Many observe a tree damaged by lightning - then assume a lightning strike is some massive energy. IOW observations were not tempered with comprehension of underlying concept and the numbers. We all were taught how and why to do that in junior high school science.
Well over 95% of trees struck suffer no appreciable damage. When observers ignored that other 95+% data, then conclusions were only what they wanted; not conclusions based in reality. (BTW this is the same technical mistake that hyped child leukemia from power lines.)
Same misapplied reasoning is also found in comments such as:
First, all panels are grounded. Some simply are not grounding sufficiently - even for human safety. Why is a wooden tree a conductor of electricity? Tree branches are grounded. More 'resistive' grounding causes a higher energy dissipation on that panel - and in that tree. Therefore what would be nearly zero power discharge is now and significantly higher power discharge in a panel.
Did you see all panels that suffered no damage from direct transients? IOW were your observations complete? Or did you only observe panels that had damage - ignore those other panels that were better grounded and therefore had no damage? A classic example of observations using 'selective data sampling'. Panels that were sufficiently earthed also suffered from transients - yet had no damage. Not just grounded - earthed. Others that were not sufficiently earthed (and yet may have been grounded), instead, suffered damage. Only the last group appears in your observations - a violation of principles taught in junior high school science.
Yes improper grounding can contribute to damage which is why an installer need understand the 'whys' behind terms such as: 'single point earth ground, 'less than 10 feet', 'common service entrance', 'earthing wire separated from those wires', and 'no sharp bends, no splices, not inside conduit'.
One must demonstrated a comprehension of the difference between grounding and earthing; impedance and resistance; materials such a concrete and linoleum tile that are electrically conductive. Without such knowledge, then many make assumptions only on what was observed - making 180 degree erroneous declarations. It's equivalent to learning from the Daily News or Fox News; therefore knowing Saddam had WMDs. Those who read details - the underlying concepts - read what the advance physics labs were saying; came to a completely different conclusion. A famous expression: the devil is in the details. That means learning underlying concepts.
I see this often by those who did not comprehend or completely forget what was taught in elementary school about Ben Franklin's lightning rods and about how electricity works. They hype speculation that a lightning strike is a high energy event, that lightning crashes upon a panel like waves on a beach, and that grounding a panel causes panel damage. All three are myths.
Another example. What is legally required in grounding verses what is technically superior or recommended are two different things. This reply was false:
We still do not wire dwellings as if the transistor exists - even though wiring meets all code. How can this be if code legal requirements always result in technically superior earthing - as you have stated? Legal requirements for building wiring make no effort to protect transistors. Nor should it according to objective of those codes. Another underlying concept - the purpose of those codes.
Why code legal verses necessary grounding are not equivalent? Again, demonstrated by differences between low resistance and low impedance. One must first comprehend underlying concepts. Understanding those underlying concepts makes this statement obvious:
What RLB describes is how things were done decades before WWII where damage was not acceptable. Although we still don't wire new buildings as if the transistor exists, a solution is still easily adapted - in most locations.
Not ground> >> What is legally required verses what is technically superior