LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11   Report Post  
Old February 18th 04, 09:16 PM
Frank Gilliland
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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! =-----
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Inverted ground plane antenna: compared with normal GP and low dipole. Serge Stroobandt, ON4BAA Antenna 8 February 24th 11 10:22 PM
Mobile Ant L match ? Henry Kolesnik Antenna 14 January 20th 04 04:08 AM
X-terminator antenna (Scott Unit 69) CB 77 October 29th 03 01:52 AM
QST Article: An Easy to Build, Dual-Band Collinear Antenna Serge Stroobandt, ON4BAA Antenna 12 October 16th 03 07:44 PM
Dual Base Stations and One Antenna Rick Davis CB 4 September 4th 03 03:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:06 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017