Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:

Whether it's dust, snow, or the atmospheric electric field charging
the antenna, the noise is still corona discharge. At least that's what
most
of the sources say.


The argument is not what it is called. The argument is whether
charged dry-air dust particles can transfer charge to bare-wire
antennas.
Man, you guys really crack me up. I must admit I kinda enjoy reading
your posts, though.

\There must be some source citing experimental evidence of charged
particles in a dust storm transferring their charges to a collector of
some sort (antenna). I alluded earlier to a practical use of such
collection...
Cecil, you said you have no idea how many Joules were represented (or
something along those lines).

Seems to me, that Joules per unit time is precisely the measure that's
needed in this "analysis". Is this Voltage, or am I mistaken?

Compare the density of the dust cloud with the charge collected. There
should be a correlation. What about velocity of the cloud: more charges
transferred per unit time.

If your rug was scorched, some "work" was done. My college physiscs is
only a nightmare away: what is the relation of Joules to work?

What was the other issue: number of particles versus the charge per
particle? Got me.

As the particles are swept off the surface of the desert, would their
charge (per particle) be distributed (as Gauss or some other )?

I would think the # particles would be more important.

If a given volume of dust particles moves through the field of an
antenna (it would have a field, wouldn't it? ... even if grounded?
perhaps field is the wrong word), increasing velocity of the volume
would mean more particles per unit time passing the antenna. Hence more
charge transferred: more charge per unit time. Again, is this Voltage?

I guess I can't part with my trickle charger idea.

You guys have at it. Thanks for letting me butt in.

John