Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!upba!eecae!super.upenn.edu!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!ron From: ron@topaz.rutgers.edu.UUCP Newsgroups: sci.electronics Subject: Re: Lightning Rod Problem Message-ID: <13214@topaz.rutgers.edu> Date: Wed, 8-Jul-87 13:38:14 EDT Article-I.D.: topaz.13214 Posted: Wed Jul 8 13:38:14 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 11-Jul-87 14:53:26 EDT References: <204600003@prism> <616@neoucom.UUCP> <455@sol.ARPA> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 15 > |Since the purpose of a lightning rod is to dissipate static that > |could attract a lightning bolt. It seems that the increased > |surface area of a ball-tipped lightning rod would be helpful. > No. The purpose of a lightning rod is to preferentially attract > lightning. A sharp point does much better at breaking down the > dielectric (air) than a smooth surface. Guess again, Chucko. The lightening rod is designed to disipate static to avoid arcs (bolts). This is why you'll find lightening rods around to avoid lightening in places you are explicitly trying to avoid arcs (like in refeuling areas). There's a wonderful Bureau of Mines saftey film on this subject. -Ron