[time-nuts] Anyone Know What The Models Were In This NIST Paper?

[Magnus Danielson]

On 10/31/2013 12:14 AM, Jim Lux wrote:
> On 10/30/13 3:46 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> They have learned the hard way that they can't do that easily. They can,
>> if they add the necessary "mentioning of vendor X and their product Y
>> does in no way means an endorsement". I've seen presentations starting
>> with a "non-endorsement statement" so that they can then say "Oh, this
>> is the boxes we have chosen to use", which tends to just render spread
>> of information and sharing of experience amongst the users.
>>
>> I expect them (NIST and other publicly funded institutions) to act like
>> this. It is a bit annoying when you just want to know what they where
>> using, but it's understandable. It is even more understandable as they
>> start to list miss-features of device A, B and C, but not device D.
>>
>
> It works both ways, when you have a device that you're particularly
> proud of, and it performs well in the tests, you want them to say "Jim
> Lux's fabulous device performed orders of magnitude better than all
> other devices tested, particularly the unusually poor performance from
> the device from Magnus Danielson" <grin>.
No need to write that, as it is common knowledge that MD's device is not
only of inferior quality and performance, but the residue of a hedgehog
nest, at best. <grin>
>
> But there are also other forces at work.
>
> There are  cases where IEEE and authors were sued because of a paper
> that essentially said that a particular product not only didn't work,
> but that underlying physics guaranteed that it couldn't work.  (early
> streamer emission devices, and a paper by Mousa, in particular)
>
> It would be an amusing story, if all the litigation hadn't happened.
> For instance, Mousa reports on one installation where the lightning
> eliminator was completely destroyed by a lightning stroke.
> "The traffic controllers at Tampa saw a flash of light during a storm,
> heard thunder and observed a shower of sparks drop past the tower
> window. A later visit to the rooftop revealed that a part of the charge
> dissipater array of Manufacturer “A” had disappeared."
>
>
> that would tend to drive authors to such circumlocutions as Brand X, etc.
Oh yes. But we do these things over at this side of the pond, without
having the use of the legal system, as seems customary on your side of
the pond.

Cheers,
Magnus