I think it was Jim Lux that had an arms length list of references posted
about that a day so or ago on lightning prevention with dissipaters.
I don't know what this has to do with WD4K? His post does not mention them
or allude to them at all. And I don't know how my post got on the same page?
My post concerns the fact that the FAA tested them at several locations and
came to the conclusion that they did nothing other than become a fire
hazard.
That's one empirical source for you.
NASA is another.
If I remember right you spent some money on some of those things and are
quite reluctant to bring yourself around to realizing that maybe you have a
product that may not give you much in return for your investment.
But if you are a believer that's ok too if it gives peace of mind.
73
Gary K4FMX
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Renwick [mailto:ve5ra@sasktel.net]
> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 8:30 PM
> To: garyschafer@comcast.net; towertalk@contesting.com
> Subject: RE: [TowerTalk] Lightning
>
> So far nobody, NOBODY, has presented sound empirical data
> that proves the porcupine does or does not reduce the
> incidence of lightning strikes. Without that data, you are
> nothing more than an opinion.
> At the bottom read the post from WD4K.
>
> Doug
>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Lightning
>
> They also sold a couple to the FAA for testing. I have a
> video tape of the device exploding and spreading shrapnel
> everywhere as it took a direct strike.
>
> 73
> Gary K4FMX
>
> Several years ago, maybe more than five, I went to the
> Polyphaser lecture in Dayton. It was very good including
> good projected diagrams and a great lecture. The layout they
> proposed was fantastic..trench after trench incasing a
> mountain of copper, wagon wheels of copper around the tower
> and house etc. The design was very impressive...and then
> after all of the reasons for such detail....THE PRESENTER
> SAID SIMPLY THAT NOTHING WOULD PROTECT YOU COMPLETELY AND
> THAT EVEN THE BEST LAYOUTS HAVE FLAWS...or something like
> that. I thought...so why bother with these extremes if even
> the best of the best offers marginal protection at best.
>
> And yes, I have been here and done this before: After
> dealing with the tornado disaster here in '97-- 168K damage
> to my home, antennas gone and equipment ruined..and dealing
> my insurance vendors and settlement procedures on all of
> that...I decided to pretty much do as little as I have to:
> ground rods, ice suppressors on my coaxes and rotors, tower
> grounds etc. and not obsess about it. I took out a separate
> policy on just the tower against any type of damage and my
> homeowners covers the rest. I would guess the Polyphaser
> setup would cost $20K or so if done properly...Not saying
> that is a bad thing but it is a bad bet for dollars invested
> for me personally. I would much rather pay my homeowners
> insurance and the other dedicated policy and not worry about
> it. If I get whacked..I am paying in advance for that
> possibility. Since, to paraphrase the Polyphaser
> guy...regardless of all of our time, money and efforts we
> are still subject to and cannot defeat the upper hand of
> mother nature. Just another way of looking at it. Tommy
> WD4K
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.4/615 - Release
> Date: 1/3/2007 1:34 PM
>
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|