"Jack Painter" wrote in message
news:lCGDd.9973$B95.1664@lakeread02...

"Richard Clark" wrote

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 01:53:00 -0500, "Jack Painter"
wrote:
Interested in your comments *after* you have read the study.
http://lightning-protection-institut...-terminals.pdf

Hi Jack,

"It is quite obvious from these plots
that the experimentally determined electric field
strength is less than the "simple-minded" V/d value."

Interesting brush-off so early in the paper begs for real editorial
control. As very few would experience lighting sourced from a grid of
wire 5M overhead this paper seems an example of the "laboratory
factor" it set out to examine and yields a paper confined to
laboratory arcana. All fine and well, but what is the point?

"There is an urgent need for detailed theoretical
modelling which can quantify the space charge
effects around air terminals, particularly in
relation to upleader development."

Which seems at odds with your statement:
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 01:17:07 -0500, "Jack Painter"
wrote:
The junk-science of early-streamer-emission
but I'm not terribly interested. I wasn't particularly intrigued by
Pons and Fleishman either, beyond the hubris of their closet drama.

It would seem some have a desperate need to topple Franklin from a
pedestal of their own building. (Theirs is called the fallacy of
"present mindedness.") I'm satisfied that contemporary Europeans held
him in high esteem for many noble achievements. Reductionists are
measured against their own few of baser metal.

Hope you found that interesting, but I doubt it - rather banal stuff.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard,
Thanks. I always find your comments about scientific material interesting.
There is some monumental evidence accumulating to contest ESE/CTS, and
this
begs the question that if there is such a political fight over preventing
its presentation to the whole IEEE body for a vote, what are they so
afraid
of? Russian scientists have now been commissioned to find (contrary to
all
other studies) that the principle works.

Those "Russian scientists" often seemed to come up with controversial and
unrepeatable results. Old cold warriors wondered if the Russians were that
much smarter or dumber. Then, in the 90's, we found that a lot of that weird
stuff was internal political smoke and mirrors, more related to funding than
science.

Ed
wb6wsn

"Ed Price" wrote

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On 07 Jan 2005 16:46:54 -0600, Allen Windhorn
wrote:
My speculation about selection
paths of ionization by RF excitation was just groping toward one way
to create those channels, and HAARP naturally came to mind.
A long time ago, there was some (theoretical at least) effort to see
whether UV lasers could be used to create an ionized channel over a
long distance.

Hi Guys,

One has to wonder about the consequence of double jeopardy standing
beneath that antenna (HAARP experiment) or holding the laser.

Think insurance covers this?

Supply shop foreman (perplexed):
"Another laser? What happened to the last one?"

Tech (smoke curling up from clothes):
"ummmm, burned out real quick-like. Could you hurry? They say
more rain is on the way!"

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


Well, I could easily imagine a laser protected within a large conductive
lightning rod. All you need is a 1/" hole in an otherwise well-shielded
structure. Maybe a bit larger to allow for pointing, or you could put some
optics safely outside the rod.

Regarding the RF excitation, I assumed that a single-point source would be
dumb, because the best ionization path would be right back to YOU. But an
array of exciters, electronically steered to create a sufficient power
density at a focal point, is a lot smarter.

Again, I don't know if the technique would work, but an electronically
steered (more like focusing) array would be one way to do it.

One poster said that the ionized channel might blow away in the wind.
Maybe
a quick system could "paint" an ionization channel fast enough. Maybe a
system could detect and take advantage of leaders, to create a shorter
path.

Ed
wb6wsn

Hi Ed, using high powered lasers to "paint" a thunderstorm cloud has been
done, and whether reliably or not, was able to trigger lightning. It hasn't
translated into practical protection schemes yet, but that could simply be
economics. As a means of triggering lightning to a safe point away from
vulnerable assets, it still leaves the possibility that some storms are so
powerful that nothing short of an extensive, multi-point array of lasers
could ever offer protection at an individual point. It is generally so much
less expensive to employ catenary wires overhead, build faraday-cages
around, and position air terminals in appropriate areas than the costs of
such a laser system. There would also be a new class of airspace required
for operation of such lasers. Something like a "no-fly zone" in fact! ;-)

73,
Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, Virginia

On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 05:42:30 -0800, "Ed Price" wrote:

or you could put some optics safely outside

Supply shop foreman (shocked):
"You want WHAT?"

