What happens when trees near buried electrical service cables are struck by lightning?

Installing a system typically takes me an hour or so for a 100' tree. Not counting the installation of the ground. Not difficult.
I've seen fuses on A300 Part 4-specced systems on 3 continents that recorded up to 5 strikes. No tree damage. I know Ben has a different view. His fasteners are good, but the copper in the conductor is big time overkill.

12 years old but still pretty accurate imho:

http://www.historictreecare.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Lightning-TCIA-2008.pdf and

http://www.historictreecare.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Lightning-TCI-2007.pdf
 
Last edited:
guymayor said:
Installing a system typically takes me an hour or so for a 100' tree. Not counting the installation of the ground. Not difficult.
I've seen fuses on A300 Part 4-specced systems on 3 continents that recorded up to 5 strikes. No tree damage. I know Ben has a different view. His fasteners are good, but the copper in the conductor is big time overkill.

12 years old but still pretty accurate imho:

http://www.historictreecare.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Lightning-TCIA-2008.pdf and

http://www.historictreecare.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Lightning-TCI-2007.pdf
Click to expand...
The only country that permits a down conductor as specified in A300 Part 4 is North America. (and there it is only permited for use in trees) This standard does not translate freely into any other standard for lightning protection anywhere. It has been looked at quite closley and roundly rejected by all. In the event someone does recomend it, say in Austrailia or the East or Europe then the arborist/installer must inform the client in writing that they are working outside of local standard. Once informed, the client is then required to inform there insurance company, for approval. In the event a system to this design is installed and for what ever reason there was a system failure. The insurance companies will not support cover. Further more the aborist/installers insurance company will not be in supportof such a claim as the instalaion will be viewed as non complient or sub standard to local/national standard.

If you doupt what I say re the conducter specified in A300 part 4. Go to the LPI (Lightning protection institute) in N America ask them for an opinion. Or alternatively UL96 and UL96a (Underwriters lab) Maybe drop a line to Jan Yodder at the Indipendant Protection Co. Goshen, Indiana and ask him what he thinks.

The conductor in A300 part 4 was never intended to be employed as such. It was in actual fact intended for use as a short bond. The only reason it found its way into standard for conductors was the cost implication, its very cheep.

You may well consider what the rest of the world does to be and I quote "big time overkill" we on the other hand consider it a job properly done to insure the health and welbeing of the tree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom