From: (Frank=A0Gilliland)
In ,
(Twistedhed) wrote:
From: (Lancer)
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:43:09 -0500 (EST),
(Twistedhed) wrote:
Frank Gillinad wrote:
(And for the record, all high-tech gizmos designed to compensate for the
inductive reactance of power and transmission lines during a lightning
strike have failed miserably because lightning has no fixed frequency.)


Frequency has no relation to the success or failure of lightning
protection devices in the manner you implied.
_
Thats true, did he say otherwise?


He did. He said..."


...because lightning has no fixed frequency."


Again, frequency has no relation to the manner in whcih he inferred.


Your communication deficit is acting up again,

Dave -- I didn't infer anything.

LOL,,thou shall not project thou deficits unto others.
You did indeed infer such. I will remind you for the third time just
what it was you said....you said......

Lightning has no fixed frequency.


Again,,,lightning, in realtion to frequency in the manner you claimed,
is fluff talk..it has no merit,,it means nothing.

In fact, I was -too- specific in that I used the

word "gizmos", which limited the

aforementioned objective to the use of

physical objects.



You brought up lightning not being frequency specific,,it means nothing,
has no relation.



I should have said "devices".



But you didn't. Apology accepted.



-----=3D Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =3D-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----=3D=3D Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =3D-----

The likelihood of one individual being correct increases in a direct
proportion to the intensity with which others try to prove him wrong