"Ian White, G3SEK" wrote in message
...
Jack Painter wrote:
"Richard Clark" wrote
So much of this breathless science of rounded tips alludes to the
legitimacy of rare publications equal in scope and stature to those
that announced the proofs of cold fusion.
Did Pons and Fleishman turn their hands to designing Lightning
protection systems to redeem their credentials?
Interested in your comments *after* you have read the study.
http://lightning-protection-institut...-terminals.pdf
Yes, let's have more technical discussion and less name-calling, please.
There seem to be three observations that need to be understood.
1. The electric field gradient near a sharp point is greater than the
field gradient near a blunt point. This is basic physics and should be
completely beyond dispute. But that is the field gradient IMMEDIATELY
LOCAL to the point... and that's not what lightning protection is about.
I would think that lightning protection should begin with the safe
equalization of charges. If one could prevent localization of charge, there
wouldn't be anything to discharge. Failing that, if one could provide a
controlled discharge mechanism, that drains charge without a massive
discharge channel, that would also be good. Failing that, you fall back to a
point g defense; first dissuading the creation of a conductive channel to
the protected area, or, failing at that, providing a specific, perhaps
sacrificial path for the massive discharge.
The first methods, involving charge management, might be effected by
controlling the conductivity of the air. Chemical and mechanical methods
seem difficult to deploy and might not be able to affect sufficient volume.
I wonder if conductive air volumes, or specific channels, might be created
by RF stimulation? Might it be possible to map the atmospheric charge, and
through an array of steerable microwave exciters, create specific conductive
paths for the relatively safe dissipation of localized charge? I wonder if
the HAARP has investigated lightning control possibilities?
Ed
wb6wsn