"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. Avoiding the comments about
streamers in the referenced paper though, my point really was that they
arrived at a statistical average they may have been looking for, but
attempts to remove the laboratory principle appeared honest to me (and to
others). Your opinion there is important, at least to me.

73,
Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, VA

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 20:23:28 -0500, "Jack Painter"
wrote:

Thanks. I always find your comments about scientific material interesting.

Hi Jack,

Well, when I look at these tempests in a teapot, I reduce things
myself.

For instance, this distinction between a sharp point on a rod and a
blunt point on a rod. Nature hardly takes the time in a lightning
strike to be so particular. This is so multivariate a problem that no
single variable is going to be a determiner at this rather fussy level
of detail.

The reduction consists of the logic in the extreme. We have a blunt
rod, we have a sharp rod. It is purported (or I have read the
controversy completely wrong) that this makes a difference, somehow.
We put those on a yet blunter rod (a tower); or with a yet blunter rod
(another tower) nearby (in the scale of miles transit, nearby by
hundreds of yards/meters/feet/inches/cm is very proximal) and yet such
neighbors are not the choice of the stroke (or they are and this
upsets the catalogue of evidence).

Hence the reductio ad absurdum is that blunt points are significant,
but not too significant.

All that aside - I do not dismiss the topic entirely. It offers
something I have found in my own work. The near field area to a
monopole:
http://home.comcast.net/~kb7qhc/ante...ical/index.htm
displays a very marked disturbance above it. The introduction of a
metal pole into space distorts it far beyond the borders of the
graphic pointed to. In a sense, it acts like (in my imagination) the
vertex of a energy well; or at greater scales, a dimple in the fabric
of the æther. Such analogies and illustrations are intriguing, but
not conclusive of anything but how to intellectually amuse while
monkeying with numbers.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"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

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

Richard Clark wrote:
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,
snip
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.


Rocket powered, actually. Interesting how it works physically. I have
read some speculation on making manned submarines on the same principle.
I would think running into a whale would be a serious issue, though,
even if unlikely.

tom
K0TAR

"Tom Ring" wrote in message
. ..
Richard Clark wrote:
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,
snip
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.


Rocket powered, actually. Interesting how it works physically. I have
read some speculation on making manned submarines on the same principle. I
would think running into a whale would be a serious issue, though, even if
unlikely.

tom
K0TAR


Now that would be darn considerate of them, as we could track them all
without leaving Narragansett Bay.

Ed
wb6wsn