Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RFI\]\s+Lightning\s+Protection\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RFI\]\s+Lightning\s+Protection\s*$/: 20 ]

Total 20 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [RFI] Lightning Protection (score: 1): Author: K8TB <k8tb@bosscher.org>; Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2012 17:34:21 -0400; If you believe in static dissipation arrays, you can build your own very inexpensively: http://www.michiganbroadcasttowers.com/broadcast/static.htm tom bosscher k8tb _________________________________; /archives//html/RFI/2012-07/msg00011.html (6,803 bytes)
2. Re: [RFI] Lightning Protection (score: 1): Author: "Dale Svetanoff" <svetanoff@earthlink.net>; Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 17:17:59 -0500; Fred, Pete, and all of the other persons posting on this topic: First, many thanks to everyone for contributing their thoughts, suggestions, or questions to this topic. In my 50 years of hamming, I h; /archives//html/RFI/2012-07/msg00012.html (21,272 bytes)
3. Re: [RFI] Lightning Protection (score: 1): Author: Kim Elmore <cw_de_n5op@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2012 22:39:41 -0500; I'm a research meteorologist at the National Severe Storms Laboratory and work with both Dave Rust and Don MacGorman, both lightning physicists there. I asked them about these corona brushes and was; /archives//html/RFI/2012-07/msg00016.html (8,180 bytes)
4. Re: [RFI] Lightning Protection (score: 1): Author: "KD7JYK DM09" <kd7jyk@earthlink.net>; Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 21:21:55 -0700; "I asked them about these corona brushes and was told that they are ineffective. Once the electric field exceeds about 50-100 kV per meter, everything -- grass, trees, fences, antennas -- are all in; /archives//html/RFI/2012-07/msg00017.html (7,819 bytes)
5. Re: [RFI] Lightning Protection (score: 1): Author: David Robbins <k1ttt@verizon.net>; Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 06:41:19 -0500 (CDT); my advice on things like that is to not waste your time... they can't even put a dent in the fields that are caused by lightning producing storms. If you believe in static dissipation arrays, you can; /archives//html/RFI/2012-07/msg00019.html (7,379 bytes)
6. Re: [RFI] Lightning Protection (score: 1): Author: Kim Elmore <cw_de_n5op@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 08:08:39 -0500; No, not effective. Again, because *everything else* is in corona (tower legs, rivets, weld sputters, bolt threads, nut shoulders, joints of all kinds) and because lightning propagation isn't driven b; /archives//html/RFI/2012-07/msg00021.html (9,293 bytes)
7. Re: [RFI] Lightning Protection (score: 1): Author: dalej <dj2001x@comcast.net>; Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 08:44:26 -0500; I put large loops in my coax at the top of the tower. The idea being the lightning striking the antenna goes down the coax and won't make the bend so it just shoots out the coax and not down to the r; /archives//html/RFI/2012-07/msg00022.html (10,093 bytes)
8. Re: [RFI] Lightning Protection (score: 1): Author: Missouri Guy <n0tt1@juno.com>; Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 15:50:07 +0000; Hmmm...loops in coax. I always wondered why the "pro" installers put loops in the coax feeds. This is on my satelite internet feed. The same kind of loops are on my Dish Network antenna feedlines. Th; /archives//html/RFI/2012-07/msg00023.html (10,890 bytes)
9. Re: [RFI] Lightning Protection (score: 1): Author: "EDWARDS, EDDIE J" <eedwards@oppd.com>; Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 16:10:23 +0000; " I see the diasharge brushes on remote sites, radar, repeaters, surveillance, even airports surrounded by towers with brush arrays a few tens of feet across?" "Not effective at all? What about a row; /archives//html/RFI/2012-07/msg00025.html (11,309 bytes)
10. Re: [RFI] Lightning Protection (score: 1): Author: dalej <dj2001x@comcast.net>; Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:10:03 -0500; I suspect during a direct strike the coax would be vaporized so loops probably won't do much. It was a way to take care of extra coax up there. I always like to have a little more in case I make chan; /archives//html/RFI/2012-07/msg00026.html (12,547 bytes)
