[TowerTalk] static cat

[Bill Aycock]

I am puzzled about the phrase "under threat of lawsuits." Who was 
threatening, who were they threatening, and what was the substance of the 
threats? You left us hanging.
Bill

At 02:49 PM 3/21/2004 +0000, you wrote:

>There are peer reviewed analysis of the claims and effectiveness of
>those 'brush' or 'porcupine' devices.  They have been shown to not work
>as described.  They may make a decent lightning rod as the sharp points
>can generate nice streamers to connect to the downward traveling
>lightning leader... thus the signs of 'high voltage activity'.  but they
>can not dissipate the charge buildup nor create an effective shield over
>a structure to prevent lightning.
>
>To quote John Anderson (our company's main lightning consultant and
>member of various ieee and cigre lightning committees over the years and
>author of many works on lightning protection of power systems and
>structures):
>
><quote>
>Abdul M. Mousa, "The Applicability of Lightning Elimination Devices to
>Substations and Power Lines," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol.
>13, No. 4, Oct. 1998m pp. 1120-1127. Available from:
>abdul.mousa at bchydro.bc.ca)
>
>Paper was peer-reviewed by six reviewers under threat of lawsuits. Paper
>states that these devices do not work as the manufacturers claim.
>
>1997 Report on Dissipation Arrays, funded by FAA, Naval Research Labs,
>NASA, and USAF
>
>The report, 274 pp., compiled by 17 scientists and engineers from around
>the world, provides no definitive physical or theoretical evidence that
>lightning dissipation arrays prevent lightning. The USAF presented
>photos showing the arrays being hit by lightning. Contact Mousa for more
>information.
></quote>
>
>David Robbins K1TTT

Bill Aycock - W4BSG
Woodville, Alabama