[TowerTalk] static cat

[Bill Aycock]

David- Thanks much; it's about as I suspected;and the bottom line was an 
opportunity for some Lawyers to enhance their retirement funds. It sounds 
like they were trying to punish the reviewers for merely reading something 
and saying "yes".
I have my own  opinion about the effectiveness of a "Bleed-off" system, 
based on 16 years at one location that is prone to strikes. (The evidence 
is abundant in the woods around me). This is enhanced by having worked in 
an explosives plant protected by standard Army Ordnance procedures for 38 
years. I think a "bleed" system helps a lot, but don't think that "fuzzy" 
receptors help the bleeders. Of course, my experience amounts to merely 
limited anecdotal  bias, not statistically defendable data.
Thanks-Bill-W4BSG

At 05:42 PM 3/21/2004 +0000, you wrote:

>As I understand that paper, it was written and the reviewers were
>threatened by the manufacturer with lawsuits if they endorsed it.
>Hardly seemed like someone on solid scientific footing would do.  It was
>a rather odd situation, normally ieee stuff is more generic and
>scientific in nature, in this case they were debunking claims about a
>specific type of device that was on the market... so some hackles were
>raised and there was apparently quite a debate about how or even if it
>should be published.
>
>
>David Robbins K1TTT
>e-mail: mailto:k1ttt at arrl.net
>web: http://www.k1ttt.net
>AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://dxc.k1ttt.net
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bill Aycock [mailto:baycock at direcway.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 17:00
> > To: David Robbins K1TTT; Towertalk at contesting.com
> > Subject: RE: [TowerTalk] static cat
> >
> > 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
> >

Bill Aycock - W4BSG
Woodville, Alabama