>I remember that several years ago an alternative theory was making the
> rounds for tower protection.
>
> Its basis was to have the tower as the least likely target for the
> leaders.
> By having an insulated base and guy wires it presented a less inviting
> target compared to other items in the area.
I look at it this way. Tower ungrounded, antennas on top tied directly to
coax, coax goes into house, coax is the most conductive path to ground
through the house or rig:
> It would seem, on the surface anyway, that a nice juicy tree at a safe
> fall
> distance from the tower would make a dandy sacrifice.
To me it makes the house or rig sould like the sacrifice.
My tower is grounded with each leg tied to an 80 to 90' long run of bare #2.
The runs are tied together as well as a double run parallel to the conduit
to the house entrance where it ties into a ground plate through which all
coax and control cables must run. Over all there are 32 or 33 8' ground rods
CadWelded (TM) to over 60' of bare #2 copper.
Since the ground system was finished the tower has taken many direct hits
that were visually verified and who knows how many that weren't. Normally
none of the station equipment or the computers are disconnected during
storms. I've had no equipment damage since the ground system was finished.
73
Roger (K8RI - EN73)
>
> Is there any convincing proof pro or con for that method?
>
> Carl
> KM1H
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Lux" <jimlux@earthlink.net>
> To: "TowerTalk" <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 11:59 AM
> Subject: [TowerTalk] lightning standards (changes)
>
>
>> There were some questions about how and why the standards
>> change. Here's a link to an example of what goes on in the standards
>> update process:
>>
>> http://www.nfpa.org/Assets/Files/PDF/ROP/780-A2007-ROP.pdf
>>
>>
>> This is a list of proposed changes to the NFPA780 standard with the
>> balloting results.
>>
>> In other places on the NFPA website, there's what would precede this
>> balloting: writeups describing the proposed changes, with the
>> supporting information as to why it should change.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jim, W6RMK
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TowerTalk mailing list
>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|