ATTRACT and DIVERT
Yep, that is more what I was thinking Jim. Just too early I guess. ;-)
73, de ed
-----Original Message-----
From: rfi-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:rfi-bounces@contesting.com] On
Behalf Of Jim Brown
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 12:51 PM
To: rfi@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RFI] Lightning Protection
On 7/2/2012 9:10 AM, EDWARDS, EDDIE J wrote:
> So it's an attempt to absorb the strike, not prevent it. And they also
show them used on building roof tops probably to meet NEC code.
We don't "absorb" a strike -- it's the result of a buildup of charge between
the atmosphere and the earth, and the energy in that charge can be massive.
The general intent of most lightning protection methods, including "air
terminals," is to ATTRACT and DIVERT the strike into a path that is likely
to do less damage, AND to discharge the buildup of nearby charge before it
gets strong enough to BE a strike.
Tom, W8JI, a broadcast engineer and equipment designer who has a big ham
station in Georgia, does NOT advocate disconnecting ANY cables. He insists
that proper bonding architecture and lightning protection devices are
enough. His website is worth studying.
73, Jim K9YC
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|