[BC] KKGM

[Cowboy]

On Monday 18 July 2005 15:47, PeterH5322 at aol.com wrote:
> 
> > > KKGM's 282.00 mV/m/kW at 1 km and a 263.70 degree tower is a tip-off that
> > > the efficiency is faked.
> >
> >  Careful.....
> 
> A better use of the English language would have been for me to state, 
> "that radiator's efficiency seems unbelievable".

 To you, me, Al, and just about everyone else that was directly involved as well.
 
> The term "faked" does imply an act which was human-caused and which was 
> intentional.

> This definitely was not my intended meaning.

 Ah, the written word, with its proclivity to completely avoid misunderstanding
 on every side...... ;-)

> You are right to be outraged.
> 
> I apologize.

 Apology accepted, and I'm not outraged, but I did wish to point out to the
 casual reader that although this particular site appears to have certain
 characteristics, all is not as it appears.

 /snip/

> In these cases, the numbers have definitely been massaged to meet agendas 
> which have nothing to do with an engineer's measurement methods or with 
> measurement accuracy.
> 
> Such as making a poorly performing radiator appear to be conforming, or 
> to make a super-performing radiator also appear to be conforming, say, 
> for the purposes of domestic or international notification.

 and, I think many of us have run into such at one time or another.

On Monday 18 July 2005 16:05, Phil Alexander wrote:

> Just curious, did you do any soil testing? .. Find any explanation for why
> the conductivity was so far off?

 After the fact, after the money has been spent, some things that were not
 known pre-construction become glaringly apparent.
 No. Soil testing wasn't done, but.....
 The 30 foot hole that became the stick foundation did reveal a couple things that
 got an "Oh, yeah." from some locals later.
 I was later told the site is fill, and the fill came from an old highway project.
 As such, it's mostly chunked concrete, and such.

 Further, based on experience with other stations in that market,
 the conductivity is not that far below measured metro Dallas
 even though it's far below M3 for that same area.

On Monday 18 July 2005 16:32, you wrote:

>  KKGM is now the second case I've heard of of a tall
> tower that proved to be too tall and provided very poor efficiency. 

 This stick has not proved to be too tall.
 It was modeled prior to construction, but performs not even close to the model,
 except very close in, as I understand that part.
 Al is much more qualified to comment on the specifics.
 In this case, it's entirely attributable to poor ground conductivity, especially
 in close proximity to the site.