Ground antenna?
 

On Oct 22, 8:40*am, "Szczepan Bialek" 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*

no, that is not right. a grounded tower can not dissipate enough
charge to reduce the stroke intensity. towers actually attract MORE
high current strokes than the surrounding ground.

Ground antenna?
 

Dave wrote:
On Oct 22, 8:40 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
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*

no, that is not right. a grounded tower can not dissipate enough
charge to reduce the stroke intensity. towers actually attract MORE
high current strokes than the surrounding ground.

Well, Szechuan obviously hasn't figured out which way the belt is
pumping electrons, so it's not surprising he's wrong. He also doesn't
understand anything of the physics involved, either, so none of his
nonsensical answers should be a surprise.

tom
K0TAR*

Ground antenna?
 

"Dave" wrote
...
On Oct 22, 8:40 am, "Szczepan Bialek" 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
excess 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*

no, that is not right. a grounded tower can not dissipate enough
charge to reduce the stroke intensity. towers actually attract MORE
high current strokes than the surrounding ground.

Grounded towers with the many spikes dissipate more charge then the simmilar
towers with the polished big ball.
That with the many spikes PREVENT (or minimalise), that with the balls CATCH
(high current strokes).

Ground antenna?
 

"tom" wrote
. net...
Dave wrote:
On Oct 22, 8:40 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
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
excess 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*

no, that is not right. a grounded tower can not dissipate enough
charge to reduce the stroke intensity. towers actually attract MORE
high current strokes than the surrounding ground.

Well, Szechuan obviously hasn't figured out which way the belt is pumping
electrons, so it's not surprising he's wrong. He also doesn't understand
anything of the physics involved, either, so none of his nonsensical
answers should be a surprise.

The atmospheric electricity was described in XIX century. At that time
Armstrong and Kelvin build the High Voltage Generators (steam and drop).
Also the way how the spikes work.
Have you the old books?
S*
S*

Ground antenna?
 

In article ,
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

"Dave" wrote
...
On Oct 22, 8:40 am, "Szczepan Bialek" 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
excess 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*

no, that is not right. a grounded tower can not dissipate enough
charge to reduce the stroke intensity. towers actually attract MORE
high current strokes than the surrounding ground.

Grounded towers with the many spikes dissipate more charge then the simmilar
towers with the polished big ball.
That with the many spikes PREVENT (or minimalise), that with the balls CATCH
(high current strokes).

Much of this is speculation.

With 10 million volts; currents of 10,000 amperes and strokes that can
travel 30 miles: whether you have a ball or a spike on top of a roof
isn't going to make much difference.

It has been shown that a properly installed lightning rod system; and UL
rated materials connected to low resistance grounds will increase the
odds of protecting lives and property substantially.

(The TV stations on top the Sears tower in Chicago continue to transmit
even as they are being struck.)

Ground antenna?
 

On Oct 23, 8:03*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
"tom" ouse.net...





Dave wrote:
On Oct 22, 8:40 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
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
excess 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*

no, that is not right. *a grounded tower can not dissipate enough
charge to reduce the stroke intensity. *towers actually attract MORE
high current strokes than the surrounding ground.

Well, Szechuan obviously hasn't figured out which way the belt is pumping
electrons, so it's not surprising he's wrong. *He also doesn't understand
anything of the physics involved, either, so none of his nonsensical
answers should be a surprise.

The atmospheric electricity was described in XIX century. At that time
Armstrong and Kelvin build the High Voltage Generators (steam and drop).
Also the way how the spikes work.
Have you the old books?
S*
S*- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I find that the new books have the good information that has been well
proved over the last 100 years or so. There were lots of theories in
those old books that have been proved false over the years. It also
helps to work in the field, at the hv lab i work at we can run 3 phase
765kv, +/- 1Mv dc, and about 5Mv pulses. one of my personal jobs is
writing software for lightning protection design on hv power lines, so
i have been through this stuff many times.

Ground antenna?
 

wrote
...
In article ,
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote:


Grounded towers with the many spikes dissipate more charge then the
simmilar
towers with the polished big ball.
That with the many spikes PREVENT (or minimalise), that with the balls
CATCH
(high current strokes).

Much of this is speculation.

It is a history: "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"

With 10 million volts; currents of 10,000 amperes and strokes that can
travel 30 miles: whether you have a ball or a spike on top of a roof
isn't going to make much difference.

The volts appear when no chance to dissipation. To have it on the roof must
be multiplicity of spikes (not one).

It has been shown that a properly installed lightning rod system; and UL
rated materials connected to low resistance grounds will increase the
odds of protecting lives and property substantially.

(The TV stations on top the Sears tower in Chicago continue to transmit
even as they are being struck.)

All is true. I only wanted to add something about the spikes and balls. It
was nice that Ian support me with the funny anecdote.
S*

Ground antenna?
 

"Dave" wrote
...
On Oct 23, 8:03 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

The atmospheric electricity was described in XIX century. At that time
Armstrong and Kelvin build the High Voltage Generators (steam and drop).
Also the way how the spikes work.
Have you the old books?
S*
- Show quoted text -

I find that the new books have the good information that has been well
proved over the last 100 years or so. There were lots of theories in
those old books that have been proved false over the years. It also
helps to work in the field, at the hv lab i work at we can run 3 phase
765kv, +/- 1Mv dc, and about 5Mv pulses. one of my personal jobs is
writing software for lightning protection design on hv power lines, so
i have been through this stuff many times.

Tell us than what do you use: Plenty of spikes or balls?
S*

Ground antenna?
 

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
It is a history: "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.

I assume a certain biased reporting of anecdotal evidence.:-)

A ball at the top hat of a Tesla coil allows a greater
amplitude of voltage to build up before arcing than does
a point at the top. Therefo

Points should result in more lightning strikes at lower
voltages.

Balls should result in fewer lightning strikes at lower
voltages.

Can't think of any valid reason why either design
should be able to avoid the really big one.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Ground antenna?
 

In message , Cecil Moore
writes
Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
It is a history: "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.

I assume a certain biased reporting of anecdotal evidence.:-)

A ball at the top hat of a Tesla coil allows a greater
amplitude of voltage to build up before arcing than does
a point at the top. Therefo

Points should result in more lightning strikes at lower
voltages.

Balls should result in fewer lightning strikes at lower
voltages.

Did you mean 'higher'?

Can't think of any valid reason why either design
should be able to avoid the really big one.

Surely, when lightning is about, points allow an essentially continuous
discharge at a low current, while balls allow the voltage to build up
and up, until there is a big 'splat'?
--
Ian