Actually a grounding system would encourage a lightning strike. That is why I always joke with friends about me paying for for a lightning control system for my neighbors house. I want it to hit them, not me.
Sorry, but there is only one legally acceptable grounding system (grounding electrode system) allowed for the electrical service and the telecom is tied into that. There are different methods of providing the grounding system but it its legally required and the requirements are spelled out in the National Electrical Code.Very often a building requires a separate ground, for electrical, and telecom
.wrong. actually a good ground would encourage a lightning strike. An insulated object is safest but with lightning, it is impossible to be so well insulated that it would prevent a strike (talking about buildings here)They had had a previous lightening strike, so they knew they had a grounding problem which is very common
Makes no difference. The grounding electrode system that is legally mandated by the NEC is not affected by either of those.Many buildings have plastic pipes which insulate or moisture barriers that compromise grounding
Actually, no they are not unless there is a local code requiring such. I don;t know where in Indiana the poster is but Indiana in general is quite lax about code in general. There are parts of the state that do not even require an electrical inspection of a building (scary thought). As well, the Natioanal Electrical Code does not require testing of an grounding electrode system as long as it is intalled per the NEC (chapter 250 covers it).Technicians installing equipment are supposed to test the grounding before installing it is such a major problem
Correct BUT the fact they are electrically conductive devices and they are attached to something that is attached to the buildings grounding electrode system makes the wearer a part of the grounding system of the building and as such, more probable to be a point of contact for the lightning. As I said before, lightning plays by its' own rules. We as humans have not been able to control it nearly as well as we would like to.Ground straps are for ESD, not lightning.
I agree. It happens more than most would like to know. It is difficult to determine why lightning strike a particular object. It often has no rational explanation.When I was in 5th grade we were on the second floor of a brick school house, on a warm rainy day the window was open and all of a sudden BOOM! lightening struck a vacant desk and left a black spot the size of a pea, smoldering, so it does happen.
The fact that a building hs been struck by lightning does not mean it has any sort of grounding problems. As proof, ever see a tree get hit or one that was hit? Guess what, a tree is about as good as you get for grounded objects. It is full of water and it is in the ground where there is moisture (or it's not going to grow there). They get hit all the time. As I stated before, the fact that a building was hit means the lightning did find a ground source through the building. Lightning seeks a ground source.
What a lightning protection system does is atttempt to direct the lightning strike when it happens. It by no means is meant to prevent the lightning strike. If you figure out how to do that, you will be an instant millionaire. NASA would love to know how to prevent them as well as every airline in the world.
If you can find support for your theory of required lightning protection systems on a building, I would like to see them. If you remember, I am in construction and deal with this all the time. I can count on one hand the number of buildings I have worked on that had lightning protection systems installed. As a matter of fact, I have worked on a building that housed a telecom switching station and it did not have a lightning protection system installed.
Deadlock: I haven;t researched Indiana WC but some states do not require an employer to be held liable simply because the employee was at the place of business when it happened. There are exceptions that would allow a WC provider to deny coverage. I would imagine an "act of God" would be one of the biggies for exceptions.