----- Original Message -----
From: "J. Keller" <k3bz@arrl.net>
To: <TowerTalk@contesting.com>; "Norman Hockler" <norsan@bright.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Porqupines
>
> But people sure do insist on absolutes, don't they? If it exists, it's
just
> got to be measureable, definable, predictable. To admit that in many
> instances it can't be... well, that's just non-scientific thinking. To say
> that spline balls (or other pointy things) LESSEN (but do not eliminate)
the
> chances of a strike.. well, that's just too indefinite.
But that statement CAN be tested statistically. It's done all the time.
You pick a probability (say 95% or 99%) and you can say for instance, the
reduction in lightning hits due to method X is statistically significant at
that level. That is, the probability that you could get the same data from
purely random chance is less than, say, 1%.
And before we could
> consider that possibility, we would absolutely have to completely
understand
> all the forces involved, such that we could explain exactly how it works
and
> when it will work and when it won't work. If we can't do all that, we
just
> can't accept it at all... and it gets relegated to the trash heap.
Nope.. you don't have to have a total explanation mechanism, but you DO have
to have enough trials where you can say the difference is significant at
some level, and you have to be able to explain for any potential confounding
effects. (e.g. In our cancer study, we controlled for age, income, gender
and previous exposure to known carcinogens...).
It is extremely difficult to create a study to prove a that something
prevents something that is fairly unlikely, because the absence of the
(rare) effect doesn't necessarily mean that it worked, and you'd need a huge
number of tries to make it statistically significant.
>
> Sorry... I don't buy it. Man still has limits to his ability to measure,
> analyze, and/or understand certain natural phenomena. There are still some
> things... like lightning.... that remain in substantial part within the
> realm of the unknown, the unpredictable, the anecdotal. Science can be
> applied, but only to an extent. Try and apply a "rule" to lightning, and
> someone will point out an exception. Try and explain the exception with
> another "rule" and there will be another exception. Lokk at the long,
> drawn-out discussion here and nothing is resolved. It will come up again
in
> another 6 months, too, wait and see. There's always a great supply of guys
> who have doctorates in lightning behavior, but none of them know whether
> lightning will or won't strike YOUR tower next time a T-storm rolls
through.
In fact, I'd say that because of the inherent chaotic nature of lightning,
you could prove in a statistical sense that it is not predictable, any more
than you can predict when the next "click" will occur on a geiger counter.
You can make a perfectly valid statement like you'll hear N clicks in X
amount of time, but not the time of the next click.
> Haven't we figured out by now that all anyone knows is ways to LESSEN the
> chances of a strike, and to attempt to render strike energy LESS harmful
or
> damaging when one occurs. It's part science, but it's also part guesswork
> and anecdote.
>
> If some people find spline balls... or live porcupines...or fake
golfers...
> mounted on their towers makes 'em feel safer, where's the harm? Where's
the
> proof they WON'T work? Probably on the shelf right next to the proof they
> WILL work. Enough already.
The "what's the harm" argument has a lot of philosophical problems. At one
level, it's the fact that resources are being applied to something that is a
ineffective (unless you want to argue that the money is so small, and if it
gives "peace of mind", that has value.) The whole patent medicine/snake oil
business is based on it.
Certainly, advertising can create demand for things that are not justified
on fundamentals, and more power to them. But this is what "truth in
advertising" laws along with the age old Caveat Emptor principal is about.
It's when "puffing" steps over the line to "lying" that there's trouble.
>
> Although.... that golfer thing does have its appeal... and chance we could
> use a live one? 73, Jerry K3BZ
No. no. no.... you want a live CC&R antenna restriction writer up there.
Golfers are mostly inoffensive and harmless.
>
_______________________________________________
See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather
Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions
and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|