英语翻译3.2.Air termination systemsThe designer of LPS should be

英语翻译
3.2.Air termination systems
The designer of LPS should be more aware of the
efficiency of a horizontal conductor with respect to a
vertical rod when the tip of this rod is installed at the same
height as the horizontal wire.The benefit of vertical rods is
generally and wrongly emphasised compared to meshed
conductors or catenary wires.
Moreover,a lot of funny devices like ‘‘aigrettes’’ let
people falsely think that multiple tips improve the
effectiveness of a single rod .Though it is exactly the
ARTICLE IN PRESS
396 C.Bouquegneau / Journal of Electrostatics 65 (2007) 395–399
opposite (due to the mixing up of the space charges around
the tips).
Side flashes must always be taken into account for
buildings and structures higher than 60 m,that is why it
seems sufficient to install a regular lateral air termination
system (upper parts of down conductors) on the upper part
of such tall structures (generally on 20% of the total
height),being careful to the surrounding environment
(irregular shape of the structure itself or other separated
but neighbouring structures).
Ambitions and potential earnings involved in the design
of more effective lightning receptors is an obvious
motivation for the invention and presentation of a lot of
different LPS and items,where the claimed advantages
have often been advertised,unfortunately without verification
of their functions and validation of their effects.So far
parallel tests with simple Franklin rods and various early
streamer emission (ESE) devices exposed to natural lightning
have shown no significant difference in the attraction
distance nor in the number of strokes to the different types
of rods.Hopefully in the future more effective lightning
protection components and systems could be developed but
until such systems are proven in a scientific sense,their use
should not be allowed for objects where protection is
required.We have to remain reasonable and to be careful
when issuing standards and guides.Of course IECTC 81
following confirmed scientists does not advertise such
devices.
Nevertheless is it enough?Is it enough to ignore ESE
(French PDA,etc.),repellers,eliminatorsetc.or just to say
that if they are installed they have to be positioned as
conventional ones?The international standard looks too
shy about the rejection of these devices.
Radioactive air terminals are forbidden nowadays and
they had no preferential interception effect but they were
only forbidden for their radioactive pollution.
Lightning repellers,dissipation array systems and other
eliminators can of course not prevent the initiation of
lightning in the thundercloud,nor avert any lightning
strike.ESE systems have never shown any superiority over
conventional systems and this should be emphasised in all
scientific conferences on lightning protection,in particular
at this ICLP meeting.
希望稍微专业一点，起码得把句子弄通顺了，看起来一点不通也不好吧，

3.2 空气终端系统
LPS的设计者应该更清醒地认识带竖立杆的水平导体的有效性,如果这个竖立杆的顶端是安装在与水平电线同样的高度上的时候.这个竖立杆的好处经常会错误地与网格导体或者悬链线进行比较.
另外,一些诸如“羽毛”等的有趣装置误导人们认为多重的触点可以提高信号杆的有效性,尽管396 C.Bouquegneau出版社出版的《静电学期刊》65（2007）395－399的一篇论文中认为：其效果往往是相反的（由于尖端附近空间电荷的混合）.
高于60米的建筑物都必须考虑到旁引闪光,这解释了为什么在这种高楼顶部（一般在总高度20%的地方）装一个侧面的空气终接系统（向下导体的顶端部分）会有效的原因,也因为要考虑到周围的环境（建筑物本身的不规则或者其它附近的分离建筑物）.
设计更多有效的闪电接受器的野心和潜在的利润是大量不同的LPS和类似物品发明与出现的明显动机,其声称的优点经常被广而告之,但是却很少对它们的功能和效果进行验证.到目前为止,对富兰克林避雷针的平行测验和各种用于自然闪电的提前放电装置表明各种类型的避雷针在吸引闪电的距离和冲程数上并没有显著的差异.寄希望于将来更有效的避雷器组件和系统能被开发出来,但是在这种系统没在科学领域验证前,它们不能被应用于需要护体的对象上.当我们在讨论标准和指南时,我们必须保持理性与细心.当然下面这些经IECTC 81确认的科学家也不会为这种装置做广告.
.然而,这就够了吗?忽视这些提前放电装置（ESE）（法国的PDA等）、反射器、消除器等就够了吗?或者只是说要安装的话就把它们当成惯例的来安装?国际标准对于这些装置的抑制似乎显得欲拒还迎.现如今放射性的空气终端被禁止了,但是他们不是因为他们没有优秀的拦截功能而只是因为它们的放射性污染而被禁止的.闪电反射器、闪电消散方阵系统和其它的消除器当然也不能阻止雷云中的闪电的侵入也不能转移哪怕一点闪电.ESE系统从来都没有显示出比常规系统更好的优越性,这点必须在所有的有关闪电保护的科学会议上得到完全的重视,尤其在此次的ICLP会议上.
终于完成了,不能保证专业术语的准确性,但是可以保证不影响阅读!