Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Lightning\s+protection\s+\-\s+AGAIN\s+\!\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Lightning\s+protection\s+\-\s+AGAIN\s+\!\s*$/: 2 ]

Total 2 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Lightning protection - AGAIN ! (score: 1): Author: Martin Sole <msole@loxinfo.co.th>; Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 09:58:05 +0700; I know this is a topic that seems to regularly surface here, not really surprising I suppose, but I have a question that seem rather to go against what I think I understand. Recently I have started t; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-10/msg00013.html (8,532 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] Lightning protection - AGAIN ! (score: 1): Author: "Gary Schafer" <garyschafer@comcast.net>; Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 22:52:55 -0500; You got it, snake oil! The use of an independent down conductor on towers has been claimed by some to prevent current flow in the tower. Fat chance! The tower has much lower inductance than any down; /archives//html/Towertalk/2006-10/msg00015.html (10,400 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 2
Page: [1]