| HEADER | TEXT | DOWNLOAD | SIZE | D | Date |
| The Minaret Incidents at Putrajaya | A recent case study of ESE lightning rod bypasses on a tall thin structure in Malaysia. The ESE rods’ failure to protect objects well within the claimed radius of protection calls into question the validity of the French ESE standard – NFC 17-102. | The Minaret Incidents at Putrajaya | 611 KB | 20101007 | 10/7/10 |
| The Bell Tower Incident at Sigolsheim | An investigation of the failure of an ESE lightning rod installed on a church in eastern France. Lightning struck and damaged a stone cross located at one end of the roof even though an ESE terminal had been installed supposedly to protect the entire church. The authors conclude that the ESE air terminal is incapable of protecting any building from direct lightning strikes. | The Bell Tower Incident at Sigolsheim | 436 KB | 20101007 | 10/7/10 |
| Conventional and Un-conventional Lightning Air Terminals: An Overview by ZA Hartono and I Robiah. |
The paper reviews the development of unconventional air terminals and their evaluation based on theory, laboratory and field study. The authors' extensive field study has found that 80 % of the buildings in Kuala Lumpur that have been installed with the un-conventional air terminals have at least one lightning strike damage on them. | Conventional and Un-conventional Lightning Air Terminals | 1.8 MB | 20060501 | 5/1/06 |
| Fall 2003 - Lightning Protection Lawsuit Backfires | A federal judge has dismissed with prejudice a lawsuit filed by plaintiffs Heary Brothers Lightning Protection, Lightning Preventor of America of Buffalo, NY and National Lightning Protection of Denver, CO against East Coast Lightning Equipment of CT, Thompson Lightning Protection of MN and the Lightning Protection Institute, based in IL. The Order, issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, dismissed all claims against the defendants. The Court also granted summary judgment in favor of defendant, East Coast Lightning Equipment on its counterclaim against the plaintiffs, finding that Heary Brothers/Lightning Preventor of America and National Lightning Protection engaged in false advertising in violation of the Federal Lanham Act. The plaintiffs have indicated that they intend to appeal these rulings. | Lightning Protection Lawsuit Rulings | 20060501 | 5/1/06 | |
| NFPA Rejects DAS/CTS Lightning Protection Systems | At its meeting of 12-14 January 2005, the Standards Council considered the request of Mr. R. Carpenter, Lightning Eliminators & Consultants, requesting that the Council establish a project to address Dissipation Array Systems (DAS), also referred to as Charge Transfer Systems (CTS). The Council has reviewed and denied similar requests on previous occasions. See Council minute items 88-39 (April 1989), 90-29b (October 1991), and 00-61 (July 2000 and January 2002). | Full NFPA Decision | 32 KB | 20050218 | 2/18/05 |
| GAO Evaluates Lightning Protection Systems for Federal Buildings | The objectives of this study were to determine (1) to what extent these selected federal agencies use applicable lightning protection standards to help protection buildings they own from lightning strikes; (2) how these selected federal agencies assess the need for lightning protection systems on their buildings; (3) what practices and lightning protection standards the GSA uses when leasing privately owned buildings; and (4) what data exist related to the financial impact of lightning protection and damage to the federal government. | GAO Report | 201 KB | 20050519 | 5/19/05 |
| International Conference on Lightning Protection Cautions Australian Standards Committee | According to the opinion of the Scientific Committee of ICLP, the introduction of any new method in standards in general (or even an inclusion in an appendix for information) should be avoided until consensuses have been reached on the applicability and validity of the new method. | Opinion of the ICLP on CVM and FIM Methods | 8 KB | 20020908 | 9/8/02 |
| NFPA Upholds NFPA 780, Standard for the Installation of Lightning Protection Systems | This decision concerns the question whether the NFPA should continue its lightning protection project and, in particular, continue to issue NFPA 780, Standard for the Installation of Lightning Protection Systems. The Standards Council decided to take up this question in Standards Council Decision Nos. 00-30 and 00-22. In connection with these decisions, the Council announced in October 2000 that it was giving proponents of NFPA 780 an opportunity to provide substantiation in support of the continued development of the standard. | NFPA Council Decision Concerning Standard 780 | 43 KB | 20011004 | 10/4/01 |
