>Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 15:41:01 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Bill Fisher - W4AN <email@example.com>
>Does it make sense that a person with a lot of towers would stand
>less of a chance of a strike than someone with just one tower?
>To me, it seems logical that 10 towers bleeding off energy would
>be better than just one.
>I ask because I have witnessed many T-storms at my station the
>past couple of years and have yet to see a hit on one of the
>towers. I have seen MANY on the ridges around me.
Ridges are good. Ever notice how lightning almost never strikes
nearby a Ruffles potato chip? ;-)
Seriously, I find the idea of towers or anything else "bleeding
off energy" and thus preventing a strike ludicrous. How many
times a year does the Empire State building get hit? How is that
possible with all the lightning arrestors and antennas on all the
other tall buildings in NYC continuously bleeding off the charge?
It shouldn't be possible for lightning to strike anywhere in NYC!
Depending on your local microclimate and the topology in the
vicinity of your station, the ridges may very well be lowering
your odds of getting hit considerably. I have exactly that
situation at my new QTH here in Tucson. But remember, the
probability is _still_ not ZERO. But it is nice that it is
relatively small. Lucky you.
Also, you might compare the total square feet of land that you
have antennas on to the total square feet of land encompassing
the area where you have seen the lightning hitting. It just
might not have been your turn yet.
73, Eric N7CL
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com