IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 37, NO.

2, MARCH/APRIL 2001

407

Lightning Protection Methods: An Update and a

Discredited System Vindicated
Donald W. Zipse, Life Fellow, IEEE

AbstractThe end may be near for the 200-year-old method of

using a Franklin rod to collect, control, and convey to earth the
awesome and destructive power of lightning. The side effects of allowing thousands of amperes to flow adjacent to and near computers and sensitive electronic equipment can be considered foolhardy and costly. The Charge Transfer System of preventing lightning strikes to protected areas is a valid concept and will replace
the Franklin rod method in many applications. An IEEE standard
is under development.
Index TermsCharge Transfer System, Dissipation Array
System, Early Streamer Emission, Franklin rod, leader, lightning
strike, lightning stroke.

I. DEFINITION OF TERMS
Isobront: Lines of equal thunder. Lines drawn on a chart connecting places at which the first thunder from a storm was heard
simultaneously were plotted in the late 1870s [1]. Provides a
way of looking at the movement of a thunderstorm over a large
area.
Isochromes: Plots include first thunder, loudest thunder, and
beginning of rain evolved from isobront records [1].
Isceraunic: Means equal thunder and lightning, and refers to
a line or isogram of equal thunderday frequency. Term came into
use in the 1920s and today is usually spelled isokeraunic [1].
Integrated Ground System: A grounding system that establishes a single point ground or earthing system that achieves an
acceptable low resistance ground, and provides for a low surge
impedance path from any point in the system. Often referred to
as a Common Point Grounding (CPG) System [2].
Solar Cycle: Period in which several important kinds of solar
activity repeat themselves. The cycle, lasting about 22 years on
the average, includes two 11-year cycles of sunspots, which display opposite magnetic polarities in alternate cycles, and two
peaks and two declines in each of the various phenomena that
vary in the same period as sunspots. These phenomena include
fluctuations in the frequency of solar prominences and faculae
(bright regions in the photosphere), and of magnetic effects, including the auroras and increased radio interference on Earth.
Discovery of the basic 11-year sunspot cycle, sometimes
also called the solar cycle, was announced by the German amPaper PID 0033, presented at the 1999 IEEE Petroleum and Chemical Industry Technical Conference, San Diego, CA, September 1315, and approved
for publication in the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS by the
Petroleum and Chemical Industry Committee of the IEEE Industry Applications
Society. Manuscript submitted for review September 15, 1999 and released for
publication December 18, 2000.
The author is with Zipse Electrical Engineering, Inc., Wilmington, DE
19803-0052 USA (e-mail: don.zip@ieee.org).
Publisher Item Identifier S 0093-9994(01)02493-8.

ateur astronomer Samuel Heinrich Schwabe in 1843. Since that

time, attempts have been made to connect the solar cycle to a
variety of other phenomena, including possible slight variations
in the diameter of the Sun, sequences of annual growth rings in
trees, and even the rise and fall of the stock market.1
II. INTRODUCTION

VER the past five years, the author has experienced several earthshaking and enlightening changes associated
with the application of lightning protection systems. As the
title indicates, this paper is an update of, and correction to, the
previous paper [3], [15]. It is suggested one read the previous
paper first in order to gain the detailed knowledge that will
be useful in understanding completely, the changes that have
occurred, and will be covered in this paper.
No longer is lightning frequency determined by the isokeraunic level charts. A new, exciting, and exacting lightning stroke
data collection system is now in place.
The point has been raised again over the age-old debate over
whether to use sharp-pointed or blunt lightning rods. New research has been disclosed. The knowledge derived from this information plays an extremely important part in explaining Multipoint Discharge System, or as it is now referred to, the Charge
Transfer System (CTS).
The manufacturers of the Early Streamer Emission (ESE)
enhanced ionizing air terminal lightning collection systems
prepared a standard for acceptance by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). However, information discrediting
the Early Streamer Emission (ESE) lightning system was
distributed to voting members at the door of the NFPAs Annual
Meeting in 1995, resulting in defeat on the floor of the proposed
standard. This resulted in a lawsuit.
No longer is it difficult to obtain information on the theory
and operation of CTSs. The information has been systematically
organized and is readily available. The applications cover a wide
variety of circumstances that are applicable to not only the petroleum and chemical industries, but to almost every conceivable
situation where lightning should be controlled or neutralized.
Since approximately 19923 the theories, formulas, and
method of operation have been developed. The CTS has been
able to withstand the inquisition by those with an open mind.
III. NATURALLY OCCURRING LIGHTNING
A brief review of the storm cloud with its associated electrical
charge will be necessary. This will allow one to follow the logic
119941999

