Lightning prevention system.

[s/v Jedi]

And yet, in the world’s most extreme environments equipment is protected by them…installed by scientists

[Frankly]

I have told this story before but maybe bears repeating. In my Sophomore Physics Lab we had a big Van De Graff Generator. Those of us that were stupid/ ballsy enough to run the experiment would grab (with big thick rubber gloves) the grounded rod (one end sharply pointed and one end blunt). No matter how you tried you could not draw a sharp lightning type discharge with the pointed end. As the tip neared the ball (moving fast, slow, right angle, or straight on) you could distinctly hear the charge hissing away. Flip the rod around and a loud "Zap" as you repeated the experiment. We must have run that experiment dozens of times and always the same results (100%).

So the sharp point works in a simple lab experiment the question is how does that transfer to the real world.

Forespar has been making that multipoint wire Lightning Master for at least 30 years (had one on my Hunter mast). Not too expensive but you will not find me on deck in a lightning storm hugging my mast just because there is one on my masthead. Seawater well electrically connected mast is the real deal and the first place to spend your money.


Frankly

[team karst]

Originally Posted by bdgWesternMass

I only stated that as way to reason with tradeoffs. I plan to integrate a circuit like this one into the boat.

https://www.electroschematics.com/lightning-detector/

If I receive the static build-up before the trouble my idea is to have hole in the center of the mast that will pass through to the water. The idea will be design the hole as sort of inverse faraday cage. The idea will be for the lightning rod at the top proved a straight path down. The hole/tube in mast will be grounded similar to this.

Marine Lightning Protection Inc.

If my circuit warns me of static build up I plan to drop a 0 gauge Copper line from the mast hole into the water providing the straighter path I can...

I was reluctant to share this idea because of the obvious naysayers. I don't mind constructive criticism every idea needs it.

I won't defend the from the moronic so I may not respond depending on my opinion of another's opinion. This could be a good thread.

Ben

Until i put in my sail cat countermeasures, I had a copper strap hanging off a chainplate into the water at dockside. Now, with 3 x arc electrodes at waterline, not needing the manual deployment.
Its definitely living on the edge to be working with down conductors AFTER the static alarm goes off.
Interesting circuit you found. Looks to have AC coupled stages. Guessing it detects actual lightning HF energy from some distance, and not DC/static local charge.

[franksingleton]

Originally Posted by garyfdl

How do you know?

We have a Raymarine SY60 wind indicator. Whenever near thunderstorms, the needle used to start to oscillate. The oscillations would increases until the needle would spin right round at an alarming rate. This was not one off. It always happened - several occasions, at least. All we could was to turn off the instruments until the static had dissipated.
After fitting the Lightningmadter, we were south of Sicily in very murky weather. Suddenly out of the mist with no prior warning, we saw a massive thunderhead. Then we had lightning so close that we could hear the air being ionised. The needle on the ST60 gave one flick and that was all. No oscillations, let alone the violent spinning.
It was clear that there had been no build up of static on the mast.
Now, I cannot be sure that it would always work. I do know that it worked then and might have saved us from a lightning strike. Obviously, I cannot be 100% sure. Maybe 95%.
Can anyone suggest an alternative reason for the difference in behaviour of the ST60? We had never been so near a storm before and do not want to be again.
I think this is good enough reason to fit one of these devices. Low cost. No running cast and good evidence that is has some positive effect.
I have no connection with the firm and have offered to have me quoted but never had a reply.

[garyfdl]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

And yet, in the world’s most extreme environments equipment is protected by them…installed by scientists

On the posted picture, it denotes a "Lightning protection device". Below the annotation is says "Reduces direct lightning strikes". Key word? "REDUCES".

Sometimes even scientists take a "can't hurt" approach.

Originally Posted by franksingleton

I cannot be sure that it would always work. I do know that it worked then and might have saved us from a lightning strike. Obviously, I cannot be 100% sure. Maybe 95%.
Can anyone suggest an alternative reason for the difference in behaviour of the ST60? We had never been so near a storm before and do not want to be again.
I think this is good enough reason to fit one of these devices. Low cost. No running cast and good evidence that is has some positive effect.

Maybe correlation without cause?

47 years ago last March, I sacrificed a virgin to Zeus and Thor. I have had boats and sailed in: New London, CT; Milwaukee, WI; eastern PA; the Jersey Shore; northern Chesapeake Bay; Bayfield, WI; Sheboygan, WI and Fond du Lac,WI.

Never once have my boats been hit by lightning, and, to the best of my knowledge, no one on any dock I've been tied to has been hit while my boat was there. (Knock on effect?).

Oh, and I still have the (ex)virgin around, in case the gods ever need proof.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by garyfdl

On the posted picture, it denotes a "Lightning protection device". Below the annotation is says "Reduces direct lightning strikes". Key word? "REDUCES".

Sometimes even scientists take a "can't hurt" approach.

I’m sorry but the word REDUCES means that there are less strikes. You explain it as “may reduce” which is not the case. It literally means that it prevents at least some of the strikes.

They actually use LightningMaster devices and installed these weather stations on Mount Everest.

There are many variables at play but like someone above detailed a science experiment with pointed and blunt copper bars, a pointed one bleeds ions like crazy so that the electric field can dissipate. When you add dozens or hundreds of these pointy ends, it may just reduce the charge enough for some other object (like a tree, other boat or even a cloud) to take the hit.

Fact is that Jedi was hit twice in 8 years without these “brushes” at the mastheads, and never hit again in the 20 years after that with the brushes installed… with direct lightning strikes to neighboring boats every couple of years. We still had damage, but no evaporated antennas and wind instruments anymore

[team karst]

If mine was hit 2x, I would try something, maybe anything reasonable.
These tiny wire ends do act to raise the near electric field. It may be that the race is on between (bleeding off electrons) to actually instigating something far more powerful.

