[BC] AM transmitter lightning sensitivity issue

[dynotherm at earthlink.net]

You might try following the Lightning Protection and Power
Quality list on Yahoo. The ESE failures are reported frequently.

Unrelated to broadcast, it is a question of safety of life and
property. In general, a well known party in the ESE "industry"
who tried obtaining listing via law suit has been kicked so far
off the field that much of the smoke and mirrors is beginning 
to dissipate. With the last round of decisions a few months ago,
trying to use ESE in a code approved building is an interesting
historical quirk that is over, finished and done.

One of the prime movers behind rejection of ESE has been Abdul 
Moussa, recently retired from Ontario Hydro. How are they biased?
If I were back in my office I could send you many clips of reports 
from around the world where the "value" of ESE is treated as a joke 
for protecting property because it does not do the job either in
theory or in fact.

Franklin rods are cheap and effective building protection as shown
by a couple of hundred years of use.

ESE may (I think probably does) have value in the limited field of
broadcasting because it can dissipate some strikes, but not all.
But, where a large building is at risk, less than 100% protection
is inadequate. Fortunately, for those of us in broadcasting, this
is not the case, and we can very effectively use ESE rods without
much risk of serious loss. WRT effectiveness, YMMV, but trying it
can't hurt much.

Phil Alexander, CSRE, AMD


-----Original Message-----
>From: Ron Nott <ron at nottltd.com>
>Sent: May 23, 2008 1:46 PM
>To: Broadcasters' Mailing List <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>Subject: Re: [BC] AM transmitter lightning sensitivity issue
>
>Our company and others have been marketing these products for more 
>than a quarter century and not by the methods that you state.  The 
>anecdote outlined below is a matter of true history, not fantasy.
>
>A major point on both systems is that NEITHER has been subjected to 
>true scientific testing.  We applied to both the Sandia National Labs 
>and the Los Alamos National Labs to do this on a related product.  I 
>was shocked to learn that somehow, someone was able to have this 
>testing denied.  We are now going to another source for testing, but 
>if the word gets out I expect that we will be denied testing by it 
>also.  Until true unbiased, honest, scientific testing has been 
>performed, all this is hearsay.  Thus far it has been successfully 
>prevented.  We can only guess by whom.
>
>In more than 30 years of lightning research, I have never heard of 
>any of the failures that you mention.  Can you provide documentation 
>for this information?  It would be greatly appreciated.
>
>Concerning the NFPA, you should take a look at the members of the 
>lightning protection committee and their employers.  This will tell 
>you why they are biased.
>
>Ron Nott
>
>><snip>
>>
>>>Several years ago, a manufacturer of a multiple point dissipation
>>>system applied to NFPA to have their equipment listed.  The NFPA
>>>lightning protection committee is composed of representatives of the
>>>manufacturers of the NFPA system.  So they denied the listing based
>>>on the fact that the multi-point system had not been scientifically
>>>tested.  The manufacturer replied by saying that the conventional
>>>NFPA system also has not been scientifically tested.  The NFPA
>>>committee had to acknowledge that this was true and there was quite a
>>>haggle.  However, in the end they continue to endorse the
>>>conventional method and deny the multipoint method based on two
>>>factors:  Money and petty politics.  To sum up, I suggest that you
>>>take info from the Lightning Protection Institute with a big dose of salt.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>The BROADCAST [BC] list is sponsored by SystemsStore - Your Premium
>Supplier Of Components To Build and Maintain A Technical Infrastructure
>www.SystemsStore.com       Tel: 407-656-3719    Sales at SystemsStore.com
>