Encyclopdia Britannica

00939994/01$10.00 2001 IEEE

408

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 37, NO. 2, MARCH/APRIL 2001

and be able to reach a conclusion about lightning protection systems that prevent or protect an area from lightning strokes.
A. Storm Cloud
The electrical charged storm cloud ranges in size from 3 to
more than 50 km in length. The air can be charged both in front
of the cloud and behind the cloud. The raindrops carry electrons
to earth resulting in the bottom of the cloud and earth being oppositely charged. In addition, between the ionosphere and earth,
there exists a charge field. The charged cloud, located between
the ionosphere and earth, becomes charged positively at the top,
and negatively charged at the bottom.
There are variations, however. For the purposes of this paper,
we will limit the discussions to the one type of charged cloud;
the positive charged top with the negatively charged bottom.
The charged cloud casts a shadow of a like size on the earth,
driving away the negative charges on the earth. Thus, a strong
electric field is set up between the earth and the bottom of the
electrically charged storm cloud.
The surface of the earth contains a charge of approximately
10 C. An electric field intensity of approximately 0.13
5
kV/m results. When the surface field strength exceeds 1.5 to 2
kV/m, objects with small radii or with sharp points begin point
discharge of ions.
B. Point Discharge
(The following immensely important information is taken
from the previous paper [3], [15].)
The process of point discharge can begin on naturally occurring drops of water within a cloud or on trees, or on a sharp
pointed metal protrusion. When the field strength is sufficient,
electrons are accelerated and collide with gas molecules, ionizing them. This small amount of ionized air is at the tip of the
sharp point or water droplet. The ionizing potential is less than
the kinetic energy and additional electrons are released.
The excessive electrons build up into an electron avalanche
and form a corona discharge. To start this process an initial electron is required. Cosmic-ray activity or radioactive decay can
furnish the initial electron. This action of radioactive decay, ionization, is the basis of the ESE enhanced ionizing air terminal
method of lightning protection.
(The following paragraph is extremely important and is not
new information.)
The ionized air produces an electric current flow that
weakens the electric field. This action occurs when the field
strength is as low as 2 kV/m. Current densities of 10 nA/m
(nanoamperes) have been observed when the electric field
strength is 10 V/m [4]. In 1925, Wilson demonstrated that
these point discharge currents act to limit the strength of the
electric field near the earth and that in the presence of these
currents the strength of the field beneath a widespread storm
should increase with altitude [5]. Point discharge current is
the foundation for the multipoint discharge system.
C. Types of Lightning Discharges
There are four classifications of lightning discharges. They
are as follows.

1) Intra-cloud (IC) discharges: More than 50% of the

lightning flashes occur within the cloud. Since these
discharges usually do not cause any disturbances on
earth, they have lacked the intensive study accorded
the cloud-to-ground (CG) strike. The discharge occurs
between a positive charge within the cloud and a negative
charge cell within the cloud. The time for discharge is
approximately 0.5 s in duration.
2) Cloud-to-cloud: A few flashes start within the cloud and
end either in an adjacent cloud or in the air. When two adjacent clouds are oppositely charged, one positively and
the other negatively charged, a typical cloud-to-cloud discharge occurs.
3) Cloud-to-air: Long cloud-to-air discharges sometimes
are referred to as rocket lightning. The progression of
the lightning channel occurs in steps of 10 m/s per step.
This type of lightning appears to progress slowly across
the sky.
4) CG: The atmospheric strike is of less concern than the CG
strike. However, it can induce fields and affect changes
in the earth charge location, which can generate adverse
voltages in electrical circuits. Electronic systems can be
protected from lightning discharges [9], [10].
The primary focus will be on the CG strike. Uman [6] has
four categories while Golde [4] has eight types. Golde takes into
account the return stroke. Although the CG strikes are classified into types of lightning flashes, our concern will be with the
generic CG strike, which constitute the majority of the strokes.

IV. LIGHTNING SYSTEMS CLASSIFICATIONS

Lightning protection systems can be classified into the following two classifications:
1) collection of lightning strokes;
2) prevention of lightning strokes.
The Franklin rod is considered a collector, as it is the termination for a lightning strike in the vicinity.
The ESE is also considered to be a collector, because it extends the upward leader by the insertion of radioactive material
in the tip or by design of the end of the rod.
The CTS is a combination collector and preventor since it
prevents the termination of a downward leader and prevents
the upward streamer of either polarity from forming. Should
the design of the CTS generate a space charge that is less
than the charge on the downward leader, the CTS reverts to a
Franklin-rod-type collector.

