I didn't mean to star a pissin match. I just wondered if the mast was grounded between the shells. I'm not worried about being in it, just don't want to find my Mac sitting on the bottom because it's the highest pont.
Lighting protection
- Thread starter Doc_holiday
- Start date
- Status
Ok, (pls critique this plan).
Copper pipe attached (bolted to the mast, and at least 4 gauge wire (copper) attached to the pipe, at the end of the wire, a length of copper pipe, that is on the surface with foam (noodles).
-copper wire is going to corrode pretty quick (green film) in salt, so more resistance,(more ohms), so, go up up a wire size or two? (any alternative to the copper wire? )
in fla, summer storms are normal with lighting. if you're on the water its only a matter of time till you get into it...
I wouldn't mind having this kind of setup is a bag -in case. (or at the dock).
Sum, that some medieval looking device...
where did you get that? Did I miss walt is selling this device?
Copper pipe attached (bolted to the mast, and at least 4 gauge wire (copper) attached to the pipe, at the end of the wire, a length of copper pipe, that is on the surface with foam (noodles).
-copper wire is going to corrode pretty quick (green film) in salt, so more resistance,(more ohms), so, go up up a wire size or two? (any alternative to the copper wire? )
in fla, summer storms are normal with lighting. if you're on the water its only a matter of time till you get into it...
I wouldn't mind having this kind of setup is a bag -in case. (or at the dock).
Sum, that some medieval looking device...
where did you get that? Did I miss walt is selling this device?
Hey Bill, we should get together and build a couple of these. I found #4 wire $1.50ish/ft at MacDonalds and they sell 2" copper pipe for $16/ ft. Just need a quick way to connect to the boat. Maybe the jumper cables?
We were field testing it for him on our fall of 2011 and spring 2012 Florida trip. We left it in the water the entire time to see the effects of the salt water on the electrode body, the electrodes themselves, the foam and the connectors. Everything held up very well and when we got back we returned them to him so that he could cut them apart and measure resistance and such.
I think that you are aware, but others might not be that Walt is an electrical engineer and that is how he makes his living. He has done a lot of research and development on this and is being very kind in my opinion sharing a lot of the results of that on this board.
As you know I like making things, but this like a few other things on the boat is something that if it is available I'd put the money up and buy it and we will. He mentioned on the other post $350 as a target price I believe. I think that is a very fair price for an 'engineered' piece of equipment that is easy to install and deploy. There is more to it than wires, pipe and clamps, but that might be a direction you could take at this time.
At the mast he...
(sorry for the poor picture quality)
...has a fitting that stays on the mast and it is easy to put the electrode wires on and off and is designed to be part of the whole system. You would normally not leave the electrodes in the water all of the time like we did, but hang them and throw them in, either at anchor or underway, when you felt you needed them. They attach with the wing-nut in the picture above and you could also put them on and off in less than a minute if you didn't want to hang them. Our 2-3 months in the water test would then be equivalent to years of use.
If you haven't looked yet there are more pictures of the whole setup on our site here....
http://purplesagetradingpost.com/sumner/macgregor2/outside-43.html
I'm not sure how far Walt is away at this point from his first production run on this. There is a lot more to it than just the actual manufacture of them. I think he is about there on that.
We have no financial or other interest in this product. We just volunteered to field test it for him. I've done a lot of reading about the subject and for Ruth and I feel that it is our best option. Will it protect us/the boat 100%? No, but like the seat belts I put on while driving have confidence in it enough to use it and feel that it is the best option I've seen for our type boats. Considering the seriousness of lightning and being exposed to it in the past we feel that it is well worth what Walt will probably be asking for it.
I know most people say get to shore. We were able to do that once, but as you know in places like Florida's west coast (10,000 Islands, Everglades or crossing Florida Bay) that just isn't an option. The same in the west on mountain lakes or canyon lakes,
Sum
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]============================[/FONT]
Our Endeavour 37
Our MacGregor 26-S Pages
Our Trips to Utah, Idaho, Canada, Florida
Mac-Venture Links
Hollywood, I'd be interested...
Sum, (I assume) the key to this is the mast to wire connection. how did the wire look (greenish) at the end?
and Sum, you may get to test this thing if you stick around long enough!
planning on heading south to the keys, or over to biscayne bay?
