As a broadcaster in South Florida with tall towers, 50' masts on mobile units and satellite uplinks, we encountered lightning strikes many times a day during the rainy seasons. Our experience is that all equipment can be damaged by the high voltage and/or current, no matter how much protection you provide. Over the 30 years I was a chief engineer of a TV station we tried almost everything.
At the studio, our microwave shack was located about 500' from the studio and used a 200' tower. Initially both the studio and MW shack & tower had multiple ring grounds with all connections cad welded with 20' ground rods spaced about 20' or less. The guy anchors also had ring grounds. We had a 500 mill ground connection interconnection. Over the years we added protection to every audio, video and data cable going between the two. The best solution seemed to be using fiber for ALL interconnects except power (which had its own surge protectors) and dissipation arrays. Over the years Dissipation Arrays have been discounted by many engineers; however we put them on all of our owned towers and large satellite dishes. We believed they saved their cost. One of my engineers likened lightning strike protection to Elephant Repellent. Just because you don't see any elephants doesn't mean the repellent works! When thunderstorms were forecasted and/or our lightning detection showed lightning within 10 miles or less, we went to generator power; until it passed us by. Mostly - we rarely (maybe never) had a year without some lightning damage. Remember that South & Central Florida seem to be the Lightning Capital of North America. We did have less damage when we only had tube type equipment than when we switched to all solid state!!! Once out my office window I saw our studio tower take 3 direct hits in one afternoon, with no damage observed. so the massive grounds did their job that day. My experience is to do what you can and accept the fact that lightning will do its thing when it wants too. For a 24/7 operation redundancy is the best solution. 73 George AI4VZ On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 8:29 AM Jorge Diez - CX6VM <cx6vm.jo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you very much Peter > > I was not going to reply anymore since I had received the order not to > continue with this thread, but your email reflects exactly what I wanted to > say in my first email > > thank you! > > 73, > Jorge > CX6VM/CW5W > > El dom, 5 may 2024 a las 23:21, Peter Hall (<p.h...@curtin.edu.au>) > escribió: > > > Hello Jorge, > > > > Thanks for an interesting thread, which elicited some good technical > > replies as well as some undeserved and rather haughty tut-tutting, > > presumably about valuable mail column-cm: the remedy for the latter is, > of > > course, the delete button - a facility with which any reader of this > mailer > > is well-practiced at using. > > > > I get the point you're making and have considerable sympathy for it: in a > > highly connected, and possibly remote, environment is it desirable for a > > manufacturer to do better than baseline digital I/O protection, > especially > > as manufacturers themselves tout the remote connectivity as a selling > > point? I think it is, and I appreciate that you're not asking for magic: > > e.g, for primary lightning protection. Any increased port robustness, > > including galvanic isolation, is worth thinking about and - most > > importantly - so is bench and field serviceability. The all-too-common > > madness of entry-level ports on a dense motherboard is well worth > avoiding! > > > > You mention the KPA1500 and I'm also a rather far-flung user of this PA. > > I can, and do, re-invent as many wheels as I need to in order to run > safely > > a local and remote station but the KPA1500 service situation is > egregious: > > no schematic and not even a decent block diagram to show port internal > > connectivity etc. > > > > Anyway, thanks again for the topic and the opportunity to register a vote > > for more robust I/O design, better serviceability and improved > > documentation. I hope your challenges are behind you soon! > > > > 73, Peter (VK6HP) > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net <elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net > > > > On Behalf Of Jorge Diez - CX6VM > > Sent: Monday, 6 May 2024 1:42 AM > > To: Mike Fatchett W0MU <w...@w0mu.com> > > Cc: elecraft@mailman.qth.net > > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Lightning concerns: Was: K4 Remote: My QTH vs. a > > friend's, many miles to the north > > > > hello > > > > To finish with this topic, I was just wondering if a device that is > > intended for use in remote stations, always connected and in some cases > > with no one to disconnect during storms, could not have a better USB > > connector, for example > > > > If he tells me it can't be done, fine, my question has been answered and > > thank you very much. > > > > time to move on to other virtues of Elecraft > > > > 73, > > Jorge > > CX6VM/CW5W > > > > > > > > -- > 73, > Jorge > CX6VM/CW5W > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > Message delivered to gdanne...@gmail.com ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
