[TowerTalk] spider balls.. they work

[david jordan]

Hi Tom,

It all depends on how one defines "works"!  One could ask the same 
question of tooth paste, chlorinated water, bacterial hand washing soap, 
vitamins, cancer treatments, and most other products.

How can lightning risk management be anything more than subjective views 
and marketing?  My personal view is if mother nature wants to screw with 
anything man made mother nature will have her way with ease. Regarding 
NASA, they bought the devices. They must have thought they would work 
when they purchased the devices. Did NASA get snookered?  Maybe! Maybe 
their expectations were marketed. Reducing the risk and eliminating the 
risk are two very different things.
Also I seem to remember NASA saying on numerous occasions that the space 
shuttle was safe, usually after each massive failure in safety.  How 
does NASA define "safe"? How does NASA define "works"?  I think the 
discussion is beating a dead horse at this point. It's not black or 
white in my view with regard to the effectiveness of methods designed to 
reduce the risk of occurrences that may lead to a direct lightning strike.

The spider balls concept is a fascinating one.  I'm sure there are at 
least two strong opinions on whether they things "work" or not, 
depending on your definition.

Only the creator of the planet knows for sure, and he/she might decide 
that just to make it interesting the damn things will work some of the 
time but not all of the time!

73,
dave
wa3gin

Tom Ranch wrote:

>>>NASA uses these devices extensively at it's launch
>>>      
>>>
>platforms in addition
>  
>
>>to the more conventional means to manage lightning risk.
>>    
>>
>
>Dave,
>
>I'm confused.
>
>Why would NASA use them on their launch sites when they
>published a paper saying they don't work? K1TTT published a
>link to those papers.
>
>If NASA does use them, why did they never put them on their
>wind generator projects or mention them in the article link
>I posted?
>
>I know lightning makes some success claims, but they sell
>the things. Relying on them for unbiased fact is like asking
>the Pope what Bible is correct.
>
>73 Tom
>
>
>
>  
>