Topic: Thunderbolt

[glorfindeal]

I've been looking at purchasing the Thunderbolt Storm Detector for personal use.  Does anyone have any experience with them?  Are they worth 400+ bucks?


Thanks,

Glor

[NoQuitters]

To be honest I've never had any experience with one but knowing how lightning detectors work I think I'd save the extra $330 and get the strike alert II: http://www.ambientweather.com/stpelide.html

My Boltek picks up lightning a long way off and all detectors work on the same principal. A handheld wouldn't have the range of a Boltek, but I really doubt you'd get $330 worth of extras in one handheld versus another.

Another way to look at it for another $70, you can get the personal detector and the Boltek and be extra sure.

[SLOweather]

I suggest that you Google Thunderbolt Detector Reviews or similar and see what others think. Don't be swayed by "comparison" pages, which only compare features, not performance. All of the "bells and whistles" (display, warning messages, etc) of the TB are not worth much if the underlying technology are flawed.

Personally, I find that my SkyScan corresponds fairly well with the data I get out of my Boltek, and the triangulated strikes on StrikeStar.

[Director]

Skyscan is 12 year old technology at best. Boltek keeps you locked to your computer.Strike Alert doesn't even qualify in the same ballpark. If you truly want a unit that will keep you out of a precarious position. One you can take anywhere in the world. One that will warn you in the second inning you will have to clear the bases in the 7th inning, the ThunderBolt is the only option. I prefer to know exactly when a storm and lightning will arrive at my spot via an intelligent message. Not having to look at flashing lights and keep my eye glued to the piece.
75 mile coverage is double Skyscan and Strike Alert. I have never had any trouble with my unit and I feel it is worth every penny. I also look at it this way, if the Military, Local governments, numerous schools and universities, Pro ball teams, industry, and youth sport leagues use ThunderBolt , it has to be 100%.
It has been in my usage.

[NoQuitters]

Thanks for the information, as I said I've had no experience with hand helds, just the Boltek.

By the way welcome to the forum! A few of you from the SkyWarn forum have drifted this way now.

[carterlake]

75 mile coverage is double Skyscan and Strike Alert.

Of course, the Boltek only warns of storms coming from 250-300 miles away... 

I think a person would be crazy to buy a personal lightning detector.... virtually all cell phones provide live radar maps for little or no cost. Check the radar.

Addendum... of course, nothing beats a Boltek for early warning.... this morning we have rain in the forecast for later... the storm in 170 miles away... and full of lightning.

[Director]

I guess if your planted to a seat in an office all day or just cruising your home, a Boltek could be preferred. Hand helds are for people who actually venture out into the weather and not look at it through the glass!
Picture the person who is climbing up the tower that deals with cellphone signals. That tower could be in the middle of nowhere. I am sure he / she could lug their computer and Boltek up with them, as precarious as that may be. They could also carry a ThunderBolt with them. 75 miles is plenty of time to get to ground when warned by this instrument.
How about the camper,hiker,backpacker in the wilderness. Too many places where cellphone signals do not exist.
I guess you could port a Boltek/computer back there. What about the signal??
Desk top solutions are OK if you are glued to a position. Handhelds give you the ability to actually venture outdoors and have a reliable alternative. I myself use the ThunderBolt at home, in my car, in my boat, and on my hip when I go camping and biking. You cannot do that with a Boltek. You cannot rely on a cellphone, and who wants to pay subscription fees to any service you may not be able to use in certain situations.Also Cellphone service is from  NOAA derived information and is not real-time nor is it accurate to my exact location. ThunderBolt uses me as the center and tells me the exact information to my exact location 24/7 no matter where I am. 75 miles is plenty of time. If I needed 300 miles to make a decision, I had better forget it and never venture outside again.

[carterlake]

Picture the person who is climbing up the tower that deals with cellphone signals. That tower could be in the middle of nowhere.

I'm guessing you sell these? 

If I climbed towers for a living, I can (possibly) see the expense of a man-portable device. Although, I imagine, that guy is going up the tower regardless of what the ThunderBolt says, based on his company's safety guidelines.

Otherwise, for the average person, a cell phone is not only much more inexpensive, it can be used the other 99.9% of the time for other useful things. If you want to debate a radar image which is 4-5 minutes old, well, that's a really fast moving and/or forming storm.