V. CTSs
A. In The Beginning
In 1930, J. M. Cage, a southern California oil-field worker,
patented a multipoint discharge system to prevent lightning
strokes. In 1971, a prototype was designed and the application
of this concept began to be marketed. In the early years,
19711976, systems were installed at several sites, including
NASA.

ZIPSE: LIGHTNING PROTECTION METHODS

Fig. 1.

409

Typical ion ionizer.

This prompted extensive investigations of the multipoint discharge system. J. Hughes organized the first investigation, Review of Lightning Protection Technology for Tall Structures,
which was held at the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Flight Center
in Clear Lake City (Houston), TX, on November 6, 1976. The
agenda had R. B. Carpenter, Jr., presenting 170 System Years
of Lightning Prevention [7]. Twelve distinguished experts presented a different view of the efficiency of the multipoint discharge system. More than 250 pages of discussion are contained
in the report.
It is the authors opinion that the problem at that time was that
Mr. Carpenter did not know how the Dissipation Array functioned, nor had the theory been developed adequately. His responses to questions were not logical and did not make sense.
Thus, the inquisitors were quite correct in the conclusions they
drew at that time.
B. Equipment
The CTS consists of three elements: 1) the Ionizer or dissipater (see Fig. 1); 2) the ground current collector; and 3) the
conductors connecting the dissipater and the ground current collector [8].
1) Ionizer: The Ionizer consists of spiked wire, similar to
barbed wire, either strung across rooftops like barbed wire or
wound on a form. There are many shapes and forms for the
Ionizer. One common form is shaped like a beach umbrella with
the spikes closely wound around the top (see Fig. 1).
2) Ground Current Collector: Extensive testing of the
soil resistivity is conducted before a system is installed. The
earthing method used varies depending on the soil conditions.
At one time, the earthing system consisted of ground rods about
1-m long (40 in). The ground rods are spaced about 10 m (33 ft)
apart. Chemical ground rods were used sometimes, depending
on the soil resistivity. If available, other grounding objects
were interconnected, such as utility systems, building electrical
ground systems, etc. The object was to have an extremely low
earth resistance connection (see Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Typical ground-collecting grid.

In July 1997, details of the current method for achieving a

lowresistance connection to earth were published [2]. Chemically activated grounding electrodes are used that meet ANSIC33.8 standard and are listed under UL 467J standard. Where
high-resistance soils are encountered, a low-resistance fill that is
highly electrically conductive, retains moisture, has long-term
stability with a low expansion factor, and has a low freezing
point is used around the chemically activated grounding electrodes to achieve the required low resistance to earth value.
As detailed in the Green Book, IEEE Standard 142, the
grounding system recognizes the sphere of influence of a
grounding electrode. The spacing between the buried chemically activated grounding electrodes is 2.2 the depth. With
this spacing requirement, there is no overlapping of the sphere
of influence of a chemically activated grounding electrode with
any other adjacent ground electrode.
may be estiThe resistance of any grounding electrode
mated from
(in English units)

(1)

where
soil resistivity in ohm-meters;
electrode length in feet;
electrode diameter in inches.
The calculation for the number of rods required is
(2)

410

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 37, NO. 2, MARCH/APRIL 2001

where
resistance of a grounding electrode;
combining factor;
desired earth resistance;
number of rods required.
3) Conductor: Previously, the earthing connection was connected to the ionizer by conductors buried 25 cm (9.8 in) deep.
However, presently a unique method is used to interconnect the
chemically activated grounding electrode system.
A thin-wall soft copper tubing of at least 1.27 cm (1/2 in)
diameter, consisting of 99% pure copper, or 4/0 AWG bare
stranded conductor is used to connect together the chemically
activated grounding electrode system. The electrodes are
connected together in a single point connection to achieve a
common point grounding (CPG) system.
In addition, all connections are to be brazed, silver soldered,
or chemically welded together. The object is to achieve 5 resistance to earth or, if required, lower.
The copper tubing or the 4/0 AWG bare copper conductor is
to be buried at least 25 cm (10 in) nor more than 40 cm (16 in)
below grade. In areas where the earth can freeze, deeper depth
is desired.
Since a single-point distribution system is to be utilized, all
runs from each rack of equipment, including surge protective
devices, telephone lines, and all related equipment are to be run
separately. They are to be connected to the single-point ground
within the building.

