[BC] CTS viability

[Bruce Doerle]

Barry,
 
Come on now, the FCC is into RF, not lightning.  All the orgainzations listed in the interagency group have sizeable property inventories that they must protect.  The FCC is a small fish with very few standalone properties.  Except for the labs and the few remaining monitoring stations, the FCC is generally clients in GSA leased faciltiites.
 
The interagency report really confirms the validity to using convention lightning protection devices.  However, if you want detailed information dispelling the elimination myths you might try reading the folowing:
 
http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/magic.pdf 
 
http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/Uman_Rakov.pdf 

Bruce

>>> barry at oldradio.com 05/19/05 11:15 AM >>>

At 05:17 AM 5/19/2005, Bruce Doerle wrote
>Let's get back to CTS devices.
>
>"So does it work?"  It does not work as claimed.  Uncle Sam does not 
>knowingly allow the installation of these devices.  The  Federal 
>Interagency Lightning Protection User Group   consisting representatives 
>from the Army, Navy, Air Force, NOAA, NASA, DOD Explosives Safety Board, 
>National Nuclear Security Administration, and FAA

         Not the FCC?????

>  submitted a finding in June 2001 that basically said that nothing has 
> been found to improve upon the conventional lightning protection devices 
> as defined in NFPA 780.  NFPA only recognizes lightning rods, not CTS or 
> ESE devices.  Their report ...  can be found on the internet.

         Bruce,

         Does the report include discussion of *why* the
         CTS method does not work? Is there a way to
         summarize it in plain English (or Czech)?



_______________________________________________
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/