"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