In , w_tom wrote:

A benchmark in this technology is Polyphaser. These
application note applies to your questions:
http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_PEN1002.asp
http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_PEN1024.asp
http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_PEN1026.asp
http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_PEN1025.asp
http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_PEN1003.asp


Lot's of theory but no practical value. The use of a star ground ("Single Point
Ground") system for lightning protection of the whole building + tower requires
the use of an isolated or 'floating' power supply; i.e, an isolated generator or
dedicated pole-pig. Marconi discovered this a century ago. 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. You can verify this with your local power
company or public library.








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

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.



You

can verify this with your local power company

or public library.



Your posts are no more pertinent than any others,,,less, in fact, due to
your inability to separate your personal issues and feelings from any
relative discussion, illustrating you have yet to communicate
effectively. You are not above any other,,,you have the option of
tossing your ideas about and it's up to us, not you, to believe you or
not. After being proved incorrect so many times, coupled with your usual
hostility, one can plainly see supporters of your behavior appear to be
limited to N3CVJ, N7VCF, KC8LDO, WA3MOJ, and N8WWM.





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

In ,
(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.


Again, absolutely correct. And again, what's your point?


You

can verify this with your local power company

or public library.



Your posts are no more pertinent than any others,,,less, in fact, due to
your inability to separate your personal issues and feelings from any
relative discussion, illustrating you have yet to communicate
effectively. You are not above any other,,,you have the option of
tossing your ideas about and it's up to us, not you, to believe you or
not. After being proved incorrect so many times, coupled with your usual
hostility, one can plainly see supporters of your behavior appear to be
limited to N3CVJ, N7VCF, KC8LDO, WA3MOJ, and N8WWM.


SOBR.







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

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? Sorry I missed that if he did.

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.



Sorry I missed that




Forget about it and move on. Must be a temporary Texas thing.


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

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.
In fact, I was -too- specific in that I used the word "gizmos", which limited
the aforementioned objective to the use of physical objects. I should have said
"devices".







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

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

In ,
(Twistedhed) wrote:

From: (Frank*Gilliland)
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.


I said, in context, "...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."


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.


The fact that lightning has no fixed frequency is very relevant when the topic
is about lighting protection 'devices' that are based, in part or in whole, on
reactance compensation. The only person who wouldn't understand the relationship
is someone, such as yourself, who is ignorant of the fact that reactance is
frequency-dependent.


I should have said "devices".



But you didn't. Apology accepted.


It wasn't an apology. It was a reference to a previous display of your
communication deficit; i.e, your ignorance of the meaning of the word 'device'.
You are just too dumb to know when you are being mocked, which is yet another
example of your communication deficit.







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

Frank cannot be bothered to learn why things work. He did
not even know about insufficient conductivity in frozen
earth! That is basic stuff that first requires learning a
little theory - or have some experience. Polyphaser's highly
regarded application notes have complete practical value to
people who actually do this stuff. But Frank did not say it
first - therefore it must be wrong.

In the meantime, ignore that nonsense he posts about star
grounds. What he posts is not accurate, not relevant, and is
the biggest load of technical crappola I have ever seen.
Frank's brain must be leaking again.

Isolated or floating power supply? Everyone should be
laughing at that nonsense! When did one need a power supply
to get effective earthing? In the tradition of 'Frank type'
posting - he babbles too much BS to no logical conclusion.
Must have forgotten to take his medication.

Wow. Its really is easy to post insults, just like Frank.
He taught he how must fun it is to be superior to everyone
else. Now if I could just forget to post accurate facts and
not post relevant citations! Then I too could be just like
Frank.

In the meantime, ignore the Frank nonsense. Learn from
industry benchmarks such as Polyphaser.

Frank Gilliland wrote:
In , w_tom wrote:
A benchmark in this technology is Polyphaser. These
application note applies to your questions:
http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_PEN1002.asp
http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_PEN1024.asp
http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_PEN1026.asp
http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_PEN1025.asp
http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_PEN1003.asp

Lot's of theory but no practical value. The use of a star ground
("Single Point Ground") system for lightning protection of the
whole building + tower requires the use of an isolated or
'floating' power supply; i.e, an isolated generator or
dedicated pole-pig. Marconi discovered this a century ago. 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. You can verify this with your local power
company or public library.

In , w_tom wrote:

Frank cannot be bothered to learn why things work.


*-PLONK-*







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