Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Static\s+Discharge\s+Porcupines\?\s*$/: 13 ]

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Static Discharge Porcupines? (score: 1)
Author: Tony <dxdx@optonline.net>
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 22:39:18 -0400
All: I came across this video from Nott Ltd that describes how their static discharge arrays or "Porcupines" help disapate static electricity to prevent lightning strikes. https://www.youtube.com/wat
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-08/msg00135.html (7,027 bytes)

2. Re: [TowerTalk] Static Discharge Porcupines? (score: 1)
Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 20:12:07 -0700
All: I came across this video from Nott Ltd that describes how their static discharge arrays or "Porcupines" help disapate static electricity to prevent lightning strikes. https://www.youtube.com/wat
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-08/msg00137.html (7,830 bytes)

3. Re: [TowerTalk] Static Discharge Porcupines? (score: 1)
Author: Big Don <bigdon39@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 22:33:23 -0700
An intriguing foto shows how lightning struggles to find "ground" -- http://www.boredlion.com/50-objects-from-the-past-present-and-future-that-will-turn-your-world-upside-down-pics/26/?v=p Don N7EF _
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-08/msg00142.html (9,129 bytes)

4. Re: [TowerTalk] Static Discharge Porcupines? (score: 1)
Author: Patrick Greenlee <patrick_g@windstream.net>
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 11:19:12 -0500
My quick literature search showed the US Navy and others tested the ESD (Electrostatic Dissipation devices AKA porcupines) and found them to not reduce the frequency or number of lightning strikes on
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-08/msg00151.html (10,288 bytes)

5. Re: [TowerTalk] Static Discharge Porcupines? (score: 1)
Author: "David Robbins" <k1ttt@arrl.net>
Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2015 16:34:01 +0000
The purpose of franklin style lightning rods is to provide a preferred point for the stroke to attach and then provide an easy path to ground for the current. There is nothing you can do to 'drain' t
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-08/msg00153.html (11,336 bytes)

6. Re: [TowerTalk] Static Discharge Porcupines? (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Giacobello, K2XX" <k2xx@swva.net>
Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2015 13:03:50 -0400
Yes, I have a paper from a Univ. of New Mexico EE prof on the subject if anyone is interested. 73, Joe K2XX David Robbins <mailto:k1ttt@arrl.net> Saturday, August 08, 2015 12:34 PM The purpose of fra
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-08/msg00154.html (12,710 bytes)

7. Re: [TowerTalk] Static Discharge Porcupines? (score: 1)
Author: "Stan Labinsky Jr." <K2STN@frontier.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 15:45:35 -0400
On a lightning focused Yahoo group, populated by professionals... the PhD types, there is a war raging over the porcupine guys. The folks who came up with them also sell them and forced their accepta
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-08/msg00158.html (11,336 bytes)

8. Re: [TowerTalk] Static Discharge Porcupines? (score: 1)
Author: Jon <kd5sfa@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 15:28:23 -0500
The porcupine device was designed to reduce general static build up...especially on dry windy days. If I recall correctly it was primarily for repeater systems but I could be wrong. I know it has bee
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-08/msg00160.html (13,110 bytes)

9. Re: [TowerTalk] Static Discharge Porcupines? (score: 1)
Author: kc4pe <kc4pe@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 16:14:47 -0400
I use them, have for over 20 years ...how effect are they I don't know, BUT when the clouds are low, very dark and you can taste the ozone, and the hair on your arms stands up...the porcupines put on
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-08/msg00180.html (12,505 bytes)

10. Re: [TowerTalk] Static Discharge Porcupines? (score: 1)
Author: <ve4xt@mymts.net>
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 13:07:28 -0500
I think porcupines fall into that category of 'if you tell a lie frequently enough, eventually you believe it, too.' Which might explain a lot of the opposition to Ufer grounds... 73, Kelly, ve4xt Se
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-08/msg00181.html (13,539 bytes)

11. Re: [TowerTalk] Static Discharge Porcupines? (score: 1)
Author: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 20:14:06 -0400
Personally, at my QTH which is prominent but not quite hill top. I have 2 - 70 foot towers with 14 feet of extended steel mast. They are 150 feet separated. I also used to have a 60 ft tower with 10
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-08/msg00220.html (11,083 bytes)

12. Re: [TowerTalk] Static Discharge Porcupines? (score: 1)
Author: Chuck Dietz <w5prchuck@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 08:49:51 -0500
Interestingly enough, when I had a 130 foot tower on the east side of Galveston Bay on a promontory out in the salt water, I was the highest structure for miles. I expected to have frequent strikes,
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-08/msg00224.html (12,705 bytes)

13. Re: [TowerTalk] Static Discharge Porcupines? (score: 1)
Author: "Keith Dutson" <kdutson@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:27:44 -0500
Remember, this fellow is selling what he is talking about. If you listen to the end, he makes several completely false statements, which should be obvious to all. Since my 150 foot Rohn 45 tower went
/archives//html/Towertalk/2015-08/msg00239.html (10,180 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu