[TowerTalk] CDwelding a tower leg
Frank
frankkamp at att.net
Mon Sep 17 11:33:23 EDT 2012
I'm still an amatuer with 60 foot tower and 4 element beam located in a
secluded valley.
Your set up sounds professional. You have more steel in the air than my
zoning laws would allow.
No wonder you got hit. You have my sympathy and envy.
Cqtestk4xs at aol.com wrote:
>I assume you don't live in the lightning capitol of North America, central
>FL. I understand very well about lightning and static build up as do
>others who have posted here. I have three 199.99 footers as well as several
>other smaller ones. Unless you live in an area of little t-storm activity
>you have been very lucky. Having a lightning hit your tower is not if, but
>when.
>
>I have spoken to several EEs who work at the local surge protection mfg
>company and since I have followed their advice I have had no damage even
>though the towers have been hit over the summer.
>
>Bill K4XS/KH7XS
>
>
>In a message dated 9/17/2012 2:53:22 P.M. Coordinated Universal Time,
>frankkamp at att.net writes:
>
>Nope, never been hit by lightning in over 30 years of hamming.
>Evidently you have had that misfortune.
>
>Ever wonder if there might be something you don't understand about
>static build-up?
>
>My tower is grounded by virtue of the tower leg bottoms stuck in sand
>and dirt below the concrete. I don't need any additional grounding.
>
>The tower acts like a big lightning rod. Contrary to popular belief,
>lightning rods don't attract lightning, they dissipate static charge.
>At least mine seems to work that way. Your milage may differ.
>
>Cqtestk4xs at aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
>>You ever take a lightning hit? I have several times and it was
>>uh....exciting. Towers were extensively grounded but not to a common
>>
>>
>ground with the
>
>
>>house. Three tower legs are not an extensive ground and will not
>>dissapate a direct hit and will likely make a beeline to your shack on
>>
>>
>the coax to
>
>
>>finish the job on its way to your home grounding system through the
>>
>>
>house.
>
>
>>You are living on borrowed time with that attitude. Extensive grounding
>>is your best friend and the insurance company's.
>>
>>Bill K4XS/KH7XS
>>
>>
>>In a message dated 9/17/2012 1:17:23 P.M. Coordinated Universal Time,
>>frankkamp at att.net writes:
>>
>>I fail to see why a ground is needed at all. Surely the lower two feet
>>of tower is firmly embedded in dirt with the concrete anchor above
>>that. If it was done that way those three tower legs should serve as
>>some pretty good ground rods. At least my version of common sense tells
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>me so. I will have to admit that common sense has not always been
>>kind. Sometimes it does not make sense at all and becomes just common
>>bs. I am wondering what it might be on this topic? Anyone venture a
>>guess?
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>TowerTalk mailing list
>>TowerTalk at contesting.com
>>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>TowerTalk mailing list
>TowerTalk at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
>
More information about the TowerTalk
mailing list