Until this time, secrecy had been maintained about the

system. Reflecting on the secrecy, it is understandable, considering recognition of this method of lightning protection had not
been forthcoming from lightning experts in the field.
VI. HOW THE CTS FUNCTIONS
A. Multipoint Discharge System
As has been pointed out in Section III-B, sharp points emit
charged ions. Franklin surmised that a pointed rod should discharge a charged thundercloud. Franklins fallacy was relying
on just one sharp-pointed rod to neutralize the massive charge
in the thundercloud as if many rods could accomplish the task. It
can be shown that a sharp-pointed rod, when connected to earth,
can neutralize the charge generated by a Van de Graaff generator. One rod under these conditions (extremely high voltage
and low-impedance ground path and short distance), can load
it up to the stall point, from the excessive flow of ions emitted
from the single sharp-pointed rod.
One must agree that a sharp-pointed rod can emit charged
ions. If we develop a method for many sharp-pointed rods to
emit many ions, those ions will reduce the electric field near the
emitted ions and produce a charged space cloud.
Drabkin reminds us that: It is important to note that there is
no (continuous) current flow in a streamer until strike termination. A nonconductor such as wood, stone and even a body of
water (a wave) can initiate a streamer and collect a strike. Photographic history proves this true. [11]

C. Original Theory

B. Sharp Point Transfers Charge

From the writings, advertisements, and the NASA report, it is

thought that R. B. Carpenter, Jr., took a page out of Franklins
notebook. Franklin thought sharp rods, by emitting ions, would
neutralize the thundercloud overhead. Naturally, a single rod, or
even several rods, could not put out enough ions to neutralize the
charge in a thundercloud. However, the Dissipation Array, as it
was known in the 1970s, even though it had hundreds of sharp
points, was insufficient to neutralize a cloud overhead.
The confusing thing was that the installations, reported by
Carpenter, worked. This gave the manufacturer the confidence
he needed, and enforced his determination to succeed. Lightning
was prevented from striking the area under protection by the
multiplicity of sharp-pointed projections of wire.
What did not make any sense was the idea that ions would
migrate up to the thundercloud. With the movement of the cloud
and the slow movement of the ions, the thundercloud would
have passed before any charge would have reached it.

The sharp points are discharging ions of opposite charge from

the bottom of the cloud overhead. At this point, the leader has
not developed. Using the electric field of the charged cloud overhead, a slow and continuous point discharge of charged ions will
take place from any sharp point.
Each sharp-pointed rod has a limit to the amount of current
it can discharge into the surrounding atmosphere. Laboratory
experiments show that sharp-pointed rods emit ions that form
corona around the ends of the sharp points. In addition, the
charged ions build up a space charged cloud above the emitters. Images of these space charges have been captured by cameras. Space charge is a phenomenon recognized by other experts
in the field. For additional information on space charge, consult
[6].

D. NFPA Position
At the same time, the manufacturer of the ESE was requesting
the NFPA to develop a standard for the ESE, R. B. Carpenter,
Jr., requested development of a standard for the Multipoint Discharge System. The NFPAs Standards Council approved the
ESE and rejected the Dissipation Array System. The Standards
Council stated the Multipoint Discharge System of lightning
protection method was unproven, lacking any substantial technical reports, and suggested he perform experiments proving the
system worked.

C. Strike Risk Assessment

Although strike risk assessment is not an exacting science, as
experience and applications increase the accuracy will increase.
The occurrence of just one strike to an area indicated there is a
risk of additional strikes over the ensuing years. It is estimated
that at least 22 years of history will improve the accuracy of
assigning the risk to an area.
Risk assessment is a function of the isokeraunic number, the
structure height and size, the surroundings, and the storm patterns. Since the flash density contour maps lack the 22 years
of history for maximum reliability, but have surpassed the minimum of the five-year requirement for minimum reliability, one
could use the flash density contour maps. One could also rely

ZIPSE: LIGHTNING PROTECTION METHODS

411

on the isokeraunic maps, which correspond closely to the flash

density contour maps.
D. Design of the Charge Transfer Array
It has been determined that the lightning leader contains a
charge. If the area under the approaching leader can produce
a space charge equal to the charge contained in the leader, the
charge in the leader will be neutralized.
E. Pre-Strike Situation
In the pre-strike situation, the voltage between the cloud and
earth is greater than 30 kV/m, and the earth reflects the charged
cloud above. The thunderclouds shadow on the earth is positively charged. Sharp points such as pine-tree needles or blades
of grass may be in point discharge, discharging positive ions.
The correctly designed CTS, with its multitude of sharp
points, which are slowly and constantly discharging ions, builds
a space charge above the ion emitters. A recorder on a 20-m
pole with four sets of three points indicated a current flow of
500 A, with no lightning in the immediate area. As the storm
approaches, with distant lightning, the level of dissipation
current rises to 1000 A or greater. The ionization current
increases as the storm moves in to 2000 A.
F. Calculation of Necessary Space Charge
First, it is necessary to calculate the attraction force between
the downward leader and the upward streamer. The upward
streamers are positively charged, while the downward leaders
are negatively charged. Opposite charges attract. The attractive
force between the tips of the downward leader and the upward
streamer is calculated by Coulombs Law
Kgf

(3)

Fig. 3.

