Re: [TowerTalk] Re: static cat

[Bill Aycock <baycock@direcway.com>]

Didier- IMHO, your first paragraph has such  fundamental errors that the 
rest cannot be supported. The charge on the earth side is NOT uniform over 
miles; the earth is not a superconductor and has finite resistance. All 
common descriptions I have seen showing the charge distributions show both 
the earth and the clouds with charge, but of opposite sign. This is 
contrary to your first statement.
Bill

At 12:07 PM 3/21/2004 -0600, you wrote:

> The problem is that the ground is not charged, the clouds are charged. 
> Think of the earth and the cloud as both plates of a capacitor, except 
> that the bottom plate is a few 10 of thousands of miles long and 
> conductive, and the top plate (the cloud) is a few thousand feet wide, and 
> basically a charged insulator (each water droplet is charged, but isolated 
> from its neighbor. The charge on the earth side is for all practical 
> purposes infinite. You cannot drain it to anywhere because it always 
> returns to earth.
>
> When charges escape the porcupine, they do not make it to the cloud. They 
> just dissipate in the air and return to ground, so they do not contribute 
> to reducing the charge in the cloud. I'll agree that they may locally 
> reduce the field in the air somewhat (as seen from a distance of a few 
> feet). The argument is whether that reduction is sufficient to reduce the 
> probability of a lightning coming from hundred or thousands of feet higher up.
>
> Think of it another way. The earth is conductive. At least until lightning 
> strikes causing great amounts of currents, before that point little 
> current flows, so the potential along the earth is not affected very much 
> by a few charges flowing out of a porcupine because the earth is 
> conductive and charges are replaced as soon as they escape. Charges may be 
> flowing out and into the air, but the earth's potential is the same, and 
> the potential difference between earth and the cloud is what causes the 
> lighting to go.
>
> The other side of the argument is whether it is actually a good thing to 
> eliminate smaller strikes, as they act as bleeders and may prevent the 
> larger strikes.
>
> I am not sure I want a lightning protection device that would reduce the 
> number of smaller strikes at the expense of greater probability of getting 
> the big one.
>
> There is a lot of anecdotic evidence that these types of devices work, but 
> no serious, objective, peer reviewed studies to support the same.
>
> The bottom line, as long as you are happy with it, and you do not cause 
> other problems doing this, why not do it? Just be aware that it may or may 
> not work, and it may even increase the probability of getting a serious hit.
>
> 73,
> Didier KO4BB
>
> At 10:20 AM 3/21/2004, you wrote:
> > I think that's the key.  Their web page is misleading, but, in my own
> > belief, not entirely wrong.  Yes, there will be direct strikes to the
> > tower, even the whiskers.  But before the differential reaches the point
> > of discharge, I think the whiskers are trying hard to discharge it
> > slowly, thus preventing some of the smaller strikes.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> See: http://www.mscomputer.com  for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless 
> Weather Stations", and lot's more.  Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with 
> any questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

Bill Aycock - W4BSG
Woodville, Alabama 


_______________________________________________

See: http://www.mscomputer.com  for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather Stations", and lot's more.  Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.

_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk