Lightening Arester

Are you taking a test, or did you get a new job?

Its not a test. This is supposed to happened in my current project

In all cases of lighting those may take place in the specified area (70000 Sq Meter), the distance between lighting and antenna should be significantly lower than of distance between any point/object on ground and lightning, So height of antenna is crucial, My own conman sense thoughts, may not be fully correct,

Its a safety related matter so you should be talking some expert,And also wait for someone with better experience on subject.

It depends on the structure's shape, radius of your rolling sphere, lightning protection level and class, the type of lightning protection being used, the standards the system is being designed to, material and cross sectional area of the arrester/down conductors etc, etc, etc.

There is no simple 'space them 10 feet high and 10 feet apart' rule anyone here can quote.

I have to provide 70,000 square meter area under LA

Lightning protection is a very specialised field, I would suggest consulting with a local lightning protection supplier as they may be able to offer (cheap) guidance. Alternatively you will need to either hire a consultant or engineer, or buy all the applicable standards and start reading up.

_{Jack - Former lightning protection and design engineer.}

Just a caution (and partially quoting a response I originally made to http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/667868).

I would not trust anyone basing their recommendations or calculations on any of the following:

• Collection Volume Method (CVM)
  
• Eriksson's Model
  
• ESE (Early Streamer Emission) lightning rods
  
• Dynasphere lightning rods

"Just a general caution: there is a dispute in the IEEE over a new (revised) standard being proposed (and actually, already approved, but now being contested).

"A summary of the allegations against Draft Standard 998 is that the "document has been corrupted by ERICO by including the Collection Volume Method (CVM) / Eriksson's Model, so as to promote the sale of its Dynasphere and other ESE (Early Streamer Emission) lightning rods".

... "My reading of the discussions on the lightningprotection@yahoogroups.com mail list make me very suspicious of the CVM or the ESE lightning rods.

"Also, it seems a pretty sad thing for the IEEE standards effort."

Contact an ESE manufacturer or a Consultant

I recommend strongly against contacting an *ESE* manufacturer or consultant.

See my post #4.

A consultant in the field of lightening who is not affiliated in any way with ESE or ERICO would be a good approach.

First: .... everyone .......pay attention !!!

If we are going to attempt to conduct this forum in English, lets try to spell better !! Spell checkers, like air are available to everyone !!!

We are all highly educated here, have access to the internet and have grasped even rudimentary English syntax !!

It is not "Lightening Arester" .....the correct spelling is "Lightning Arrester"...also commonly called air terminal

Second: This question about terminal coverage has been asked a bazillion times. The answers are in NFPA 70