You'll see the humidity change like you flipped a switch in the next 6 weeks. I'd try to test the genset to a/c power... and running it on deck.
(ps: any ideas on a longer exhaust for the honda2000?)
Typically rain in the am, in june, then afternoon in july-sept. Then the bugs start... -you thought shark river was bad! Ha!
Sum, (I assume) the key to this is the mast to wire connection. how did the wire look (greenish) at the end?
and Sum, you may get to test this thing if you stick around long enough!
planning on heading south to the keys, or over to biscayne bay?
You'll see the humidity change like you flipped a switch in the next 6 weeks. I'd try to test the genset to a/c power... and running it on deck.
(ps: any ideas on a longer exhaust for the honda2000?)
Typically rain in the am, in june, then afternoon in july-sept. Then the bugs start... -you thought shark river was bad! Ha!
The two cables terminate at the mast in the cross piece under the flat plate that is held on with the wing-nut above. I did not take that union apart, but sent it back to Walt to inspect. The other ends of the cables are inside of his floating electrodes so I also didn't see those.
To remove the cables from the mast you loosen the wing-nut and turn the plate under it and they come right out. That is pretty slick. The part they are attached to is designed to take the charge from the mast to the wires. I'll do something else at that point on the Endeavour and need to talk to Walt more about the Zen-Pole use on the larger boat with the keel steeped mast.
If you guys are trying to float the tubes in the water I'd forget that and try and get the required surface area under the water. Walt has the floating electrodes engineered. He talked about the electrodes and how they were located in relation to the water's surface in his other post. The thing to remember is what he is doing and what has been done by another manufacture is to take the charge to the waters surface where it goes naturally vs. trying to dissipate it below the surface like what Casey and others have suggested.
Also others reading this have to remember that MrBill is talking about a saltwater application here and not fresh water. In fresh water I wouldn't try anything other than what Walt has developed and patented. That is the major appeal for Ruth and I as most of our trips with the Mac will be on fresh water bodies,
I'm starting to think that we might not get the boat (the Endeavour) out this trip and if we do it would just be in Charlotte Harbor most likely. We worked so many 10 hour days before leaving and then the 4 day trip down here kicked our butt, plus we left there in snow and got here to 80+ temps. The first 1 1/2 weeks were a bust getting anything done.
I'm installing the frig/freezer I made now and working on putting in almost all new thru-hulls. Still have to install the solar panels and mount I made and do a lot of re-wiring. We have been living on the boat at the yard since getting here a little over 2 weeks ago and love it. It is like having a small apartment in Florida. It is quiet here and a nice place to take walks. I thought I would be really discouraged if we didn't get out this trip, but we are just enjoying being in the boat and slowly working on it where that isn't the case. We really want to just get it ready for when we come back at this point. They finished the blister repair and did a good job and I won't put the barrier coat and bottom paint on until we are actually ready to go in the water, so that might wait until next trip, but that is good as the boat will continue to dry. I think we will be here into June, but when the heat/humidity gets too bad we will head home. We do have the AC going in the boat and that helps to drop the temps about 5-8 degrees.
If you get over this way be sure and let us know and if there is anyone else in the area the same. We had a nice visit with Norm and Fran (njwtech on here) last week and plan on seeing them again before we leave,
Sum
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]============================[/FONT]
Our Endeavour 37
Our MacGregor 26-S Pages
Our Trips to Utah, Idaho, Canada, Florida
Mac-Venture Links
Last year, I had started a similar thread, and many people contributed some great information. So, here it is if you wish to review it...
http://forums.macgregor.sailboatowners.com/showthread.php?t=126662
http://forums.macgregor.sailboatowners.com/showthread.php?t=126662
Sorry, that's the last thing I wanted to do. You guys are discussing something near and dear to me and I find it very interesting. I was hoping that I was adding something to your conversation. I am especially peaked by the floating electrode. I would like to read more about it, but like any system, the problem and big trade-off isn't so much how effective the floating electrode is, but the method of routing the surge to that electrode. Large surges, like those from a direct lightning strike, will not readily change direction and route along a wire across the deck all that well. Like others have pointed out though, some is better than none and the trade-offs on a water ballasted boat are more than those with a traditional keel.
