Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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* |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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). |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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* |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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.) |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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* |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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* |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Ground antenna?
Szczepan Białek 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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Ground antenna?
In message , Cecil Moore
writes Szczepan Białek 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 |
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 |