|
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 15:58:03 -0500, w_tom wrote:
A person who so poorly protected his own home as to suffer completely unnecessary computer and TV damage will now teach me? One who even posted the classic urban myth about concrete damage to prove Ufer grounding does not work? You just realized something: someone on the other side does have a few decades of experience and engineering degrees. If you had one, then the concept of resistance and impedance would have been correctly posted. However someone even did read 'tower talk' - and posted citations from 'tower talk' in direct contradiction to your posted myths. Well at least you are not posting personal attacks this time. The world can get better. In the meantime this is a discussion about the OPs antenna mast; not a forum for personal attacks. The OP must earth his antenna mast both for lightning protection AND as required by the National Electrical Code. That answers his question. Please feel free to address the purpose of this thread - the Original Poster's original request for information - Zeeeeeeee3 originally posted: It has several times, which you have chosen to ignore. Use proper grounds and disconnect his equipment from the antenna and mains. Your answer is use proper grounds, but don't disconnect any equipment. Now which one makes more sense? Which one would better protect his equipment? Which one offers more protection? |
In , Lancer
wrote: On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 15:58:03 -0500, w_tom wrote: A person who so poorly protected his own home as to suffer completely unnecessary computer and TV damage will now teach me? One who even posted the classic urban myth about concrete damage to prove Ufer grounding does not work? You just realized something: someone on the other side does have a few decades of experience and engineering degrees. If you had one, then the concept of resistance and impedance would have been correctly posted. However someone even did read 'tower talk' - and posted citations from 'tower talk' in direct contradiction to your posted myths. Well at least you are not posting personal attacks this time. The world can get better. In the meantime this is a discussion about the OPs antenna mast; not a forum for personal attacks. The OP must earth his antenna mast both for lightning protection AND as required by the National Electrical Code. That answers his question. Please feel free to address the purpose of this thread - the Original Poster's original request for information - Zeeeeeeee3 originally posted: It has several times, which you have chosen to ignore. Use proper grounds and disconnect his equipment from the antenna and mains. Your answer is use proper grounds, but don't disconnect any equipment. Now which one makes more sense? Which one would better protect his equipment? Which one offers more protection? Hey Lancer, don't make it too simple. It's all about "impedance", don'cha know? -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 15:04:05 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote: In , Lancer wrote: On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 15:58:03 -0500, w_tom wrote: A person who so poorly protected his own home as to suffer completely unnecessary computer and TV damage will now teach me? One who even posted the classic urban myth about concrete damage to prove Ufer grounding does not work? You just realized something: someone on the other side does have a few decades of experience and engineering degrees. If you had one, then the concept of resistance and impedance would have been correctly posted. However someone even did read 'tower talk' - and posted citations from 'tower talk' in direct contradiction to your posted myths. Well at least you are not posting personal attacks this time. The world can get better. In the meantime this is a discussion about the OPs antenna mast; not a forum for personal attacks. The OP must earth his antenna mast both for lightning protection AND as required by the National Electrical Code. That answers his question. Please feel free to address the purpose of this thread - the Original Poster's original request for information - Zeeeeeeee3 originally posted: It has several times, which you have chosen to ignore. Use proper grounds and disconnect his equipment from the antenna and mains. Your answer is use proper grounds, but don't disconnect any equipment. Now which one makes more sense? Which one would better protect his equipment? Which one offers more protection? Hey Lancer, don't make it too simple. It's all about "impedance", don'cha know? Couldn't I get a correct impedance match with a 1/4 wave of bus bar? Now what did he say the frequency of lightning was? |
In , Lancer
wrote: On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 15:04:05 -0800, Frank Gilliland wrote: In , Lancer wrote: On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 15:58:03 -0500, w_tom wrote: A person who so poorly protected his own home as to suffer completely unnecessary computer and TV damage will now teach me? One who even posted the classic urban myth about concrete damage to prove Ufer grounding does not work? You just realized something: someone on the other side does have a few decades of experience and engineering degrees. If you had one, then the concept of resistance and impedance would have been correctly posted. However someone even did read 'tower talk' - and posted citations from 'tower talk' in direct contradiction to your posted myths. Well at least you are not posting personal attacks this time. The world can get better. In the meantime this is a discussion about the OPs antenna mast; not a forum for personal attacks. The OP must earth his antenna mast both for lightning protection AND as required by the National Electrical Code. That answers his question. Please feel free to address the purpose of this thread - the Original Poster's original request for information - Zeeeeeeee3 originally posted: It has several times, which you have chosen to ignore. Use proper grounds and disconnect his equipment from the antenna and mains. Your answer is use proper grounds, but don't disconnect any equipment. Now which one makes more sense? Which one would better protect his equipment? Which one offers more protection? Hey Lancer, don't make it too simple. It's all about "impedance", don'cha know? Couldn't I get a correct impedance match with a 1/4 wave of bus bar? Now what did he say the frequency of lightning was? I don't think he did, but if you post an arbitrary value I'm sure he will provide you with the correct information. I -do- know that lightning is monitored by listening to the Schumann (sp?) resonance, which is a constantly changing frequency down around 8 Hz. So let's see, we would need a ground strap that is resonant over a frequency range of, say, around 1 to 20 Hz..... so how much money are you willing to spend on this little project? Because the only way I see of doing this is with a megawatt negative impedance converter! -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Frank Gilliland wrote:
In , Lancer wrote: On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 15:04:05 -0800, Frank Gilliland wrote: In , Lancer wrote: On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 15:58:03 -0500, w_tom wrote: A person who so poorly protected his own home as to suffer completely unnecessary computer and TV damage will now teach me? One who even posted the classic urban myth about concrete damage to prove Ufer grounding does not work? You just realized something: someone on the other side does have a few decades of experience and engineering degrees. If you had one, then the concept of resistance and impedance would have been correctly posted. However someone even did read 'tower talk' - and posted citations from 'tower talk' in direct contradiction to your posted myths. Well at least you are not posting personal attacks this time. The world can get better. In the meantime this is a discussion about the OPs antenna mast; not a forum for personal attacks. The OP must earth his antenna mast both for lightning protection AND as required by the National Electrical Code. That answers his question. Please feel free to address the purpose of this thread - the Original Poster's original request for information - Zeeeeeeee3 originally posted: It has several times, which you have chosen to ignore. Use proper grounds and disconnect his equipment from the antenna and mains. Your answer is use proper grounds, but don't disconnect any equipment. Now which one makes more sense? Which one would better protect his equipment? Which one offers more protection? Hey Lancer, don't make it too simple. It's all about "impedance", don'cha know? Couldn't I get a correct impedance match with a 1/4 wave of bus bar? Now what did he say the frequency of lightning was? I don't think he did, but if you post an arbitrary value I'm sure he will provide you with the correct information. I -do- know that lightning is monitored by listening to the Schumann (sp?) resonance, which is a constantly changing frequency down around 8 Hz. So let's see, we would need a ground strap that is resonant over a frequency range of, say, around 1 to 20 Hz..... so how much money are you willing to spend on this little project? Because the only way I see of doing this is with a megawatt negative impedance converter! You guys are all over this topic and it's really blowing my hair back. Can you guy's condense it to your opinion of the best/cheapest way to ground lets say..an omni on a roof-top or tower? Best being a relative term. I'm sure the advice will save at least one person from getting blasted, and make people aware that you can't just put a hunk of metal in the air without considering lightning. Thx. -- Go 40 42 12 |
Frank Gilliland wrote:
First, sink a ground rod at the point where the coax will enter the house. If you have a basement next to the ground rod, sink a couple more rods so they are separated by ten feet or more and in the path of the coax. Some people like to prep the ground by soaking with sal****er, but in my experience that makes the rod corrode before its time, then the salt leeches away into the ground water, leaving a very poor ground in a very short time. I use galvanized pipe as opposed to copper rods because they have a larger diameter (more rod-to-ground contact = lower resistance), and they last longer. You can also thread the pipe for a super-neat installation of a waterproof box...... Next is the coax installation. Run the coax down the mast or side of the house to the ground rod. Don't run the coax near any wiring inside the house. You can detect house wiring with a cheap metal detector. Avoid sharp turns as much as possible. At the ground rod it helps to have a waterproof box because you need to cut the coax, ground the shield, and shunt the center conductor to ground with a choke (as per the diagram I made yesterday). About the choke: This serves two purposes. First, it shunts static electricity from the antenna to ground. Second, it provides a path for lightning if it should strike. Since the lightning will arc across every loop in the choke, the inductance value isn't critical just as long as it is high enough to block your RF (about 1 mH or larger for HF and above), and the wire size is large enough to handle some current (#14 or larger should be fine). One of those heavy-duty hash chokes for ignition noise is ok, or you can wind your own -- use a large iron bolt for a core and wind about 50 turns of #10 or #12 house wire. If you aren't running much power, you can slit the insulation along the length of the coil so it will arc at a lower voltage. Then run the coax up into the house along side the grounding strap. Tie them together with cable-ties if you want. Again, it's important that you run these so they don't come close to any house wiring, and they should enter at a location that is clear of easily combustible stuff. Terminate the ground strap with a really big alligator clip, jumper cable clamp, or whatever you have that makes a really good connection and can be easily disconnected. The ground clamp from an arc welder is almost ideal. Above the point where the coax and grounding strap enter the house, make a hook or post where you can hang both when not being used. Remember that if lightning hits, it's very possible that these will jump straight out from the wall and dance around like a water hose, so make sure they are held securely in place. Inside the house, make yourself a grounding bus bar of copper or aluminum. Put this on the back of your bench and use it to ground all your equipment. To this you clamp on your grounding strap. When not using your bench, unhook the grounding strap along with the coax and stow it away. Also, to protect the coax, use an appropriate socket and short it out before you stow it. When should you unhook your antenna? There is a thing called the 30-30 rule: If you hear thunder less than 30 seconds after you see the lightning, unplug. Don't plug in again until 30 minutes after the last thunder. That's pretty safe. You can even improve on that by building a lightning detector, many of which will indicate lightning even before you can hear the thunder. How's that? Oh, I almost forgot..... coax length!!!!! The low impedance of the ground will be reflected at the radio when the length of the coax & ground strap, from the ground rod to the radio, are 1/2 wavelength. This means 1/2 wavelength -without- consideration of velocity factor because we want a low impedance -ground-. And this means -- you guessed it -- 18 feet of coax! Very informative Frank, make sure we can reference that. ;) Dunno if average joe will completely comply, but he can't say you didn't worn him! We pushed poles in the ground with the bobcat and post hole digger, mostly for lightning. Out here where I live, by the time the fire dept gets here with the tanker (no hydrants)you're toast. Ground is good. (like you said) -- Go 40 42 12 |
"w_tom" wrote in message ... Cited was an industry professional who demonstrate simple protection even for amateur radio installations. He discussed protection without damage for *all* radios, including repeaters. You think effective earthing requires what commercial broadcasters install? Yes, some so deny the power of earthing. Very little protects radios from most direct lightning strikes. However some will cry that such earthing cannot protect from the rare 1%. If earthing is only 99% effective, then no money should be spent - all earthing is useless? Reality, effective protection from direct lightning strikes is about simple and inexpensive earthing. Frank Gilliland has even posted unrealistic and fictional numbers, and then denies the power of earthing - a concept well proven in virtually every town throughout the world. BTW Frank, to correct your post: low *resistance* (not impedance) ground is fine for AC line protection. A low *impedance* ground is necessary for lightning protection. One must know the difference to understand simple earthing concepts - and why earthing is so effective. How can you be so critical of earthing and not even know the most basic of basics - impedance verse resistance? Even basic numbers such as the typical pulse width are silly speculation. Typical lightning strike is a classic 8/20 usec. That is microseconds - not 0.1 seconds - which is why lightning does not have the energy content of myth. Furthermore, 1,000,000 volts does not appear at that lightning strike. In fact a major destructive direct strike to the building is well defined in research papers - as to not exceed 6,000 volts. One should first learn the science. Basic electrical circuit theory makes it obvious why the millions of volts up there don't appear down here. Either those millions of volts must be up there or down here - cannot exist in both locations. Again, first semester circuit theory that every graduate of West Point and Annapolis has learned. Please first learn that basic circuit theory before disputing IEEE papers, other well proven research, and NEC requirements. Correctly noted is that most people don't climb trees to search for lightning damage to trees. But then researchers such as Alan Taylor of the US Forestry Service are not just most people. Lightning has such low energy that most every tree directly struck has no appreciative damage. Speculate all you want. He did the work and wrote the paper. Using your reasoning for why earth cannot conduct the electricity even in a badly polluted salt marsh: then obviously lightning could never conduct miles across the sky and obviously lightning does not strike a non conductive earth. Why does air conduct miles of lightning that only contains millions of volts? First learn the many stages of how air and earth become such excellent conductors. Does a cloud strike 5 miles diagonal to connect cloud to charges on earth? Of course not. Lightning travels 3 miles straight down and then 4 miles through earth to complete a circuit. Lightning takes a more conductive path via air and earth rather than an electrically longer 5 mile path only through air. Conductive earth is also why earthing a direct strike (the single point earth ground) is such effective protection from a direct strike. Because even simple concepts of impedance verses resistance are not understood, then even safety grounds (third prong in wall receptacle) are confused with earth ground. Safety ground is different from motherboard ground is different from chassis ground is different from automobile ground is different from breaker box ground is different from power plant ground is different from earth ground. Most all are interconnected, but are still electrically different. Learn about impedance. No earth ground is found in wall receptacles because the wire length - and therefore impedance - of that third prong wire is just too far from earth ground. Again, one must first understand impedance to appreciate what world renown experts (some quoted here) have said about earthing. It takes but a few milliamps to kill a human. Does that prove lightning must be a high energy event - because it too kills? Learn how easy a human can be killed before posting such assumptions. Even posted is that a buried coax is protected from lightning transients. That is ridiculous as even made bluntly obvious in a Polyphaser application note about damage to an improperly earthed telephone exchange; transient damage via buried wires. Obvious in that long reply - even basic electrical concepts are not understood. Real world professionals and generations of scientific experience prove basic earthing is effective protection. Even the NEC requires OP to earth ground his antenna also for human safety. Basic electrical knowledge - impedance verses resistance - was not even understood and still Frank said everyone is wrong about earthing. Frank Gilliland wrote: CB radio antennas are not commercial station towers. The latter are verticals that have a direct connection to ground and the ground radials. Actually, an AM broadcast tower is almost a perfect lightning rod by design because it not only shunts the lightning directly to ground, but also distributes the power from the strike over the whole counterpoise field. So the tower stays at a relatively low potential even during a direct strike. And what -does- manage to sneak onto the line has to deal with some rather expensive protection devices. Antennas mounted seperately on towers (FM/TV BC, cell, commercial, etc) have the same problems as any other antenna, but those problems are usually minimized by the use of coax. More below. Let's start with his numbers. Millions of volts? Yes. But same voltage does not appear everywhere in a circuit - basic circuit theory. Those millions of voltage are in the sky. Surge protection is about making those millions of voltage appear elsewhere which is why industry professionals discuss impedance. A low impedance connection to earth means no millions of volts. A low impedance ground is fine for AC line protection, but it doesn't guarantee lightning protection. We have all heard that lightning takes the shortest path to ground, but that's not really true since electricity will take EVERY path to ground available. Lightning creates it's own conduit from the clouds, but once it hits a conductor on the ground it behaves just like any other form of electricity -- almost. The fact is that wire has resistance, and the resistance of copper increases with temperature, which is what happens when it passes the current from a lightning strike. When that happens it will continue it's path to ground (assuming the wire doesn't fuse), but other paths will share more of the load. And because there is a resistance, there will also be a voltage potential across that resistance. If that voltage potential is high enough it will happily arc over to another ground path, and frequently does. More below. Millions of amps? Only in dreams. Most lightning is below 20,000 amps and of such short duration as to not be high energy. Lightning typically so low energy at the strike location (not to be confused with what is miles above) that well over 90% of all trees struck leave no indication of that strike. Let's take your figure of 20,000.... no, let's go even lower. Let's say only 1000 amps @ 1,000,000 volts. And let's say this is an unusual strike in that it only hits once, not multiple times like a normal strike. And let's say the duration of the hit is 1/10 of a second. This will be a pathetic bolt of lightning to be sure! Ok, so let's do some numbers: 1,000,000 Volts x 1000 Amps = 1,000,000,000 Watts 1,000,000,000 Watts x 0.1 sec = 1,000,000 Watt/sec One million joules is "low energy"? Get a grip. Trees struck by lightning usually -do- leave an indication of being struck, but most people don't climb them to search for the point of contact, which is typically nothing more than a spot about one or two cm in diameter that has been charred. And while the reason trees are able to survive direct lightning strikes is still the subject of debate, the reason they make good lightning rods (efficiently conducting the strike to ground) shouldn't be so suprising when you take a look at a cross-section of the root structure -- interesting how it resembles an electrical discharge, isn't it? Ok, back to your low impedance ground. A ground rod is used to make an electrical connection to the earth. But the impedance of that connection can be anywhere from a few ohms to a few hundred ohms, depending on the type of rod and the conditions of the soil. Let's just say we have a ground with an unbelievable impedance of 1 ohm (a solid-silver rod in a heavily mineralized salt-water marsh that was recently used for dumping copper turnings from a very poorly run machine shop)..... 1000 amps x 1 ohm = 1000 volts So with an almost impossibly good ground and a puny bolt of lightning you -still- have 1000 volts at the top of your ground rod. So a more typical ground impedance of 50 ohms (not coincidence) and a more typical lightning strike of 10,000 amps will put 500,000 volts on your grounding strap.....YIKES!!!!! This is a fact, and it certainly doesn't seem to jibe with your statement that the voltage at the bottom is insignificant! How big need a wire be to shunt (earth) lightning? Even the US Army training manual TM5-690 requires 10 AWG wire to conduct the direct lightning strike without damage. Ever hear the term "military intelligence"? Same wire found in 20 or 30 amp AC electric boxes because lightning is not the millions of amps so often claimed in urban myths. Unlike Frank, numbers are provided by multiple, reliable sources. The ground wire in house wiring is intended for fault protection, not lightning strikes. For example, if the hot wire in your vintage all-metal Craftsman drill suddenly comes loose and shorts to the case, since the case is grounded it will shunt the majority of the current to ground through the ground wire, not through the person using the drill. And if your breakers and wiring are up to code (neutral grounded at the box), that current lasts only for a very short time, limiting any damage to the person and the drill. Therefore, the ground wire in your house doesn't need to be as thick as the main wires, and it isn't. Next time you visit your local hardware store, look at the specs on a spool of house wire -- hot and neutral may be #10 while ground will be #12. Another spool may have a pair of #12 wires and #14 for ground. If this ground wire was intended for lightning protection, wouldn't it all be the same size? Fact: the NEC doesn't define ground wire size based on it's ability (or inability) to protect against lightning. Another who does this for a living: From Colin Baliss "Transmission & Distribution Electrical Engineering": Although lightning strikes have impressive voltage and current values (typically hundreds to thousands of kV and 10-100 kA) the energy content of the discharge is relatively low ... Relative to what? or Martin A Uman in All About Lightning Most of the energy available to the lightning is converted along the lightning channel to thunder, heat, light, and radio waves, leaving only a fraction available at the channel base for immediate use or storage. Then I guess all the people that have been killed by lightning didn't die from the power in the lightning, did they? And all the damage to electrical equipment caused by lightning wasn't from the lightning at all, was it? And that pro golfer that was knocked flat on the links by a nearby strike must have been hit in the head with a ball at the exact same time, huh? No, no and no..... .... It's obvious that you have no experience in the real world with lightning damage. Get some. While this pains me, Frank's right. You can go on with your babble, but there's no reasonably priced grounding system that will protect you as good as unplugging everything from the wall and antenna. Landshark -- Hard things are put in our way, not to stop us, but to call out our courage and strength. |
In ,
wrote: ..... We pushed poles in the ground with the bobcat and post hole digger, mostly for lightning. Out here where I live, by the time the fire dept gets here with the tanker (no hydrants)you're toast. Here's a little trick if you use a pipe for a ground rod: Thread both ends of the pipe. On the top put a fitting that will accept a garden hose. On the bottom put a reduction fitting (to be used as a nozzle). Hold the pipe vertical, turn on the water full blast, then let the water drill the hole. When you are done just unscrew the top fitting, and PRESTO!!! A great ground rod without a lot of fuss. BTW, this doesn't work very well in areas where there are a lot of large rocks in the ground..... -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Frank Gilliland wrote:
In , wrote: ..... We pushed poles in the ground with the bobcat and post hole digger, mostly for lightning. Out here where I live, by the time the fire dept gets here with the tanker (no hydrants)you're toast. Here's a little trick if you use a pipe for a ground rod: Thread both ends of the pipe. On the top put a fitting that will accept a garden hose. On the bottom put a reduction fitting (to be used as a nozzle). Hold the pipe vertical, turn on the water full blast, then let the water drill the hole. When you are done just unscrew the top fitting, and PRESTO!!! A great ground rod without a lot of fuss. BTW, this doesn't work very well in areas where there are a lot of large rocks in the ground..... That's a slick idea, we're sandy loam and clay around here. Next time I sink a ground rod I'll remember the water. -- Go 40 42 12 |
