the same as merging "The Ocean" into "Fish". If anything, the two different LPS pages should have been merged, and all "protection system" discussions moved out of Lightning Rods and into the common LPS page, with LPS being linked within the LR page as I've currently done, however the redirct to LR page is useless. Borealdreams (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Evaluations & Analysis Removal or Unbiased Rewrite Needed

Evaluations and analysis (of what?)

[In it's agreed upon placement within this article as written in prior versions, this has minimal validity, as it can't even decide on what it is defining or performing an analysis between.]

"Charge Dissipation" has nothing to do with gradual "release" of a stroke's energy to ground. It has to do with gradual "release" of storm cell induced charge on the earth's surface into the air, in direct proportion to the ionization factor of any metallic point within a magnetic field. The intensity of the magnetic field increases the ionization rate, thereby "driving" the rate at which any surface bonded to the point will "bleed off" the charge and reduce the potential (difference across an area between opposite charges, i.e., a battery) between earth and storm cell.

A Franklin [Rod] System and a Dissipation Array System or a Charge Transfer System, exhibit the exact same principles as their underlying operational mode, a metallic point within a magnetic field will result in ionization at that point. The primary difference being, "point saturation", a single point can only ionize so much, just as a water hose can only carry so much water, regardless of pressure, without failure. "Failure" in this instance, is the generation of an extreme concentration of ions/charge, resulting in an upward streamer, what a downward leader needs to contact in order to "close the circuit" and generate a lightning stroke, which ultimately neutralizes the charge potential between storm cell and earth.

A DAS or CTS attempts to address the "point saturation" failure mode by suspending thousands of points above the structures to be "protected", bleeding off the induced charge on the ground at a rate proportional to the storm cell's magnetic field, and never reaching the "failure" mode of any points, noted by the generation of upward streamer. If the upward streamer does not occur, there is not a circuit pathway for the downward leader to contact, no lightning stroke occurs, and the passing storm cell must "target" another location where there are upward streamers. In essence, a DAS or CTS operates in a similar method to "stealth technology", if the radar's signals are bounced in hundreds of directions, no "strong" signal is received back at the radar, and the object appears to be much smaller than it actually is or "invisible". "Invisible" in terms of lightning termination is reduced potential between storm cell and earth, whereby the more visible, aka strong signal, is an area with higher potential in the vicinity of the Charge Transfer System "protected" area.

There is very little debate that a Franklin System increases the probability a structure protected by lightning rods is targeted, just as there is little debate that a location with a reduction of induced charge, thereby the potential, i.e., difference between opposite charge concentration, between storm cell and earth is less at a location, and the probability of stroke generation and subsequent potential neutralization is diminished.

The real debate is how to protect a structure from the intense concentration, short time duration energy of the actual lightning stroke and subsequent electromagnetic pulses that occur.

Lightning Rods, ESE (Early Streamer Emmittors), "round vs sharp points debate", all the various proprietary forms of Air Terminals, operate on the same principle, to attract the lightning stroke and attempt to "safely" route it to ground. A Dissipation Array System, is not working on this principle, it is designed to not collect a strike, so wherein is rational of grouping and attempting to discredit another means of providing for Lightning Protection when Air Terminals and Charge Transfer Systems are completely different.

It would be nice to see unbiased educational information on this page and it's return to credible by Wiki, however some refuse to allow for the removal of completely biased, boarding on slander, dissemination of copper & lightning rod industry propaganda. Borealdreams (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Overhaul & separation of LPS. Contributions requested.

Hello Everyone! I would like to use this as an area to design an actual Lightning Protection System wiki page. I am open to all and any contributions. My biggest goal is to make it as factual and unbiased as possible. There is no doubt there are many controversies and political debates within this area, however my motives are to circumvent them and make this a credible page full of informative information for anyone that is interested in the field of LPS. Full disclosure, I am employed in the industry and have a vested interest, however even with my coworkers pushing me towards advocating our technologies, my main goal is to present the field of LPS in as factual a manner as possible. Interested in joining?

If my sandbox cannot be used (edited/commented/contributed to) by others, can someone help set up a test page and link it please?

Initial plan of attack is to separate out all LPS discussions from the Lightning Rod page. The part does not make the whole, and I see it as a major disservice to all those involved in the field to propagate this common misunderstanding instilled inadvertently all the way back to Franklin.

Borealdreams (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I tagged the main article with "Expert Needed", which points to this Talk Page in accordance with the usual Wikipedia policy, and made your non-standard "Note" a comment right next to it in the source text.

I've already made a few modest improvements to the Lightning Rod and Surge Protector articles in the past, since I know a bit about the subjects and am interested in learning more. But I'm glad you're willing to take the lead, and agree with your initial approach. There are a lot of "lightning" related articles in Wikipedia, and perhaps a half-dozen or so that relate directly to this particular article. I suggest compiling a list of related articles, and evaluating how they're structured, and where there are coverage gaps and overlaps. Restructuring is definitely called for. I look forward to hearing your more-detailed proposals.

I'm not sure whether it's necessary to use a sandbox, but I leave that up to you. I can help with copyediting, Wikifying, and technical writing. By the way, I suggest spending maybe a half hour setting up a User:Borealdreams starter user page, it helps other editors get more comfortable with whom they're dealing with.

Reify-tech (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so very much for your response and contributions. I am relatively new to this, however I have been attempting to edit and return this page to the "credible" realm for many months. I am very aware of the multiple pages out there, and it is a slightly monumental task to get them all in line. I have also used the user id 70.96.5.90 seen in the talk and edit areas.

I believe we are starting to make progress in a positive direction. The entire introduction to this page I have recently overhauled, attempting to maintain objectivity foremost and separate out this single piece from the whole, as it in fact is, however it has been "bastardized" to represent a complex system and a very diverse and difficult scientific research field.

What I am working on in "my sandbox" is an attempt to return Lightning Protection Systems to its own page, where Lightning Rods, in all their varied forms, are but a single cog in the machinery, not the machinery itself. The two lightning protection system pages were recently merged into this page, an "oceans" as a subcategory of "fish" approach that I believe to be contrary to any hierarchical structure.

I am open to a better method to do this, however my understanding was the "document" needs to be complete prior to submission for approval to be a page. I am copying & pasting sections from Lightning Rods to "LPS" that will require editing and overhaul, but do not belong under the LR page, so as to not be seeing as deleting or vandalizing this page.

Regarding "Surge", SPDs, TVSS, etc., yes I would like to see this with its own page, again a subcategory of lightning protection systems... not something spread across multiple pages and especially as a subcategory of Lightning Rods.

I look forward to your further contributions & input.

