I had tuned out on the water tower-omni antenna lightning protection, and noticed the "porcupine" post. Things morphed somewhat, I see. To avoid forensic reading and proper attribution, let me say th
Well stated. I have had a 'pointed' mast without a porcupine and a 'pointed' mast with a porcupine and in both configurations I have not had any lightning damage ever, anywhere at my present QTH in a
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.
Many years ago I purchased a porcupine based on a testimonial. Now that I have facts to dispute that testimonial I no longer need it. If anyone out there wants it, it is yours free. If you live near
Cosmic rays super charge the cloud?!?! Now that's a new one. the last time I read a journal article about cosmic rays they were cited as a possible cause of the initial breakdown because they left a
I should have phased it differently to say there was insufficient potential to cause a strike rather than draw an arc. At any rate, it is a THEORY. I have not seen any other theory to explain this. 7
Actually wouldn't you you only have to bleed off enough energy so that your tower is no longer the desired point of arc? Sort of like running away from a bear - you don't have to be the fastest pers
I think the timing and dynamics of a strike are not that well understood. Little of what has been published is based on actual strike measurements but rather on "triggered" strikes using rockets and
there's a lot of "untriggered" stroke data from places like the Empire State Bldg, Lake Lugano, and the Langmuir Lab. Jim Lux text my treo @805 807 3895 http://messaging.sprintpcs.com/textmessaging/c
Isn't there a problem getting accurate measurements of natural strikes without damaging the equipment? there's a lot of "untriggered" stroke data from places like the Empire State Bldg, Lake Lugano,
To each his own theory. Yours sounds as plausible as the rest. 73, Keith NM5G KeithYour statement below the excerpt from Jim, (below) is NOT true. It is not a matter of bleeding off the entire charge
KeithYour 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. Changi
famous scientist writer speaks to a famous scientist (Kolb, on the subject of cosmology) well, if you found a large poop in the woods and you knew unicorns would make large poops, how could you say t
Hi All, Let me toss my hat into the ring here and tell you my experiences about lightning. When I erected my two towers, I grounded them very well. There was an article by a W5 out in West Texas that
Charge can not be altered or bled off enough to make any difference. The earth can re-supply the charge many times faster than you can reduce it. It is worth reading the below article that Tom Osborn
My tower has never been hit with a rabbits foot hung on it either. Therefore it must work. 73 Gary K4FMX _______________________________________________ _____________________________________________
Actually if you read some of the old literature about radioactive tips, and some other fancy schemes to make franklin type rods work better the idea was to help formation of the upward streamer from
Author: "K8RI on Tower talk" <k8ri-tower@charter.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 19:14:01 -0400
Unfortunately neither cows or horses are smart enough to stay away from electric fences or just plain fences for that matter, during a thunderstorm. Roger Halstead (K8RI and ARRL 40 year Life Member
Judge for yourself the effect of cosmic rays on strikes: http://www.scienceforpeople.com/Essays/electrifying.htm 73, Keith NM5G Actually if you read some of the old literature about radioactive tips,
Gary, What proof can you present to verify that your tower(s) have never been hit? i.e. They have only been up a short time (1 day or so). You have been home every day, awake every hour since your to