[BC] CTS viability

[Bruce Doerle]

Barry,
 
I would suspect that a significant charge would overwhelm any CTS device.  The initial claims made by CTS manufacturers were that they could discharge a cloud, then they would prevent lightning strikes, and now they prevent most lightning strikes, I guess next they will claim they look pretty decorating your tower.
 
Phil analyzed it right.  There may be some truth to the claims in reducing the hits, but they will not eliminate the strike.
 
The best protection from lightning is a well balanced system with its roots in a solid ground system (a good equi-potential plane), single point ground at equipment shelter, and a safe point for the strike to discharge through to the ground system.  Elimination devices are not a safe point and may be dangerous during a major strike.  ESE terminals have proven to be less effective that the conventional lightning rods.  While the blunt rod has only recently shown to be more effective than the Franklin rod.
 
The point I want to make is that if you cannot solely on any elimination device, then you must have a means to discharge the strike or it will go through your equipment or shelter.  In essence, why duplicate lightning hardware when a well designed system will accept the hits and discharge the lightning around your valuable resources at a lower cost and provide the real protection that you need.  Our tower is in lightning alley, and we do not have problems with our equipment despite frequent hits.
 
Bruce    

>>> barry at oldradio.com 05/19/05 1:31 PM >>>

 
         Does this play into Willie's comment that
         as the size of the charge (lightning) increases
         the observed phenomenon from the
         "little experiments" is no longer valid?

         I'm trying to get a quick grasp on this
         for everyone....