Common wisdom tells us that a grounded antenna is safer for the TV and other household equipment in the event of an electrical storm.
I've read that grounding a rooftop antenna can lessen the chances for a lightning strike, and I've read that a weak ground connection is established at the antenna simply by having the coax connection to the TV.
So a question came to me: In cases where it is wholly impractical to establish a proper ground connection for a rooftop aerial antenna, is it better to "shore up" the existing weak ground through the coaxial shielding, or to sever that weak ground altogether?
An example of improving the ground connection (without a proper grounding rod) that I'm thinking of is to install a grounding block between the coax wall plate and the TV, and use #12 solid CU to connect the block to a pin inserted in a nearby grounded receptacle. I also considered fusing that connection, but I understand it wouldn't do much of anything in the event of a direct hit to the antenna by a bolt of lightning.
An example of breaking the ground connection might be to install a 2-way coax switch between the coax wall plate and the TV, and then switching it to the alternate, unused, input when there is an electrical storm in the area. I have not yet verified that such A-B switches do, in fact, break the ground (outer shielding) connections and not just the signal (inner core) connections.
I hope the question is clear in regards to the tradeoff.
Basically, is the reduction in lightning's attractiveness to a well-grounded antenna more advantageous, even though a strike would most certainly damage household equipment -- or -- is it better to let the antenna float ungrounded in a storm, increasing the chances of a strike, but perhaps making damage to equipment throughout the house less likely (TV is expected to be sacrificed regardless).
