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! =-----