[TowerTalk] Lightning protection

[Stan Labinsky Jr.]

I have to chime in too.

This idea of only connecting the antenna & control cables when you're going 
to operate and not relying on a properly designed and implemented protection 
system begs hurt.

There are stories, presumably documented, of people being struck by 
lightning from a storm ten miles away, in an area that did not appear to be 
at storm risk... bright, sunny and clear.

And how often do we get so into what we're doing that we tune out all else, 
including our spouse calling "dinner"?

Russian Roulette states that everybody who plays gets shot... eventually.

Stan

-----Original Message----- 
From: Jim Lux
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 9:28 AM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Lightning protection

On 7/8/13 5:28 AM, Pete Smith N4ZR wrote:
> My answeris simple - It is not cost-effective. They are using extensive 
> lightning grounding at the tower base, and purpose-built transmitter
> buildings with elaborate grounding systems. 24/7/365 costs.

Exactly..
They are also facing a very different cost/benefit analysis than the
typical ham.  They pay a LOT more for the assembly and construction
labor than most hams do, so something like using AWG 2 instead of AWG 6
doesn't make a lot of difference in the overall construction cost.

And, their "cost of non-availability" can be substantially higher.  If
an FAA control tower is off the air, that's a big problem and it gets a
lot of attention.


> ask me whether a direct strike while connected would result in <5 volts

That's the other thing.  Equipment designed for 24/7/52 kinds of usage
tends to be more rugged, and it tends to be "single frequency"...