Borealdreams (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The lightning rod only works as part of a system, and it seems a bit fragementary to separate the system requirements from the rods. It would also be nice to have edits that reflect the mainstream science on lighting rods, and that properly acknowledges the fringe nature of some alternative theories. It would especially be nice if we could refrain from assuming anyone who edits the article is a tool foteh great Franklin rod conspiracy division of the copper cartel. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I am moving forward on the proper hierarchical layout of a lightning protection systems page, as it is consistent with other related topics in Wikipedia, such as Surge protectors, Lightning, Storm Cell, Skin Effect, etc. Lightning protection systems are not mutually exclusive to lightning rods, and lightning rods can be downgraded in weight to what they are, but one of a variety of forms of Air Terminals. I will be copying over valid information & sources from the LR page to the Lightning Protection System page in progress, from which it may be removed from the LR page upon acceptance of the LPS page by wiki. Borealdreams (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Thank you for making my points exactly... "The lightning rod only works as part of a system" and as such it is a part, not a whole. "the mainstream science" as determined by who? "that properly acknowledges the fringe nature of some alternative theories"... what by "slamming" them with vested interest propoganda that borders on slander? And then when articles in industry journals about said "fringe" technologies are used & cited are then removed by the "definitive authorities" on LPS? Apparently "fringe" constitutes technologies responsible for protecting 100s of $Billions in infrastructure & products globally???? It's funny you mention "fringe", given I subserviented the Optical Ground Conductor you keep spamming, as that is about as fringe as you can get, and it's primary function is not lightning protection, you even said this exactly when you undid my edit... "Wtshymanski (talk | contribs)‎ . . (49,074 bytes) (-97)‎ . . (well, no, it's for power-frequency grounding mainly, but also provides shielding..check out OPGW Undid revision 479709307 by 70.96.5.90" OPGW If this isn't "fringe" I don't know what is... "This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2009) "It would especially be nice if we could refrain from assuming anyone who edits the article is a tool foteh great Franklin rod conspiracy division of the copper cartel."... I'd like to return credibility to this subject matter, and for so many years exactly as you have stated it "cartel", has had cart blanche "rights" to say whatever they wanted and "slammed" whoever had competing ideas because they are the so-called de facto authority on the matter. [self-redaction Borealdreams (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)] I more than welcome you to an objective discussion & compilation of an LPS page here... "LPS Page Overhaul Proposal" Borealdreams (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Try cheking out OPGW the concept, not just the Wikipedia article on the same. Luckily on Wikipedia we don't have to define "fringe", there's policy for that. With all my income from the Copper Trust and the Twisty Bulb Cartel, soon I'll be richer than an exiled Nigerian cabinet minister. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC) It is not MY job to verify OPGW. It is the contributors' responsibilities to provide the "proof" through peer reviewed citations, which there appears to be none, and therefore it does not meet the standards of Wikipedia. The fact of the matter is when I read the uncited page, OPGW requires a support mechanism, between towers, which was clearly inferred by the statement "hung like garland". And what is the support mechanism, a steel core (more than likely) aluminum sheathed static or guy wire that would also meet code for static or ground wires. The "supporting wire" is therefore the primary static wire, or LPS, as it is on top, would be the preferential termination point. Anything supported by it, therefore is secondary and if the secondary object meets the same standards for strike termination, but cannot do the job alone, how is this a Lightning Protection System unto itself? It is not, and you clearly stated this when you undid my revision... "well, no, it's for power-frequency grounding mainly, but also provides shielding..check out OPGW Undid revision 479709307 by 70.96.5.90" "Power-frequency grounding"? Did you mean, as way to insulate the fiber optics from interference from electromagnetic emissions related to the transmission of electric power? Exactly, to protect the primary purpose of the OPGW from the environment which it is utilizing (a transmission Right-of-Way) to perform its primary objective, serve as a high-speed data transmission conduit." This even further removes it from a primary purpose ground or static wire in a LPS function. I was giving you a lot of leeway in even keeping this within the realm of LPS, but you continue to make it even easier to completely remove all reference to OPGW as it is not primarily a LPS system. I truly am not interested in wasting time in this manner, as almost all points you make fail the basic principles Wikipedia seeks to achieve, mainly objectivity and not product promotion. Borealdreams (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Check out the cool new references in Optical ground wire . Every editor can find references for articles. But this is aside from the point of this article, which ought to talk about lighting protection systems and rods that really work. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC) I don't have to, and thank you for again admitting they are not LPS products. Section removed as it does not apply. If as you insist... "The lightning rod only works as part of a system, and it seems a bit fragementary to separate the system requirements from the rods." petition to change the name of the page to Lightning Protection Systems, as Lightning Rods are but only a piece. [self-redaction by Borealdreams (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)] Borealdreams (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC) [Comment self-deleted: Borealdreams has expressed a desire to make a fresh start.] --Guy Macon (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC) [self-redaction by Borealdreams (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC). the following paragraph is not mine to remove, I never attempted to justify such devices.] The proponents of ESE devices have repeatededly appealed to the NFPA to get their system into the standards, with much dispute and no success. Wikipedia shouldn't pretend to have expertise beyond that of NFPA and other standards bodies. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC) Why not post your edit comments to the public? Wtshymanski (talk | contribs)‎ (The IP is from Colorado. The company that lost the consumer fraud lawsuit is from Colorado. Burn the Witch!) [self-redaction by Borealdreams (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC). The above will be removed when user removes & apologizes for unsubstantiated attack] Borealdreams (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC) An article about lightning rods should be neutral and factual and not put WP:UNDUE weight on fringe or minority interpretations. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC) At what point does a product or technology no longer carry the "fringe" or "minority" branding? $10 million in protected infrastructure and commodities, $100 million, $500 million, $100 billion, or a $1 trillion plus? 1 year of providing protection, 5 years, 20 years, or 40 years, or does it have to be an original Ben Franklin installation from 200 years ago to be credible? [self-redaction, unintended CoI statement necessitated to prove point by Borealdreams (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)] Who determines what is "fringe"? How many line miles of OGW is installed, what is the value of the product it is protecting, and as it is secondary only, how much do we discount the overall protection value it is providing? Guarantee it is fringe And because Dissipation Array(tm) & Charge Transfer Systems are "fringe" that gives you the right to remove all references that are cited in industry journals of its applications around the world? http://www.fireworld.com/ifw_articles/chad_11-07.php I have attempted to keep my company and it's specific products out of this from day one, only wanting to remove the slander and disparaging comments the Lightning Rod backers insist on doing. [redacted - irrelevant to LR's, hence why there should be no mention (pro/con) in LR page. Borealdreams (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)] I have attempted to engage you repeatedly in critical discussion, but you call me names, heretic, and wrongly accuse me of being a supporter of a product (ESEs) which I am not, and I could care less about. [will redact above when apology issued Borealdreams (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)] [redacted - it doesn't matter. Borealdreams (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)] Borealdreams (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC) Fascinating. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC) Once again providing so much value to this discussion. You have nothing, and for once someone is calling your bluffs.____________ And to answer your question "19:19, 6 March 2012‎ Wtshymanski (talk | contribs)‎ . . (82,212 bytes) (+108)‎ . . (Reformatted bluster; ever seen a transmission line?)" ... If you read my disclaimer you would see that I have, and I've probably walked & cleared more Right-of-Way miles [redacted by borealdreams] [self-redacted matter clearly noting WP:Fringe nature of OPGW product Borealdreams (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)] Could you tell me which product I'm supposedly hocking? I want to plan how to spend the money. How could you have walked so many miles of right of way and not known how many thousands of miles of OPGW are installed each year? --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC) How could you validate this as you claim to only have been accessory to this project? Personally I don't care b/c it is not even a LR and it is WP:Undue in the LPS page. Borealdreams (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Charge transfer technology" and "Dissipation Array Systems"