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 19:33:27 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote: In , wrote: snip You guys are all over this topic and it's really blowing my hair back. Can you guy's condense it to your opinion of the best/cheapest way to ground lets say..an omni on a roof-top or tower? Best being a relative term. I'm sure the advice will save at least one person from getting blasted, and make people aware that you can't just put a hunk of metal in the air without considering lightning. Thx. Ok...... First, sink a ground rod at the point where the coax will enter the house. If you have a basement next to the ground rod, sink a couple more rods so they are separated by ten feet or more and in the path of the coax. Some people like to prep the ground by soaking with sal****er, but in my experience that makes the rod corrode before its time, then the salt leeches away into the ground water, leaving a very poor ground in a very short time. I use galvanized pipe as opposed to copper rods because they have a larger diameter (more rod-to-ground contact = lower resistance), and they last longer. You can also thread the pipe for a super-neat installation of a waterproof box...... Next is the coax installation. Run the coax down the mast or side of the house to the ground rod. Don't run the coax near any wiring inside the house. You can detect house wiring with a cheap metal detector. Avoid sharp turns as much as possible. At the ground rod it helps to have a waterproof box because you need to cut the coax, ground the shield, and shunt the center conductor to ground with a choke (as per the diagram I made yesterday). About the choke: This serves two purposes. First, it shunts static electricity from the antenna to ground. Second, it provides a path for lightning if it should strike. Since the lightning will arc across every loop in the choke, the inductance value isn't critical just as long as it is high enough to block your RF (about 1 mH or larger for HF and above), and the wire size is large enough to handle some current (#14 or larger should be fine). One of those heavy-duty hash chokes for ignition noise is ok, or you can wind your own -- use a large iron bolt for a core and wind about 50 turns of #10 or #12 house wire. If you aren't running much power, you can slit the insulation along the length of the coil so it will arc at a lower voltage. Then run the coax up into the house along side the grounding strap. Tie them together with cable-ties if you want. Again, it's important that you run these so they don't come close to any house wiring, and they should enter at a location that is clear of easily combustible stuff. Terminate the ground strap with a really big alligator clip, jumper cable clamp, or whatever you have that makes a really good connection and can be easily disconnected. The ground clamp from an arc welder is almost ideal. Above the point where the coax and grounding strap enter the house, make a hook or post where you can hang both when not being used. Remember that if lightning hits, it's very possible that these will jump straight out from the wall and dance around like a water hose, so make sure they are held securely in place. Inside the house, make yourself a grounding bus bar of copper or aluminum. Put this on the back of your bench and use it to ground all your equipment. To this you clamp on your grounding strap. When not using your bench, unhook the grounding strap along with the coax and stow it away. Also, to protect the coax, use an appropriate socket and short it out before you stow it. When should you unhook your antenna? There is a thing called the 30-30 rule: If you hear thunder less than 30 seconds after you see the lightning, unplug. Don't plug in again until 30 minutes after the last thunder. That's pretty safe. You can even improve on that by building a lightning detector, many of which will indicate lightning even before you can hear the thunder. How's that? Oh, I almost forgot..... coax length!!!!! The low impedance of the ground will be reflected at the radio when the length of the coax & ground strap, from the ground rod to the radio, are 1/2 wavelength. This means 1/2 wavelength -without- consideration of velocity factor because we want a low impedance -ground-. And this means -- you guessed it -- 18 feet of coax! Very nice Frank, The only thing I have different on my setup, is a ground window where my coax and rotor cables enter the house. That is a metal plate, a scrap aluminum plate I found at work (12" x 12"). Its mounted over the entrance to the crawl space of my house (no basements down here) I mounted coax and rotor feed throughs to it. When are storm is approaching I disconnect my cables outside so that none of cables enter the house. |
From: (Frank=A0Gilliland)
In , wrote: ..... We pushed poles in the ground with the bobcat and post hole digger, mostly for lightning. Out here where I live, by the time the fire dept gets here with the tanker (no hydrants)you're toast. _ Here's a little trick if you use a pipe for a ground rod: Thread both ends of the pipe. On the top put a fitting that will accept a garden hose. On the bottom put a reduction fitting (to be used as a nozzle). Hold the pipe vertical, turn on the water full blast, then let the water drill the hole. When you are done just unscrew the top fitting, and PRESTO!!! A great ground rod without a lot of fuss. BTW, this doesn't work very well in areas where there are a lot of large rocks in the ground..... _ The hose in the pipe method works very well. It is standard procedure down here to do what you suggested when installing pvc sprinkler systems that must pass under walkways, driveways, etc. You mentioned sal****er...folks have been known to pour bagged salt around their tower, as well, although down here you really don't need it, as the water table is easily accessible at 3 to 5 feet. It's practically impossible to have a rod here that ISN'T in the water table....but I prefer dragging the copper line in the Gulf behind the boat,,,,.remember,,,, N3CVJ said if you're gonna break the law, (dxing is technically against the law on cb) 'tis better to do it from a portable station than from your home. |
In ,
(Twistedhed) wrote: From: (Frank*Gilliland) In , wrote: .... We pushed poles in the ground with the bobcat and post hole digger, mostly for lightning. Out here where I live, by the time the fire dept gets here with the tanker (no hydrants)you're toast. _ Here's a little trick if you use a pipe for a ground rod: Thread both ends of the pipe. On the top put a fitting that will accept a garden hose. On the bottom put a reduction fitting (to be used as a nozzle). Hold the pipe vertical, turn on the water full blast, then let the water drill the hole. When you are done just unscrew the top fitting, and PRESTO!!! A great ground rod without a lot of fuss. BTW, this doesn't work very well in areas where there are a lot of large rocks in the ground..... _ The hose in the pipe method works very well. It is standard procedure down here to do what you suggested when installing pvc sprinkler systems that must pass under walkways, driveways, etc. You mentioned sal****er...folks have been known to pour bagged salt around their tower, as well, although down here you really don't need it, as the water table is easily accessible at 3 to 5 feet. It's practically impossible to have a rod here that ISN'T in the water table.. Now isn't that just special..... as if anyone cares about your mud. ..but I prefer dragging the copper line in the Gulf behind the boat,,,,.remember,,,, N3CVJ said if you're gonna break the law, (dxing is technically against the law on cb) 'tis better to do it from a portable station than from your home. And, of course, there is no reason to doubt his word on the subject. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Oh, I almost forgot..... coax length!!!!! The low impedance of the ground will be reflected at the radio when the length of the coax & ground strap, from the ground rod to the radio, are 1/2 wavelength. This means 1/2 wavelength -without- consideration of velocity factor because we want a low impedance -ground-. And this means -- you guessed it -- 18 feet of coax! 18 feet? Are you sure? I thought 18 feet was only a convenient length for mobile antennas and could never have any electrical significance. |
(Twistedhed) wrote:
N3CVJ said if you're gonna break the law, (dxing is technically against the law on cb) 'tis better to do it from a portable station than from your home. Where did he say that you lying sack of dog poop? |
If in sandy loom, then a single ground rod may not be
