[BC] Lightning Prevention?????

Wed May 11 00:53:56 CDT 2005

Some of it is controversy, but I think most operate on the premise you put a
bunch of pointy things near the top and corners of a structure (whether it
be a building, or the transition of a tower taper) and something is bound to
happen when static builds.  I was a CE for 16 years at a co-located AM/FM
site, where I was having line and antenna burns every few years.  I was
introduced to the Lightning Master by my tower crew.  It was also a leap of
faith by the GM to buy a story about this stuff, that, from a distance,
looks like Christmas garland.  That was in early 1990 and I don't recall a
burn since then.  Sounds like a commercial for Lightning Master, but I have
used ERI and seen Static Cats an others work very well too.

gn
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Larry Bloomfield" <Larry at Tech-Notes.TV>
To: <georgenicholas at compuserve.com>; "Broadcast Radio Mailing List"
<broadcast at radiolists.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 10:52 PM
Subject: Re: [BC] Lightning Prevention?????

>
> George:
>
> You are quite right. I've seen this stuff work and work very well. It
> decreases the possibility of lightning discharges from happening and the
> associated Electro-Motive Pulse, which can be very devastating as well.
> Lightning Master has been around for over 20 years and has been very
> successful.  Florida has more lightning strikes per day than anywhere
> else in the world. I know there is a great deal of controversy on this
> technology, but it works, has proven to work and all the institutes and
> their arguments don't negate the success this Florida based company.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Larry Bloomfield, KA6UTC
> Bloomfield Enterprises, LLC
> 1980 25th St., Florence, OR  97439-9717
> (541) 902-2424 - Home/Office
> WWW.Tech-Notes.TV  -- See you on the Road Show.
>
>
>
>
> George Nicholas wrote:
>
> >Larry- I've been a Lightning Master customer for a number of years and I
> >believe they work quite well. They are pliable enough that the tower
> >climbers don't seem to mind them either.
> >
> >Just my 0.02
> >
> >gn
> >----- Original Message ----- 
> >From: "Larry Bloomfield" <Larry at Tech-Notes.TV>
> >To: "Broadcast Radio Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
> >Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 10:17 PM
> >Subject: Re: [BC] Lightning Prevention?????
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Bruce:
> >>
> >>I respectfully suggest you visit: http://www.lightningmaster.com/.  They
> >>have a white paper on this very subject and many confirmations of the
> >>technology.  I also suggest you check out the articles I did for
> >>Broadcast Guide in their January 04 edition.
> >>http://www.tech-notes.tv/Sponsors/RadioGuide-J-F04.pdf is a link to the
> >>PDF copy of this article.  I would be more than happy to answer any
> >>questions off line.
> >>
> >>+++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>Larry Bloomfield, KA6UTC
> >>Bloomfield Enterprises, LLC
> >>1980 25th St., Florence, OR  97439-9717
> >>(541) 902-2424 - Home/Office
> >>WWW.Tech-Notes.TV  -- See you on the Road Show.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Bruce Doerle wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Fellow broadcasters,
> >>>
> >>>Last week there was a brief debate on the merits of Charge Dissipation
> >>>
> >>>
> >Devices (ie lightning prevention or avoidance systems).  The debate
started
> >in response to a message from Mr. Dana Whitehair of KUT, University of
> >Texas.  Mr. Whitehair's message, mine, and others are shown below this
> >initial paragraph grouping.
> >
> >
> >>>Of course, this raised some hairs on the manufacturer's of these
products
> >>>
> >>>
> >and number of messages took place in public and behind the scenes.  The
end
> >product of these messages attacked me and eluded to testimonials as
evidence
> >that their products work.  Most engineers and scientist know that CTS and
> >ESE products do not work; they have not been endorsed by any professional
> >scientific, regulatory, or standards body.  The manufacturers offer no
> >scientific proof of their theories and claim their products performance
by
> >using testimonials as evidence that the product works.  However, there is
a
> >significant fault in this logic.  The testimonials are from unknowing
> >persons who lack the knowledge to understand this questionable, unproven
> >technology.
> >
> >
> >>>My issue in this message is to open a debate on the merits of CTS
> >>>
> >>>
> >(protection / avoidance) technology.  Lightning is an issue that most
> >broadcast must deal with and how you deal with it will determine the
safety
> >and reliability issues of your broadcast site.  I do not believe that the
> >claims made by CTS vendors is clearly understood in our broadcast
community,
> >and I would like to open this issue up for discussion.  I invite all
> >interest parties to participate.  I encourage you to read the messages
below
> >to understand with who you are dealing.
> >
> >
> >>>Regards,
> >>>
> >>>Bruce
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>whiteshark at mail.utexas.edu 05/03/05 11:39 AM >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>Greetings once again from Austin!
> >>>
> >>>Did somebody say "lightning?"
> >>>
> >>>Anyone have any experience or insight - or both -regarding current
> >>>lightning "dissipation" systems vs. lightning "avoidance" systems?
> >>>
> >>>The "crown of thorns" that once adorned our tower has lost a serious
> >>>number of its thorns. I've been looking at replacing it, but have
> >>>been contacted by Lightning Experts, Inc. about installing their
> >>>"avoidance"-based system instead of the old dissipation system.
> >>>
> >>>Any opinions? Experience? Ranting? Raving?
> >>>
> >>>Thanks in advance, y'all!
> >>>
> >>>DEW
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>This is the BROADCAST mailing list
> >>To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
> >>For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists:
> >>
> >>
> >http://www.radiolists.net/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >This is the BROADCAST mailing list
> >To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
> >For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists:
http://www.radiolists.net/
> >
> >
> >
>