[Comment self-deleted: Borealdreams has expressed a desire to make a fresh start.] --Guy Macon (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your quick summary, however it is incorrect. I welcome your citations of reliable sources. Why not bring them to the forefront at this time? How would you like me to cite my sources, because although they are & have been doing exactly what you admit for close to 40 years, and they are protecting Trillions of dollars of product & infrastructure, if I cite and name them, it will be claimed sole-source and be disallowed from the discussion? So therefore they are "fringe" only because Lightning Rods are more established and "everyone" says so apparently? Borealdreams (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

An Awareness Notice of what is at stake, and also a small rebuttal: Lightning protection systems are responsible for protecting trillions of dollars in infrastructure (plants, factories, power plants, refineries, drill sites), trillions of dollars in commodities (oil, gas, chemical, paper [mills], and financial & global economic systems (data centers, shipping centers, etc.). This is no little subject, and Lightning Rods are but only one object of many manufacturing, designs & theories as lightning alludes scientists even to this day.

I am honestly in shock, Wtshymanski has so little "admitted" knowledge, when he is publicly taken to task, of this enormous industry and he "only signed off on this one project", yet that doesn't stop him from being the definitive source of factual truth when it comes to deciding what IS and IS NOT Lightning Protection when it affects this page. Also this "peripheral" knowledge allows him to determine what is "fringe" from "accepted" within the global industry. Borealdreams (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[Comment self-deleted: Borealdreams has expressed a desire to make a fresh start.] --Guy Macon (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

[Comment self-deleted: Borealdreams has expressed a desire to make a fresh start.] --Guy Macon (talk)

The flat-earth has once again been saved by moneyed interests, hell bend on not allowing any discussion, because "oh no, cracks will be revealed within the entirety of the lightning protection industries' theories and modeling, and people with the capacity to be rational will recognize it isn't as black & white as some declare it to be."

It is so simple to label "me" fringe, because you know I will not disclose the companies, industries, and site locations that use "fringe" technology to protect their infrastructures, operations, products and workers from lightning terminations. Without these fringe technologies, the global economy would grind to a halt quickly, but don't take my word for it, be thankful money talks and politics walks and fringe technologies are out their protecting our fuel supplies, valuable commodities, international commerce and shipping, our global financial systems, our energy providers, etc.

For all the complaining and threats that I do not meet Wiki Indenting standards, sue me ok?, I see no effort over the 10 years this page has been up to ever standardize & implement consistency in the terminology of the topic that is being discussed. Again, if it were put together rationally and with neutral objectivity, the cracks withing the science of lightning protection would be revealed across all technologies, mainstream or fringe.

Be proud, the Lighting Rod & Copper magnates and their Wikipedia Trolls have prevailed once again in smiting the heretics.

In other words, you see no value in neutrality, only maintaining the status quo. Borealdreams (talk) 06:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

[Comment self-deleted: Borealdreams has expressed a desire to make a fresh start.] --Guy Macon (talk) 07:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I will back [redact] my comments out as soon as you do the same, and then we can move on. I have done so in all areas where it was claimed I was attacking other editors. I don't consider myself all that wrong, or my actions as egregious as you claim they are, and that is backed by this article here.... http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/

Once the Lightning Protection Systems page has been established, and all relevant information & sources have been moved out of Lightning Rods, so that the Lightning Rod page is merely that, then there will be no issues as DAS & CTS are not air terminals, which was my point originally. I never added them into this page, others put them in years ago with the simple objective of trashing them and gave them the "weight" they did. I'm completely fine with NO mention of them within the LR page, but I would hate to be accused of vandalization by removing their "trashing" completely!  :) Borealdreams (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

lacks information on radioactive and ionic types

This article provides no info whatsoever on radioactive and ionic lightning rod? And I don't see any article treating them. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably because the radioactive type has been banned, so no-one is selling them any more. If it's not in the catalog, it doesn't get to Wikipedia. (Let alone the difficulty of proving that someone's patented scheme actually works any better than a plain old galvanized rod.) --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but while they stopped making them 10 years ago, not all countries ordered their removal from roof tops, there are still many on roofs across Europe. Some end up as scrap and unwittingly expose people to radiation e.g. "RLCs represent the largest homogenous group of radioactive sources in Croatia."[1] I've just come across this now, I think it merits entry into the article. --Diamonddavej (talk) 03:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If this is true and verifiable (as the ref you give seems to indicate), I think it is of sufficient interest that it deserves some brief mention in the article. --Reify-tech (talk) 03:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Active emitters, as radioactive tips have been known, in theory work far better than non radioactive tips. Regardless of which theory of protection you favor, dissipation or attraction, an active emitter ionizes the air at the tip of the lightning rod far more than a simple galvanized rod giving better protection. This ionization increases the current discharged into the air and also increases the ease of a streamer forming from it. The ban from production was over concern that lightning strikes would vaporize the active material allowing people to inhale it. I can find no actual experiments to validate this claim. DieselDude (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

No mention of thyrite?

