[TowerTalk] Static Discharge Porcupines?

[Joe Giacobello, K2XX]

Yes, I have a paper from a Univ. of New Mexico EE prof on the subject if 
anyone is interested.

73, Joe
K2XX

> David Robbins <mailto:k1ttt at arrl.net>
> Saturday, August 08, 2015 12:34 PM
> The purpose of franklin style lightning rods is to provide a preferred 
> point
> for the stroke to attach and then provide an easy path to ground for the
> current. There is nothing you can do to 'drain' the charge away since 
> it is
> being attracted straight out of the earth by the charge built up at the
> bottom of the thundercloud. The best you can do is provide the sharp point
> to initiate a streamer to connect to the downward moving leader and then
> keep that current out of your building.
>
> David Robbins K1TTT
> e-mail: mailto:k1ttt at arrl.net
> web: http://wiki.k1ttt.net
> AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://k1ttt.net
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Patrick Greenlee
> Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2015 16:19
> To: towertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Static Discharge Porcupines?
>
> My quick literature search showed the US Navy and others tested the ESD
> (Electrostatic Dissipation devices AKA porcupines) and found them to not
> reduce the frequency or number of lightning strikes on their test
> structures.
>
> Seems counter-intuitive to me but I can't argue with their results as 
> I have
> no experimental results to the contrary. From what I read the porcupines
> can't handle the currents required to prevent the charge building up and
> having a strike.
>
> I'm sure folks in the business of selling protective devices put the best
> face on their product as possible but...
>
> In my early years I was taught that lightning rods were to prevent a 
> strike
> by draining off the charge preventing a build up sufficient to make for a
> strike and to be well grounded with low resistance-low inductance paths to
> ground in case they took a strike. Oh well, empiricism trumps theory 
> and or
> wishful thinking.
>
> 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
>
>
> Patrick Greenlee <mailto:patrick_g at windstream.net>
> Saturday, August 08, 2015 12:19 PM
> My quick literature search showed the US Navy and others tested the 
> ESD (Electrostatic Dissipation devices AKA porcupines) and found them 
> to not reduce the frequency or number of lightning strikes on their 
> test structures.
>
> Seems counter-intuitive to me but I can't argue with their results as 
> I have no experimental results to the contrary.  From what I read the 
> porcupines can't handle the currents required to prevent the charge 
> building up and having a strike.
>
> I'm sure folks in the business of selling protective devices put the 
> best face on their product as possible but...
>
> In my early years I was taught that lightning rods were to prevent a 
> strike by draining off the charge preventing a build up sufficient to 
> make for a strike and to be well grounded with low resistance-low 
> inductance paths to ground in case they took a strike. Oh well, 
> empiricism trumps theory and or wishful thinking.
>
> Patrick       NJ5G
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>