11. Re: [RFI] Lightning Protection (score: 1): Author: "Roger (K8RI)" <k8ri@rogerhalstead.com>; Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 13:48:15 -0400; I call those drip loops to keep water/moisture out of the coax. I ground the coax shield at both the top and bottom of the tower so I don't worry about the lightning having to jump anywhere and my sy; /archives//html/RFI/2012-07/msg00027.html (12,110 bytes)
12. Re: [RFI] Lightning Protection (score: 1): Author: "Roger (K8RI)" <k8ri@rogerhalstead.com>; Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 13:50:19 -0400; It's a drip loop! You could call it a service loop if desired as it does let them replace a number of connectors before they have to replace the coax. 73 Roger (K8RI) ________________________________; /archives//html/RFI/2012-07/msg00028.html (7,997 bytes)
13. Re: [RFI] Lightning Protection (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:51:09 -0700; We don't "absorb" a strike -- it's the result of a buildup of charge between the atmosphere and the earth, and the energy in that charge can be massive. The general intent of most lightning protectio; /archives//html/RFI/2012-07/msg00029.html (8,793 bytes)
14. Re: [RFI] Lightning Protection (score: 1): Author: Missouri Guy <n0tt1@juno.com>; Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 18:02:37 +0000; I agree on the vaporization. The installer deliberately made the loops, then cut off the excess coax and installed the connectors. The dish is grounded directly via a #12 copper wire to a ~4ft ground; /archives//html/RFI/2012-07/msg00030.html (14,327 bytes)
15. Re: [RFI] Lightning Protection (score: 1): Author: David Robbins <k1ttt@verizon.net>; Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 13:06:50 -0500 (CDT); the voltage difference between the shield and tower or shield and center conductor can't be any higher than the puncture strength of the insulation anyway. ___________________________________________; /archives//html/RFI/2012-07/msg00031.html (8,231 bytes)
16. Re: [RFI] Lightning Protection (score: 1): Author: David Robbins <k1ttt@verizon.net>; Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 13:12:23 -0500 (CDT); you can't 'discharge' the buildup of charge, there is no where for it to go since the whole area under the downward moving step leader has charge being sucked into it by the field under the leader. t; /archives//html/RFI/2012-07/msg00032.html (9,502 bytes)
17. Re: [RFI] Lightning Protection (score: 1): Author: dalej <dj2001x@comcast.net>; Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 13:26:53 -0500; Drip loop is a better name for them, although I didn't loop for that reason, the tower is a ways away from the house. I do have drip loops in the dish coax which enters the house directly from the di; /archives//html/RFI/2012-07/msg00033.html (13,998 bytes)
18. Re: [RFI] Lightning Protection (score: 1): Author: Cortland Richmond <ka5s@earthlink.net>; Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 14:36:36 -0400; This has been an interesting discussion. Some years ago, while working on telecom digital loop equipment, I came across an REA handbook on-line that said running vulnerable conductors through iron pi; /archives//html/RFI/2012-07/msg00034.html (8,707 bytes)
19. Re: [RFI] Lightning Protection (score: 1): Author: Pete Smith N4ZR <n4zr@contesting.com>; Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 15:22:08 -0400; We just had DirecTV installed, and the installer did those loops. I asked him why, and he said they are there for the next technician, when the connector fails - not if - to provide plenty of cable l; /archives//html/RFI/2012-07/msg00035.html (12,794 bytes)
20. Re: [RFI] Lightning Protection (score: 1): Author: "Ed K0iL" <eddieedwards@tconl.com>; Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 21:02:51 -0500; ATTRACT and DIVERT Yep, that is more what I was thinking Jim. Just too early I guess. ;-) 73, de ed show them used on building roof tops probably to meet NEC code. We don't "absorb" a strike -- it's; /archives//html/RFI/2012-07/msg00037.html (9,643 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1]