Sorry Bill, but my rabbit's foot is just as logical as your claim of
changing the distribution of charge. I have more basis for my rabbit's foot
claim, my tower has never been hit.
NASSA doesn't think that bleeding down the charge works either. They tested
dissipation arrays of all kinds and discarded all of them. They use an
overhead wire to intercept lightning strikes before they reach the shuttle
on the launch pad.
73
Gary K4FMX
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Aycock [mailto:baycock@hughes.net]
> Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 7:52 PM
> To: Gary Schafer; 'Keith Dutson'; 'Jim Jarvis'; towertalk@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Porcupines and other wives tales
>
>
> Gary- you and the professors you quote are both guilty of "Put Down"
> writing, not logical discourse.
> I never introduced the subject of Corona discharge. I don't think it is
> pertinent.
> I did not make any claims about "Porcupines". I think they're cute, even
> if
> I don't have one.
> I never claimed that a high energy transfer was needed. If it happens, we
> are in deep trouble, especially if we are on the receiving end.
> I never insulted your intelligence by references to "Magic". That is your
> subject.
> The writing by the Socorro professors is NOT a scientific paper- it is
> merely melodious hogwash, with no references that can be checked. I have a
> very high respect for the labs at Socorro, but I note that the "paper" you
> sent us to does not have an 'edu' in its URL. Are they, perhaps, in the
> business of consulting more than research?
> Every time someone opens a question about other approaches, people like
> you
> blast out with comments about MASSIVE energy levels, corona discharge, and
> other pre-conceived diversions from open-minded discourse. When I tell of
> my personal experiences in an explosives plant (38 years) where NO
> buildings in our 900 acres were ever hit, except once, after a painter
> cut
> a ground wire, I have been told that I was wrong, I was just not capable
> of
> knowing the "truth".
> Open up your mind and quit going into automatic "put-down" mode when
> others
> question your assumptions.
> Bill-W4BSG
>
> At 01:09 PM 7/6/2006 -0500, Gary Schafer wrote:
>
> >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 Osborne referenced in another
> >thread. It shows the math on how to calculate the charge being bled of
> from
> >sharp points.
> >
> >http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/magic.pdf
> >
> >It shows at what field level corona starts and what typical levels are in
> >approaching storms.
> >
> >The build up of ions around the sharp points are also quickly blown away
> by
> >the wind. There is another company that touts an air terminal with a
> small
> >radio active tip that is supposed to create an ion field around it to
> >enhance the charge bleed off. Problem is the ions do not stay put in the
> >space because of the wind.
> >
> >For those that still believe in this magic of reduction of charge as a
> >protective device, I have for sale some rabbits feet that you can hang on
> >your tower to reduce lightning strikes. I have had one on my tower for
> years
> >and never had a strike. Proof that they work!
> >
> >73
> >Gary K4FMX
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:towertalk-
> > > bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bill Aycock
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 4:15 PM
> > > To: Keith Dutson; 'Jim Jarvis'; towertalk@contesting.com
> > > Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Porcupines and other wives tales
> > >
> > >
> > > Keith-
> > > Your 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. Changing the contour of the
> > > potential field to make another place the weakest path is all you
> need.
> > > I know many "experts" put the idea of bleeding off charge down, but I
> have
> > > seen professionals in related fields give arguments just as well
> > > documented
> > > on the other side.
> > > Quit assuming the whole energy packet has to be controlled, and think
> > > about
> > > using finesse, instead.
> > > Bill-W4BSG
> > >
> > > At 03:03 PM 7/4/2006 -0500, Keith Dutson wrote:
> > >
> > > > >The measured energy of the strike is not the point here. The point
> is
> > > to
> > > >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.
> > > >
> > > >73, Keith NM5G
> > >
> > > Bill Aycock - W4BSG
> > > Woodville, Alabama
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > TowerTalk mailing list
> > > TowerTalk@contesting.com
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >TowerTalk mailing list
> >TowerTalk@contesting.com
> >http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
> Bill Aycock - W4BSG
> Woodville, Alabama
>
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|