Lightning Protection Systems (LPS)

Not sure about that model, but the theory is explained in this link from ABB,  here that suggests you can calculate the spacing for the things using the same Risk assessment methods as IEC 62305-2, but the protection range is greater than passive.

The basic idea is that when a large field is detected, i.e. there is a storm brewing or in progress already nearby, then a high voltage pulse generator in the head is activated, (imagine something between an electric fence pulser and a gas lighter type 'clicker' on steroids) to encourage the lightning to go to that electrode. I suggest that getting the makers to do the design calculations for you is the way forward if you are looking at the wisdom using them to soup up an existing system - I don't think they are  common in the UK, and there is rather more to maintain than a pure passive system- not least a need to check the electronics is still operational after each operation - it is designed to survive a typical induced currents of course, but it is  possible for it to be damaged during a storm. 

In the good ones there are strike counters and systems where you can download a self test report with a special test box, but unless the building owners maintenance is very on the ball, and there is someone nearby prepared to do this, a passive system has much to recommend it,  I'm not sure if all LPS companies would know what to inspect.There can are also be EMC implications - we would not recommend them them near antennas (not least because (like the electronic gas lighter), they are a source of spark like interference.)

Great information Mike thanks,


Reading the various literature - The active system offers a bigger protection radius: it can be more than twice the protection radius of a simple lightning rod (depending on the models). The active protection system is the most inexpensive: In cases where it is necessary to cover a huge area, may be more expensive to install a large number of franklin rods installation that only one ESE. Reduced visual impact: Needing fewer elements, aesthetics of the structure or protected area will be less affected. Active protection not only protects the structure but also protects surrounding and open areas.


- i think i will let the LPS design experts advise me on this one

I'd suggest you want to be very selective about where you use ESE - for example, you wouldn't want to use them on a facility that processes explosive materials - there would be a certain irony in attempting to attract a strike to a building that's probably better off without a strike coming anywhere near it


Other than that, often expensive, need more maintenance, often misunderstood by Clients and their FM teams, and to some extent fall into that category of a product looking for a use rather than being an advantage over current thinking with passive systems.


For me, they would always be a very niche solution


Regards


OMS