Tech (still smoldering):
"You know, one of those Disco Balls. We're gonna spread
the beam, hit it, and hope it -ummmmm- clears the air. You
got many in stock? We may need a few.

"Oh yeah, another laser too."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 05:52:39 -0800, "Ed Price" wrote:

Those "Russian scientists" often seemed to come up with controversial and
unrepeatable results.

Hi Ed,

There certainly seems to be a mixed bag of what's useful out of the
old USSR. However, their math software applications have been killers
in the capitalistic marketplace. One other jewel came from their
rocket division that built the most powerful engines known, and then
the bureaucracy ordered them scrapped because they abandoned their man
on the moon program.

The engineer in charge deliberately ignored this order and had
something like a couple of hundred wrapped up and put into storage.
They are making quite a killing on selling those right now.

Another story is their development of a supersonic torpedo. That's
right, a jet powered torpedo that can dart through the ocean at
600MPH. It was speculated that it was the cause of the sinking of
their submarine, the Kursk. It was thought that the propellant lit
off in its bay, and the rest is history.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Jack Painter" wrote in message
news:emUDd.11563$B95.6120@lakeread02...

"Ed Price" wrote

SNIP

Regarding the RF excitation, I assumed that a single-point source would
be
dumb, because the best ionization path would be right back to YOU. But an
array of exciters, electronically steered to create a sufficient power
density at a focal point, is a lot smarter.

Again, I don't know if the technique would work, but an electronically
steered (more like focusing) array would be one way to do it.

One poster said that the ionized channel might blow away in the wind.
Maybe
a quick system could "paint" an ionization channel fast enough. Maybe a
system could detect and take advantage of leaders, to create a shorter
path.

Ed
wb6wsn

Hi Ed, using high powered lasers to "paint" a thunderstorm cloud has been
done, and whether reliably or not, was able to trigger lightning. It
hasn't
translated into practical protection schemes yet, but that could simply be
economics. As a means of triggering lightning to a safe point away from
vulnerable assets, it still leaves the possibility that some storms are so
powerful that nothing short of an extensive, multi-point array of lasers
could ever offer protection at an individual point. It is generally so
much
less expensive to employ catenary wires overhead, build faraday-cages
around, and position air terminals in appropriate areas than the costs of
such a laser system. There would also be a new class of airspace required
for operation of such lasers. Something like a "no-fly zone" in fact!
;-)

73,
Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, Virginia




More like a "dead-fly" zone. Yeah, aircraft (and satellite / astronaut)
protection are not trivial concerns when you start squirting power into the
air.

BTW, I seem to recall the use of small (sounding?) rockets used around the
perimeter of the Kennedy launch complex. I don't recall if these rockets
trailed a thin wire, or if their exhaust plume was sufficient to trigger a
lightning discharge. Anyway, I thought I recall these small expendable
rockets being used as a lightning diversion technique to protect the exposed
launch vehicle. (Yes, I know they also use catenary wires from the tower to
the ground, but the rocket technique was supposedly to condition the area
around the vehicle just as launch occurred, and the tower was moved away
from the vehicle.)

Ed
wb6wsn

"Ed Price" wrote

BTW, I seem to recall the use of small (sounding?) rockets used around the
perimeter of the Kennedy launch complex. I don't recall if these rockets
trailed a thin wire, or if their exhaust plume was sufficient to trigger a
lightning discharge. Anyway, I thought I recall these small expendable
rockets being used as a lightning diversion technique to protect the
exposed
launch vehicle. (Yes, I know they also use catenary wires from the tower
to
the ground, but the rocket technique was supposedly to condition the area
around the vehicle just as launch occurred, and the tower was moved away
from the vehicle.)

Ed
wb6wsn

Yessir Ed. At NASA Wallops Island (Eastern Shore, VA) they regularly launch
sounding rockets. We have had one land well off course about 300 yards off
the Virginia Beach Oceanfront late one night. I was able to help call off
the extensive search involving air, sea and land assets when I convinced
District to check with Group Eastern Shore (who I had heard make the
Securite' announcement earlier, warning of the rocket launches). Witnesses
at the beach had reported a flaming plane crash in the water. When the CG
Helo pilot realized that it was probably a rocket, (and there were still
more scheduled) he bugged out fast.

As to triggering lightning with rockets, yes they do trail wire, and this
method of lightning experimentation provides excellent results. Makes sense
they would clear the air first before a launch, but I think they are pretty
sure lightning isn't likely before they light one of those candles, huh? The
static charges from a rocket alone must be impressive. Maybe it could
attract lightning from a lot farther than normally considered in the
risk-zone.

Jack
Va Beach

"Ed Price" wrote in message
news:nt1Ed.17168$yW5.12224@fed1read02...

"Barry Horowitz" wrote in message
ps.com...
DON'T FORGET!!! When the paired mates, ARGON and NEON, are "coupled,"
they produce

LIGHTNING

aka [BLITZ!!!] ... they both form absolutely NO OXIDES

http://carpathian_bronze.tripod.com/antarii_deck2.html



A good example of sufficiently advanced blather being indistinguishable
from knowledge.

Ed
wb6wsn


Well, Ed,
It is difficult to produce oxides without oxygen, but bull**** is easy to
come up with.
73
H.

More sense could be derived by considering lightning and radio-ground
conductors to be transmission lines. It's also more simple than reams of
words.

But perhaps its asking too much of the present-day school and engineering
educational system which neglects arithmetic.

Ignorant school teachers frighten pupils by calling it Mathematics. As I've
said before, the culled kids who live in the sewers of Rio de Janerio, South
America, are better (self) educated.

Reg Edwards wrote:

More sense could be derived by considering lightning and radio-ground
conductors to be transmission lines. It's also more simple than reams of
words.

But perhaps its asking too much of the present-day school and engineering
educational system which neglects arithmetic.

Ignorant school teachers frighten pupils by calling it Mathematics. As I've
said before, the culled kids who live in the sewers of Rio de Janerio, South
America, are better (self) educated.

Ridiculous.

Kids considered by the City Authorities to be a nuisance, living with rats
in the sewers of Rio are ocasionally culled, perhaps not explicitly by the
Authorities, to reduce their nunbers by police armed with guns.

Amongst other ways of making a living they survive be selling home-brewed
cigarettes, loaded with cannobis and more powerful drugs on the city
streets. It is not surprising why the Authorities consider them to be a
nuisance - it has a bad effect on the wealthy tourist trade.

Now selling cigarettes involves monetary and arithmetical transactions.
Accepting bank notes and coins and giving correct change. Mental
calculations involve percent of drugs per inch of cigarette length, the
number of cigarettes in the pack, wastage etc. All must be done very fast
before an armed policeman appears. And must be done accurately and honestly
to avoid upsetting customers with the consequent longer-term bad effect of
loss in trade.

There has evolved in the sewers of Rio an arithmetical method of addition,
subtraction, multiplication and division, altogether different from the
Arabic procedures (Baghdad, Basrah, Mosul, before foreign weapons of mass
destruction were introduced) now adopted by the rest of the educated world.

Not so very long ago a small party of professors, Phd's, students etc., from
an English univerity made an expedition to Rio specifically to investigate
this apparent revolution in the very foundation of Mathematics.

They returned with a new insight into how the human brain works with numbers
and retired to study and then present their findings.

Since then all has been silence. I have not spent much time with Google. But
there is no doubt that the self-taught sewer kids of Rio are better educated
at arithmetic than the so-called engineers who argue amongst themselves in
words on this newsgroup without any use of numbers and relative quantities.
---
Reg.