To: | David Robbins K1TTT <k1ttt@arrl.net>, Towertalk@contesting.com |
---|---|
Subject: | RE: [TowerTalk] Static, Lightening, and protection |
From: | Bill Aycock <baycock@direcway.com> |
Date: | Wed, 24 Mar 2004 13:33:53 -0600 |
List-post: | <mailto:towertalk@contesting.com> |
I have one MAJOR disagreement with this argument of Davids- One is NOT trying to attract lightning to the tower- one is trying to provide an easy path to bleed down the charge (opposite in sign to the charge in the cloud) in the region around the tower. This should be steady and always available. If the charge is reduced and the charge gradient is less, the easiest path for the leaders is somewhere else. A high charge gradient is the equivalent of a high pressure which needs relief. a strike provides that. Bill At 11:46 PM 3/23/2004 +0000, you wrote: > > The "rules" seem to be like this: > If you want to create "umbrella lightning repellent" protection situation, > the tower should be as high as possible. Roughly it will protect > hemisphere with > radius of the tower. Bill Aycock - W4BSG Woodville, Alabama _______________________________________________ See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA. _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [TowerTalk] Earth Anchors, Cqtestk4xs |
---|---|
Next by Date: | RE: [TowerTalk] Static, Lightening, and protection, kb9cry |
Previous by Thread: | RE: [TowerTalk] Static, Lightening, and protection, Chuck Dietz |
Next by Thread: | Re: [TowerTalk] Static, Lightening, and protection, K3BU |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |