Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Water\s+tower\s+omni\s*$/: 15 ]

Total 15 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Water tower omni (score: 1)
Author: Nick Pair <daweezil2003@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 18:34:34 -0700 (PDT)
I vote for the 4 pole folded dipole with the dipoles spaced 90 deg.around a mast horizontally and phasing harness distance vertically. The commercial type where the dipoles are welded to arm on half
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-07/msg00069.html (8,120 bytes)

2. Re: [TowerTalk] Water tower omni (score: 1)
Author: Roger D Johnson <n1rj@adelphia.net>
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 21:47:26 -0400
I agree that this seems to be the simplest solution. If lightning takes out this array, then I'd think about the Yagis mounted around the tower at a lower level. 73, Roger -- Remember the USS Liberty
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-07/msg00070.html (8,050 bytes)

3. Re: [TowerTalk] Water tower omni (score: 1)
Author: Ben Thorson <bthorson@4smps.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 22:25:10 -0400
Thanks to Roger for an excellent article from Ham Radio Magazine that he generously scanned for me. It used three Yagis tangentially fired off of a large (15' on a side) triangular tower. Of course,
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-07/msg00073.html (9,120 bytes)

4. Re: [TowerTalk] Water tower omni (score: 1)
Author: Red <RedHaines@centurytel.net>
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 09:19:28 -0500
Hi, TTs; Be aware that antennas on the sides of tall structures are not protected from lightning strikes by the structure. The "cone of protection" concept applies only to relatively short structures
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-07/msg00079.html (8,136 bytes)

5. Re: [TowerTalk] Water tower omni (score: 1)
Author: bthorson@4smps.com
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 11:33:25 -0400
Can you tell me more about the 'Rolling Ball' concept and lightning? I've never heard of it. Someone, I think it was in the forum, said that lightning protection is like an insurance policy. The more
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-07/msg00085.html (7,682 bytes)

6. Re: [TowerTalk] Water tower omni (score: 1)
Author: "David Robbins K1TTT" <k1ttt@arrl.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 16:01:09 -0000
The 'rolling ball' theory of lightning protection is an ancient method that said basically that you take a ball (in your mind of course) as tall as a vertical object and roll it around the object and
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-07/msg00087.html (10,292 bytes)

7. Re: [TowerTalk] Water tower omni (score: 1)
Author: "Tom Osborne" <w7why@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 09:33:34 -0700
Here is a good link to some info about lightening protection. http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/magic.pdf Tom W7WHY _______________________________________________ _____________________________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-07/msg00090.html (7,470 bytes)

8. Re: [TowerTalk] Water tower omni (score: 1)
Author: "K8RI on Tower talk" <k8ri-tower@charter.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 13:15:58 -0400
And you can find instances of a tower being hit on top but the lightning gets off part way down and arcs over to something else or even the ground. The "rolling ball" assumes the maximum charge to b
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-07/msg00092.html (11,796 bytes)

9. Re: [TowerTalk] Water tower omni (score: 1)
Author: Red <RedHaines@centurytel.net>
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 13:50:21 -0500
Responses below: Read Uman and Rakov for info re the rolling ball concept of protected volume. You are correct; whether or not a specific installation will be damaged is a probability issue. The near
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-07/msg00099.html (12,700 bytes)

10. Re: [TowerTalk] Water tower omni (score: 1)
Author: Red <RedHaines@centurytel.net>
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 13:55:37 -0500
The rolling ball does not generate a cone of protection. It defines a volume no higher than the radius of the ball in which there is protection. To define a volume in which protection is 90%, use a b
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-07/msg00100.html (8,734 bytes)

11. Re: [TowerTalk] Water tower omni (score: 1)
Author: "Mike Clarson" <mclarson@rcc.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 16:07:17 -0400
While I cannot offer much as to how a lower antenna will be protected from lightning, I can offer some suggestions on constructing an "around the tank" antenna. In this type of array, phasing of the
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-07/msg00131.html (10,034 bytes)

12. Re: [TowerTalk] Water tower omni (score: 1)
Author: bthorson@4smps.com
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 19:20:33 -0400
Unfortunately, I've got to deal with fixed stations, not mobiles. If there were a lot of random (time-dependent) scatter, it would probably work out the same way, but I can't be assured of that. Roge
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-07/msg00140.html (11,352 bytes)

13. Re: [TowerTalk] Water tower omni (score: 1)
Author: "Gary Schafer" <garyschafer@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 13:28:46 -0500
Running coax through metal conduit without grounding it at each end of the conduit is asking for a large arc between the coax and conduit, not recommended. 73 Gary K4FMX ____________________________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-07/msg00175.html (10,279 bytes)

14. Re: [TowerTalk] Water tower omni (score: 1)
Author: Nick Pair <daweezil2003@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 12:50:50 -0700 (PDT)
Gary, My assumption was that the coax shield had been grounded prior to conduit which removes the voltage build up due to choke effect of conduit. Bonding at each end of conduit would eliminate curre
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-07/msg00180.html (10,729 bytes)

15. Re: [TowerTalk] Water tower omni (score: 1)
Author: bthorson@4smps.com
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 23:29:24 -0400
Thanks for all the great replies. As far as the immediate need, that problem is likely solved by a somewhat low tech solution for the time being, though the problem will arise again in the future, an
/archives//html/Towertalk/2006-07/msg00191.html (11,183 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu