[CQ-Contest] Re: [TowerTalk] Tower grounding

Sun Jul 22 17:00:35 EDT 2001

in your general area the lightning ground flash density is about 3.7
flashes/sq-km/yr.  assuming your towers are within a 100m radius of your house
that is an area of about 31400 sq-m or .0314 sq-km.  so each year your
probability of a strike is about .116, so in 20 years you should get hit 2.3
times on average.  (compared to central florida where some areas are over 12
flashes/sq-km/yr) now it is possible that you have lucked out and not been hit
at all, but it is probably more likely that you have been hit and nothing has
been damaged.  utility poles and trees show damage because they burn or break
from a lightning stroke, metal towers and antennas may show only small surface
pitting at the lightning attachment point depending on the material and the
energy in the stroke.

also you may actually have a decent grounding system and not know it.  the
buried base of a tower has a fairly large surface area and is fat compared to a
skinny ground rod, so may actually perform better due to its lower inductance
and large contact area with the soil.   catv hardline (the bare aluminum stuff
anyway) taped or tied to a tower has a pretty low resistance to the tower, and a
length of it sitting in a shallow trench (that would normally be pretty wet from
the rain in a thunder storm) may provide a relatively low impedance path to
ground.  the only place where you may have an opening is if you don't connect
your electrical service ground to the coax grounds coming in which would leave
the rigs in the middle of the path from your towers to the power line ground.

n4kg at juno.com wrote:
> 
> FWIW,  ALL  7 of my towers are 'in the ground'.
> NO concrete, NO ground rods, NO radials, and
> NO Lightning damage / hits to the towers in >20
> years.  Tower heights are 40, 55, 75, 80, 95, 130
> 135 ft. I have seen lightning or evidence of lightning
> strikes to neighbors utility poles and trees.
> 
> One more thing, ALL of my coaxial feedlines,
> mostly CATV hardline but some RG-213,  go down
> to the ground and are routed in shallow open trenches.
> 
> de  Tom  N4KG
> 

-- 
David Robbins K1TTT
e-mail: mailto://k1ttt@berkshire.net
web: http://www.k1ttt.net
AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://k1ttt.net

--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com

>From k0il at arrl.net" <k0il at arrl.net  Sun Jul 22 17:15:19 2001
From: k0il at arrl.net" <k0il at arrl.net (Ed - K0iL)
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 11:15:19 -0500
Subject: [CQ-Contest] packet cheaters
Message-ID: <01C1129F.A9CEFFE0.k0il at arrl.net>

On Sunday, 22 July, 2001 8:51 AM, KI9A at aol.com wrote:
> I think almost any means of catching this vermin is flawed, with the
> exception of putting a "flawed" spot out on purpose, then catching them 
that
> way.  I f you think about it, take 3 locals, 1) guy tuning up from bottom 
of
> band, putting spots out. 2) guy operating assisted, going up band follong 
op
> # spots. 3) unassisted guy, tuning up band, finding stations on his own.
> Now, say these 3 guys are tuning up the same band, about the same time. 
If
> you check op # 3's log against spots from a certian time, it will look 
just
> like he was cheating, looking at the cluster
---

I've read many messages here about getting more people into contesting. 
 Now this thread comes along and speculates on "how" the sponsors will 
catch packet cheaters.  If the above speculation is true and the #3 
operator is falsely accused of cheating, won't he just say "the hell with 
it" and quit sending in logs and quite possibly quit operating as well?!  I 
know I would.

As a 100-watts-into-a-vertical operator I quite often find myself S&P 
tuning up a band with one or two other guys working the same stations loud 
enough for me to hear on my vertical.  If one of the other guys is spotting 
these stations, that'll make me look like a cheater whether I am or not. 
 If I were ever DQed under these circumstances and did NOT actually cheat, 
I'd find something else to do on contest weekends.

There are ops like me who remain logged onto the local DX cluster during 
say sweepstakes but use the "SET/NODX K,VE,VY1,VY2,KH6,KL7,KP4,KG4,KP2,..." 
etc. (or whatever the command is--I always have to look it up each year). 
 This allows an op who is a "DXer first--Contester second" to remain logged 
onto the local DX Packetcluster and only rcv DX spots and NO multiplier 
spots for Sweepstakes.  When I do this and a "New One" for my DXCC is 
spotted, I exit my contest log and open my main log to work the DX I need. 
 I am then "out of the contest" because I am not logging any contest QSOs, 
the same as if I were on the WARC bands or the local 2 meter repeater.

And what about when I find some local guy from my club (and we are in the 
Club Gavel) and I decide to "spot him" to help all of you guys in the 
Multi-op stns find that rare Nebraska station for your second to the last 
mult?  Am I now a packet cheater?  I didn't spot myself.  I didn't use any 
spots resulting in something going into my log.  Am I cheating to help my 
friend?

But if I'm now called a "Cheater" for doing so, I say the hell with it. 
 I'll find something else to do on Sweepstakes weekends and let Nebraska 
become a hard multiplier again!  What would SS Sunday afternoon be like if 
the average guy, who ain't gonna win but gets on anyway, what happens if he 
decides to take up something more fun like fishing where he won't be 
accused of cheating?

I think trying to catch packet cheaters is frought with danger to the 
future of contesting.  The sponsors should be very careful.  That's 
probably why they aren't posting the "cheaters" as DQed.  It will backfire 
if they do, and it might hurt contesting anyway even if they don't list 
them.

Seems to me I'd be better off not being logged on and observing all of the 
spots (my software stores these for me in a table when I'm NOT logged on) 
to ensure I don't work someone who was just spotted within the (unknown) 
specified time.  But in my opinion "THAT" would be cheating!   Geez, I'll 
hafta to cheat to avoid being called a "Cheater"!  What are we coming to?!

> ...BUT, if you put a phoney spot
> out, he won't know anything about it, but the "cheater" will.
> I think the only cure is to allow packet spotting for everyone. The way I 
see
> it, is that looking at packet is no different than SO2R.  A guy can use a 
2nd
> rig to find mults almost the same as a guy looking at a packet screen. 
Not as
> fast, but almost...
---

I agree 100%.  A SO2R guys is definitely being "assisted" by having two 
radios listening on the air over someone else with only one.  Either outlaw 
SO2R or allow packetcluster usage.  Or else put them into the same 
category.

73,
de ed -K0iL
-.-.  --.-   ....  .-  --  ...   -..  .   -.-  -----  ..  .-..   -.-
           Ed Edwards    --    K0iL
 PO Box 375                        k0il at arrl.net
 Elkhorn, NE 68022-0375       k0il at qsl.net
 Visit my web site:  http://www.qsl.net/k0il
--... ...--   . ...   --. .-..   - ---   ..-   --- --   ...-.-   . .

--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com