The he article I recall was about the FAA. They did an extensive test,
comparing many of their sites that used this device to many of their sites that
did not use it. The results were that there was no clear evidence that the
device prevented lightning strikes as advertised. Try google for FAA testing
of lightning suppressor or some such working.
K4TO
> On May 20, 2017, at 5:12 AM, David J Dave Windisch <davidjw1@fioptics.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi, all concerned:
>
>
>
> Tks much for the speedy replies and suggestions.
>
>
>
> Searched NFPA discussion site and found no refs to the Nott Ltd "porcupine
> device" debunking mentioned in this thread.
>
> Anybody have a cite, pls?
>
>
>
> At some time, after my site was decommissioned, it was stripped to the
> walls, and most ferrous and non-ferrous materials not too heavy, red-hot or
> nailed down, disappeared.
>
> There's lots of empty conduit.
>
> Still, I've found all if not most reconnect-points to the building and tower
> grounds.
>
> My crude ground testing is simply running an AC hot conductor around the
> site to ground wires and temporary driven rods, and seeing how brightly
> tungsten lamps will glow.
>
> It was suggested offlist that there is prolly a ground mat under the whole
> property.
>
>
>
> Brgds,
>
>
>
> Dave, N3HE
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|