Typical CTS.

Typical charge in the cloud could be 40 A s (C). If the design

were to include protection against a positive stroke, then the
would be greater than 350 C.
Since we are aware of the need for a multiplicity of points,
the equation for the number of ion discharging sharp points in a
pre-strike situation is
(5)
where
number of sharp points;
charge on site;
current per point;
time seconds to recharge between strikes;
efficiency of the system.
Current per point is based on laboratory studies;
A/point. Field tests, under nonstorm conditions,
clear atmosphere, with four sets of three points resulted in 14
A/point. The time between strikes is typically at least 10 s.
Thus, minimum time would be 10 s, which equals the time
necessary for the formation and accumulation of the necessary
charge in the cloud to initiate the next leader.

where
force between the charges;
leader charge in coulombs;
streamer charge in coulombs;
separation distance in meters;
permeability of air.
As the distance between the two unlike charges decreases,
the force pulling of the two charges together increases. This accounts for the decrease in time between leader steps as the leader
approaches the earth. As the charge available on the tip of the
leader increases, the leader will advance in larger steps of distance as it approaches the earth.
The next calculation determines that portion of the thunderstorm cell charge influencing the protected area
(4)
where
required charge in coulombs;
area to be protected in square meters;
area of the induced cell charge in square meters;
charge in the cloud.

G. Protected Zone
The object is to prevent the formation of upward streamers
and to prevent the termination of the downward leader. As the
leader approaches the earth, in discrete steps of 10260 m, the
steps increase as the leader nears the earth and the force increases. At the same time, an ion space-charge cloud has been
developing over the protected area, i.e., in (4). This ion
space-charge cloud is above the Ionizer array and forms the
lower boundary (see Fig. 3).
from (3), forms a very
The large ion space-charge cloud,
strong force attraction with the downward leader, attracting the
leader to the space cloud. The two unlike charges, the negative leader and the positive ion space-charge cloud meet and the
space charge equalizes an equivalent amount of charge in the
leader, thus neutralizing each other.
There is the case where the positive charge in the spacecharge cloud is insufficient to discharge the total charge in the
downward leader. Then the space-charge cloud discharges an
equal portion of the charge contained on the downward leader,
and the downward leader will then contain the remaining unequalized charge.

412

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 37, NO. 2, MARCH/APRIL 2001

H. Prior to the Strike

B. Inadequate Calculations

Just before a strike, the electric field increases and the CTS increases its output of ions. In fact, field measurements concluded
that the array could put out 10 A for less than 100 s.
There is the space-charge cloud that has slowly and constantly
been building up. In addition, at the last moment, as the leader
approaches, an additional reactive charge is dissipated into the
air to supply the necessary charge to complete the neutralization process. This instantaneous flow of current is of sufficient
current magnitude to expand a braided conductor. Thus, should
a person inspect the expanded braid, an incorrect conclusion
could be drawn that the array was struck since the braid was
expanded.
When this sudden large current flow occurs, the tips of the
sharp points go into a glow condition. Glowing charged particles
can be sloughed off the tips.

In the beginning, the calculation lacked the refinement needed

to determine the exact number of sharp pointed ion emitters required to develop an adequate space charge cloud. Thus, the
Multipoint Discharge System functioned when the leader was
lightly charged, however, when a leader with a large charge appeared, the resultant space cloud was inadequate and the array
became the termination for the leader.
Reports of CTS installations becoming the termination point
for a downward leader are no doubt accurate. As explained
above, there is this possibility. However, in the case where
the leaders charge exceeds the charge contained in the space
charge, the ionizer acts as a Franklin rod, and the result is the
same as if a Franklin rod had been installed.

I. Installations
The proof of the success of the CTSs is in the number of installations worldwide that have been made without incident or
lightning hitting the protected area according to R. B. Carpenter,
Jr. The major installations appear to have been made outside of
the U.S. The continued use of the Franklin rod that attracts lightning causes transients, and the resistance of users to try something only 30 years old, as compared to the 225 years for the
Franklin rod attractive type, confirms the opposition to something new.
More than 33 installations have been made in oil facilities
worldwide. Approximately 19 000 system-years of performance
history has been accumulated to date (1998). A system-year
is defined as an array installed for a year. At the Federal Express facility in Memphis, TN, there are 270 systems protecting
the total facility. Thus, each year, another 270 system-years are
added to the total. Since the installation at the Federal Express
facility, there has been no knowledge of any lightning strikes terminating within the area. It is estimated in the U.S. alone, this
year (1998), approximately 150200 systems were installed according to P. Carpenter.
VII. RESOLVING THE CONTROVERSIES
Since the appearance of the CTS, incorrect statements have
been made. As with most controversies, there is the other side.
The converse of the following controversies can be found in the
previous paper [3], [15].
A. Initial InstallationsFailure to Function
Initially, installations were made on radio and television
transmission towers. The array was inadequately sized, due
to the limitations of the physical capabilities of the towers to
carry the load of the correct size Multipoint Discharge Array
equipment, in heavy wind. Depending on the charge on the
leader, the leader was not adequately discharged and lightning
strikes to the array occurred. Alternative methods of protection
towers have been developed, such as the installation of the
barbed wire array on the guy wires, which affords more ion
emitters per tower.

C. Incorrect Theory
It was initially thought that the Multipoint Discharge System
neutralized the storm clouds overhead. However, when the distance of the cloud overhead was taken into consideration, and
the speed of ion movement which is slow compared to the movement of the leader or even the cloud, the cloud would have
moved away before any emitted ions would have reached the
cloud. Even with the numerous sharp points on the arrays, an
insufficient number of ions would have been emitted from the
arrays to neutralize the storm cloud overhead. However, installations were working and a theory was demanded by others.
Today, there are photographs of the charged space cloud, and
the charged space cloud is a recognized phenomenon. Thus, the
correct theory is now in place. Golde details space charge in [4].
The rejection of the request to develop a standard on the Dissipation Array System by the NFPA resulted in extensive testing
of the CTS, and the hiring of M. M. Drabkin, an expert in mathematics and lightning. The veil of secrecy was lifted, and a flood
of technical papers and test results ensued.
D. Why Are the Sharp-Needled Pine Trees Struck?
The question that is usually raised by skeptics is, Why are the
sharp-needled pine trees in a forest struck? The sharp needles
should, according to the theory, emit ions and generate a charged
space cloud overhead. Therefore, the pine forest should protect
itself from lightning strikes.
One only needs to stop and recognize the difference between
the multiplicity of closely spaced sharp conductive points on an
ionizer array and compare it to the disorganized, poorly conductive, less than sharp points of the pine tree.
In addition, the wet external bark of the pine tree, combined
with its internal sap, does not compare to the low resistance
copper tubing or 4/0 bare copper conductor in the ability to
transfer the collective electric charge to the sharp points of the
ionizer.
If the above comparison and facts are insufficient, compare
the extensive low resistance of the earth grounding electrode
system of the CTS installation with that of the pine tree, or
any other trees root system. There is insufficient conductivity
within the root system, the external bark and internal sap
system to collect the necessary amount of charge, and transfer
the charge to the dull pointed pine needles.

ZIPSE: LIGHTNING PROTECTION METHODS

The above reasons explain why pointed pine needle trees are
struck by lightning during a lightning storm.
E. Federal Aviation Agency ExperimentUnsubstantiated
ClaimArray Struck
As reported in the previous paper, the Federal Aviation
Agency (FAA) conducted a test on two Multipoint Discharge
System manufacturers equipment at airports in FL. As described previously, for the CTS to function, an extensive ground
system must be installed, not the one or two driven ground rods
normally found. The test required the manufacturers to use the
existing ground systems.
It was reported that several sharp points were missing. This is
understandable as the main support wire is 0.1 in., and the cross
wire that is later bent and sharpened is 0.05 in. These two wires
are spot-welded. Too much spot-weld current and the spot will
be burnt, while too little welding current will result in premature
failure. A typical array contains 4 000 points. It is not unusual to
have during assembly 1015 points break off. This is insufficient
to cause any problem with the array function, as this loss is taken
into account in the design phase.
At the FAA test site, the remaining points did not show
any signs of burning, as if having been exposed to a lightning
strike where melting would have occurred. There were no
melting/burn marks on any part of the installed arrays.
It has been reported that the tests were discontinued because
of political pressure applied to representatives in congress and,
thus, to the FAA.
F. Federal Aviation Agency Experiment TestSparks Reported
At high current flow, the sharp points go into a glow and sputtering or sizzling condition. Sparks are emitted. This is due to
the high resistance between the tip of the sharp point and the
air. With all this activity, there are no signs of burning to the
discharge point.
It is believed it was this phenomenon that was observed from
the control cab of the FAA. It is possible that a lightning leader
did approach the tower and was neutralized by the array, or a
nearby motel was struck.
G. Preliminary Validation
J. Hill, current Vice Chair and General Program Chair of the
PCIC, after he read the draft of this paper, suggested North
American Lightning Detection Network (NALDN) information
might offer proof of the effectiveness of the CTS. The most extensive application of the CTS was made at the Federal Express
Facility at the Memphis Airport. This suggestion was acted on,
and a flash density map and a plot of lightning strokes were obtained for the Memphis Airport area.
The flash density map consists of a 12-km square map, divided into 2-km squares. In the approximate center of the map
is a star indicating the Memphis Airport.
Except for two 2-km squares, the map is colored orange, indicating a Flash Density of 24 flashes/km /yr. Thus, except
for the two squares, the map indicates a uniform flash density.
Ninety-four percent of the area has the same flash density.

