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