Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Ground antenna?
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Ground antenna?
wrote in message ... On Oct 15, 10:54 am, Ian Jackson wrote: One reason for lightning conductors (and for grounding elevated conductors, like radio antennas) is that it helps to stop a high electrostatic charge from accumulating in the air immediately above them. The intention is to PREVENT a direct lightning strike, rather than conduct a strike to ground. Of course, if a direct strike DOES occur, an antenna (and even a stout lightning conductor) may be seriously damaged. -- Ian "The only problem with that is that the charge is so quickly replenished that I think trying to bleed off the charge is a waste of time." The turn of the century genius, Testla, patented some lighting protection devices based on having an insulated "cap" at the highest object on the protected property. The "cap" would rise thousands of volts above the protected structure and this would reduce the tendency of lightning to strike. Seems to me that the federal government has lots and lots of buildings and would relatively inexpensively conduct definitive experiments to see what works and what doesn't in the area of lightning protection. So far as I know, the feds have done no such thing. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Ground antenna?
On Oct 16, 8:55*pm, "John Gilmer" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Oct 15, 10:54 am, Ian Jackson wrote: One reason for lightning conductors (and for grounding elevated conductors, like radio antennas) is that it helps to stop a high electrostatic charge from accumulating in the air immediately above them. The intention is to PREVENT a direct lightning strike, rather than conduct a strike to ground. Of course, if a direct strike DOES occur, an antenna (and even a stout lightning conductor) may be seriously damaged.. -- Ian "The only problem with that is that the charge is so quickly replenished that I think trying to bleed off the charge is a waste of time." The turn of the century genius, Testla, patented some lighting protection devices based on having an insulated "cap" at the highest object on the protected property. * The "cap" would rise thousands of volts above the protected structure and this would reduce the tendency of lightning to strike. Seems to me that the federal government has lots and lots of buildings and would relatively inexpensively conduct definitive experiments to see what works and what doesn't in the area of lightning protection. So far as I know, the feds have done no such thing. yes, they have, not that i believe everything the government has said, but this stuff i do. this presentation lists several reports by the navy and faa among other agencies: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/4177489/...-Abdul-M-Mousa the nfpa and others are quoted here, even though the author is skeptical: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...-strikes-again this one again quotes the onr, nasa, and air force studies as well as others. http://lightning-protection-institut...ct-fallacy.htm as far as tesla's stuff, i file it with most of the other experiments with lightning protection and prevention, if it really worked it would be used all over the place. the only system that has stood the test of time is the old franklin rod system, it doesn't prevent strikes, but it does try to provide a safe route to ground besides through the protected structure. much of the success of it depends on the quality of the installer, mostly how well they bond the various wires and how well they take it to ground. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Ground antenna?
John Gilmer wrote:
wrote in message ... On Oct 15, 10:54 am, Ian Jackson wrote: One reason for lightning conductors (and for grounding elevated conductors, like radio antennas) is that it helps to stop a high electrostatic charge from accumulating in the air immediately above them. The intention is to PREVENT a direct lightning strike, rather than conduct a strike to ground. Of course, if a direct strike DOES occur, an antenna (and even a stout lightning conductor) may be seriously damaged. -- Ian "The only problem with that is that the charge is so quickly replenished that I think trying to bleed off the charge is a waste of time." The turn of the century genius, Testla, patented some lighting protection devices based on having an insulated "cap" at the highest object on the protected property. The "cap" would rise thousands of volts above the protected structure and this would reduce the tendency of lightning to strike. This is done in some HV test laboratories to avoid flashover to the ceiling and to make the field more representative of "outdoors".. they hang a semiconductive curtain in a horizontal plane above the apparatus which charges up and makes what's above look less like "ground" There's also the whole thing of surrounding a valuable structure (e.g. ammunition storage bunker, rocket launch pad) with an array of high towers with grounded wires from the tops of the towers. While no guarantee that lightning won't strike elsewhere, it definitely ups the odds of the protective structure taking the hit. here's a pictu http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...launch_pad.jpg |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Ground antenna?