413

The 2-km square at the extreme northeast corner is colored

red, indicating 816 flashes/km /yr. The other 2-km square is
located on the west side of the airport, and has a flash density
of only 24 flashes/km /yr. The location of the Federal Express
facility is northeast of the Memphis airport, and diagonally opposite the 24 flashes/km /yr 2-km square. What is responsible
for the apparent aberrance is believed to be the 2 km accuracy.
There is a distinctive lack of any strikes to the area, which would
be expected if the CTS were in use, which it is at the Memphis
Airport.
The Facility Site Analysis (flash density map) is for only
one year, Jan 1, 1998 to Dec 31, 1998, 00:00:00 GMT. However,
the (stroke) point plot map is for four years, 1994 to 1998, and
shows the strokes to the Memphis Airport area. For undeniable
statistical analysis, additional years are required.
VIII. CONCLUSIONS
A. NALDN
The NALDN is no longer experimental, but a proven and
working system of lightning detection and recording of information on the time, location, polarity, and amplitude of each
lightning stroke. The data available provides an historical reference that can be used to confirm lightning strikes, obtain flash
density contour maps and site specific flash density maps for
use in projecting the risk of a lightning stroke. This information is used by the utilities for planning lightning protection installations, and real-time data is used for preparing crews for
outages. As mentioned earlier, the information has been used in
legal cases and upheld in all reviews.
B. Sharp versus Blunt Rods
Consideration should be given to specifying and using
blunt rods, if the old fashion lightning attraction system of
Franklin-type rods is to be used to attract and terminate high
current lightning strokes that can cause secondary damage to
sensitive electronic equipment. The use of any type of attraction
method employing a rod to attract lightning strokes can result
in extensive secondary problems such as: earth and atmospheric
transients; electromagnetic and electrostatic pulses; and bound
charges.
C. Correcting the Previous Paper
The erroneous conclusions reached in the previous paper [3],
[15] on the Multipoint Discharge System, now referred to as the
CTS, have been addressed. Apologies are made for any problems that may have arisen due to the statements made in the
previous paper.
D. CTS
The CTS is a viable system for preventing the termination of
lightning strikes. Both lightning systems have their applications,
even though the end may be near for the 200year old method of
using a Franklin rod to collect, control and convey to earth the
awesome and destructive power of lightning. The side effects
of allowing thousands of As of current to flow adjacent to and

414

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 37, NO. 2, MARCH/APRIL 2001

near computers and sensitive electronic equipment can be considered foolhardy and costly when a less invasive method exists.
However, even with the installation of CTSs, surge suppression
devices should be installed to protect against disturbances from
distant strikes.
The CTS of preventing lightning strikes to protected areas is
a valid concept, and should be utilized to protect any sensitive
area from the destructive power of lightning.
IX. EPILOGUE
The revision of the Standard for the Installation of Lightning Protection Systems, NFPA Standard 780, was accepted at
the NFPAs annual meeting, held in May 2000. The body rejected sending the document back to committee and passed the
7802000 document onto the Standards Council for their acceptance.
At the June 2000 meeting of the NFPAs Standards Council,
the Council declined to publish 780-2000 and announced their
intent to withdrawal NFPA Standard 780-1997, and to terminate the 780 committee at their October 2000 meeting. This
was based on 377 comments received by a review committee.
The conclusions reached by the review committee were that the
Franklin rod lacks scientific and technical merits.
At the October 2000 meeting of the NFPAs Standards
Council, a Decision (Long Form) D#00-30 was issued
postponing any action on NFPAs Standard 780. The Council
desires comments to be submitted addressing the validity of the
Franklin rod by June 15, 2001. The Council will act, without
a hearing, at its July 2001 meeting on the documentation
presented, verifying that the Franklin Rod has scientific and
technical merits. They have postponed taking any action on
Standard 780 until the Councils October 2001 meeting.
On December 7, 2000, the IEEE Standards Board approved a
project, PAR (Project Authorization Request) 1576, to develop
a standard titled, Standard for Lightning Protection System
Using the CTS for Industrial and Commercial Installations.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author appreciates the time J. Cooper spent correcting the
many grammatical errors. He has contributed immensely to the
readability of the paper.
REFERENCES
[1] L. G. Byerly III et al., The measurement and use of lightning ground
flash density, in Proc. Int. Aerospace and Ground Conf. Lightning and
Static Electricity, Williamsburg, VA, Sept. 2628, 1995.
[2] R. B. Carpenter, Jr. et al., Designing for a Low Resistance Earth Interface (Grounding). Boulder, CO: LEC Inc., 1995.
[3] D. W. Zipse, Lightning protection systems: Advantages and disadvantages, in Conf. Rec. IEEE-IAS PCIC, St. Louis, MO, Sept. 13, 1993,
pp. 5164.

