Ben,
Of course ftth is correct. Quite a bit of additional information is available through search, as well. But there's a bt more to be said, when it comes to lightning protection techniques.
It would be difficult to imagine the federal government NOT having such standards on its books. We also had a war on drugs, the last time I looked. Since no one wants to hear that all standards and best practices were followed on the morning after a disaster, a word or two of caution, if I may:
Lightning protection, along with grounding & bonding techniques, remains just as much of an art form as it is science, since it is based on a finite set of assumptions and precedents, augmented by copious amounts of theoretical formulas. Unfortunately, those assumptions and precedents continually grow, dictated by observing how nature behaves, so it follows that best practices, if not the standards, themselves, continue to evolve, as well.
Trial and error, not surprisingly, are sometimes not an option after the first attempts at standards compliance fail. And believe me when I tell you that they often do fail, if not perform less than optimally. Unfortunately, experimentation then plays into the ultimate solution for a given type application. By all means, you should start out, and hopefully stick with, the set of standards highlighted by ftth, the poster.
But you should also beware, and take the time to do what you have done here elsewhere for the specific application you seek to implement by seeking what has worked and what has not worked in the past from those who've already been "zapped" while implementing the same type of application in similar, if not the same, environmental surroundings.
FAC |
