To each his own theory. Yours sounds as plausible as the rest.
73, Keith NM5G
From: Bill Aycock [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 4:15 PM
To: Keith Dutson; 'Jim Jarvis'; email@example.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Porcupines and other wives tales
Your statement below the excerpt from Jim, (below) is NOT true. It is not a
matter of bleeding off the entire charge field, it is only a matter of
changing the distribution of the charge. Changing the contour of the
potential field to make another place the weakest path is all you need.
I know many "experts" put the idea of bleeding off charge down, but I have
seen professionals in related fields give arguments just as well documented
on the other side.
Quit assuming the whole energy packet has to be controlled, and think about
using finesse, instead.
At 03:03 PM 7/4/2006 -0500, Keith Dutson wrote:
> >The measured energy of the strike is not the point here. The point is
>try and prevent the charge build up to where the strike occurs.
>Well, if you are going to prevent a strike, you basically have to bleed
>off all of the strike energy. I don't think that is possible.
>73, Keith NM5G
Bill Aycock - W4BSG
TowerTalk mailing list