sufficient. Neighborhood history will apply. Previous lightning damage in the last ten years? If so, then the single point ground may be expanded with more rods; spaced as Frank suggests and to comply with NEC. Other alternatives include looping the house with a buried bare copper wire. But again, this is typically only required for high 'strike frequency' locations - more a function of neighborhood geology. A problem with the water idea is a loose ground rod. A ground rod must be firm in ground when installed. A loose ground rod is not earthed. Ground rod is further compromised if using threaded joints. Ground rod should be monolithic until well below frost line. If antenna is not located near to service entrance and single point ground, then antenna may require its own earth ground. This in addition to the coax ground. IOW either the antenna is part of your structure and earthed at the service entrance ground; or antenna is earthed as if a lightning rod. If the antenna connection to earth ground is significantly shorter than connection to service entrance, then antenna must also have its own earth ground rod located as directly under the antenna as possible. This so that lightning takes a short path to earth; does not seek alternative paths via other items such as chimney or interior wire. If installing for commercial broadcaster reliability, then the inductor from center core is additional protection. But most industry professionals say the center conductor will leak sufficiently to the outer shield making no center conductor connection necessary. IOW that ground block sold in Home Depot or Radio Shack (to earth only outer shield to single point earth ground) is more than sufficient protection for most residences. Again, neighborhood history will apply. Inductor adds only minor improvement; a function of local history and other considerations. Disconnecting to protect equipment is unreliable because humans are not reliable. Humans are only available only 1 in three hours - and that assumes humans are home often. Protection must be installed virtually 24 hours every day and must be fully sufficient even when using the equipment. Disconnecting is just convenient extra protection made unnecessary by properly earthing. Again, you have soil that typically makes poor earth grounds. This will be especially a problem if more conductive earth lies beneath - such as limestone. Ground rod would need be deeper to make contact with that limestone. If geology changes beneath building, then that too can create earthing problems. Point being the best earth ground must be the single point earth ground. If using multiple rods, then those rods need be connected by buried bare copper wire. Some do this by digging a hole, then driving ground rod into bottom of that hole. A four or six inch plastic pipe lines the hole. Buried bare copper wire clamps to earth ground rod AND can be inspected through that covered plastic pipe. Integrity of that wire to rod clamp is important. Forget about salting the earth. Some have lined 'buried copper wire' trench with better material such as trailings from a steel mill. This tends to improve the transition from buried copper wire to earth while not destroying the copper. Tailings are a superior idea to salt since salt will leach away before the year is gone. But most don't bother. They simply bury the wire. Notice the concept. The most critical and essential feature of any protection 'system' is defined by that single point earth ground. The quality of that earth ground and how connections are made to that central earth ground determines system effectiveness. Single point grounding is the most critical component in a protection system. wrote: That's a slick idea, we're sandy loam and clay around here. Next time I sink a ground rod I'll remember the water. -- Go 40 42 12 |
A benchmark in this technology is Polyphaser. These
application note applies to your questions: http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_PEN1002.asp http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_PEN1024.asp http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_PEN1026.asp http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_PEN1025.asp http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_PEN1003.asp wrote: That's a slick idea, we're sandy loam and clay around here. Next time I sink a ground rod I'll remember the water. |
In , w_tom wrote:
If in sandy loom, then a single ground rod may not be sufficient. Neighborhood history will apply. Previous lightning damage in the last ten years? If so, then the single point ground may be expanded with more rods; spaced as Frank suggests and to comply with NEC. Other alternatives include looping the house with a buried bare copper wire. But again, this is typically only required for high 'strike frequency' locations - more a function of neighborhood geology. Sandy loam is better than average not just for grounding, but also for ground-wave propogation and gardening. Regardless, it's the subsoil that really matters. Unless you live in the desert, one good rod is enough to provide a direction for the lightning to travel, which is the basic purpose. Any ground, even one in poor soil, can be improved by running radials from the rod, which is far better at dissipating a lightning strike than using multiple ground rods. The only exception to this is, as I stated before, when the main ground rod is located next to a basement. In that case, tie the ground rods together, but maintain a central grounding point at the main ground rod ('star' grounding). And avoid loops! A problem with the water idea is a loose ground rod. Again you are talking about things about which you know nothing. Most of the dirt that is displaced by the rod doesn't make it to the surface, although you do get wet while going down those first couple feet. The resulting mud settles down into the gap and hardens like concrete. Once you turn off the water and let it set for an hour or so, you couldn't pull the blasting thing out with a backhoe. And there is only about a foot or two near the surface that needs to be filled which is easily done by rinsing the muddy splatter back into the hole. A ground rod must be firm in ground when installed. A loose ground rod is not earthed. Ground rod is further compromised if using threaded joints. If the threads were exposed it would probably -improve- the efficiency of the ground by increasing the surface area. But since they aren't, the point is moot. Ground rod should be monolithic until well below frost line. Pipes burst when water is trapped as it freezes. Both the top and bottom of the pipe are open, therefore no bursting. And since the bottom is open, there should be no standing water to freeze -- unless you put it there just to make your life more complicated. If antenna is not located near to service entrance and single point ground, then antenna may require its own earth ground. This in addition to the coax ground. IOW either the antenna is part of your structure and earthed at the service entrance ground; or antenna is earthed as if a lightning rod. Depends on the antenna. If the antenna connection to earth ground is significantly shorter than connection to service entrance, then antenna must also have its own earth ground rod located as directly under the antenna as possible. This so that lightning takes a short path to earth; does not seek alternative paths via other items such as chimney or interior wire. First off, if the line from the antenna to the grounding rod is shorter than the line from the grounding rod to the shack, it might be time to do a little research on alternative antenna systems. Second, and it seems you missed this point the first three times, electricity (lightning included) will take ANY AND ALL paths to ground that are available. It will easily jump from an antenna to a chimney, interior wire, plumbing vent, phone line, or anything else it finds to be a convenient path to earth AS WELL AS the antenna! Anytime the voltage in the path = the spark-gap potential it WILL arc, and to whatever it arcs WILL become a parallel current path. If you think that all the current will go to the closest ground rod and ignore any electrically connected ground path further away, or any other potential ground path connected or not, then you have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE what you are talking about regarding electricity. If installing for commercial broadcaster reliability, then the inductor from center core is additional protection. But most industry professionals say the center conductor will leak sufficiently to the outer shield making no center conductor connection necessary..... Well, I'm going to stop here because this is worse than beating a dead horse. You clearly don't know what you are talking about, and you are very bad at making stuff up to try and hide your ignorance. I don't know what your motivation is to spew your BS but there is no excuse for it. Even if you are a vampire and the public library is only open during daylight hours, or you are permanently confined to your bubble, or too fat to get out your front door, you can still have a friend get some educational materials for you. Or have you ****ed off all your friends by feeding them the same BS that you are trying to pass off in here? Don't bother answering, because I really don't care and it would probably be more BS anyway. Just a word of advice: Most of the people in this newsgroup aren't as technically gullible as you might think (at least not any more). If you want to show people how intelligent you -really- are, quit with the BS and learn a little more about the subject. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
