Mike Coslo wrote:

Richard Harrison wrote:

Gene W4SZ wrote:
"You have not offered a single reference beyond the ARRL Handbook that
supports your model for noise generation." (Directed to Cecil)

Particle discharge makes radio static noise.

Look at Terman`s description of "precipitation static". Instead of
charged particles blowing in the wind and alighting on stationary
antennas, Terman describes aircraft and their antennas flying through
clouds of charged particles. The effect is the same.

Terman`s solution: keep the antennas away from sharp points on the
aircraft which tend to noisly discharge the aircraft, insulate antenna
wires, and put Faraday shields on the directional antenna loops.


a PDF reference

http://tinyurl.com/h4o6u

I've done a bit of googling on the subject, and find that most seem
to favor this sort of explanation of the phenomenon. A notable exception
is W8JI. To Tom's credit he performs some experiments along those lines.
I'm not completely sure that I buy the conclusions, but I'll digest them
a bit more. I would suggest that Tom may want to experiment with
charging dust particles with that HV source rather than water.

Some have suggested that Cecil's statements are invalid because he
hasn't done the experiments - not so. His view represents the
mainstream. The debunkers have the burden of proof.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

It doesn't represent the mainstream. Go back and actually read the
references. Besides, if Cecil can't demonstrate the validity of his
views experimentally, even if there are some sources that agree
with him, he's just parroting the old wives.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH