Mike, thank you for following up on my comment to an earlier newsletter on this topic.

If I understand correctly, the "Franklin" lightning rod is a simple vertical rod, placed at roof corners as well as frequent intervalls along the ridge of a building.

Again, if I understand correctly, these other systems rely upon a single rod of some sort, mounted substantially higher than the building. It is claimed that these fancy, expensive rods protect an 'area' because of their height - thus the installation is cheaper since there is only one rod, rather than the dozens that might be required in a conventional layout.

Looking at the supplied pictures, it appears that lightning has an affinity for sharp corners of buildings, rather than the center of the roof. Perhaos this is why the designers of the 'magic rods' so strongly favor fiercely spiked and pointed designs.

Personally, I am impressed at the buildings that seem to have suffered multiple strikes with so little damage. Losing a few bricks is pretty minor when a lightning bolt so often will split a huge tree into fragments, then set those fragments ablaze.

Interesting. I also have a story. Most of you are probably familiar with an NFPA publication called ‘NEC Plus’ that discusses NEC related issues and also provides short notes on new products, usually with a link to the manufacturer’s web page for more information. Last summer there was one such item, headlined ‘Charge Dissipation Terminals provide lightning protection’ that caught my eye and I asked the NFPA whether it had changed its position on that technology given that NFPA 780 says:

“1.1.3 This document shall not cover lightning protection system installation requirements for early streamer emission systems or charge dissipation systems.”

and about 8 or 10 years ago, after a great deal of heated debate, had decided not to include requirements for these products into that standard or even a separate one. NFPA’s response was that publishing such items in an NFPA publication did not constitute an endorsement of those products, and said that in the future a note to that effect would be included in the publication. I tried to argue that calling attention in an NFPA publication to a product that had no chance of being certified goes considerably further than not endorsing it, but they stuck to their guns and said that the disclaimer was all that was needed. Thought I’d share this with my colleagues in the electrical industry.