Google thyrite for details. Most say it is new, but I heard about it in the early 90s. Most reference a 1930 article. I don't know if it is worth adding. The best article is the IEEE one but an account is needed to read most of it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Charge Transfer Theory: non verifiable sentence/missing source

"It is noted that pointed objects will indeed transfer charge to the surrounding atmosphere[33][34] and that a considerable electric current can be measured through the conductors as ionization occurs at the point when a magnetic field is present, such as happens when thunderclouds are overhead." This last sentence seems indicating that corona discharge transfer between air and pointed dischargers can be enhanced by the presence of a not better specified magnetic field. It also seems indicating that the presence of overhead thuderclouds would induce a magnetic field (?). I verified all the patents cited and there's no clue of such assertions. Since also this topic was of my personal interest I ask the author to better specify what he means and/or to cite verifiable sources, since the details explained above apparently lack any scientific background. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.5.124.6 (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

One user with the IP 70.96.5.90 added this magnetic part to this sentence, but without any source. As this addition doesn't make sense in a scientific way, I also ask, if please the author, or someone familiar with this can verify if this statement is based on any truth and maybe either explain the effect or add a source! The change from this user happened at 21:12, 29 February 2012‎ and his changing comment was: (→‎Charge Transfer theory: clarification of demonstrated concept that ionization occurs at any point subject to a magnetic field)85.1.40.48 (talk) 08:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Corona_discharge & semantics of word usage..."electric", electromagnetic" or "magnetic", all about the same thing. "Electric" is fine. Substitution of "electric" for any "magnetic", is then verifiable easy enough. Borealdreams (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

French scientist Thomas-François Dalibard preceded Benjamin Franklin's lightning experiment on May 10th 1752 at Marly-la-Ville near Paris

I was reading this wikipedia page earlier then I came across this, which suggests that either Thomas-François Dalibard invented the lightning rod or that they were already known in Europe before Benjamin Franklin introduced them to the British colonies through Poor Richards Almanac. This passage mentions Franklin not patenting his invention because of ' moral reasons ' - but it now looks to me as if he merely publicised something that he had learnt about, that the principles involved were well understood and that lightening rods already existed in Europe.

http://pabook.libraries.psu.edu/palitmap/Lightning.html

The first experiment was performed under instructions from scientist Thomas-François Dalibard, who translated some of Franklin’s books from English into French. On May 10, 1752, at the village of Marly-la-Ville near Paris, they set up a tall iron rod insulated from the ground with wine bottles and succeeded in drawing sparks from lightning.

In the famous kite experiment in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin succeeded in drawing sparks from thunderclouds. Franklin’s experiment is thought to have actually happened on June 15, 1752 – after the one in Marly-la-Ville, but before he received word of its success. Philip Dray discusses why Franklin’s experiment is controversial in his book Stealing God’s Thunder: Benjamin Franklin’s Lightning Rod and the Invention of America. He states that Franklin was very secretive about the experiments plan and execution, and the only eyewitness was his son William, who never gave any statement about it. As a result, there is no concrete evidence that the experiment actually took place; however, it is generally accepted as true. The mystery that surrounds the kite experiment makes it one of America’s most beloved tales.

In Dray’s description of the kite experiment, “Franklin carried with him a kite he had made of silk and cedar. To the top of the upright stick he had attached a sharp pointed wire that rose a foot or more above the wood. The twine leading down from the kite was attached to a silk ribbon, and on the silk ribbon dangled a key. It was important that Franklin and William stand indoors because the silk ribbon must remain dry…” The ribbon needed to be dry to act as an electrical insulator. Without the silk insulating the key from the ground, any electrical current would have passed straight into the ground, rather than gathering in the key. Franklin reported seeing the individual strands of hemp standing on end while waiting, and brought his knuckle close to the key, receiving a mild shock. Once rain began and wet the string, sparks started to “steam off the key to Franklin’s hand.”

With the proof that lightning was indeed electricity, and knowing that an iron rod could be used to attract it, Franklin erected the first lightning rod on the roof of his own house to continue tests. In his book Experiments and Observations on Electricity, he states that “an iron rod being placed on the outside of a building, from the highest part continued down into the moist earth… will receive the lightning at its upper end, attracting it so as to prevent its striking any other part; and, affording it a good conveyance into the earth, will prevent its damaging any part of the building.” This book, published in London in 1751, was translated and distributed across Europe, having a huge impact on the world of science. In fall of 1752, he published a passage in the 1753 Poor Richard’s Almanack detailing how one could protect their home or vessel from lightning:

How to secure Houses, &c. from LIGHTNING

It has pleased God in his Goodness to Mankind, at length to discover to them the Means of securing their Habitations and other Buildings from Mischief by Thunder and Lightning. The Method is this: Provide a small Iron Rod (it may be made of the Rod-iron used by the Nailers) but of such a Length, that one End being three or four Feet in the moist Ground, the other may be six or eight Feet above the highest Part of the Building. To the upper End of the Rod fasten about a Foot of Brass Wire, the Size of a common Knitting-needle, sharpened to a fine Point; the Rod may be secured to the House by a few small Staples. If the House or Barn be long, there may be a Rod and Point at each End, and a middling Wire along the Ridge from one to the other. A House thus furnished will not be damaged by Lightning, it being attracted by the Points, and passing thro the Metal into the Ground without hurting any Thing. Vessels also, having a sharp pointed Rod fix’d on the Top of their Masts, with a Wire from the Foot of the Rod reaching down, round one of the Shrouds, to the Water, will not be hurt by Lightning.

“A modern Prometheus,” the world-renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant named Benjamin Franklin, as recorded in historian H.W. Brands’ book The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin. In Greek mythology, Prometheus was known as an intelligent, humanitarian God who brought fire from the heavens to earth for the benefit of mankind, which certainly mirrors Franklin’s contributions in making “heaven’s fire” safe.

Franklin never patented his invention. Dray tells that Franklin “believed that products of the human imagination belonged to no one person, and should be shared by all.” Although Franklin refrained from patenting for moral reasons, acquiring a patent in Colonial America was not easy. Because there was no standard, national patenting process, one would have to obtain a separate patent from each individual colony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaiSaw (talk • contribs) 20:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Lightning dissipation

"Lightning dissipation" section, what happened to it? Hmmm ... looks like anonymous removed it ... needs to be restored in some form in the Charge Transfer theory section. --J. D. Redding 05:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

This version has some good info for the article that should be reworked in; with the current information. --J. D. Redding 05:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Reference to "Dr. Tesla"

The paragraph discussing Nikola Tesla's contributions to lightning rods refers to Tesla as "Dr. Tesla". The Wikipedia page on Nikola Tesla does not credit him with any academic degrees higher than his gymnasium graduation. According to the article, he attended the Austrian Polytechnic, nearly completing the course, but dropped out near the end and never graduated. He also apparently attended classes at Charles-Ferdinand University in Prague, but only as an auditor, and did not receive a degree there. There is no mention of any graduate school work. The Tesla Society biography web page http://www.teslasociety.com/biography.htm does not mention any academic degrees and does not refer to him using Dr. I have not read any of the printed biographies. 7802mark (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

History: It was described by Al-Jahiz

The use of lightning rod was described by Al-Jahiz (born in Basra, 776 – December 868/January 869) in his book "Kitab al-Hayawan" (Book of Animals) (Volume 4, Page 316) as a known technology/device in Basra, Iraq.