1120 IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 13, No.

4, October 199~

THE APPLICABILITY OF LIGHTNING ELIMINATION DEVICES

TO SUBSTATIONS AND POWER LINES

Abdul M. Mousa, Fellow, IEEE

British Columbia Hydro
Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V3N 4X8

Abstract Unlike the Franklin lightning rod which achieves protection by

- on an evaluation which was quite rigorous. That evaluation was based on both
providing a sacrificial point for the termination of lightning flashes, special theoretical and field studies which were commissioned by the Office of Naval
devices employing the point-discharge phenomenon have been marketed Research, the US Air Force, NASA (National Aeronautics and Space
since the early 1970’s with the objective of eliminating lightning strikes. The Administration) and FAA (Federal Aviation Administration). Results of that
application of those devices has been mostly limited to communication evaluation were presented discussed during a conference which was held on 6
towers and other tall structures, with the manufacturers claiming success and November 1975 (The proceedings were published in 1977.) The invalidity of the
the scientific community expressing strong scepticism. In recent years, the concept of lightning elimination has since been confirmed by other studies.
manufacturers have been attempting to sell those devices to electric utilities However, the existence of a long list of “satisfied customers’ somewhat at odds
for use in substations and on power lines. This paper presents a new theory with the above scientific finding, even though subject lists are rather misleading as
which reconciles the apparent success of such devices in will he shown hereafter, suggests that the subject devices may he succeeding for a
minimizing/eliminating lightning damage to many tall towers with the reason than that postulated by their manufacturers. To assess the applicability of
established scientific position regarding their inability to eliminate lightning. the so-called “lightning elimination devices” to power systems, which is the
This paper also shows that lightning elimination devices would not benefit subject of interest herein, this document presents following:
power lines nor substations. 1. A summary of the findings of the 1975 lightning conference mentioned
above and other field studies which have since been conducted.
Keywords LIGHTNING, LIGHTNING PROTECTION: Dissipation
- 2. A critical review of the lists of “satisfied customers” which
Arrays, Lightning Elimination, ELECTRIC LINES: Lightning being circulated by the manufacturers.
Protection, ELECTRIC SUBSTATIONS: Lightning Protection. 3. A discussion of a possible mechanism through which the subject devices
may have been contributing to protecting some tall structures against lightning.
1. INTRODUCTION
4. A discussion of whether the limited success encountered on tall
The idea of using multiple point discharge to neutralize cloud charges was structures is relevant to the case of substations and power lines.
first suggested by Czech scientist Prokop Divisch in 1754 and has since been But first, a brief description of the commercially available charge
periodically advocated and abandoned (Goldc, [14]). In 1930, that idea was commercial dissipaters is given hereafter; a main point of interest being the
the subject of a patent issued to J.M. Cage of Los Angeles, who applied it in dimensions of such devices:
1. The charge dissipater types presently used by Manufacturer
the form of point-bearing wires suspended from a steel tower to shield
“A”: Figs. 1 A and 113 show the umbrella dissipater which is used for towers up
petroleum storage tanks against lightning (Hughes, [15]). The systematic
to 100 m in height. As an example of the related dimensions, the unit which was
commercialization of the concept started in 1971 by a company which still
used on a 30.5 m (100 ft) tower at the NASA satellite tracking station on Merritt
exists but has since changed its name. That company is referred to hereafter
Island, Florida, was about 6 m in diameter with about 300 m of barbed wire
as Manufacturer “A”, and its first dissipation array installation was
wrapped spirally around the frame of the umbrella (Bent et al., [4]). The barbed
commissioned in November 1972 (Carpenter, [9]). Manufacturer “A” was
wire typically has four points spaced every 7 cm along the wire; the four points
subsequently followed by a few other companies. Devices claimed to he able
are separated by approximately 900 around the wire and are 2 cm long. Fig. IC
to eliminate lightning strikes were originally marketed for use on tall
shows a ball dissipater which is being promoted as a “hybrid terminal which will
communication towers. In recent years, the manufacturers of those devices
prevent most lightning strokes and collect all others”. Fig. ID shows the barbed
started promoting their use on power lines and substations, and they
wire conical array which is used for the taller towers. This is larger at the base
often produce what appears to be an impressive list of satisfied customers.
than at the top by a factor of up to 6:1. The conic array can he used to protect a
On the other hand, the suggestion that lightning can be eliminated has been
ground area rather than a tall structure by installing a dedicated pole in the middle
soundly rejected by the scientific community based
of the subject area and attaching the barbed guy wires to it. For power
PE-144-PWRD-0-12-1997 A paper recommended and approved by
the IEEE Substations Committee of the IEEE Power Engineering
Society for publication in the IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery.
Manuscript submitted March 11, 1997; made available for printing
December 12, 1997.

