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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+lightning\s+strike\s*$/: 19 ]

Total 19 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] LIGHTNING STRIKE (score: 1): Author: SE060676@shellus.com (Effinger SH (Sam) @MSXSOPC); Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 09:34:34 -0500; About 2 weeks ago I got struck by lightning and have a comment or two. - it seems as if the top Cushcraft 402-cd 40 meter beam got hit...with a pair of field glassed I can see one trap that if all fr; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-09/msg00470.html (8,707 bytes)
2. [TowerTalk] LIGHTNING STRIKE (score: 1): Author: harpole@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu (Charles H. Harpole); Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 23:20:39 -0400 (EDT); Watch out mounting coax patch panel made out of stuff that will burn, especially if it is attached to ur house. I had a fire in my window sill from a lightning strike (at ant attachment/disconnect po; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-09/msg00497.html (7,328 bytes)
3. [TowerTalk] LIGHTNING STRIKE (score: 1): Author: donovanf@sgate.com (Frank Donovan); Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 06:46:28 -0400 (EDT); I wholeheartedly endorse K4VUD's comment below. Last year, lightning struck the pole line in front of my home, and took out the telephone company interface box on the outside of my home. Its very for; /archives//html/Towertalk/1997-09/msg00506.html (7,942 bytes)
4. [TowerTalk] Lightning Strike (score: 1): Author: "Keith Dutson" <kjdutson@earthlink.net>; Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 11:23:02 -0500; Yesterday the XYL called my office to say lightning had struck the tower (again!). She did not see the strike but guessed it hit the tower. Upon arrival at home I found many problems: 1. Computer LAN; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-07/msg00679.html (8,735 bytes)
5. Re: [TowerTalk] Lightning Strike (score: 1): Author: kb9cry@comcast.net; Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:33:37 +0000; First question would be to please describe your grounding system. Coax, computer, electric service, phone, etc. Phil KB9CRY -- Original message -- _______________________________________________ See:; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-07/msg00680.html (9,969 bytes)
6. RE: [TowerTalk] Lightning Strike (score: 1): Author: "Keith Dutson" <kjdutson@earthlink.net>; Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 12:54:16 -0500; Tower is 150 feet, Rohn 45 equivalent, guyed with Phillystran. Three ground rods at base, each tied to two legs with one inch copper braid. Bulkhead is at window loaded with Polyphasers for all coax; /archives//html/Towertalk/2004-07/msg00687.html (11,457 bytes)
7. [TowerTalk] Lightning Strike (score: 1): Author: Doug Renwick <ve5ra@sasktel.net>; Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 09:05:50 -0600; I had earlier asked K4FMX for proof that his tower(s) have NEVER been hit by lightning but Gary is unwilling to share that information. Then a second question entered my mind "why would Gary mount a; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-07/msg00236.html (10,233 bytes)
8. Re: [TowerTalk] Lightning Strike (score: 1): Author: kd4e <kd4e@verizon.net>; Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 11:15:14 +0800; I had earlier asked K4FMX for proof that his tower(s) have NEVER been hit by lightning but Gary is unwilling to share that information. Then a second question entered my mind "why would Gary mount a; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-07/msg00237.html (10,862 bytes)
9. Re: [TowerTalk] Lightning Strike (score: 1): Author: "JC Smith" <jc-smith@comcast.net>; Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 08:48:34 -0700; I mentioned previously the strike at K0TY's repeater site. There was no visible indication of a strike anywhere on the tower, base, coax or any of the electronics BUT the vertical antenna at the top; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-07/msg00241.html (10,652 bytes)
10. Re: [TowerTalk] Lightning Strike (score: 1): Author: "K8RI on Tower talk" <k8ri-tower@charter.net>; Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 11:47:36 -0400; <snip> My question - Is it possible to have a direct lightning strike on a tower and yet show no visible or hidden signs on the tower and/or appendage(s) or show no 'secondary' signs in the immediate; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-07/msg00242.html (11,253 bytes)
11. Re: [TowerTalk] Lightning Strike (score: 1): Author: Doug Renwick <ve5ra@sasktel.net>; Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 10:01:04 -0600; I would not reply to such a question either, it would be a fool's errand. If you can't support your absolute statement(s) with good experimental results, good theory, or good experience, then one sho; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-07/msg00243.html (10,860 bytes)
12. Re: [TowerTalk] Lightning Strike (score: 1): Author: "NOATH" <n0ath@charter.net>; Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 15:17:13 -0500; This is getting so hi tech that I am about 1/2 afraid to make any comments / and I am the biggest, ugliest one on here. So I hope I phrase this correctly for all. I had ( keyword ) a Ringo Ranger II; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-07/msg00244.html (13,474 bytes)
13. Re: [TowerTalk] Lightning Strike (score: 1): Author: "Gary Schafer" <garyschafer@comcast.net>; Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 22:30:38 -0500; Doug, You do realize that my comments about the rabbit's foot protector are in jest to those that claim that the bleed off type systems are seen to add protection to a tower? My point is that my absu; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-07/msg00255.html (12,836 bytes)
14. Re: [TowerTalk] Lightning Strike (score: 1): Author: Doug Renwick <ve5ra@sasktel.net>; Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:59:49 -0600; Thanks Gary for the information. Yes, I agree that Roger, K8RI is a creditable source and in many areas. However, I am still waiting for an answer to my question to your statement about knowing that; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-07/msg00296.html (11,534 bytes)
15. Re: [TowerTalk] Lightning Strike (score: 1): Author: "Gary Schafer" <garyschafer@comcast.net>; Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 23:13:55 -0500; Doug, I am going to use your logic here. Let's review what you said in a past post: How do you know it bleed off "the charge"? How do you know it "still bleeds off the charge"? Ok, since I installed; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-07/msg00299.html (13,675 bytes)
16. Re: [TowerTalk] Lightning Strike (score: 1): Author: Doug Renwick <ve5ra@sasktel.net>; Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 07:53:18 -0600; Gary, You have convinced me that I am wasting my time as you are unwilling to share how you know that your tower(s) have never been hit by lightning. No point in 'beating a dead horse'. I will REPEAT; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-07/msg00304.html (11,898 bytes)
17. Re: [TowerTalk] Lightning Strike (score: 1): Author: "Gary Schafer" <garyschafer@comcast.net>; Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 10:28:56 -0500; Hi Doug, This kind of logic sounds kind of silly when it comes from someone else doesn't it? I am trying to get you to think about what you are saying and the validity of the evidence you use. Now, w; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-07/msg00305.html (14,999 bytes)
18. [TowerTalk] lightning strike (score: 1): Author: "Skip K3CC" <k3cc@verizon.net>; Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 14:17:50 -0400; If everything is perfect in the world with your grounding systems how fast is fast enough to prevent damage from a direct lightning strike of over 100,000 A at a freq near 10 Gigs. The heat that can; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-05/msg00531.html (8,139 bytes)
19. Re: [TowerTalk] lightning strike (score: 1): Author: "Roger (K8RI)" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>; Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 22:37:03 -0400; You have to realize not all lightning is created equal. In fact what you witnessed is probably and exception called a "super strike". The average lightning bolt is probably an order of magnitude less; /archives//html/Towertalk/2008-05/msg00550.html (12,648 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 19
Page: [1]