Again, I'm thinking for Joe user.

For us weather nuts, well, the Boltek -is- the only choice... because it can get the info to the Internet. And, it can interact with other data (like the image I posted from my GRLevel3 radar software with Boltek data overlaid).

We then can WAP it so a... follow me here... cell phone user... can view it in near real time. 

[katlon]

You are correct Carterlake. I retired from BellSouth and watched many a contractor shimmy up a cell tower with his cell phone in tow. With the NWS and Wunderground and countless other companies furnishing free radar for cell phones why would you want to fork out the xtra money for another device to lug around all day.

Lonnie

[Director]

 :lol:I'm guessing you do not get out much!
Tell me exactly how would you use your Boltek in the following activities:
Camping, Hiking, Fishing, Swimming, Boating, Canoing, Sailing, Biking, riding a motorcycle, in a car, working a construction site, mining, laying cable in the middle of nowhere, on an oil rig, operating a sky crane, on maneuvers in the military, climbing a mountain, at a picnic, on a school field trip, at an amusement park, and so on. I have named many activities where a cell phone signal, in many instances, is not available.
For the less than 1% that are like you and glued to their seat, I agree, a ThunderBolt is wasted on you.
For the other 99% of the population, it is a very useful instrument and is becoming mainstream in many locations and disciplines. It is replacing computer based systems daily in many locations.

[racenet]

Care to tell us where you are getting your numbers from?

[ocala]

There's two sides to this topic but I think director makes a good point. I do a lot of fishing in remote places with no cell phone access. To have one of those devices would be great. On the other hand I'm weather savvy so I know when I do go out I'm watching the clouds for anything threatening.
 But to the average Joe who isn't a weather nut and doesn't pay attention to the sky, he would be totally unaware in the same situation and more likely to get caught in the storm. A device like that would greatly benefit him. Of course the price is also something to consider. Most people would rather use their cell phone to get this data because it's so much cheaper.
 Boltek is great for a fixed location but I have my doubts about it's accuracy. I don't own one but there are several websites in my area that have live lightning data. When storms approach I have  brought up two windows of live lightning data from different locations only to see conflicting data about the location of the strikes. (By the way both were using the same software) In fact in my area here in Florida there at least 5 websites with boltek. I have viewed them all and come away with the conclusion that it's not very accurate.  Maybe it's a case of the user not having it set up properly. I don't know.
 As for the Thunderbolt, I can't speak for it's accuracy because I have never used one. As far as I know it could be just as inaccurate as boltek, but, if  my line of work or hobbies regularly took me off the beaten path I would feel more comfortable using that instead of hoping I could get a cell phone signal.

[carterlake]

Boltek is great for a fixed location but I have my doubts about it's accuracy. I don't own one but there are several websites in my area that have live lightning data. When storms approach I have  brought up two windows of live lightning data from different locations only to see conflicting data about the location of the strikes. (By the way both were using the same software) In fact in my area here in Florida there at least 5 websites with boltek. I have viewed them all and come away with the conclusion that it's not very accurate.  Maybe it's a case of the user not having it set up properly. I don't know.

Keep in mind Ocala, that any single detector is measuring direction and intensity... distance is usually the thing in doubt. Single detector systems just well... they're guessing at distance. Radar will tell you the distance... for instance, right now we have a storm bearing down on us... and the boltek is sensing a lot of lightning from that direction. It's a good bet that in the next hour or so, we'll be in the zone of danger. So the sensor is doing it's job... warning of approaching lightning. If you want accuracy on exactly where the strikes are happening, well... you'll want to subscribe to a professional network (I -still- am not buying their accurancy) but they better triangulate the data.

And, despite what Director would have you believe, NO SYSTEM CAN PROTECT YOU FROM LIGHTNING.. they only provide warning of storm cells... a bolt out of the blue will kill no matter what.

[capeweather]

Swimming

At what depth does the thunderbolt stop picking up strikes? 

[jwyman]

Only after a DIRECT strike! 

[blackjack52]

I use the Skyscan too.  Very dependable when racing on the lakes.  The squal feature is nice.  Don't need to use up cell bat and worry about changing notifications.