[TowerTalk] Re: Static, Lightening, and protection

[Bill Aycock]

I agree with the comment about "voting" on scientific theories. There was a 
time when people thought that the weather could be predicted, but they 
found out that only the probability of the weather was amenable to 
analysis.  Even though I review a LOT of  abstracts, I have NEVER seen a 
study that considers the Phenomena Yuri ( and I) are talking about. I am 
talking about introducing a "bias" to make the stroke go somewhere else.
A study to measure such phenomena must be long term and statistical in 
nature.  My own small data set includes three hits in five years before I 
had a tower, and NO hits in eight years after. In this period there was no 
obvious difference in the hits in the woods surrounding my QTH.
I know- this is "anecdotal", but, to me, it is real.  I disconnect my rigs 
and ground my antennae, but this only protects the rigs, not the 
sky-hardware. Also, I know that "lightning goes where it wants to", but I 
believe it can be "nudged" a little.
Bill-W4BSG

t 09:18 AM 3/22/2004 -0600, you wrote:

>I'll vote for that :-)
>
>73,
>Didier KO4BB
>
>At 07:10 AM 3/22/2004, David Robbins K1TTT wrote:
>> >
>> > Another vote for "Yuri's theory" of protection or repell.
>>
>>I am glad that in the scientific arena theories are not validated by
>>voting.
>>
>>David Robbins K1TTT
>>e-mail: mailto:k1ttt at arrl.net
>>web: http://www.k1ttt.net
>>AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://dxc.k1ttt.net
>

Bill Aycock - W4BSG
Woodville, Alabama