On May 4, 11:13 am, Tony Hwang wrote:
Prpbably wannabee ham came from CB crowd when Morse code
requirement was dropped.

Technology cannot be challenged? So you attack the messenger? Rush
Limbaugh would be proud. Same mockery also proved Saddam had WMDs.
At what point do you learn from professional citations - ask questions
about the science?

Ham radio operators who actually know enough about electricity to
understand surge protection also define protection in terms of
earthing. How many QST articles did you ignore – therefore not
understand what Phil, et al post? Another ham who learned: Bill
Otten in rec.radio.shortwave on 5 Aug 2005 entitled "grounding and
surge":
http://tinyurl.com/79xoa
and
http://home1.gte.net/res0958z/

Another station engineer who also says surge damage is avoidable -
but then, unlike Tony Hwang, he did his job; learned from his
experience:
http://www.harvardrepeater.org/news/lightning.html
Well I assert, from personal and broadcast experience spanning
30 years, that you can design a system that will handle *direct
lightning strikes* on a routine basis. It takes some planning and
careful layout, but it's not hard, nor is it overly expensive. At
WXIA-TV, my other job, we take direct lightning strikes nearly
every time there's a thunderstorm. Our downtime from such
strikes is almost non-existant. The last time we went down from a
strike, it was due to a strike on the power company's lines
knocking *them* out, ...
Since my disasterous strike, I've been campaigning vigorously
to educate amateurs that you *can* avoid damage from direct
strikes. The belief that there's no protection from direct strike
damage is *myth*. ...
The keys to effective lightning protection are surprisingly simple,
and surprisingly less than obvious. Of course you *must* have
a single point ground system that eliminates all ground loops.
And you must present a low *impedance* path for the energy to
go. That's most generally a low *inductance* path rather than just
a low ohm DC path.

You claim to be a responsible station engineer. But you had a
lightning strike that created building damage and communication
equipment damage. No decent broadcasting engineer would have
considered that acceptable. Only one who did not even learn from QST
magazine would post foolishly blame Ufer grounds for making damage.

Yes an Ufer ground can result in damage when installed by a layman
who failed to learn the science. Rather than learn, Tony Hwang
declares failure as acceptable. Why are Ufer ground used? Because
Ufer grounding provided protection from direct strikes even to
munitions storage lockers - without damage. How curious. Ufer ground
work great where Tony Hwang is not in charge. Since Tony's facility
was not properly constructed or properly maintained, then Tony
considers damage acceptable. Failure is acceptable.

Educated station managers know lightning damage need not ever cause
damage. When damage does happen, then responsible station managers
find and eliminate the mistake. Tony Hwang knows otherwise; damage is
acceptable - that nothing can protect from lightning. So Tony Hwang
posts mockery and insults - and no technical facts.

How curious. Tony's peers learn from the damage, then eliminated
it.