Care to share links? If not then I still consider the national weather service to be more definitive. Particularly since what it says agrees perfectly with the physics courses that I took 20+ years ago, which indicated that the taller and pointier a metal object is, the better a target it becomes for static electricity discharges of all kinds - including lightning.
They actually INCREASE it by making your house TALLER.
the taller and pointier a metal object is, the better a target it becomes for static electricity discharges of all kinds...
I'm not disputing any of the above. But how much more likely or "better a target" does the rod make it? I couldn't find any quantitative measure of the increase in odds. Do you have any? If the odds of a strike are increased by just 1%, that statement by the NWS is still correct. Would you discount the use of a lightning rod because it ever so slightly increases the odds of a strike, when you know it also offers the additional benefits of dissipation and a safe path to ground?
I do not discount the value of lightning rods. Exactly because having a safe path to the ground is a real benefit.
But I am discounting the reality of "dissipation" as an advantage. In fact the opposite should be true. To the extent that you create a cloud of negative charge, you should attract lightning, not avoid it.