0885-8977/98/$l0.00 (C) 1997 IEEE

1122

0885-8977/98/$l0.00 (C) 1997 IEEE

1122

lines, the traditional shield wires are replaced by barbed wires as were hoping that the dissipation arrays will work. The reason is that the
shown in Fig. 1 E. In addition to the above configurations, decision to install such devices was prompted by the 21 June 1971
Manufacturer “A” earlier used rigid metallic panels with protruding incident in which the Launcher Umbilical Tower of the Apollo 15 mission
sharp points (panel dissipaters) which are similar to what one might sustained several damaging lightning strikes. Charge dissipaters were
expect in a “fakir’s bed of nails”. The material is conducting and hence installed on four structures, but one of these (the Unified S-Band
typically has 4 cm high sharp points separated by 6 cm (Bent et el [4]). Station) had no history of lightning strikes neither before nor after the
2. Fig. 1F shows a doughnut dissipater built by Manufacturer “B”. installation of dissipation arrays. Hence the results for only the three other
The circular core is a solid stainless steel wire and ranges from 0.75 m structures are given hereafter:
(30”) to 3.6 m (12 ft) in diameter. Extending from the core are a) The 150 meter weather tower: Galvanized steel charge dissipation
hundreds of stainless steel needles ranging in length from 7.5 to 35 cm panels were installed on 21 June 1974 and a temporary ground was
(3 to 14’) (Bell [3]). attached between the panels and the tower ground network. The tower was
3. Figs. 1G, 1H and 1! show a cylindrical dissipater system built struck by lightning next day, 22 June 1974. The installation was
by Manufacturer “C”. This consists of three units installed at or near completed by Manufacturer “A” on 30 June 1974. On 18 July 1974, the
the top of the structure, spaced 1200 from each other, and each having tower was struck twice within a 12 minute period, and the documentation
about 14,000 points. of the strikes included video pictures. The manufacturer then advised
In addition to the above, a fourth manufacturer builds a skinny NASA that the subject dissipation arrays should be considered defective
version of the doughnut dissipater which is shown in Fig. IF, and a because the galvanizing used in manufacturing them was so thick that it
fifth manufacturer markets a panel dissipater (fakir’s bed of nails) blunted the dissipation points. Replacement stainless steel panels were
similar to the device earlier used by manufacturer “A” (Drabkin and installed on 30 July 1974. These were struck by lightning on 20 July 1975
Carpenter, [10]). and 3 October 1975.
It should he noted here that the manufacturers of charge h) Mobile Service Structure LC-39: Four charge dissipation panels
dissipaters usually require that extensive grounding be also installed. were installed on 24 July 1974. Lightning struck the structure on 25 July
For the cylindrical array system of Manufacturer “C”, a typical 1974, 21 August 1974, and 9 May 1975. The latter two incidents were
configuration would be a ring made up of #210 stranded copper wire captured on video pictures.
located outside the footings of the tower by a distance of about 1 ft e) Mobile Service Tower LC-41: Ten stainless steel dissipation
(0.3 m), anchored by six 3/4”x 10 ft (19mm x 3.05 m) copper-clad arrays built by Manufacturer “A” were installed on 26 February 1975.
ground rods, and connected to an 8-arm radial counterpoise made These are believed to have been struck by lightning on 7 June 1975 and 16
up of #l0 solid copper wire and having a length equal to about 1/3 June 1975 (video pictures were not taken).
of the total height of the tower. For the dissipation arrays of By comparing the records of lightning strikes to the subject facilities
Manufacturer “A”, the typical grounding consists of a copper ring before and after installation of the charge dissipaters, Durrett [II]
which encircles the protected site, and is enforced with 1 m long concluded that charge dissipaters have had no significant effect on the
ground rods located at 10 m intervals around the circumference of frequency of lightning strikes to tall structures at Kennedy Space
the ring. For high resistivity soils, Manufacturer “A” promote the use Center.
of salt-leaching rods which it manufactures. . Such a rod consists of 2. Rent et al. [4] report on lightning strikes to a 1200 ft (366 m)
two 3’ (76 mm) hollow copper tubes, one is 3 ft (0.9 m)long and the tall tower situated on an 800 ft hill (244 m) at Eglin Air Force Base in
other is 6 ft (1.8 m)long, forming a T-shape and tilled with a chemical Florida while equipped with charge dissipaters supplied by
which leaches in the ground to reduce soil resistivity in the Manufacturer “A”. The dissipaters were installed on 1 September 1972
surrounding area. According to a testimony letter from Lafayette and suffered two damaging direct lightning hits on 30 September 1972.
Utilities System dated 22 April 1991, those chemical rods were Further lightning damage was discovered on 2 January 1973, 4 June
installed at each of the substations where the charge dissipaters of 1973, 18 June 1973, 29 June 1973, 2 July 1973, and February 1974.
Manufacturer “A” were installed. In addition to the grounding, some That latter event burned the charge dissipater and hence the
charge dissipater manufacturers, especially Manufacturer “A”, also manufacturer replaced it on 22 April 1974. On 21 May 1974, a further
require that surge arresters be added. lightning strike occurred and damage was discovered in the ground
wire of the dissipater within the subsequent few weeks. Mr. W.B.
Evans, who manned the 1200 ft tower for many years, was on hand
2. CAN LIGHTNING BE ELIMINATED? when the dissipater experienced its first lightning hit following
installation. This involved two lightning strikes within about one minute.
2.1 Field Observations The first strike burnt a recorder and the second blew the array series
resistor and capacitor to pieces. Being near the explosion, Mr. Evans’
In every one of the few cases where instrumentation was provided, hand suffered slight burns. Nevertheless, Manufacturer “A” stuck to
indisputable proof was obtained that lightning did strike the towers its claim that lightning did not hit the charge dissipater! The site was
which were equipped with the so-called lightning elimination devices. subsequently instrumented to record lightning strikes by video cameras
Evidence to that effect was also obtained from some un-instrumented and also by magnetic links. Three magnetic link stroke readings of 19 kA,
cases as eye witnesses happened to be on-site at the instant of the 19 kA and 37 kA were recorded at the base of the tower during June and
lightning strike, or the occurrence of the strike was proven by the July 1975 while the tower was equipped with charge dissipaters.
damage it left behind. Consider the following: Photographic evidence of direct lightning strikes to the arrays was
1. The 1974/1975 tests at Kennedy Space Center (Durrett 1111): obtained on 1 May 1975 and 8 June 1975. On 16 May 1976, a photo was
These tests were unique in that they were conducted by persons who also obtained of an upward leader which was induced from the

0885-8977/98/$l0.00 (C) 1997 IEEE

 1123

array by a nearby lightning strike to ground. The combination of expectation that lightning will strike the charge dissipaters, NASA played it
magnetic links and video records gave a total of 10 direct safe by adopting a test setup in which the existing Franklin rods were replaced
lightning strikes during a brief recording period. This by charge dissipaters while retaining the existing down conductors and
indicated that the frequency of lightning strikes remained at grounding system. (The grounding system was even enforced at one site.) The
about 40 events/year, same as it was when Franklin rods were manufacturers of traditional lightning protection systems objected as any
earlier used. positive results from the charge
3. Bent et al [4] reported that lightning struck a charge dissipaters will he partly or mostly due to the contribution from the existing
dissipater at Site C74 of Eglin Air Force Base, florida. The event components of the traditional system. To protect their interest, they formed
occurred during the Spring of 1975 and it was witnessed by two the Coalition Against Noneffective Lightning Protection Technologies
students from the University of Minnesota who were doing (CAN’T) under the direction of Joseph P. Foley. CAN’T enlisted the support
research on corona currents in co-operation with the US Air of Congressman Martin Sabo (Democrat, Minnesota) whose district includes
Force. the headquarters of a Franklin rod system manufacturer. The pressure applied
4. During 1973, Manufacturer “A” supplied and installed an to NASA failed to get NASA to change the test setup. However, they
extensive system of charge dissipaters at NASA’s satellite acknowledged that the test program was not a scientific one and that its scope
tracking station at Rosman, North Carolina. These included panel was limited. Any way, the traffic controllers at Tampa saw a flash of light
arrays, ‘umbrella arrays, and a conical array. Bent et al. [4] report during a storm, heard thunder and observed a shower of sparks drop past the
that lightning damage subsequently occurred during the tower window. A later visit to the rooftop revealed that a part of the charge
months of March, April and July 1974. dissipater array of Manufacturer “A” had disappeared. This led to cancellation
5. Field tests were conducted in 1988 and 1989 by the of further testing and re-installation of’ the earlier Franklin rods. Manufacturer
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to study the performance “A” then claimed that its array was not struck by lightning! To put the matter to
of dissipation arrays and compare them with Franklin rods 121. rest, Professors Uman and Kridcr were commissioned to review the incident as
The tests involved the traffic control towers of three airports in was mentioned above, and they confirmed that the subject charge dissipater
Florida, which were located in a high keraunic level zone: was struck by lightning. Because of the above controversy, FAA decided not to
Orlando, Sarasota and Tampa. Umbrella dissipaters from make their report available to others unless the request is made under the
Manufacturer “A” were deployed at the Tampa Airport, doughnut Freedom of Information Act.
dissipaters from Manufacturer “B” were deployed at Orlando, and 6. Rourk [221 reviewed lightning-related events at nuclear power plants
standard Franklin rods were retained at Sarasota. All three towers for the period 1980 to 1991. One nuclear plant experienced three direct
were instrumented to detect lightning strikes and this included lightning strikes on August 1988. July 1989, and November 1989. Charge
automatically-activated video cameras. On 27 August 1989, the dissipaters were then installed in the hope of preventing further lightning
umbrella dissipater at Tampa received a lightning strike strikes. These did not help and the nuclear power plant was struck again
which caused outages to several systems. World renown by lightning during August 1991, November 1991, and June 1992.
lightning experts, Professors M.A. Uman and E.P. Krider,
were commissioned to examine the test data and they confirmed 2.2 Theoretical and Other Considerations
that the charge dissipater of manufacturer “A” was struck by
lightning. It should be mentioned here that no damage occurred 1. Golde [13] reports after J. Zeleny that the leaves of trees in forests
when a lightning strike to the Franklin rod system of Sarasota constitute a huge natural charge dissipater which is known to glow in the dark
airport occurred on 25 June 1988. This confirmed that equipment (St. Elmo’s fire) during thunderstorms, If charge dissipaters were indeed
outages will not result when the standard Franklin air terminals capable of preventing lightning, then forests would not be struck by lightning
together with grounding and surge protection are properly anti the related fire and damage would not occur. This is contrary to
installed. The above indicated the fallacy of the claim that charge observations and it shows that dissipation arrays cannot prevent lightning.
dissipaters can prevent lightning and hence a decision was made 2. Golde [13] reveals the following errors in the calculations of
on 11 January 1990 to terminate this test project. Manufacturer “A” regarding the magnitude of the total charge dissipated by its
It should be noted here that the 1988-89 tests by NASA arrays: a) They ignore that the field to which the arrays are exposed reverses
generated a controversy (Bishop, [7,2]), which deserves to be polarity. b) They ignore that the high pulses of point discharge currents last
summarized here: only over very short periods. c) In one of its reports to a US Government
The facilities of Federal Express Company in Memphis, agency, it exaggerates the magnitude of point discharge current by a factor of
Tennessey, had no lightning protection whatsoever, and they 50. d) They are based on a corona inception field magnitude which is incorrect.
ended experiencing some ‘lightning damage. Instead of applying e) They ignore that only a fraction of the dissipated charge reaches the base of
a traditional properly designed Franklin rod/shield wire system the cloud and that the rest is blown away by the wind or gets neutralized by
which would have solved their problem, they choose to buy attachment shortly after leaving the source. f) They ignore that replacing a
charge dissipaters from Manufacturer ‘A”. These were installed single rod which is installed at the peak of a tall structure by an array might not
in 1981/1982 and that solved the problem. At that time, Mr. increase the total dissipated charge according to Chalmers’ measurements. g)
Mcartor was Vice President, Operations. In 1987, Mr. Mcartor They ignore that the total charge measured over a whole year from Bergers
became an FAA officer and he recommended charge dissipaters masts did not exceed that of about 5 lightning flashes of average intensity.
to FAA regional managers. This recommendation was opposed 3. Professor Moore [18] points out that Franklin initially thought that his
by the staff of FAA who have been aware of the 1975 tests of proposed rod would prevent lightning, but hastily changed his mind based on
charge dissipaters at Kennedy Space Center anti other facilities. experience and took the now established position that the rod only provides a
Nevertheless, Mr. Mcartor’s decision was carried out. With the sacrificial point for the termination of lightning

0885-8977/98/$l0.00 (C) 1997 IEEE

1124

strikes. As such, the promoters of charge dissipaters are still at the previously had standard lightning rods protecting the area, but we kept
level of Franklin’s first speculations. With lightning being losing electronic sensing equipment when lightning struck it (the gas
unpreventable, Professor Moore then points out that a blunt rod is stack). Since the cone-
expected to be more efficient in collecting lightning flashes, as a rod shaped array was erected above the gas stack, the plant hasn’t had any
with a sharp point(s) tends to protect itself. strikes. We’ve had a few ground surges [a build-up of the positive
4. Risler [21] also points out that the charging rate in storm particles(?)], but they haven’t done any damage.”
clouds is orders of magnitude greater than the 150 mA nominal 3. Cajun Electric Power Cooperative uses a dissipation array on the
discharge current of a dissipation array, considering that the clouds microwave tower of their control center. Their report states (Lowrey, [16]):
overhead regenerate electric fields back to their original value within “We probably averaged six lightning hits a year before. In the last eight
one to four minutes after a flash. Within that four minute period, the years, since the dissipation array system was put in, we’ve only taken a
charge dissipated by the array would total 0.036 coulomb. On the direct hit that affected anything maybe twice,”
other hand, the median charge of a negative lightning flash is 7.5 4. Dixie Electric Membership Corporation has a dissipation array on a
coulomb (l3erger et al, [6]), which is larger by a factor of about 200. 300 ft (91.4 in) combined VHF radio and point-to-point microwave tower.
For a positive flash, the median charge is 80 coulomb [6], which is Their report states (Lowrey, [16]): “The tower was only in service about a
larger by a factor of about 200. Even if we assume that all the year before we had about $100,000 in damage caused by lightning. We put
charge produced by a dissipation array reaches the base of the cloud, in the dissipation array system and although we’ve had some lightning
it is obvious that lightning cannot he prevented by discharging the problems in the building since then, they didn’t involve the tower.” (?)
clouds. 5. A letter from the Guy Gannette Broadcast Co. reports on two
5. Since charge dissipaters cannot neutralize the charge in the towers in Florida (heights: 320 and 490 meters) equipped with doughnut
clouds, their effect is basically the creation of a charge within the gap dissipaters states that “they experienced no damage in 1.5 years but are not
across which the lightning discharge takes place. The laboratory tests sure whether the towers have been struck by lightning”[23].
by Allibone et al. [1] show that the effect of irradiating an air gap on 6. A letter from WPSD TV in Paducah, Kentucky, reports that no
its flashover voltage is rather small (in the range 0.5-10%). It follows damage has been experienced in about 2 years of operating a 91 m
that the effect of charge dissipaters on the incidence of natural tower located on a high point in Illinois while equipped with a
lightning, if any, will also be small. doughnut dissipater [23].
7. A letter from WESC AM/FM of Greenville, South Carolina,
reports that no service interruptions were experienced in 4,5 years of
3. EXPERIENCE WITH OTHER INSTALLATIONS operating a 391 m tower equipped with a doughnut dissipater and located
on Ceasar’s Head Mountain (231.
The field tests reported in Section 2.1, in which charge dissipaters 8. A letter from Florida Power Corp. reports that no damage was
failed to prevent lightning, were conducted on tall towers. Experience experienced on a microwave tower located in Winter Park, Florida during 3
with commercial applications to other installations, mostly years of operation while equipped with a doughnut dissipater
telecommunication towers, has not been as negative. Actually many [23].
such applications produced satisfied customers. Results of
applications to other towers are reviewed herein based on both
published data and on lists of ‘satisfied customers” submitted by 4. A PROPOSED THEORY
Manufacturers “A” and “B” [231. The latter source of information
was in the form of letters from users to the manufacturers, and those Based on the field data and the arguments presented in Sections 2 and 3
letters were presumably solicited by the manufacturers. No attempt above, it is fair to conclude the following:
was made herein to verify the claimed positive experience on 1. There is indisputable proof that the so-called “lightning elimination
communication towers, and the reported observation period was devices” cannot eliminate lightning.
usually too short to draw definitive conclusions. It is possible that 2. There are definitely cases where “lightning elimination devices”
some of the towers which were reported in the users’ letters to he drastically reduced the frequency and extent of the damage which lightning
strike-free have since been struck by lightning. It is also possible that inflicted on the subject facilities before those devices were installed.
some of the statements in those letters were false for one reason or The theory presented hereafter reconciles the above apparent
another. Nevertheless, they are adequate for our purpose herein as contradictions.
they show a trend which is consistent with the theory which is When a cloud-to-cloud or a cloud-to-ground lightning discharge occurs,
presented later in this paper. upward streamers are induced at the peaks of vertical objects in its vicinity.
1. Block [8] was an eyewitness at WDBO broadcast station Such upward streamers are insignificant from the lightning protection point
when its two-tower directional array in Eatonville. Florida, was of view as their current is within a few hundred amperes. However, when
equipped with two 10 ft x 10 ft (3 m x 3m) panel dissipaters. Block conditions are conducive for their development, these upward streamers
reports that the two towers subsequently suffered many lightning reach the base of the clouds and draw subsequent negative strokes, thus
strikes, hut they were successful in minimizing further damage by developing into full fledged upward flashes which has the potential of
careful adjustment of the arc-over balls at the tower bases. causing lightning damage. When upward flashes were first observed on the
2. The report about the performance of the dissipation arrays Empire State Building in New York [17], it was thought that they can only
which were installed on the 725 ft (221 m) gas stack of the occur on very tall structures. However, Berger [5] noted their occurrence
Philadelphia Electric Peachbottom atomic power plant in on very short objects in mountainous terrain. As a result of this and other
Pennsylvania’s Susquchanna Valley states (Eskow, [12]): “We

