trustme.bro/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
Lightning rods prevent lightning strikes by neutralizing charges
the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
2 sources for · 0 against

Reference literature and historical sources describe the charge transfer theory, noting that pointed lightning rods aim to produce brush discharges to neutralize thundercloud tension and prevent strikes.

Evidence for · 2
cited by 0
Parnell, who quoted instances of damage due to mechanical force, which he stated in many cases took place in a more or less upward direction. The object of erecting a number of pointed rods to form a lightning conductor is to produce a glow or brush discharge and thus neutralize or relieve the tension of the thunder-cloud. This, if the latter is of the A type, can be successfully accomplished, but sometimes the lightning flash takes place so suddenly that it cannot be prevented, however great the number of points provided, there being such a store of energy in the descending cloud that they are unable to ward off the shock. A B flash may ignore the points and strike some metal work in the vicinity; to avoid damage to the structure this must also be connected to the conductors. A single air terminal is of no more use than an inscribed sign-board; besides multiplying the number of points, numerous paths, as well as interconnexions between the conductors, must be arranged to lead the discharge to the earth. Lightning discharges were distinguished by Sir Oliver Lodge into two distinct types—the A and the B flashes. The A flash is of the simple type which arises when an electrically charged cloud approaches the earth without an intermediate cloud intervening. In the second type B , where another cloud intervenes between the cloud carrying the primary charge and the earth, the two clouds practically form a condenser; and when a discharge from the first takes place into the second the free charge on the earth side of the lower cloud is suddenly relieved, and the disruptive discharge   ​ from the latter to earth takes such an erratic course that according to the Lightning Research Committee “no series of lightning conductors of the hitherto recognized type suffice to protect the building.” In Germany two kinds of lightning stroke have been recognized, one as “zündenden” (causing fire), analogous to the B flash, the other as “kalten” (not causing fire), the ordinary A discharge. The destructive effect of the former was noticed in 1884 by A. Parnell, who quoted instances of damage due to mechanical force, which he stated in many cases took place in a more or less upward direction. The object of erecting a number of pointed rods to form a lightning conductor is to produce a glow or brush discharge and thus neutralize or relieve the tension of the thunder-cloud. This, if the latter is of the A type, can be successfully accomplished, but sometimes the lightning flash takes place so suddenly that it cannot be prevented, however great the number of points provided, there being such a store of energy in the descending cloud that they are unable to ward off the shock. —According to Lodge “there is no space near a rod which can be definitely styled an area of protection, for it is possible to receive violent sparks and shocks from the conductor itself, not to speak of the innumerable secondary discharges that are liable to occur in the wake of the main flash.” The report of the Lightning Research Committee contains many examples of buildings struck in the so-called “protected area.” Material for Conductors. —Franklin’s original rods (1752) were made of iron, and this metal is still employed throughout the continent of Europe and in the United States. British architects, who objected to the unsightliness of the rods, eventually specified copper tape, which is generally run round the sharp angles of a building in such a manner as to increase the chances of the lightning being diverted from the conductor. The popular idea is that to secure the greatest protection a rod of the largest area should be erected, whereas a single large conductor is far inferior to a number of smaller ones and copper as a material is not so suitable for the purpose as iron. A copper rod allows the discharge to pass too quickly and produces a violent shock, whereas iron offers more impedance and allows the flash to leak away by damping down the oscillations. As heated air offers a good path for lightning (which is the reason why the kitchen-chimney is often selected by the discharge), a number of points should be fixed to high chimneys and there should be at least two conductors to earth. All roof metals, such as finials, flashings, rain-water gutters, ventilating pipes, cowls and stove pipes, should be connected to the system of conductors. The efficiency of the installation depends on the interconnexion of all metallic parts, also on the quality of the earth connexions. In the case of magazines used for explosives, it is questionable whether the usual plan of erecting rods at the sides of the buildings is efficient. Clerk Maxwell read a paper before the British Association in which he brought forward the idea (based on Faraday’s experiments) of protecting a building from the effects of lightning by surrounding it with a sort of cage of rods or stout wire. It was not, however, until the Bath meeting of the British Association in 1888 that the subject was fully discussed by the physical and engineering sections. Sir Oliver Lodge showed the futility of single conductors, and advised the interconnexion of all the metal work on a building to a number of conductors buried in the earth. The action of lightning flashes was also demonstrated by him in lectures delivered before the Society of Arts (1888). Hedges and entitled Modern Lightning Conductors (1905), contains particulars of the independent reports of the German committee, the Dutch Academy of Science, and the Royal Joseph university, Budapest. A description is also given of the author’s modified Clerk Maxwell system, in which the metal work of the roofs of a building form the upper part, the rain-water pipes taking the place of the usual lightning-rods. See also Sir Oliver Lodge, Lightning Conductors (London, 1902).  ( K. H.
See more details
The analysis

rails:sufficiency:supported:for=2+0p:against=0+0p | v55:sufficiency

More for · 1
2023 · cited by 0
The objective of this paper is to share on the application and performance monitoring of Compound Air Plasma Lightning Rejection (CPLR) system at an onshore terminal facility. Malaysia is one of the top three countries in the world with high lightning density, recorded average of 13.9 flashes per square kilometer annually. Thus, the country's oil and gas industry is indeed vulnerable to the dangerous impact of lightning, often associated with risk like fire, explosion, and release of hazardous material. During the initial stage of lightning development, the air acts as an insulator between positive and negative charges at the cloud and ground. However, when the difference between charges is too great, the insulating capacity of the air breaks down, caused rapid discharge of electricity and resulting in a lightning formation. Upon detection of potential difference between storm cloud and ground, CPLR will release plasma ion, that in theory will neutralize the positive and negative ions and eventually prevent lightning to happen. This paper will discuss on the investigation outcome of two vent fire incidents at the produced water tanks of an oil and gas receiving facility at east coast of Malaysia, in relation with the functionality of this novel active lightning protection system. Detailed comparison has been made between CPLR lightning rejection data and the data from an electricity utility research company (TNB-Research) lightning mapping to study the system's reliability and effectiveness. During the first vent fire incident in 2018, data analysis showed that there was no lightning strike within the CPLR coverage area and suspected the lightning propagated from the nearest striking point in lightning mapping following the path of least resistance. In addition, this also surfaced up several installation issues such as insufficient protection coverage due to incorrect pole height design, communication card failure etc. Identified action items have been implemented to restore the CPLR system for tank lightning protection. After that, the system has been closely monitored for its performance and it showed reliable lightning rejection data in year 2020 with no vent fire occurence. However, the second vent fire incident happened in 2021. Post investigation, TNB-R data showed that the lightning stroke 200m from the produced water tank recorded peak current value at −68kA which was two times higher than the average lightning amperage. This concluded that CPLR was unable to reject propagated lightning of high magnitude as well. In overall, CPLR system is proved to be functioning but with limitation in terms of coverage area and lightning magnitude (kA). With this paper presented, it is expected to complement this novel technology literature with its proof of function, field site installation precautions and as-found system limitations.
Everything we examined (3) — 2 independent sources
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.
  1. Wikisource: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Lightning Conductorreferencesame source L3no side taken
  2. Application and Performance Monitoring of Compound Air Plasma Lightning Rejection Systempeer-reviewedno side taken
  3. 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Lightning Conductorreferencesame source L3no side taken
The paper trail · every fact has a biography
held for human review09 Aug 2026
This receipt carries no identity, shared or not. Sharing publishes your connection to it, not your data.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
trust me, bro: win the argument, pass the class, survive peer review.
This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt