An 'essay' on a web site is hardly a peer reviewed journal article in a
publication specializing in lightning. I'll stick with the explanations out
of those publications for now, thank you.
David Robbins K1TTT
e-mail: mailto:k1ttt@arrl.net
web: http://www.k1ttt.net
AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://dxc.k1ttt.net
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Dutson [mailto:kdutson@sbcglobal.net]
> Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 00:06
> To: k1ttt@arrl.net; towertalk@contesting.com
> Subject: RE: [TowerTalk] Porcupines and other wives tales
>
> Judge for yourself the effect of cosmic rays on strikes:
>
> http://www.scienceforpeople.com/Essays/electrifying.htm
>
> 73, Keith NM5G
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of David Robbins K1TTT
> Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 5:41 PM
> To: towertalk@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Porcupines and other wives tales
>
> Actually if you read some of the old literature about radioactive tips,
> and
> some other fancy schemes to make franklin type rods work better the idea
> was
> to help formation of the upward streamer from the rod to get it to strike
> the rod more often. There is no way a little bit of ionization caused by
> those sources could bleed off any more charge, but they supposedly could
> help a bit forming that first streamer... kind of like cosmic rays may
> help
> form the leader in the cloud. There were also other fancy devices that
> looked like cones, or rods with balls and gaps to create sparks, all sorts
> of odd things, but the idea on all of them was to create a better chance
> of
> the rod getting hit, not to get rid of strokes. People back then
> understood, there is little man could do to prevent such a huge event, all
> you can do is hope to guide the energy away from your cows and cooking pot
> in the hearth.
>
>
> David Robbins K1TTT
> e-mail: mailto:k1ttt@arrl.net
> web: http://www.k1ttt.net
> AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://dxc.k1ttt.net
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:towertalk-
> > bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Gary Schafer
> > Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 18:09
> > To: 'Bill Aycock'; 'Keith Dutson'; 'Jim Jarvis';
> > towertalk@contesting.com
> > Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Porcupines and other wives tales
> >
> > Charge can not be altered or bled off enough to make any difference.
> > The earth can re-supply the charge many times faster than you can reduce
> it.
> > It
> > is worth reading the below article that Tom Osborne referenced in
> > another thread. It shows the math on how to calculate the charge being
> > bled of from sharp points.
> >
> > http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/magic.pdf
> >
> > It shows at what field level corona starts and what typical levels are
> > in approaching storms.
> >
> > The build up of ions around the sharp points are also quickly blown
> > away by the wind. There is another company that touts an air terminal
> > with a small radio active tip that is supposed to create an ion field
> > around it to enhance the charge bleed off. Problem is the ions do not
> > stay put in the space because of the wind.
> >
> > For those that still believe in this magic of reduction of charge as a
> > protective device, I have for sale some rabbits feet that you can hang
> > on your tower to reduce lightning strikes. I have had one on my tower
> > for years and never had a strike. Proof that they work!
> >
> > 73
> > Gary K4FMX
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:towertalk-
> > > bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bill Aycock
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 4:15 PM
> > > To: Keith Dutson; 'Jim Jarvis'; towertalk@contesting.com
> > > Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Porcupines and other wives tales
> > >
> > >
> > > Keith-
> > > Your statement below the excerpt from Jim, (below) is NOT true. It
> > > is
> > not
> > > a
> > > matter of bleeding off the entire charge field, it is only a matter
> > > of changing the distribution of the charge. Changing the contour of
> > > the potential field to make another place the weakest path is all you
> need.
> > > I know many "experts" put the idea of bleeding off charge down, but
> > > I
> > have
> > > seen professionals in related fields give arguments just as well
> > > documented on the other side.
> > > Quit assuming the whole energy packet has to be controlled, and
> > > think about using finesse, instead.
> > > Bill-W4BSG
> > >
> > > At 03:03 PM 7/4/2006 -0500, Keith Dutson wrote:
> > >
> > > > >The measured energy of the strike is not the point here. The
> > > > >point is
> > > to
> > > >try and prevent the charge build up to where the strike occurs.
> > > >
> > > >Well, if you are going to prevent a strike, you basically have to
> > > >bleed
> > > off
> > > >all of the strike energy. I don't think that is possible.
> > > >
> > > >73, Keith NM5G
> > >
> > > Bill Aycock - W4BSG
> > > Woodville, Alabama
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > TowerTalk mailing list
> > > TowerTalk@contesting.com
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TowerTalk mailing list
> > TowerTalk@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|