[4] R. H. Golde, Lightning. New York: Academic, 1977, vol. 1 and 2.

[5] C. T. R. Wilson, The electric field of a thundercloud and some of its
effects, Proc. Phys. Soc., 1925.
[6] M. A. Uman, The Lightning Discharge. San Diego, CA: Academic,
1987.
[7] R. B. Bent and S. K. Llewellyn, An investigation of the lightning elimination and strike reduction properties of dissipation arraysReview of
lightning protection technology for tall structures, Lyndon B. Johnson
Space Flight Center, Clear Lake City, (Houston), TX, Rep., Nov. 6, 1976.
[8] Lightning strike protection criteria, concepts and configuration, Lightning Eliminators & Consultants, Boulder, CO, Rep. LEC-01-86, 1996.
[9] IEEE Recommended Practice for Powering and Grounding Sensitive
Electronic Equipment (Emerald Book), IEEE Standard 1100-1992,
1992.
[10] O. M. Clark and R. E. Gavender, Lightning protection for microprocessor based electronic systems, in Conf. Rec. 1989 IEEE-IAS PCIC,
pp. 197203.
[11] M. M. Drabkin, Interaction between lightning channel and CTS, in
Conf. Rec. EMC, Seattle, WA, Aug. 1999, pp. 643647.
[12] R. B. Carpenter, Jr. and M. M. Drabkin, Protection against direct lightning strokes by charge transfer system, in Conf. Rec. EMC, Denver,
CO, Aug. 1998, pp. 10951097.
[13] K. L. Cummins et al., A combined TOA/MDF technology upgrade of
the U.S. National Lightning Detection Network, J. Geophys. Res., vol.
103, no. D8, pp. 90359044, Apr. 1998.
[14] V. P. Idone et al., Performance evaluation of the U.S. National Lightning Detection Network in Eastern New York, J. Geophys. Res., vol.
103, no. D8, pp. 90459055, Apr. 1998.
, Lightning protection systems: Advantages and disadvantages,
[15]
IEEE Trans. Ind. Applicat. , vol. 30, pp. 13511361, Sept./Oct. 1994.

Donald W. Zipse (S58M62SM89F94LF97)

graduated from the Williamson Free School
of Mechanical Trades with honors, and
received the electrical engineering degree
from the University of Delaware, Newark.
He was originally with Cutler-Hammer as an Area
Sales Engineer. He then spent 16 years with ICI
America, Inc. in the Central Engineering Department
as a company-wide Electrical Specialist. For the
next 14 years, he was with FMC Corporation in the
Engineering Service organization, functioning as an
Electrical Engineering Consultant, responsible for providing electrical design
of new facilities and consulting service to the total corporation, both chemical
and mechanical groups. He has authored many published technical papers
on such diverse and controversial subjects as unity plus motors, computers,
neutral-to-ground faults, National Electrical Code (NEC) wire tables, health
effects of electrical and magnetic fields, measuring electrical and magnetic
fields, lightning protection systems, the NESC and NEC, and electrical shock
hazard due to stray current. He has also participated on NEC panels and
in teaching the Code. For the last six years, he has been President of Zipse
Electrical Engineering, Inc., Wilmington, DE, a consulting firm. For the past
five years, he has been primarily involved as a Forensic Engineer and Expert
Witness in cases resulting from electrical accidents and electrocutions. He also
serves on the National Electrical Safety Code Grounding Subcommittee.
Mr. Zipse represents the IEEE on the NEC Code Making Panel #14, Hazardous Locations, the Lightning Standard NFPA 780, and is a member of the
International Association of Electrical Inspectors. He has served on many IEEE
committees, participated in the color books and standards groups, including the
Standards Board and the Standards Boards Review Committee. He is a member
of the IEEE Committee On Man And Radiation and Standards Correlating Committee #28, Non-Ionization Radiation. He received the Standards Medallion for
his work in and promoting of standards. He is a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Delaware.