0885-8977/98/$l0.00 (C) 1997 IEEE

1126

observations, several researchers including A.J. Eriksson, Muller- further have the added advantage of intercepting the downward flashes, which
Hillebrand and Szpor discussed the incidence of lightning flashes strike the sides of tall structures which were earlier discussed by Mousa and
to tall structures in terms of an ‘effective height” which is Srivastava [20]. On the other hand, devices like ball arrays and panel arrays,
different from the actual height. However, the assignment of an which only dissipate ions without significantly modifying
effective height in a given case has been rather arbitrary and little the geometry of the structure will have a negligible effect, if any.
or no justification was given. In 1986, the writer [19] examined Any operator of a telecommunication tower, which is encountering 63
the field observations regarding the incidence of upward flashes flashes per year as in the case discussed above, will he crying for help. If some
to 11 tall structures and concluded that this phenomenon was device could suppress the repeater action of his tower which is responsible for
governed by the altitude (height above mean sea level) of the producing the induced upward flashes, then this would eliminate 90% or more
peak of the structure. Hence, this was proposed as the of his problem. It would then appear to him that the subject device has
definition of the effective height. Additional justification for this eliminated lightning. Needless to say, the natural downward flashes will still
proposal was presented by examining several other relevant continue to happen in the above case. But if their frequency was only about
parameters including variation of conductivity of the air with once every 22 years, then they will hardly be noticeable. If one of such flashes
altitude, variation of velocity of the return stroke along the occurs within the first few months or years of operation, then about another 22
lightning channel, variation of the breakdown gradient of the air years of “peace” will follow regardless of whether a corrective measure is taken
with altitude, and variation of the resistance of the first 1 km or not. This allows the manufacturer the luxury of claiming that “the device
portion of the column of air which an upward discharge has to does prevent lightning hut it needed some fine tuning which he has now
penetrate with altitude of the peak of the structure. The writer provided, and that it will work trouble-free thereafter!”. If both low resistance
[191 also then observed that upward flashes do not occur when grounding and surge suppressers were provided at the time of installing the
the effective height is below about 300 m. charge dissipaters, then even the occasional natural downward flash would not
Below the critical effective height of 300 m, only modest cause damage and hence it would go un-noticed unless the tower was
increases in the frequency of lightning strikes occur with increase instrumented to detect lightning strikes.
in height of the structure. Beyond the 300 m effective height, on The so-called lightning elimination devices fail miserably and the fallacy
the other hand, the frequency of lightning strikes to a structure of the underlying concept gets exposed when their configuration does not
drastically increases with increase in height. The reason is that change the geometry of the tower to one which is significantly less susceptible
the structure starts to act as a “repeater” for all the lightning to the generation of upward flashes. They also fail when applied to a tall
strikes, both cloud-to-cloud and cloud-to-ground which occur structure which is located in a low-altitude area so that its effective height is
within an increasing radius from it. The case of a 30 m high below the critical value of 300 m. This is what happened in the Florida
structure having footings occupying a 1 m2 area and located in a installations which were tested during the famous 1975 and 1989 programs [2,
zone where the keraunic level is 40 was numerically discussed in 4, II, 18, 211. Consider the following:
[191 and the results were found to be approximately as follows: 1. According to [2], the average altitude of the site at Tampa airport is only
Prior to the installation of the structure, the area occupied by about 20 ft (6.1 m), and the height of the tower is 230 ft (70.1 m). Hence the
its footings receives 4x10-6 flashes/year. When the 30 m structure effective height of the tower is only about 76.2 m. This being less than 30() in,
is installed in an area of low altitude so that the effective height is upward flashes do not occur and hence a charge dissipater, regardless of its
below 300 m, the number of flashes funneled through the 1 m2 configuration, will have little or no effect on the incidence of lightning strikes
area occupied by its footings increases to about 4.5x10-2 to the tower.
flashes/year. While this represents a significant increase over the 2. According to [11]. the shape of all the dissipation arrays used on three
value which existed before the tower was installed, the absolute structures at Kennedy Space Center which are discussed in Section 2.1(1) was
value is still very low (once every 22 years). On the other hand, that of fiat panel arrays (fakir’s bed of nails). Fig. 2 shows two of those
if the same tower was located on a high mountain so that its structures as examples. Such dissipaters do not change the effective
effective height allows it to act as a repeater for all the lightning configuration of the structure and hence cannot have an impact on the
flashes occurring within a 1 km area, and if we assume the ratio occurrence of upward flashes. Further, the overall heights of the structures
of cloud flashes to ground flashes to be 4: 1, then the number of shown in Fig. 2 are 427 ft (130.2 m) and 250 ft (76.2 m), respectively. With the
flashes collected by the structure would increase to about 63 per altitude of the subject ocean-side installation being only a few meters, the
year. i.e. more than once per week. effective heights of both structures were less than half the 300 in critical value.
Where the effective height exceeds the 300 m in critical Hence, upward flashes did not occur in the first place. The combination of the
value, a tall structure is not doomed to produce many upward above factors made the above sites the perfect place to demonstrate the
flashes, because its “repeater” action can be weakened or even fallacy of the underlying theory, and that is exactly what happened!
eliminated by changing its needle shape to a geometry which is
resistant to the generation of upward flashes. Some of the designs In the above cases, the relatively high frequency of lightning strikes was
of the charge dissipaters inadvertently accomplish this objective attributable to the excessive ground flash density rather than to the occurrence
by virtue of their shape and not because of the charge they are of upward flashes. In the medium range of effective heights, say 300 to 500 m,
emitting. For example, installing an umbrella which is 6 m in both upward and downward flashes occur in significant numbers. Hence the
diameter on a 30.5 m (100 ft) high tower drastically changes its geometrical shape modification caused by installing an umbrella or conic
previous needle-like geometrical shape which was making it dissipater would produce a noticeable reduction rather than “elimination” of
susceptible to the generation of upward flashes. The guy wires lightning strike incidents. The Cajun Electric Power Cooperative case in item 3
associated with the conic array (Fig. I I)) accomplish the same of Section 3 appears to be an example of such a case. The case of the gas
geometry modification objective in an even better way. They

0885-8977/98/$l0.00 (C) 1997 IEEE

1126

5. CASE OF POWR SYSTEMS

Neither transmission line towers nor substation structures has the

needle -like shape which causes the generation of upward flashes on
tall communication towers. Hence they do not experience upward
flashes and only downward flashes occur. This being the case, and
since none of the charge dissipaters is capable of "eliminating" the
natural downward flashes, such devices are useless where power lines
and substations are concerned. The only exception is any "tall"
communication tower, which may be part of the facilities of a
substation. In the few cases where the introduction of charge
dissipaters improved the lightning performance of a power system
component, such an improvement could have been obtained by
applying traditional shield wires. For example, most utilities build
Fig 2. Configuration of the dissipation arrays used on the distribution lines with neither shield wires nor low resistance
Mobile Service Structures at Kennedy Space Center [11]. grounding. Where the line is not shielded by adjacent buildings and
trees and is located in a high keraunic level area, outages will be
stack of the Peachbottom atomic power plant which is mentioned in item 2 frequent. It is preposterous then to install twin barbed shield wires
of Section 3 also appears to fall in that category even though the reporting together, with low resistance grounding at each tower then suggest
person appears not to understand what is really happening. that the improvement was caused by the ion dissipation of the barbed
Based on the words used by some of the "satisfied customers" wires. Such a case could have been adequately handled at a fraction
themselves, and noting that none of the subject installations was of the cost by installing just a single traditional shield wire plus low
instrumented to ascertain the incidence of direct lightning strikes and that the resistance grounding.
observation periods were short in most cases, it is more appropriate to state
that lightning elimination devices significantly reduced or even eliminated 6. CONCLUSIONS
lightning damage in those cases rather than state that they eliminated
lightning itself. Hence those observations are also in agreement with the 1. Natural downward lightning flashes cannot be prevented.
above theory. 2. The induced upward flashes which occur on structures having
Note that a typical Franklin rod system together with low resistance effective heights (altitude of the peak) of 300 m or more can be
grounding and surge suppressers will prevent damage but the tall structure prevented by modifying the needle -like shape of the structure. Some
will continue to experience the annoying frequent transients associated with charge dissipater designs inadvertently accomplish this and hence
the occurrence of upward flashes. That is one reason why the operators of appear to "eliminate" lightning. Such an effect has little or nothing to
some tall towers felt an improvement when their Franklin rod systems were do with the existence of multiple points on those devices.
replaced by charge dissipaters. In other cases, the improvement mainly 3. Charge dissipaters will have no effect, whether intended or
resulted from the grounding and surge suppression improvements associated inadvertent, on the frequency of lightning strikes to tall towers where
with the new installation. the altitude of the site is such that the effective height of the tower is
Needless to say, such improvements would have materialized if the Franklin less than about 300 m.
rods were retained and only the grounding and the surge protection were 4. Charge dissipaters like ball arrays and panel arrays will have
improved. little or no effect, whether intended or inadvertent, on the frequency
An article by radio consultant Chuck Condron, which was originally of lightning strikes to tall towers because their shape and dimensions
published in Radio Guide magazine and excerpts of which were included in do not significantly reduce the susceptibility of the tower to the
literature distributed by Manufacturer "A", gives a classical example of the generation of upward flashes.
effects of grounding and surge suppression improvements. The article talks 5. Charge dissipaters will have no effect whatsoever on the
of the frequent outages experienced by the transmitter of KMGR-FM, which frequency of lightning strikes to substations and transmission
was located in a rocky area at Lake Mountain when only two towers since such systems do not experience upward flashes.
loosely-installed ground rods were used at the base of the tower, and how
things significantly improved (from about one outage per week to only about Finally, it is hoped that the publication of this paper will
twice per year) when manufacturer "A" replaced these by seven chemical induce an organization which owns suitable tall structures and
leaching rods arranged in a circle and interconnected with 3/4" (19 nun) has adequate R&D funds to test the above theory by
copper wires. The same article states that Kool-FM in Phoenix, Arizona, comparing the lightning incidence to two tall towers; one of
drastically reduced its surge problems by installing surge suppressers built which is equipped with an umbrella array made of barbed wire
by manufacturer "A". while the other is equipped with an umbrella made of plain
wire. The author would be pleased to assist in designing the
details of such tests.

0885-8977/98/$l0.00 (C) 1997 IEEE

1126

REFERENCES [15] Hughes, J. (January 1977). “Introduction”, pp. i-iv of

Review of Lightning Protection ‘Technology for Tall Structures,
[1] Allihone, T.E. (1977). ‘The Long Spark’, Chapter 7 of Golde, R.H. Publication No. AD-A075 449, Office of Naval Research, Arlington,
(Editor), LIGHTNING, Vol. 1, pp. 231-280, Academic Press, London, Virginia.
Britain. 1161 Lowrey, J. (September 1991). “Protecting Substations”,
[2] Anonymous. (31 December 1990). ‘1989 Lightning Rural Electrification, p. 5.
Protection Multipoint Discharge Systems Tests: Orlando, Sarasota & [17] McEachron, K.B. (1939). “Lightning to the Empire State
Tampa, Florida, Federal Aviation Administration, FAATC T16 Power Building”, Journal of the Franklin Institute, Vol. 227, No. 2, pp. 149-
Systems Program, ACN-210 Final Report, 48 pp. Includes a review of 217.
findings by M.A. Uman and E.P. Krider. [18] Moore, C.B. (January 1977). “Study of Behaviour of Sharp
131 Bell, T.E. et a!. (December 1986). ‘Fending off Bolts from the and Blunt Lightning Rods in Strong Electric Fields”, pp. 96-107 of
Blue”, IEEE Spectrum, Vol. 23, No. 12, p. 18. Hughes, J. (Editor), Review of lightning Protection Technology for
[4] Bent, R.B., and Liewellyn, S.K. (January 1977). ‘An Tall Structures, Publication No. AD-A075 449, Office of Naval
Investigation of the Lightning Elimination and Strike Reduction Research, Arlington, Virginia.
Properties of Dissipation Arrays”, pp. 149-241 of Hughes, J. (Editor), [191 Mousa, A.M. (1986). “A Study of the Engineering Model
Review of Lightning Protection Technology for Tall Structures, of Lightning Strokes and its Application to Unshielded Transmission
Publication No. AD-A075 449, Office of Naval research, Arlington, Lines”, Ph.D. Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
Virginia. Canada.
[5] Berger,K. (June 1967). “Novel Observations on Lightning [20] Mousa, A.M., and Srivastava, K.D. (November 1988).
Discharges: Results of Research on Mount San Salvatore”, Journal of the “Shielding Tall Structures Against Direct Lightning Strokes”,
Franklin Institute, Vol. 283, No. 6, pp. 478-525. Proceedings of Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer
[61 Berger, K., Anderson, RB., and Kroninger, H. (July 1975). Engineering, Vancouver, British Columbia, ISSN 0840-7789, pp. 28-
“Parameters of Lightning Flashes”, Electra, No. 41, pp. 23-37. 33.
[7J Bishop, D. (May 1990). “Lightning Devices Undergo Tests at 121] Risler, W.T. (1977). “Lightning Elimination Associates
Florida Airports”, Mobile Radio Technology, pp. 16-26. (LEA) Array on Top of 150 Meter Tower”, pp. 53-63 of Hughes, J.
[81 Block, R.R. (April 1988). “Dissipation Arrays: Do they Work? ”, (Editor), Review of Lightning Protection Technology for Tall
Mobile Radio Technology, pp. 9-14. Structures, Publication No. AD-A075 449, Office of Naval Research,
191 Carpenter, R.B. (1977). “170 System Years of Guaranteed Arlington, Virginia.
Lightning Prevention”, pp. 1-23 of Hughes, J. (Editor), Review of [22] Rourk, Chris. (Sept. 1994). “A review of Lightning-Related
Lightning Protection Technology for Tall Structures, Publication Operating Events at Nuclear Power Plants”, IEEE Trans. on Energy
No. AD-A075 449, Office of Naval Research, Arlington, Virginia. [10] Conversion, Vol.9, Nc). 3, pp. 636-641.
Drabkin, MM., and Carpenter, R.B. (October 1988). [23] Copies of the letters referred to herein are available from
‘Lightning Protection Devices: How Do They Compare?”, Mobile Radio the author upon request.
Technology, pp. 24-32.
[11] Durrett, W.R. (January 1977). “Dissipation Arrays at Abilul M. Mousa (M’79. SM’82, F’95) received the USc. and M.Sc.
Kennedy Space Center”, pp. 24-52 of Hughes, J. (Editor), Review of in Electrical Engineering from Cairo university, Cairo, Egypt, in 1965
Lightning Protection Technology for ‘Tall Structures, Publication and 1971, respectively, and received the Ph.D. in 1986 from the
No. AD-A075 449, Office of Naval Research, Arlington, Virginia. [12] University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. He is Specialist
Eskow, D. (August 1983). “Striking Back at Lightning”, Engineer with the Transmission design Department, British Columbia
Popular Mechanics, pp. 55-57, and 116. Hydro and Power Authority, Burnaby, B.C., Canada. Prior to joining
[13] Golde, R.H. (1977). “The Lightning Protection of Tall B.C. Hydro in May 1978, he was Senior Engineer with the
Structures”, pp. 242-249 of Hughes, J. (Editor), Review of Lightning Department of Power Systems Planning and Research, Teshmont
Protection Technology for Tall Structures, Publication No. AD-A075 Consultants Inc., Winnipeg, Canada. He has published many papers
449, Office of Naval Research, Arlington, Virginia. and discussions on lightning, the safety aspects of power lines, and
[14] Golde, R.H. (1977). “The Lightning Conductor”, Section 4.3 of several other power line design topics. Dr. Mousa is a member of the
Chapter 17 of Lightning, Vol. 2, Academic Press, London, Britain, pp. 567- IEEE Power Engineering Society and is a registered Professional
569. Engineer in the Provinces of Ontario and British Columbia, Canada.

0885-8977/98/$l0.00 (C) 1997 IEEE