Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] lightning protection at towers and bunkers on former AT&

To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] lightning protection at towers and bunkers on former AT&T microwave relay sites
From: "Roger (K8RI) on TT" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>
Date: Sat, 20 May 2017 18:00:21 -0400
List-post: <towertalk@contesting.com">mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
I can only give anecdotal (results for one site) on damage mitigation from lightning strikes. I do not use porcupines. I use a "conventional" approach: IIRC The coax shields are grounded at the top and bottom of the tower as well as at the CPG. I use polyphasers at the CPG as well. The entire system is grounded though a network of ground rods and bare #2 copper cable. There is also a double run of bare #2 from the tower, along the conduit to the CPG. There are 3 runs of bare #2 about 80 feet long radiating out from the tower with 8' ground rods about 6' out from the tower base and every 16 feet thereafter. All junctions between the bare #2 and the ground rods are cad welded. There is a total of 32, or 33 ground rods and a bit over 600 feet of bare #2 purchased before the price went up.

The first 6 years after the ground system was finished the tower took 17 visually verified strikes. One strike removed ALL of the water proofing and silver plating from the connectors at the top of the tower. The rigs were rarely disconnected, yet there was no damage to any rig. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for my CAT5 network and induced voltage from a nearby strike.
http://www.rogerhalstead.com/ham_files/cablebox.htm

The system is in a constant state of change and has been reorganized (rerouted) so at present I can and normally do disconnect the rigs in the house when they are not in use.

"My opinion" is "there is no substitute for a good ground system, but no practical system offers 100% protection."

I would add that in my opinion, just disconnecting the coax and throwing it on the floor is a very dangerous practice. Disconnected coax should be grounded, otherwise you're repeating Ben Franklin's experiment using wire instead of string/twine.

73, Roger (K8RI)


On 5/20/2017 Saturday 5:12 AM, David J "Dave" Windisch 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


--

73

Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>