Gene Fuller wrote:
Did you actually read the reference you provided? It offers complete
support for Tom's position and zero support for Cecil's position.

I cannot find any support for Tom's position except from
wishful thinking by a certain group of ignorant people here
on r.r.a.a.

As usual around RRAA, this entire matter has morphed into all sorts of
side issues. The original and only point of controversy is whether the
so-called "precipitation static" is related to corona discharge or
rather to some sort of particle-by-particle charge transfer of the antenna.

Yes, and the references I have provided indicate that natural
*corona is impossible under clear-sky fairweather conditions*.
You obviously have not read them.

Cecil claims that corona cannot exist in "fairweather" conditions,
although there is no reason given.

Again, obviously a false statement based on wishful thinking.
As proved by my references, the existence of corona requires
~100 uA per cm^2. Quoting from the previous NASA web page, for
the fairweather field, "the current is 10^-12 amps per square
meter."

Requirement for corona to exist:

100 uA per cm^2 = 10 amps per square meter

Available current during fairweather conditions:

10^-12 amps per square meter

Conclusion: During fairweather conditions, the current is
13 magnitudes too low for corona to exist.

Therefore the particle-by-particle
hypothesis is the only reasonable choice as the noise generator. The
ARRL Handbook seems to go along with that idea, although not very
explicitly. Other references, including Terman and the training document
you provided say that corona discharge is responsible for the noise
generation. W8JI agrees with that hypothesis.

Again, obviously a false statement based on wishful thinking.
Terman said no such thing about stationary antennas. The energy
for the corona referenced by Terman is coming from the movement
of the airplane, i.e. from the engine fuel. Corona requires a
supply of energy that simply doesn't exist for a stationary
receiving antenna under fairweather conditions.

If the airplane was not moving, i.e. not being supplied with
energy by the engines, the corona would probably not exist.
Comparing a moving airplane to a stationary antenna is apples
and oranges and is therefore an invalid argument.

If we supply the antenna with enough RF energy from a transmitter,
corona will surely occur. But a supply of extra energy from a
transmitter or from a moving airplane is not what we have been
discussing. We have been discussing fairweather conditions for
a stationary antenna.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp