Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

[TowerTalk] Re: Lightning ground "Holy Wars"

 To: [TowerTalk] Re: Lightning ground "Holy Wars" w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com (Tom Rauch) Mon, 01 Jun 1998 13:35:12 +0000
 ```To: > Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 08:42:49 -0600 > From: Dave D'Epagnier > Subject: RE: [TowerTalk] Re: Lightning ground "Holy Wars" > To: "'w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com'" , > 'Towertalk' Hi Dave, There's a few things below that are generally useful to towertalkians, since they apply to both lightning and RF. First, I appreciate the info. I e-mailed you before this arrived and asked a few questions about the formulas. > By the way Tom, if you play with these formulas, the units are > MKS, > the inductance is in nH, I left a paranthesis out of the ribbon > equation (tough to write equations here), and the wire equation is > for solid wire, not tubing. I need to get a copy of that book and will do that, unless someone can FAX me a copy of the pages covering the formulas. I hate spending money unless it's on a toy, like more wire and rope. I'm sure you know this, but let me bring it up again... 1.) Tubing is no different than solid wire when skin depth is much less than the wall thickness. At higher frequencies (and lightning is certainly not steady state dc) the conductor in the middle becomes less and less important. That's why copper weld antenna wire works as well as solid copper, the thickness of tubing matters very little at RF, and why double shielded cable does nothing a solid thin shield won't do at RF. 2.) The impedance of a flat strip also becomes higher at higher frequencies, because of current "bunching" (that is a handle I hang on the effect where time-varying currents are forced to the outer edges of the strip). Thickness of the strip is also unimportant at a high enough rate of current change, because of skin effect. That's why a smooth round conductor often has less loss resistance than the same surface area flat conductor at radio frequencies. One thing missing is frequency and skin depth in the formulas. I think we are heading for the unanswered question about the frequency/energy content of lightning. I disagree completely with the any notion lightning behaves like dc. It makes it easy to give answers and solve problems, but I suspect the answers are tainted by the view lightning is dc or behaves like dc. > The main point is that copper strip like the > stuff you can get from Polyphaser (1.5"wide by 0.015" thick) is a lot > lower inductance than the standard "wimpy" AWG#2 wire used for > grounding, and a heck of a lot more flexible than copper pipe (and > more expensive than either!). I'm not sure about that yet because I have no idea what a Fourier analysis of a typical (if there is such a thing) lightning strike would reveal for energy content vs frequency. I do know I would never trust a *long* #2 lead, and my gut instincts tell me a 1.5 inch wide smooth ribbon is probably better. But sometimes instinct isn't always correct...... Someone posted something about most of the energy being in the several hundred kilohertz region. Can anyone verify that, or the percentage of energy at different frequencies? My own personal rule, lacking solid data, is to treat lightning more like RF rather than dc. I do that because any time I've seen damage from a hit, its behavior was more like RF energy than dc or low frequency ac. This seems to be a topic surrounded by conflicting information, typical when there is a lack of solid data. I'm in the process of collecting as much data as I can, and appreciate the help. When I get enough info, I'll make it available to anyone who needs the references. Maybe someone who is a good author will write a nice factual article without any bias or sales pitches. 73, Tom W8JI w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm ```
 Current Thread [TowerTalk] Re: Lightning ground "Holy Wars", Tom Rauch [TowerTalk] Re: Lightning ground "Holy Wars", Tom Rauch [TowerTalk] Re: Lightning ground "Holy Wars", Dave D'Epagnier [TowerTalk] Re: Lightning ground "Holy Wars", Tom Rauch <= [TowerTalk] Re: Lightning ground "Holy Wars", KEN KOCH [TowerTalk] Re: Lightning ground "Holy Wars", Kurt Andress [TowerTalk] Re: Lightning ground "Holy Wars", Dave D'Epagnier