| Report of the Committee on Atmospheric and Space Electricity of the American Geophysical Union | This report examines the seminal literature related to the development and effectiveness of traditional lightning protection technology, and discusses those aspects of the basic science of lightning, which pertain to lightning protection technology. | Scientific Basis for Traditional Lightning Protection Systems | 141 KB | 20010600 | 6/2001 |
| Report of the Federal Interagency Lightning Protection User Group | A review of the scientific development of conventional lightning protection technologies and standards. | Basis of Conventional Lightning Protection Technology | 1.5 MB | 20010600 | 6/2001 |
| Field Study of ESE Air Terminal System Failures in Malaysia | The very high keraunic level in Malaysia makes it an ideal location for the field testing of air terminals. The widespread use of the early streamer emission (ESE) air terminals enable their performance to be studied under real lightning conditions. Lightning strike damage data that would have taken decades to collect in low keraunic regions can be done in a few years only. | Long Term Study of the Performance of Early Streamer Emission Air Terminals | 268 KB | 19990000 | 1999 |
| American Meteorological Society Recognizes NFPA 780 | It is well established that properly installed and maintained conventional lightning protection systems based on Franklin’s methods significantly decrease lightning damage. | AMS Statement on Lightning Protection Systems | 2.62 MB | 20030101 | 1/1/03 |
| Journal of Electrostatics Franklin Rod Studies | The occurrence of physical processes at the tip of a Franklin rod is investigated. | The Franklin Lightning Conductor | 768 KB | 20010101 | 2001 |
| Electricity Today – War of the Lightning Rods | In recent year the marketplace has been flooded with products for alternative lightning protection methods. These include gadgets that claim to eliminate lightning and rods that claim to emit giant early streamers that vastly extend their protective range. | War of the Lightning Rods | 2.6 MB | 20040101 | 2004 |
| US Fire Administration Lightning Fire Findings | Each year, lightning is the cause of an estimated 17,400 fires. Dollar loss per fire is nearly twice that from all US fires. | Lightning Fires | 113 KB | 20010801 | 8/2001 |
| A Critical Review of Nonconventional Approaches to Lightning Protection | Neither data not theory supports claims that ‘lightning elimination” and “early streamer emission” techniques are superior to conventional lightning protection systems. Authored by two University of Florida Professors, published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, December 2002. | Uman and Rakov AMS Article | 3.3 MB | 20021202 | 12/2002 |
| Experimental Validation on Conventional and Non-Conventional Lightning Protection Systems. | Three types of lightning protection systems are in common use today: conventional systems, charge transfer systems, and systems based on early streamer emission air terminals. There is a wealth of empirical data validating the effectiveness of conventional lightning protection systems installed in accordance with recognized standards. Field studies of charge transfer systems show that they do not prevent lightning strikes as has been claimed. Studies of early streamer emission air terminals show that their performance in the field is similar to that of conventional sharp-pointed air terminals, and they do not have a greatly enhanced zone of protection as has been claimed. | IEEE Panel Session Summary | 219 KB | 20030000 | 2003 |
| Validity of the Lightning Elimination Claim | Since 1971 when commercial devices that employ the point-discharge phenomenon were introduced, their manufacturers repeatedly changed their explanation regarding how such devices would eliminate lightning. This was done in response to on-going criticism from the scientific community. The name of those devices was also changed from Lightning Eliminators / Dissipation Arrays (DAS) to Charge Transfer Systems (CTS). This paper summarizes and rebuts both past and present theories that have been proposed by the manufacturers. It also discusses manufacturers’ claim of success and explains why eliminating lightning is still considered to be not feasible. Finally, comments are given regarding the attempts of the manufacturers to get a standard for their devices. | Lightning Elimination Claims | 157 KB | 20030000 | 2003 |