Lightning Protection, pros and cons

[Cpt Pat]

Originally Posted by Wotname

I have heard this before but I can't understand why it is stated. As far as I can tell with regards to lightning mitigation, having multiple grounds isn't an issue but I would welcome a rational explanation of the reasons supporting this statement.


Well here is an opinion (sorry ), masthead protection doesn't offer much (any?) protection from EMR but can offer protection from blowing holes in the hull - as you stated.

Much easier to replace electronics items than getting a new hull...

Side-strikes and ground loops.


In broadcast transmitter sites, it was learned long ago that all grounding connections should go to a "common ground" point. Otherwise, voltage differentials between protected systems will develop (ground loops) that can result in arcing between those systems (side strikes).


The misunderstanding here is: you can have multiple connections to ground FROM the common ground point. So: all protected systems should "fan into" a common ground point, but it is permissible to "fan out" from that point to multiple grounding terminations.


Relatedly, you should never share ground (negative) leads to the common ground between loads. Each negative wire needs its own return to common ground. Violate that rules, and you'll have troubleshooting woes that will cause you to tear out all your hair. And if you turn on your 40 amp searchlight, and the ground current flows through the 18 AWG shared ground wires for your navigation lights, you'll get smoke. So, never interconnect or share grounds - bring them all back to your common ground point. One appropriately sized ground wire for every load.

[wilkc]

Here is a link to a lightning protection device for marine application.

It dissipates the water with opposite charge so no leaders can form in the first place.

https://www.empdefense.us/maritime-l...ng-protection/

I would want something like this on my boat, just in case.

[mako]

Is there any reason why a steel hulled vessel should have a lightning dissipator also installed atop the mast?

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by makobuilders

Is there any reason why a steel hulled vessel should have a lightning dissipator also installed atop the mast?

There are differing opinions as to whether any vessel should have a lightning dissipater on the top of the mast. You have to take the effectiveness of such devices by faith because the science is lacking.

However the purpose is to dissipate static so that the vessel does not appear to be a good source of ground, or some sort of mumbo jumbo, in my opinion. So a steel boat, which should be a great source of ground, an excellent path for lightning, might need a dissipater more than another boat with less contact to the water. It's all just theory.

Buy one and become a believer.

[Cyrus Safdari]

There is no such thing as lightning protection. Nothing will dissuade or prevent it. Nothing will minimize damage. Much of the claimed methods will actually make things worse. Bronze plate on hull? Great until it gets superhot and blows a hole in your keel. The bolts holding it will alone cook surrounding fiberglass. Chain or wire thrown over side? Lighting jumps around. There is no accounting for it. There is just too much energy. It will fuse engine bearings.

Lightning myth is that it follows path of least resistance. Sure but only after trying out all other paths.

Anecdotal claims are many none are reliable. Best thing to do is not get hit. That's all.

[mako]

Originally Posted by wingssail

There are differing opinions as to whether any vessel should have a lightning dissipater on the top of the mast. You have to take the effectiveness of such devices by faith because the science is lacking.

Any idea what are the statistics (roughly) of metal versus non-metal vessels being hit?

[GordMay]

Greetings and welcome aboard the CF, wilkc.
The idea of absorbing and draining excess charges into the ground, to eliminate upward streamers is (IMO) pure bunkum.

[motion30]

Sv katy did. was the boat that burned to the waterline the Saturday before last on the west coast of Florida. I know the girl who owned it. she was a full-time live aboard and lost everything. as a live-aboard myself it certainly has given me something to think about

[richardlittle45]

What I am reading is that it might be better to do nothing, unless your boat has fully grounded mast with underwater grounding plate installed, which I believe is required of all European made sail boats.

Mine was made in the US without such grounding, so the only practical thing it looks like I could do is the battery cables attached to a shroud and the hanging over the side. However, some of you are saying that may actually increase the risk of a hit and would do little to protect if hit. On balance, am I reading correctly that I should just set sail and try to avoid the lightning storms if possible. I am sailing from Hawaii to Seattle in September, arcing up toward the Gulf of Alaska (although route hasn't been finalized yet, weather pending).

I welcome summarizing thoughts!!

[Cyrus Safdari]

Statistically you have MUCH MORE to be concerned about with drunks, inattentiveness, fire caused by more mundane reasons etc than lightning strike.

Coast Guard statistics kept for years show the first two are the major source of problems.
People worry too much about things they have least control over; not enough about things they do control

irrational fear of lightning is much like irrational fear of sharks. That someone somewhere was bitten becomes "proof" of danger of swimming at the beach while ignoring much higher dangers of just the drive to the beach itself.

[Cyrus Safdari]

Originally Posted by richardlittle45

What I am reading is that it might be better to do nothing, unless your boat has fully grounded mast with underwater grounding plate installed, which I believe is required of all European made sail boats.

Assuming so, what happens to the grounding plate and bolts when millions of amps turn it red hot? Boom. Burn. Cook fiberglass make it brittle. Then glug glug...

European boats have less restrictive rules on propane lockers. Now THAT IS something to worry about, and which actually CAN BE addressed. Should be far more concerned about that than highly unlikely lightning strike

[flyingfin]

If you have the $$$$ you can prevent damage, look how these buildings in Chicago solved the problem

https://stormhighway.com/lightning_s...ears_tower.php

[kivanc]

Originally Posted by Cyrus Safdari

There is no such thing as lightning protection. Nothing will dissuade or prevent it. Nothing will minimize damage. Much of the claimed methods will actually make things worse. Bronze plate on hull? Great until it gets superhot and blows a hole in your keel. The bolts holding it will alone cook surrounding fiberglass. Chain or wire thrown over side? Lighting jumps around. There is no accounting for it. There is just too much energy. It will fuse engine bearings.

Lightning myth is that it follows path of least resistance. Sure but only after trying out all other paths.

Anecdotal claims are many none are reliable. Best thing to do is not get hit. That's all.

In fact there is a lightning prevention solution which has been used on over 1300 sites for the past 12 years with 100% success. This solution has also been applied on over 100 boats for the past 3 years with 100% success.

And now the same solution is delivered with 100% money paybak guarantee which is the first time ever in lightning protection industry.

I cannot write down the name as an employee of the manufacturer because last time when I did, I was banned from the forum.

The only thing that I can say is there is a lightning prevention solution and there is no point of praying and waiting for the strikes to hit somewhere else. Anybody who wants to see the link can send me a message.

Regards,

KK

[sanibel sailor]

I don't imagine that you are a disinterested party without financial interest.
1300 in 12 years. That's only 2 a week. Hasn't exactly been wildly popular. Moneybak (sic) guarantee is for purchase price or does that cover any damage that occurs as a result of the device's failure to prevent a strike. Financial reserves of a company selling only 100 of these a year to be able to back up a claim would be worth looking into.

[kivanc]

Originally Posted by sanibel sailor

I don't imagine that you are a disinterested party without financial interest.
1300 in 12 years. That's only 2 a week. Hasn't exactly been wildly popular. Moneybak (sic) guarantee is for purchase price or does that cover any damage that occurs as a result of the device's failure to prevent a strike. Financial reserves of a company selling only 100 of these a year to be able to back up a claim would be worth looking into.

What you are referring to is called insurance, not a guarantee. And it comes with annual payments for the policy. This product does not require any additional annual fees such as maintenance or any other. If you are willing to pay annual "maintenance" fees, we can extend the "guarantee" covering any loss due to lightning for sure.

Regards,
KK