Yep there are some trade-offs with the system. I've talked a little to Walt about the transition from....
... the mast to the water. I'd like to see it higher, but there is a problem with most boats there. Walt has made the mast connection easy to apply with the clamps, but if it was higher then it would interfere with the main sail's track for the slugs/bolt rope.
On the Endeavour I'm going to not use the mast connector and run the cables higher and attach them separately to opposite sides of the mast. I still need to talk to Walt more about that connection. I might also do that later with the Mac as I don't mind making holes in the mast and when we go out it is for some time so taking a little longer to attach the system would not be a big deal for us. I do believe that for us in fresh water the floating electrodes are a big factor and the ease of using them even on salt water where you can deploy and use them while heading away from a storm is ideal also.
He likes talking about this project and I'll bet that with your background he would like to hear some of your views. Maybe PM him personally instead of using the forum, but whatever works. He is over my head pretty quickly, but I think I grasp most of it in general.
Thanks for the input and also the other input. There was nothing wrong with the way you went about that,
Sum
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]============================[/FONT]
Our Endeavour 37
Our MacGregor 26-S Pages
Our Trips to Utah, Idaho, Canada, Florida
Mac-Venture Links
I watched Bob Villa install rods on a roof. Carnac was funny.
Most of the time when lightning storms come up, we are far from being able to go to shore. It's frightening when you have a tall metal pole sticking up.
This is a complicated topic, yet fascinating.
Most of the time when lightning storms come up, we are far from being able to go to shore. It's frightening when you have a tall metal pole sticking up.
This is a complicated topic, yet fascinating.
I first wanted to point out the goal of “lightning protection” – it is simply trying to avoid an uncontrolled side flash. For example, an uncontrolled side flash would leave the bottom of the mast and jump through the air to the closest water surface – though the inside cabin of the boat, then through the hull of the boat near the water line (which of course is NOT a good thing). Trying to control electronics damage is a separate issue. If you are successful at routing the charge of a lightning strike around the outside of the boat and directly to the water surface, there is still a massive amount of moving charge that generates a magnetic field which then generates voltage and current in any conductor that is not shielded. The protection here is to only try and route the current around the outside of the boat to the water surface so that the boat doesn’t sink or someone inside gets used as a conductor.
Regarding the attachment to the mast, UL has the following spec regarding bend radius “No bend shall form an included angle of more than 90 degrees or have a radius of less than 8 inches.”
Routing the 4 gauge wires over the side of the boat is where you deal with the 8 inch bend radius but there is a right angle connection of conductors to the bottom of the mast. However, what is really key is that the charge is going to follow minimum electric field lines and the connection to the mast is both very low resistances and the wires also go off with a significant vector of where the charge would naturally go (to the nearest water surface).
This is an actual picture of a discharge to the water surface using a fast rise time static tester. Two conductors are involved in the charge transport and the two conductors are not touching. What I wanted to point out in this picture is that in the jump from one conductor to the other, the charge made a “90 degree turn” and this is simply because that was the path of least resistance (i.e., charge followed ohms law, the radius of the turn didn’t matter).
I also want to point out another picture which is similar to the one just shown except salt was added to the water making it significantly more salty than sea water.
The interesting thing about this shot is that the charge goes down the “mast”, jumps a spark gap to the down conductor, but as its going down the down conductor, the charge chooses to jump directly through the air straight to the water surface even though the charge could have used the conductor to get closer to the water surface.
There is no right angle or bend radius involved here. I think it is simply that ionized air is a very effective way to transport charge and you have to do a very good job to compete with ionized air if you hope to prevent a side flash. Interesting that the jumping shown in the last two pictures only happens if the water is very salty. It never occurs in the fresh water simulation.
Needing to compete with air for the charge transport is another reason that I think the surface electrodes are the best in either salt or fresh water. It is not only that the lightning wants to end up at the water surface where the positive charge is (see the radials paper) but its also that the small distance of the sparking electrodes to the water surface really concentrate the electric field and induce sparking – right where you want it to occur. The “surface charging” is as it says – at the water surface so trying to put the charge underwater is not optimum and therefore gives up some advantage to undesirable side flashing.
(and of course the surface electodes can be given good planning characteristics so that they still work when the boat is getting the heck out of there either sailing or motoring)
Regarding the attachment to the mast, UL has the following spec regarding bend radius “No bend shall form an included angle of more than 90 degrees or have a radius of less than 8 inches.”
Routing the 4 gauge wires over the side of the boat is where you deal with the 8 inch bend radius but there is a right angle connection of conductors to the bottom of the mast. However, what is really key is that the charge is going to follow minimum electric field lines and the connection to the mast is both very low resistances and the wires also go off with a significant vector of where the charge would naturally go (to the nearest water surface).
This is an actual picture of a discharge to the water surface using a fast rise time static tester. Two conductors are involved in the charge transport and the two conductors are not touching. What I wanted to point out in this picture is that in the jump from one conductor to the other, the charge made a “90 degree turn” and this is simply because that was the path of least resistance (i.e., charge followed ohms law, the radius of the turn didn’t matter).
I also want to point out another picture which is similar to the one just shown except salt was added to the water making it significantly more salty than sea water.
The interesting thing about this shot is that the charge goes down the “mast”, jumps a spark gap to the down conductor, but as its going down the down conductor, the charge chooses to jump directly through the air straight to the water surface even though the charge could have used the conductor to get closer to the water surface.
There is no right angle or bend radius involved here. I think it is simply that ionized air is a very effective way to transport charge and you have to do a very good job to compete with ionized air if you hope to prevent a side flash. Interesting that the jumping shown in the last two pictures only happens if the water is very salty. It never occurs in the fresh water simulation.
Needing to compete with air for the charge transport is another reason that I think the surface electrodes are the best in either salt or fresh water. It is not only that the lightning wants to end up at the water surface where the positive charge is (see the radials paper) but its also that the small distance of the sparking electrodes to the water surface really concentrate the electric field and induce sparking – right where you want it to occur. The “surface charging” is as it says – at the water surface so trying to put the charge underwater is not optimum and therefore gives up some advantage to undesirable side flashing.
(and of course the surface electodes can be given good planning characteristics so that they still work when the boat is getting the heck out of there either sailing or motoring)
Ok just picked up my new homemade air antenna. I would like your feedback on to best mount it. I may have to relocate the windex. It is 1/2" copper pipe with an adapter to 1 1/2" for the bulb. At the bottom, I am using #2 cable attached to am aluminum plate. The shrouds have their own cables and aluminum pieces. Haven't bonded the parts inside. Not sure how to best do it.
Attachments
Holly
Not sure what that is... Is it supposed to be a lightning collector?
What I did was flatten the copper pipe, drill a hole in it at attach it to the through bolts that hod the tabernacle to the mast on the INSIDE of my cabin... and ran the pipe to the keel bolt. My mast is the collector and the pipe just provides a way for the lightning to get from my mast to the keel without jumping around inside the boat.
Not sure what that is... Is it supposed to be a lightning collector?
What I did was flatten the copper pipe, drill a hole in it at attach it to the through bolts that hod the tabernacle to the mast on the INSIDE of my cabin... and ran the pipe to the keel bolt. My mast is the collector and the pipe just provides a way for the lightning to get from my mast to the keel without jumping around inside the boat.
Yes in a sense. I was under the impression that the collector as you call it had to be above the mast. I am using a heavy cable on the outside at the base that goes to a plate in the water.
I guess that would work... but your mast is still connected so there is a risk of jumps from the shrouds?
Of course this is all speculation... I've never taken a strike and hope never to do so.
Until recently, I used to keep a set of chains with a snap hook that I'd attache to the shrouds and drop overboard if a T-storm blew in. Don't know if it actually did any good at all but I felt better ... at least I was being proactive.
I've read that FL is the lightning capital of the U.S. so.... good luck ...
I also am using jumper cables with aluminum tubes in the water attached to the shrouds .
Hopefully won't get too much corrosion.
Hopefully won't get too much corrosion.
Hollyweirdo, I’m not sure where the mast top conductor design came from but if I were going to put that on the top of the mast (and I don’t see the need), I would do something different. It looks like you are making a lightning rod and the purpose of the lightning rod is to make sure it takes the strike rather than something nearby (like yourself on the deck of the boat) but you already have a nice lighting rod (your aluminum mast).
Regardless, I’ll give a little summary of a paper where some PHD type guys studied lightning rods for a bunch of years. This paper is “Responses of Lightning Rods to nearby Lightning” CB Moore, G Aulich, W Rison (2001-10-2907).
You should read the paper for better detail but what these folks did was to put all sorts of different lightning rods on a mountain top in New Mexico. They had different diameters of rods and also different types of tips. The tips of interest were conventional Franklin rods with a very sharp point at the tip and also “blunt” rods which had a more rounded tip. They also had some “early streamer” rods, I think even some rods that were radioactive (since someone was claiming this was better). The lightning rods were all mounted on 6 m pipe masts in a little lighting rod “farm”. There was some consistent distance between the rods.
In all the years they did this testing, they never had a strike to a single sharp tipped “Franklin” rod or the early streamer or radioactive rods. However, they did see multiple strikes to adjacent blunt “round tip” rods. They also had rod diameters between about 9 mm to 51 mm and none of the rods at the limits took a strike. Most of the strikes were to blunt rods between ½ inch to ¾ inch.
Now this does NOT say that a sharp tip Franklin rod is not an effective lightning rod as we know it is since this is the standard lightning rod that’s effectively been used for many years. However, it would imply that when these different types of tips are in competition to take a strike, that the blunt rods are more effective.
What conclusion you draw from this would be your own.. but I cant help to make the "very loose and minor" connection of this lighting rod farm those guys had on the New Mexico mountain top – to a bunch of sailboat masts at a marina.
If I were going to put something at the top of the mast (and I’m not), and I were into making some wild conclusions, I would put a sharp tipped Frankin rod of maybe ½ inch diameter made from solid aluminum. I would mount this mechanically similar to what you did. You still have a good lightning rod when your alone out on the water.. but at the marina, maybe you don’t want to be the best?????
The attached picture is from the paper and shows what a blunt rod looks like (sharp tipped Franklin rods should be easy to find a picture of since this is the standard).
Regardless, I’ll give a little summary of a paper where some PHD type guys studied lightning rods for a bunch of years. This paper is “Responses of Lightning Rods to nearby Lightning” CB Moore, G Aulich, W Rison (2001-10-2907).
You should read the paper for better detail but what these folks did was to put all sorts of different lightning rods on a mountain top in New Mexico. They had different diameters of rods and also different types of tips. The tips of interest were conventional Franklin rods with a very sharp point at the tip and also “blunt” rods which had a more rounded tip. They also had some “early streamer” rods, I think even some rods that were radioactive (since someone was claiming this was better). The lightning rods were all mounted on 6 m pipe masts in a little lighting rod “farm”. There was some consistent distance between the rods.
In all the years they did this testing, they never had a strike to a single sharp tipped “Franklin” rod or the early streamer or radioactive rods. However, they did see multiple strikes to adjacent blunt “round tip” rods. They also had rod diameters between about 9 mm to 51 mm and none of the rods at the limits took a strike. Most of the strikes were to blunt rods between ½ inch to ¾ inch.
Now this does NOT say that a sharp tip Franklin rod is not an effective lightning rod as we know it is since this is the standard lightning rod that’s effectively been used for many years. However, it would imply that when these different types of tips are in competition to take a strike, that the blunt rods are more effective.
What conclusion you draw from this would be your own.. but I cant help to make the "very loose and minor" connection of this lighting rod farm those guys had on the New Mexico mountain top – to a bunch of sailboat masts at a marina.
If I were going to put something at the top of the mast (and I’m not), and I were into making some wild conclusions, I would put a sharp tipped Frankin rod of maybe ½ inch diameter made from solid aluminum. I would mount this mechanically similar to what you did. You still have a good lightning rod when your alone out on the water.. but at the marina, maybe you don’t want to be the best?????
The attached picture is from the paper and shows what a blunt rod looks like (sharp tipped Franklin rods should be easy to find a picture of since this is the standard).
Attachments
- Status