David--
This argument has always had holes, as far as I am concerned. It is not the
strike energy that "Bleeding" will handle, but the static charge that helps
create an ionized path, that the strike can follow. Diminishing that path
HAS to help.
Additionally, I know this is not absolute; I merely want to improve the odds
a little. Other protection is also needed.
Comment?
Bill--W4BSG
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Gilbert" <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2010 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical antennas and lightning
>
> Look at it this way ... the magnitude of arcing you get across the end
> of the coax if you don't have the antenna DC-shorted to ground is rather
> tiny. My experience over the years (when I had a dipole or vertical
> that was not DC-shorted to ground) was that I'd get a spark across the
> end of a PL-259 (roughly half inch spacing) every few seconds. Add up
> the energy from all those little arcs over maybe a ten or fifteen minute
> period and compare it to the energy from a single lightning strike.
> Then consider the likelihood that the portion of the cloud system that
> generated the lightning strike wasn't even near your QTH ten or fifteen
> minutes ago.
>
> It's like trying to drop the level of a flowing river by removing water
> with a teacup.
>
> DC-shorting an antenna to ground is important to protect both equipment
> and people from static buildup. I once drew a really thick (lots of
> current) 2 inch long bright blue arc to my left hand from the shack end
> of the coax coming from an unterminated 80m dipole (my right hand was on
> the floor) ... that calculates out to about 300,000 volts and the biceps
> of both arms were sore for three days. Imagine what the energy that is
> capable of generating those half inch arcs might do to a receiver front
> end or the contacts of a small relay.
>
> But grounding the antenna isn't going to even come close to bleeding off
> enough charge from the clouds overhead to prevent a lightning strike.
>
> 73,
> Dave AB7E
>
>
>
> On 8/1/2010 8:40 AM, Bill Aycock wrote:
>> Gene--
>> In your message to Dan, you say:
>> "you'll be draining off the static electricity (DC charge) to
>> ground, hopefully thus minimizing the likelihood of a strike to begin
>> with."
>> I have always believed this to be true, but whenever I even hint at it,
>> someone on this reflector jumps on me. Do you have a reference for me?
>> Thanks--Bill--W4BSG
>>
>>
>>
>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "Gene Smar"<ersmar@verizon.net>
>> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 5:40 PM
>> To: "Dan Schaaf"<dan-schaaf@att.net>; "Tower and HF antenna construction
>> topics."<towertalk@contesting.com>
>> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical antennas and lightning
>>
>>> Dan:
>>>
>>> If the inductor is the correct value (high enough XL at the
>>> vertical's
>>> lowest frequency of operation so as not to upset the feedpoint impedance
>>> appreciably) you can permanently connect it to the feedpoint. In that
>>> configuration you'll be draining off the static electricity (DC charge)
>>> to
>>> ground, hopefully thus minimizing the likelihood of a strike to begin
>>> with.
>>>
>>> I'd recommend XL> 10 X 50 Ohm = 500 Ohms at the lowest frequency.
>>>
>>> 73 de
>>> Gene Smar AD3F
>>>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|