In , w_tom wrote:
A benchmark in this technology is Polyphaser. These application note applies to your questions: http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_PEN1002.asp http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_PEN1024.asp http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_PEN1026.asp http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_PEN1025.asp http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_PEN1003.asp Lot's of theory but no practical value. The use of a star ground ("Single Point Ground") system for lightning protection of the whole building + tower requires the use of an isolated or 'floating' power supply; i.e, an isolated generator or dedicated pole-pig. Marconi discovered this a century ago. And for the record, all high-tech gizmos designed to compensate for the inductive reactance of power and transmission lines during a lightning strike have failed miserably because lightning has no fixed frequency. You can verify this with your local power company or public library. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
|
Frank Gillinad wrote:
Pipes burst when water is trapped as it freezes. Not all pipes burst, not all states have freeze, and nobody cares about you playing in the snow. The likelihood of one individual being correct increases in a direct proportion to the intensity with which others try to prove him wrong |
Frank Gillinad wrote:
And for the record, all high-tech gizmos designed to compensate for the inductive reactance of power and transmission lines during a lightning strike have failed miserably because lightning has no fixed frequency. Frequency has no relation to the success or failure of lightning protection devices in the manner you implied. You can verify this with your local power company or public library. Your posts are no more pertinent than any others,,,less, in fact, due to your inability to separate your personal issues and feelings from any relative discussion, illustrating you have yet to communicate effectively. You are not above any other,,,you have the option of tossing your ideas about and it's up to us, not you, to believe you or not. After being proved incorrect so many times, coupled with your usual hostility, one can plainly see supporters of your behavior appear to be limited to N3CVJ, N7VCF, KC8LDO, WA3MOJ, and N8WWM. The likelihood of one individual being correct increases in a direct proportion to the intensity with which others try to prove him wrong |
In ,
(Twistedhed) wrote: Frank Gillinad wrote: Pipes burst when water is trapped as it freezes. Not all pipes burst, not all states have freeze, and nobody cares about you playing in the snow. All correct. What's your point, Dave? -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
In ,
(Twistedhed) wrote: Frank Gillinad wrote: And for the record, all high-tech gizmos designed to compensate for the inductive reactance of power and transmission lines during a lightning strike have failed miserably because lightning has no fixed frequency. Frequency has no relation to the success or failure of lightning protection devices in the manner you implied. Again, absolutely correct. And again, what's your point? You can verify this with your local power company or public library. Your posts are no more pertinent than any others,,,less, in fact, due to your inability to separate your personal issues and feelings from any relative discussion, illustrating you have yet to communicate effectively. You are not above any other,,,you have the option of tossing your ideas about and it's up to us, not you, to believe you or not. After being proved incorrect so many times, coupled with your usual hostility, one can plainly see supporters of your behavior appear to be limited to N3CVJ, N7VCF, KC8LDO, WA3MOJ, and N8WWM. SOBR. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Frank cannot be bothered to learn why things work. He did
not even know about insufficient conductivity in frozen earth! That is basic stuff that first requires learning a little theory - or have some experience. Polyphaser's highly regarded application notes have complete practical value to people who actually do this stuff. But Frank did not say it first - therefore it must be wrong. In the meantime, ignore that nonsense he posts about star grounds. What he posts is not accurate, not relevant, and is the biggest load of technical crappola I have ever seen. Frank's brain must be leaking again. Isolated or floating power supply? Everyone should be laughing at that nonsense! When did one need a power supply to get effective earthing? In the tradition of 'Frank type' posting - he babbles too much BS to no logical conclusion. Must have forgotten to take his medication. Wow. Its really is easy to post insults, just like Frank. He taught he how must fun it is to be superior to everyone else. Now if I could just forget to post accurate facts and not post relevant citations! Then I too could be just like Frank. In the meantime, ignore the Frank nonsense. Learn from industry benchmarks such as Polyphaser. Frank Gilliland wrote: In , w_tom wrote: A benchmark in this technology is Polyphaser. These application note applies to your questions: http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_PEN1002.asp http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_PEN1024.asp http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_PEN1026.asp http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_PEN1025.asp http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_PEN1003.asp Lot's of theory but no practical value. The use of a star ground ("Single Point Ground") system for lightning protection of the whole building + tower requires the use of an isolated or 'floating' power supply; i.e, an isolated generator or dedicated pole-pig. Marconi discovered this a century ago. And for the record, all high-tech gizmos designed to compensate for the inductive reactance of power and transmission lines during a lightning strike have failed miserably because lightning has no fixed frequency. You can verify this with your local power company or public library. |
Frank does not even know a simple earthing concept. Frozen
ground is not conductive. Earthing is installed below the frost line for obvious reasons. Had he known this simple fact and not spent so much times insulting others, then he would not have hyped so much venom about freezing water in pipes. Earthing below the frost line. What does that have to do with frozen pipes? This is about CB station grounding. So why is Frank suddenly talking about plumbing? Twistedhed wrote: Frank Gillinad wrote: Pipes burst when water is trapped as it freezes. Not all pipes burst, not all states have freeze, and nobody cares about you playing in the snow. The likelihood of one individual being correct increases in a direct proportion to the intensity with which others try to prove him wrong |
|
In , w_tom wrote:
Frank cannot be bothered to learn why things work. *-PLONK-* -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:29:15 -0500 (EST),
(Twistedhed) wrote: From: (I*Am*Not*George) (Twistedhed) wrote: N3CVJ said Let's see....N3CVJ wrote: I'm hardly around much these days and you're STILL obsessing with me. You have even taken to quoting me. I suppose that I could look at it as a silent confirmation of the validity of my points. Or is it simply a matter of the concepts of logic still eluding you? What's that they say about imitation being the highest form of flattery? I'm just glad you don't live near me. I wouldn't want to wake up one morning and see you camped out on my doorstep...... Dave "Sandbagger" |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:29:15 -0500 (EST), (Twistedhed) wrote: From: (I=A0Am=A0Not=A0George) (Twistedhed) wrote: N3CVJ said Let's see....N3CVJ wrote: I'm hardly around much these days In the first manner, you're always around, Dave. You made a post the other day concerning an auction by your pal in Michigan. What a card, you are Dave. Your pious act of expecting anyone to believe that you are no longer present but "just happened to be in the 'hood the moment you were mentioned" is laughable...look.."hahahah"! and you're STILL obsessing with me. That you consider references of your hypocrisy flattering, is exactly what one expects. You have even taken to quoting me. I suppose that I could look at it as a silent confirmation of the validity of my points. What you choose to do or don't do is no longer any consequence. Or is it simply a matter of the concepts of logic still eluding you? I merely point to your akc-compadre KC8LDO who claimed logic AND common sense is nothing but a system of personal beliefs, often incorrect. What's that they say about imitation being the highest form of flattery? Lookie, your deficit has you so downtrodden that you are hallucinating you are being imitated,,,and loookie to who you blame,,,,LOL! I'm just glad you don't live near me. I wouldn't want to wake up one morning and see you camped out on my doorstep...... Dave "Sandbagger" You and your little group of losers are the ONLY ones responsible for harboring an unhealthy predilection toward posters activities outside this newsgroup. You're just all messed up, Dave. The likelihood of one individual being correct increases in a direct proportion to the intensity with which others try to prove him wrong |
From: (Lancer)
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:43:09 -0500 (EST), (Twistedhed) wrote: Frank Gillinad wrote: (And for the record, all high-tech gizmos designed to compensate for the inductive reactance of power and transmission lines during a lightning strike have failed miserably because lightning has no fixed frequency.) Frequency has no relation to the success or failure of lightning protection devices in the manner you implied. _ Thats true, did he say otherwise? He did. He said..." ...because lightning has no fixed frequency." Again, frequency has no relation to the manner in whcih he inferred. Sorry I missed that Forget about it and move on. Must be a temporary Texas thing. The likelihood of one individual being correct increases in a direct proportion to the intensity with which others try to prove him wrong |
|
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:29:15 -0500 (EST),
(Twistedhed) wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:29:15 -0500 (EST), (Twistedhed) wrote: From: (I*Am*Not*George) (Twistedhed) wrote: N3CVJ said Let's see....N3CVJ wrote: I'm hardly around much these days In the first manner, you're always around, Dave. You made a post the other day concerning an auction by your pal in Michigan. I have no "pal" in Michigan, so I don't know what you're talking about. You really need to keep better track of the objects of your obsession . When I say that I'm hardly around, I mean that I have little to contribute to the group as it now stands. I do read posts on occasion just to see if there might be something that may be of interest. The point is that I do not post with the same frequency that I did in years past. What a card, you are Dave. Your pious act of expecting anyone to believe that you are no longer present but "just happened to be in the 'hood the moment you were mentioned" is laughable...look.."hahahah"! That's the way you took it. They way I meant it should be fairly obvious to anyone else who doesn't have a comprehensive disorder. and you're STILL obsessing with me. That you consider references of your hypocrisy flattering, is exactly what one expects. What in any of those quotes do you find hypocritical? I have always maintained that certain activities are illegal. But if you are of the mindset that you do not wish to abide by those rules, at least go about it with a little common sense and keep a low profile. There's no sense calling attention to yourself by interfering with your neighbors or acting in a disrespectful manner, which would have the overall effect of painting a big red bullseye on your forehead. So unless you work for Target, that's not a good thing. You have even taken to quoting me. I suppose that I could look at it as a silent confirmation of the validity of my points. What you choose to do or don't do is no longer any consequence. If that's true, then why do you keep bringing me up in past quotes? I suppose you don't subscribe to the wisdom of letting a sleeping dog alone. Or is it simply a matter of the concepts of logic still eluding you? I merely point to your akc-compadre KC8LDO who claimed logic AND common sense is nothing but a system of personal beliefs, often incorrect. Tell me, do you have any original thoughts of your own? Do you always base your principles on the quotes of others? What's that they say about imitation being the highest form of flattery? Lookie, your deficit has you so downtrodden that you are hallucinating you are being imitated,,,and loookie to who you blame,,,,LOL! If the shoe fits, Cinderella...... I'm just glad you don't live near me. I wouldn't want to wake up one morning and see you camped out on my doorstep...... Dave "Sandbagger" You and your little group of losers are the ONLY ones responsible for harboring an unhealthy predilection toward posters activities outside this newsgroup. You're just all messed up, Dave. I don't expect you to understand, but trust me, I am not the one who is messed up. Dave "Sandbagger" |
In ,
(Twistedhed) wrote: From: (Lancer) On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:43:09 -0500 (EST), (Twistedhed) wrote: Frank Gillinad wrote: (And for the record, all high-tech gizmos designed to compensate for the inductive reactance of power and transmission lines during a lightning strike have failed miserably because lightning has no fixed frequency.) Frequency has no relation to the success or failure of lightning protection devices in the manner you implied. _ Thats true, did he say otherwise? He did. He said..." ...because lightning has no fixed frequency." Again, frequency has no relation to the manner in whcih he inferred. Your communication deficit is acting up again, Dave -- I didn't infer anything. In fact, I was -too- specific in that I used the word "gizmos", which limited the aforementioned objective to the use of physical objects. I should have said "devices". -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
(Twistedhed) wrote in message ...
From: (I Am Not George) (Twistedhed) wrote: N3CVJ said if you're gonna break the law, (dxing is technically against the law on cb) 'tis better to do it from a portable station than from your home. Where did he say that you lying sack of dog poop? Let's see....N3CVJ wrote: (snip) OMG you obsessed bag of parakeet turd causing trouble for Dave Hall again. Is it because you two share the same first name. |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:29:15 -0500 (EST), (Twistedhed) wrote: From: (Dave=A0Hall) On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:29:15 -0500 (EST), (Twistedhed) wrote: From: (I=A0Am=A0Not=A0George) (Twistedhed) wrote: N3CVJ said Let's see....N3CVJ wrote: I'm hardly around much these days =A0=A0In the first manner, you're always around, Dave. You made a post the other day concerning an auction by your pal in Michigan. I have no "pal" in Michigan, so I don't know what you're talking about. Tut-tut,,you most certainly have a "pal" in Michigan.....you even claimed you were "intimately" familiar with N8WWM's behavior and repeater jamming activity so if it wasn't your Michigan bud who made you "intimately" aware of the happenings that YOU felt important ebough to bring to this forum for discussion,,,,,then who? You really need to keep better track of the objects of your obsession . One can understand how illustrating your hypocrisy would be misconstrued by yourself as an "obsession" by another. It's a natural reaction from a non-proactive individual. When I say that I'm hardly around, I mean that I have little to contribute to the group as it now stands. You always have had the need to reclarify your positions, Dave,,,you're not very clear in your communication skills..see, saying you are "not hardly around' is nowhere near the same meaning as saying you have little to contribute.",,but you of course, already know that...otherwise the need wouldn't have existed for you to completely change what you said. I do read posts on occasion just to see if there might be something that may be of interest. The point is that I do not post with the same frequency that I did in years past. What a card, you are Dave. Your pious act of expecting anyone to believe that you are no longer present but "just happened to be in the 'hood the moment you were mentioned" is laughable...look.."hahahah"! That's the way you took it. Yes,,as that is exactly what you said.let's see it again, as it is apparently paining you.... I'm hardly around much these days _ They way I meant it should be fairly obvious to anyone else who doesn't have a comprehensive disorder. Yea? Only "anyone" else isn;t looking to you for validation like you are seeking..and I don't see "anyone else" coming to your defense who misinterprets "I'm not hardly around these days" to be a synonym for "I have little to contribute",,,LOL,,,,,,only those who live in their own world and see things in their own manner and are unable to see things as the majority can agree with that, Dave. The claims are so distant there is no relation at all,,,,except in your mind. and you're STILL obsessing with me. That you consider references of your hypocrisy flattering, is exactly what one expects. What in any of those quotes do you find hypocritical? Your encouragement of others to break the law when you have cried like a menstruating teen and callously attacked others for the exact same behavior,,,merely giving information. I have always maintained that certain activities are illegal. But if you are of the mindset that you do not wish to abide by those rules, at least go about it with a little common sense and keep a low profile. This smacks in the face of what you have claimed in the past, Dave,,you're two faced. There's no sense calling attention to yourself by interfering with your neighbors or acting in a disrespectful manner, Agreed, too bad you don't practice what you preach..as that hasn't stopped you from acting in the most blatant disrespectful manner toward others for beahvior you took part in. which would have the overall effect of painting a big red bullseye on your forehead. So unless you work for Target, that's not a good thing. You've always cringed when your behavior was illustrated, Dave. You have even taken to quoting me. I suppose that I could look at it as a silent confirmation of the validity of my points. What you choose to do or don't do is no longer any consequence. If that's true, then why do you keep bringing me up in past quotes? Because your PAST is very relevant, as you can not run from it, no matter what you do or say. Again, what you do or don't do, is no *longer' any consequence, in other words,,,your words and actions now are all for naught,,your past behavior tells the entire story, especially when you break your neck trying to change what you plainly said to mean something entirely diffferent,,(snicker). I suppose you don't subscribe to the wisdom of letting a sleeping dog alone. But you;re not sleeping, Dave,,,you are up to your usual games and no good,,it's why you lost YET ANOTHER ISP. I never wasnted any problems with you Dave, adn told you so way back when...you should have heeded the advice you now ask of another when the table has turned, but sure,,,,I can leave it alone, Dave,,,let's see if you can.,,that includes your sock puppets. Or is it simply a matter of the concepts of logic still eluding you? I merely point to your akc-compadre KC8LDO who claimed logic AND common sense is nothing but a system of personal beliefs, often incorrect. Tell me, do you have any original thoughts of your own? Sure,,,they were so profound they were responsible for you and the rest of tream voobs downfall (read: snatched ISP's).. Do you always base your principles on the quotes of others? No,,they arent my principles,,they are yours,,and eveyone knows I am world champion of returning things to whence they came. What's that they say about imitation being the highest form of flattery? Lookie, your deficit has you so downtrodden that you are hallucinating you are being imitated,,,and loookie to who you blame,,,,LOL! If the shoe fits, Cinderella...... You can refer to a man as a woman all you wish,,it won;t help what ails you. I'm just glad you don't live near me. I wouldn't want to wake up one morning and see you camped out on my doorstep...... Dave "Sandbagger" You and your little group of losers are the ONLY ones responsible for harboring an unhealthy predilection toward posters activities outside this newsgroup. You're just all messed up, Dave. I don't expect you to understand, but trust me, You're a proven liar, Dave, and liars can not be trusted, so no, you will not be trusted......now, you can continue to choose to attack the messenger as has been your specialty, and continue to play the victim after initiating rabid attacks, but you will never get away with it again. I am not the one who is messed up. Dave "Sandbagger" S'cool,,I'm not the slightest interested in changing your beliefs. I gain much more satisfaction from having you share your beliefs with the world. The likelihood of one individual being correct increases in a direct proportion to the intensity with which others try to prove him wrong |
From: (Frank=A0Gilliland)
In , (Twistedhed) wrote: From: (Lancer) On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:43:09 -0500 (EST), (Twistedhed) wrote: Frank Gillinad wrote: (And for the record, all high-tech gizmos designed to compensate for the inductive reactance of power and transmission lines during a lightning strike have failed miserably because lightning has no fixed frequency.) Frequency has no relation to the success or failure of lightning protection devices in the manner you implied. _ Thats true, did he say otherwise? He did. He said..." ...because lightning has no fixed frequency." Again, frequency has no relation to the manner in whcih he inferred. Your communication deficit is acting up again, Dave -- I didn't infer anything. LOL,,thou shall not project thou deficits unto others. You did indeed infer such. I will remind you for the third time just what it was you said....you said...... Lightning has no fixed frequency. Again,,,lightning, in realtion to frequency in the manner you claimed, is fluff talk..it has no merit,,it means nothing. In fact, I was -too- specific in that I used the word "gizmos", which limited the aforementioned objective to the use of physical objects. You brought up lightning not being frequency specific,,it means nothing, has no relation. I should have said "devices". But you didn't. Apology accepted. -----=3D Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =3D----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----=3D=3D Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =3D----- The likelihood of one individual being correct increases in a direct proportion to the intensity with which others try to prove him wrong |
From: (I=A0Am=A0Not=A0George)
(Twistedhed) wrote in message ... From: (I Am Not George) (Twistedhed) wrote: N3CVJ said if you're gonna break the law, (dxing is technically against the law on cb) 'tis better to do it from a portable station than from your home. Where did he say that you lying sack of dog poop? Let's see....N3CVJ wrote: (snip) No snip, junior T-man..ask and you shall receive: it is much safer for a CBer to run power from the mobile. That way you never interfere with the same people for very long. Dave "Sandbagger" OMG you obsessed bag of parakeet turd LOL....riiiiiiight! You ask for the quote,,I provide it,,,and it's my fault that Dave Hall N3CVJ breaks the law, claims he doesn't and encourages others to break FCC law. You poor, poor, self-defeated, soul. causing trouble for Dave Hall again. Is it because you two share the same first name. _ LOL...do you practice at being so ignorant, impotent, and wrong, or does it come naturally? Tailfeathers digested, yet? Hyuk! Freedom is participation in power - Cicero The likelihood of one individual being correct increases in a direct proportion to the intensity with which others try to prove him wrong |
In , while under the compulsion
to defend against every little nuance written about him that inflicts damage to his delicate constitution, (Twistedhed) wrote: S'cool,,I'm not the slightest interested in changing your beliefs. Then shut up already. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
In ,
(Twistedhed) wrote: From: (Frank*Gilliland) In , (Twistedhed) wrote: From: (Lancer) On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:43:09 -0500 (EST), (Twistedhed) wrote: Frank Gillinad wrote: (And for the record, all high-tech gizmos designed to compensate for the inductive reactance of power and transmission lines during a lightning strike have failed miserably because lightning has no fixed frequency.) Frequency has no relation to the success or failure of lightning protection devices in the manner you implied. _ Thats true, did he say otherwise? He did. He said..." ...because lightning has no fixed frequency." Again, frequency has no relation to the manner in whcih he inferred. Your communication deficit is acting up again, Dave -- I didn't infer anything. LOL,,thou shall not project thou deficits unto others. You did indeed infer such. I will remind you for the third time just what it was you said....you said...... Lightning has no fixed frequency. I said, in context, "...all high-tech gizmos designed to compensate for the inductive reactance of power and transmission lines during a lightning strike have failed miserably because lightning has no fixed frequency." Again,,,lightning, in realtion to frequency in the manner you claimed, is fluff talk..it has no merit,,it means nothing. In fact, I was -too- specific in that I used the word "gizmos", which limited the aforementioned objective to the use of physical objects. You brought up lightning not being frequency specific,,it means nothing, has no relation. The fact that lightning has no fixed frequency is very relevant when the topic is about lighting protection 'devices' that are based, in part or in whole, on reactance compensation. The only person who wouldn't understand the relationship is someone, such as yourself, who is ignorant of the fact that reactance is frequency-dependent. I should have said "devices". But you didn't. Apology accepted. It wasn't an apology. It was a reference to a previous display of your communication deficit; i.e, your ignorance of the meaning of the word 'device'. You are just too dumb to know when you are being mocked, which is yet another example of your communication deficit. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:21 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com