On Oct 16, 10:43*pm, Jim Lux wrote:
John Gilmer wrote: wrote in message ... On Oct 15, 10:54 am, Ian Jackson wrote: One reason for lightning conductors (and for grounding elevated conductors, like radio antennas) is that it helps to stop a high electrostatic charge from accumulating in the air immediately above them. The intention is to PREVENT a direct lightning strike, rather than conduct a strike to ground. Of course, if a direct strike DOES occur, an antenna (and even a stout lightning conductor) may be seriously damaged. -- Ian "The only problem with that is that the charge is so quickly replenished that I think trying to bleed off the charge is a waste of time." The turn of the century genius, Testla, patented some lighting protection devices based on having an insulated "cap" at the highest object on the protected property. * The "cap" would rise thousands of volts above the protected structure and this would reduce the tendency of lightning to strike. This is done in some HV test laboratories to avoid flashover to the ceiling and to make the field more representative of "outdoors".. they hang a semiconductive curtain in a horizontal plane above the apparatus which charges up and makes what's above look less like "ground" There's also the whole thing of surrounding a valuable structure (e.g. ammunition storage bunker, rocket launch pad) with an array of high towers with grounded wires from the tops of the towers. *While no guarantee that lightning won't strike elsewhere, it definitely ups the odds of the protective structure taking the hit. here's a pictuhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...aunch_pad.jpg- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - yeah, the nasa pads have towers and long sloped wires to try to catch lightning also. for hv work we mostly do it outside or in a very tall building (the octagonal one just left of center in the top picture is open inside and about 80' tall. http://www.ewh.ieee.org/r1/schenecta...2007_lenox.pdf |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Ground antenna?
"Richard Clark" wrote ... On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:27:02 -0700 (PDT), wrote: I think the height of the object relative to it's surroundings, and it's ability to stream mean more than anything. Hi Mark, There's another angle to be observed here. Globally, there is a potential difference between earth and sky that runs to several hundred volts per meter, The Earth has the excess of electrons. The Earth produce the electric field about one hundred volts per meter. In a suuny day the electrons migrate up with the heavy ions (aggregates of H2O molecukes). with a current flow on the order of femtoAmperes per square cM. Not much locally, but for the full surface area of earth it is the electron conveyor belt charging the clouds through dust migration. This "electron conveyor belt" charge the air. Next the air becomes cooler and the condensation take place. Clouds appear. The condensation cause the voltage rise. All types of sparks jump. Under clouds the electric field has the opposite direction and thousands volts per meter. At this potential and current, absolutely everything is a short circuit that penetrates the voltage isoclines raising earth towards the clouds. The high voltagi in the clouds is lowered by the "electron conveyor belt" and the lightning. The "electron conveyor belt" is more effective if the Earth have many sharp needle. So there are the two possibilities: 1. If "The intention is to PREVENT a direct lightning strike," - many sharp needle is used, 2. If the intention is to CATCH a direct lightning strike and conduct a strike to ground - a polished big ball is used. S* |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Ground antenna?
In message , Szczepan Bialek
writes "Richard Clark" wrote .. . On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:27:02 -0700 (PDT), wrote: I think the height of the object relative to it's surroundings, and it's ability to stream mean more than anything. Hi Mark, There's another angle to be observed here. Globally, there is a potential difference between earth and sky that runs to several hundred volts per meter, The Earth has the excess of electrons. The Earth produce the electric field about one hundred volts per meter. In a suuny day the electrons migrate up with the heavy ions (aggregates of H2O molecukes). with a current flow on the order of femtoAmperes per square cM. Not much locally, but for the full surface area of earth it is the electron conveyor belt charging the clouds through dust migration. This "electron conveyor belt" charge the air. Next the air becomes cooler and the condensation take place. Clouds appear. The condensation cause the voltage rise. All types of sparks jump. Under clouds the electric field has the opposite direction and thousands volts per meter. At this potential and current, absolutely everything is a short circuit that penetrates the voltage isoclines raising earth towards the clouds. The high voltagi in the clouds is lowered by the "electron conveyor belt" and the lightning. The "electron conveyor belt" is more effective if the Earth have many sharp needle. So there are the two possibilities: 1. If "The intention is to PREVENT a direct lightning strike," - many sharp needle is used, 2. If the intention is to CATCH a direct lightning strike and conduct a strike to ground - a polished big ball is used. S* In the early days of lightning conductors, I believe that the French didn't like the nasty pointy things which the British had installed. Instead, they decorated theirs with fancy balls at the top - with sometimes disastrous results. -- Ian |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Ground antenna?
"Ian Jackson" wrote ... In message , Szczepan Bialek writes "Richard Clark" wrote . .. On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:27:02 -0700 (PDT), wrote: I think the height of the object relative to it's surroundings, and it's ability to stream mean more than anything. Hi Mark, There's another angle to be observed here. Globally, there is a potential difference between earth and sky that runs to several hundred volts per meter, The Earth has the excess of electrons. The Earth produce the electric field about one hundred volts per meter. In a suuny day the electrons migrate up with the heavy ions (aggregates of H2O molecukes). with a current flow on the order of femtoAmperes per square cM. Not much locally, but for the full surface area of earth it is the electron conveyor belt charging the clouds through dust migration. This "electron conveyor belt" charge the air. Next the air becomes cooler and the condensation take place. Clouds appear. The condensation cause the voltage rise. All types of sparks jump. Under clouds the electric field has the opposite direction and thousands volts per meter. At this potential and current, absolutely everything is a short circuit that penetrates the voltage isoclines raising earth towards the clouds. The high voltagi in the clouds is lowered by the "electron conveyor belt" and the lightning. The "electron conveyor belt" is more effective if the Earth have many sharp needle. So there are the two possibilities: 1. If "The intention is to PREVENT a direct lightning strike," - many sharp needle is used, 2. If the intention is to CATCH a direct lightning strike and conduct a strike to ground - a polished big ball is used. S* In the early days of lightning conductors, I believe that the French didn't like the nasty pointy things which the British had installed. Instead, they decorated theirs with fancy balls at the top - with sometimes disastrous results. Now everywhere are "the nasty pointy things" but most people do not know why and if they PREVENT or CATCH. S* |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Ground antenna?
On Oct 21, 2:49*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
1. If *"The intention is to PREVENT a direct lightning strike," - many sharp needle is used, Good luck. 2. If the intention is to CATCH a direct lightning strike and *conduct a strike to ground - a polished big ball is used. S* Good luck. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Ground antenna?
wrote ... On Oct 21, 2:49 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote: 1. If "The intention is to PREVENT a direct lightning strike," - many sharp needle is used, Good luck. 2. If the intention is to CATCH a direct lightning strike and conduct a strike to ground - a polished big ball is used. S* Good luck. The above apply to grounded tower. For: " But, is there a difference in strike rate between grounded and ungrounded towers of the same height. I would think that the difference would be very small, and smaller as the height gets bigger." You wrote: "I'd rather have a grounded mast struck every 5 years with no damage, vs an ungrounded mast struck every 10 years that led to heavy damage or even burned the house down. So worrying about that is kind of silly I think, when you know an ungrounded mast is big trouble if it ever does get hit." The grounded tower catch the electrons in form of "electron conveyer belt" and lightning. If the "belt" is efective enough no lightnings. All local exces of electrons from the cloud flow without lightning. If no the lightning appears but it is weak (the sum of electrons is the same). The strike in the ungrouded tower is always strong. So You are right. S* |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Antenna ground or rig ground? | Antenna | |||
Experiment With A Copper Ground Pipe Antenna -by- Gerry Vassilatos plus The Geomantic Antenna Group on YAHOO ! | Shortwave | |||
Ground Or Not To Ground Receiving Antenna In Storm ? | Antenna | |||
Antenna Ground | Antenna | |||
Antenna Ground | Antenna |