[TowerTalk] Fwd: Near Field Lightning Damage

[Patrick Greenlee]

Bill, no problem.  I would have been skeptical as well had I not been 
there when the boat came in to be re stocked with electronics. It is 
altogether possible that the skipper, navigator, and chief engineer 
exaggerated the claims.  Maybe one crewman's wristwatch survived... 
Nothing wrong with healthy skepticism.  Even eye witnesses are 
frequently unreliable.  This was 35 years ago... I have sent an email to 
two friends who worked with me back then. Both are reliable and will 
tell me their recollection which could be enlightening and or diverge 
from mine.  One is a chief scientist for Leidos and the other is an EE 
specializing in antennas, mostly microwave.  Both are hams.

No extraterrestrial beings, no strange lights in the sky, or other 
weirdness just fried solid state equipment and the claim that the boat 
was not hit by lightning but had a close miss.  Maybe it was hit but 
they didn't notice where.  I don't recall if this was a wooden hulled 
boat or steel.  Some were conversions from Navy surplus and some purpose 
built.  I'd guess a wooden hulled vessel to be more likely to "allow" 
the claimed effects.

There are lightening super strokes many times the magnitude of "regular" 
lightening.

Patrick   NJ5G



On 4/19/2015 9:34 PM, Bill Aycock wrote:
> Patrick-
> I apologize; from your earlier post, it was not clear that you were 
> directly involved, hence my skepticism.
> Bill--W4BSG
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Patrick Greenlee
> Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2015 9:15 PM
> To: towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Fwd: Near Field Lightning Damage
>
> Bill, in so doing you would be just as wrong as Hans.  Re the CB
> comment.  To my knowledge we never replaced a CB for lighting causes.
>
> Patrick   NJ5G
>
> On 4/19/2015 7:33 PM, Bill Aycock wrote:
>> Hans is right, if a little too gentle. I would have called the tale
>> "manufactured" on "Invented" rather than "Anecdotal".
>> Bill--W4BSG
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Hans Hammarquist via TowerTalk
>> Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2015 2:44 PM
>> To: towertalk at contesting.com
>> Subject: [TowerTalk] Fwd: Near Field Lightning Damage
>>
>> This sounds very anecdotal. Yes, a near strike lightning may take out 
>> CB radios etc but that it took out digital watches make me 
>> suspicious. The are usually metal encapsulated and very immune to 
>> external field. I believe a EMP strong enough to take out a watch 
>> also will take out the person carrying that watch.
>>
>>
>> Depending on the grid size, a Faraday cage is useful for the EM from 
>> a lightning as the "M" will introduce back EMF in the cage which will 
>> neutralize the "M".
>>
>>
>> I hope the "falme" will not be too long,
>>
>>
>> Hans - N2JFS
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Patrick Greenlee <patrick_g at windstream.net>
>> To: towertalk <towertalk at contesting.com>
>> Sent: Sat, Apr 18, 2015 10:18 pm
>> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Near Field Lightning Damage
>>
>>
>> Back in the 80's a tuna boat pulled into San Diego with every device on
>> board
>> containing a semi-conductor inoperative.  CB radio, Marine VHF,
>> SSB, SONAR,
>> RADAR, VHS tape player, SatNav LORAN, and on and on...  All
>> the crew members
>> wore digital watches which were all totally dead.
>>
>> One near miss by a large
>> lightning stroke took out everything with solid
>> state semiconductor junctions.
>> The good news was they didn't have a
>> spotter chopper aloft at the time
>> dependent on the aircraft beacon band
>> transmitter on board to find the boat
>> (helipad is the roof of the pilot
>> house.)  We theorized it was the EMP that
>> ate everything as there was no
>> evidence that the bolt hit the boat.
>>
>> Later
>> when asked what could be done to provide an immune backup comm
>> radio we told
>> them a mu metal box.  A Faraday cage wouldn't stop the
>> magnetic pulse.
>>
>> Just
>> a thought in case there are any serious preppers in our midst.
>>
>> Patrick
>> NJ5G
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> http://www.avast.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> http://www.avast.com
>