At 02:29 PM 3/18/2005, K4SB wrote:
>David Robbins K1TTT wrote:
> > And what would happen if you could 'siphon off' enough charge? The
> > manufacturers of those things say the prevent strikes by either
> bleeding off
> > enough charge to prevent the streamer or ionizing enough air around them to
> > hide the object. Neither of those makes sense and have been very soundly
> > rebutted by very reputable researchers.
>
>Well, those "reputable researchers" do not include Boeing, Airbus
>Industries, the McDonald Iron Works, or any other aircraft
>manufacturer.
>
>Believe what you want.
>
>Ed
Let's not confuse lightning protection dissipators, which the literature is
pretty convincing in saying does not work, with the trailing dissipators to
get rid of P-static on airplanes.
Totally different charging source, totally different magnitude. The
airplane devices are designed to dissipate the accumulated charge from the
impact of rain drops or ice crystals (P-static == Preciptation static) in a
steady low level hiss, rather than periodic big "zaps". The charging rate
is quite low, and the idea with this is to reduce RFI.
I'll bet the trailing edge wicks do zip, nada, nothing, to reduce the
incidence of lightning strikes on planes.
_______________________________________________
See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather
Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions
and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|