There is that company selling radioactive sources for top of pole installs. They try to start leaders and strikes.

[franksingleton]

Originally Posted by garyfdl

On the posted picture, it denotes a "Lightning protection device". Below the annotation is says "Reduces direct lightning strikes". Key word? "REDUCES".

Sometimes even scientists take a "can't hurt" approach.


Maybe correlation without cause?

47 years ago last March, I sacrificed a virgin to Zeus and Thor. I have had boats and sailed in: New London, CT; Milwaukee, WI; eastern PA; the Jersey Shore; northern Chesapeake Bay; Bayfield, WI; Sheboygan, WI and Fond du Lac,WI.

Never once have my boats been hit by lightning, and, to the best of my knowledge, no one on any dock I've been tied to has been hit while my boat was there. (Knock on effect?).

Oh, and I still have the (ex)virgin around, in case the gods ever need proof.

You can believe whatever you like. The fact remains that we do not now get the build up of static that used to have before fitting the LM
I said that I would not guarantee that it gives 100% protection and the firm agrees.
I suggest that common sense is that if a cheap device might give you protection then it is worth trying. You will lose a small amount of money and may save a great deal. We were so close to the strike that I was glad we had the device. It clearly did some good. Whether we would have had damage without it, I do not know.
At least I have seen what it can do. On my experience I would certainly advise fitting one.

[dannc]

I have not been in the office for over two years but the buildings at work have lightning rods along the edge of the roof. There might be more inside the perimeter of the roof, but I don't have the ability to see the interior, so to speak. The spikes are not pointed, as I remember them, but rounded over and connected to each other with heavily braided cable which I assume is AL.

So, if the pointy vs rounded behavior was known to the people who designed the lightning protection system at work, they choose to take the strike and safely handle the energy. Some of the building had, and have, very expensive systems to protect and down time would cost millions of dollars.

Wish I knew their design rational for the lightning rods.

Later,
Dan

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by dannc

I have not been in the office for over two years but the buildings at work have lightning rods along the edge of the roof. There might be more inside the perimeter of the roof, but I don't have the ability to see the interior, so to speak. The spikes are not pointed, as I remember them, but rounded over and connected to each other with heavily braided cable which I assume is AL.

So, if the pointy vs rounded behavior was known to the people who designed the lightning protection system at work, they choose to take the strike and safely handle the energy. Some of the building had, and have, very expensive systems to protect and down time would cost millions of dollars.

Wish I knew their design rational for the lightning rods.

Later,
Dan

The lightning rods do a completely different job than the lightning prevention devices (should say “strike reduction devices?). That said, before installing one of those brushes, you must first ground the base of the mast with a heavy cable going straight down (no sharp bends or lightning may jump off the conductor and burn a hole in the hull) to an underwater bonding plate. This provides the safe path in case you get a strike, and it grounds the brush so that it can try to dissipate the electric field enough to avoid the strike.

Almost everybody telling about strikes despite having the brush gadgets have failed to provide that safe path or even properly ground the brush.

[Frankly]

NFPA 780 "Standard For the Installation of Lightning Protection Systems" outlines the classes (relative height), spacing, rod height ("air terminals"), conductor sizing ect. for buildings. The protection business is to to prevent against fire from lightning strikes.

Pretty Common on buildings down in good old Florida.

IIRC there is actually a section about watercraft in the back.

A long time since I was involved in the process but don't think there is anything about preventing strikes but rather minimizing damage when they do happen. And if designed, installed, and maintained properly they usually do the job.

Years back we had a High School Student killed by a strike and she was definitely in the cone of protection of the system on the school building she was standing beside. Thus the term "Usually".


Frankly

[franksingleton]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

The lightning rods do a completely different job than the lightning prevention devices (should say “strike reduction devices?). That said, before installing one of those brushes, you must first ground the base of the mast with a heavy cable going straight down (no sharp bends or lightning may jump off the conductor and burn a hole in the hull) to an underwater bonding plate. This provides the safe path in case you get a strike, and it grounds the brush so that it can try to dissipate the electric field enough to avoid the strike.

Almost everybody telling about strikes despite having the brush gadgets have failed to provide that safe path or even properly ground the brush.

That is not how I understand the Lightningmadter works. The mast has to be earthed but not necessarily with a massive wire. It can be to the engine block or to a sacrificial anode. The principle is that it allows the charge to leak away and, so, not build up a charge at the masthead and so reduce the chance of a strike. On a yacht, the lightning rod principle is a bad idea. You do not want a strike to b;ow a hole in the bottom of the boat. The idea of trailing chains over the side is untenable in the average yacht. I have yet to see a better solution than the LM although I agree that may well not give 100% protection.
Does anyone know of a yacht with an LM that has been damaged by lightning?

[team karst]

Originally Posted by franksingleton

.

Does anyone know of a yacht with an LM that has been damaged by lightning?

Ive seen a pix of a melted LM.

[team karst]

NASA doesn’t seem interested in playing with fuzzballs when billions are on the line.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy...ain_LPS-08.pdf

Pretty much the idea being to divert strike energy from something important, and send it to ground. Also done in electrical substations and transmission lines.

[Galumay]

Originally Posted by team karst

NASA doesn’t seem interested in playing with fuzzballs when billions are on the line.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy...ain_LPS-08.pdf

Pretty much the idea being to divert strike energy from something important, and send it to ground. Also done in electrical substations and transmission lines.

Not really relevant to the boating scene though, unless you can convince several friends with yachts with higher masts than yours to sail in a group surrounding your boat where ever you go!